When Politics Gets in the Way of Accountability

Why Internal Employee Relations (ER) Roles Can’t Always Be Neutral

In a perfect world, every workplace investigation would be neutral, fair, and focused on the facts. But the reality is often more complicated, especially when the accused holds influence, proximity to power, or a strong internal advocate.

We’ve seen firsthand how internal dynamics can interfere with accountability. Even when the facts are clear, decision-making can become tangled in relationships, influence, and internal pressures. In some cases, those in positions of authority hesitate to act, not because the situation lacks seriousness, but because the individuals involved are closely connected to leadership. When that happens, the integrity of the process can erode, and accountability may be deferred or diluted.

This isn’t unique to any one sector. In every industry, internal ER professionals face a difficult tension: how to uphold integrity while navigating relationships, reputations, and power dynamics. Even with the best intentions, their place inside the system can limit their ability to act independently. They may share a reporting chain with the accused. They may worry about retaliation. Or they may sense that some outcomes are off-limits.

That is where outside support can make all the difference. At Faro Point, we are not caught in internal politics. We do not have competing loyalties. Our only job is to conduct a fair, structured process that gets to the heart of the matter so leaders can take informed, defensible action.

When accountability is selective, trust erodes. But when it is consistent and principled, culture gets stronger.