Investigations 101: Early Missteps to Avoid
The beginning of an investigation sets the tone for everything that follows. A single misstep at this stage, such as choosing the wrong investigator, defining the scope too narrowly, or signaling bias, can compromise credibility before the first interview. Employees notice. So do leaders, regulators, shareholders, and investors.
In our earlier articles, we examined why investigations matter and what kinds of issues trigger them. Recent events, such as Nestlé’s crisis culminating in the dismissal of its CEO, underscore the stakes. Alongside the outcome itself, leadership’s approach to the investigation sends a signal that shapes culture, trust, and reputation.
Questions Leaders Should Be Asking
1. Who should lead an investigation?
Independence and credibility are essential, and technical skill is equally important. Effective investigators conduct impartial interviews, apply consistent credibility assessments, analyze evidence systematically, and synthesize findings that withstand scrutiny. Independence also requires separation from the subject’s chain of command so loyalties or conflicts do not cloud the process. Faro Point investigators combine neutrality with analytic rigor developed through decades of structured intelligence analysis.
Choosing the wrong investigator. Assigning someone without the necessary independence, skill, or credibility immediately erodes trust.
In one case, an HR partner was asked to investigate allegations involving senior leadership. The partner had experience with routine employee relations but lacked training in structured fact-gathering and credibility assessment. What looked impartial on paper failed because critical evidence was missed. The investigation had to be repeated, and trust in leadership declined.
In another case, a senior executive was selected to lead an investigation but disregarded the organization’s established processes for fact-finding. This departure from standard procedure left the organization exposed to legal challenge and fueled employee distrust.
Do I need a law firm?
Legal counsel plays a critical role when an investigation carries significant legal exposure, when counsel determines attorney-client privilege should apply, or when regulators are likely to scrutinize the process. Bringing in counsel elevates the matter and signals that leadership takes the issue seriously. Many organizations benefit when counsel and independent investigators work together: attorneys provide legal strategy, privilege, and defensibility, while Faro Point supplies structured fact-finding, credibility assessment, and evidence analysis to support well-grounded findings.
2. What is the issue we need to resolve?
Leadership must articulate the central question the organization needs answered. The investigator, often in consultation with leadership and legal counsel, defines the scope required to address it. Faro Point often frames this through a structured scoping process that defines the purpose of the investigation, the key questions to be addressed, the relevant time period, the organizational levels involved, and the sources of information to be considered. The aim is to establish boundaries that are clear, proportionate, and defensible.
In another case, leadership framed the objective as “determine if a single complaint is valid.” The investigator looked only at the named incident and found no violation. Because the scope ignored a wider pattern of problematic behavior, employees concluded leadership intentionally avoided the real issue.
3. What standards apply?
Every investigation measures facts against defined rules or expectations. These may be policy requirements, legal obligations, ethical expectations, or cultural norms. Faro Point helps leaders establish the right frame so findings hold up under compliance, ethics, and culture reviews.
In one case, two employees had nearly identical records of chronic absenteeism. One was separated under the attendance policy, while the other, viewed as a favorite of a senior executive, was excused with informal coaching. The uneven treatment weakened morale and credibility.
4. What are the risks of waiting?
Delays in investigating allow evidence to fade, create opportunities for retaliation, and signal indifference to employees. Acting promptly with a process that is both fair and rigorous shows that leadership treats accountability as a priority. Faro Point equips organizations to move with speed and precision.
In a separate case, leaders delayed opening an investigation until they believed they had all the facts. By the time the process began, key electronic records were gone and several witnesses had left. The investigation was weakened, exposure was greater, and employees believed leadership had dragged its feet.
5. Who defines the scope of an investigation, and how is the chain of command involved?
Scope should be set by the investigator and the designated decision authority, not by the subject’s leadership.
In one case, allegations arose against a senior manager. While the manager’s supervisor initially insisted the investigation be limited to a single incident, leadership recognized the risk and, with legal guidance, enabled the investigator to broaden the scope. The fuller investigation revealed patterns that had previously been overlooked, and the findings gave the organization a stronger foundation for corrective action. Independence, clarity, and timeliness at the outset show that leadership takes accountability seriously.
What to Expect Next from This Series
In the next article, Faro Point will examine the gathering and weighing of evidence. These mechanics transform an investigation into findings employees can rely on. Each step builds on the last with one goal in mind: helping leaders safeguard their people, strengthen their culture, and preserve credibility.
