Estimated reading time: 8 minutes
We’ve been talking a lot lately about dealing with workplace conflict. I thought it was very interesting the number of pre-emptive comments I saw about the possibility of employee conflicts before the U.S. presidential debates. It reminded me of my recent conversation with Alexander Alonso, PhD, chief knowledge officer at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). He mentioned research indicating a significant increase in the acts of uncivil behavior at work.
Employee conflicts, even when the organization knows they might happen, still need to be investigated. We can’t simply say, “Oh, you know, this will all blow over in a few days.” Because it might not. It’s possible the conflict or misunderstanding might escalate into something bigger.
One of the challenges with this type of investigation is that the conflict is usually between two employees. They both have their own version of what happened. Often there are no witnesses. It’s often referred to as a “he said, she said” situation, regardless of the genders involved. The question becomes, what can human resources do?
To offer some insights, I reached out to my friend Jakub Ficner, director of partnerships at Case IQ. You might remember that Jakub and I chatted on The HR Bartender Show about the role of technology in workplace investigations. If you haven’t listened to the episode, I hope you will check it out when you get a chance.
Please remember that Jakub and I are not lawyers and today’s article should not be construed as legal advice. If you have detailed questions, they should be addressed directly with your friendly neighborhood labor and employment attorney.
Jakub, thanks so much for being here. Before we talk about investigations, let’s talk about expectations. In my experience, many of these type of “he said, she said” situations involve inappropriate language, comments, and/or hearsay. It could be swearing or passive/aggressive comments, trash talking, etc. How can organizations set expectations with employees regarding inappropriate language and behaviors?
[Ficner] Preventing misconduct begins with having well-defined and enforceable internal policies. In the employee handbook, be specific about the types of behaviors that are unacceptable, such as inappropriate language, derogatory comments, or passive-aggressive communication. Clarity is key – leaving no room for ambiguity ensures that employees fully understand what is off-limits.
To reinforce these standards, consider using real-life scenarios during harassment training to make expectations tangible. For example, role-play situations where tensions could arise, such as:
- A coworker being promoted over someone else,
- A colleague taking credit for another’s work, or even,
- A competitive sports match outside of work.
By walking through these scenarios, employees can see how they might react emotionally and why it’s critical to maintain professionalism, even under stress. This approach not only outlines what language and behavior are inappropriate but also highlights when people might be most vulnerable to making those mistakes, offering guidance on how to navigate those moments constructively.
When organizations first hear about an incident between employees, why is it important to investigate (versus dismissing it as a simple misunderstanding)?
[Ficner] Dismissing employee concerns without a proper investigation can significantly erode trust within the organization. When employees feel their issues are brushed off as misunderstandings, they may lose confidence in their employer’s commitment to creating a safe and respectful work environment. This sense of being unheard can lead to disengagement and a perception that their voices don’t matter.
Even if the incident doesn’t appear severe at first glance, it’s crucial to investigate any situation where an employee feels harassed or believes a company policy has been violated. By taking these concerns seriously, organizations demonstrate that they are committed to upholding their policies and ensuring fairness. Importantly, an investigation doesn’t always result in disciplinary action, but it serves as an opportunity to gather facts, assess the situation, and address any underlying issues before they escalate.
I totally agree with your comment about investigations not always resulting in disciplinary action. Obviously, when we start an investigation, we don’t know that the outcome will be that one person says one thing and the other person says something different. At the point the organization realizes there is no way to substantiate the comments, why is it important to finish the investigation?
[Ficner] Once an investigation has started, it’s essential to see it through to completion, even if the facts are unclear or it turns into a ‘he said, she said’ situation. Abandoning an investigation prematurely risks unfair outcomes. For example, if you dismiss the case without resolution, and the incident did happen, the reporting employee could continue to face harassment or even be retaliated against for speaking up. This can result in a more toxic workplace and expose the company to further liability.
On the other hand, if the accused person is unjustly found guilty of a policy violation without sufficient evidence, they could face unwarranted disciplinary action, which might damage their career and reputation. Additionally, this could lead to wrongful termination lawsuits or other legal actions against the company. Therefore, completing the investigation ensures that the process is thorough, fair, and balanced, helping protect both the individual employees and the organization from future harm.
We’ve talked before about the importance of properly closing the investigation. Can you share 2-3 things that the organization should consider when wrapping up an investigation where the concerns weren’t substantiated?
[Ficner] When closing an investigation where the concerns weren’t substantiated, there are a few critical steps that organizations should take to ensure fairness and maintain trust:
Ensure Psychological Safety and Prevent Retaliation: The primary concern should be to reassure all involved parties that they are protected from any form of retaliation. Whether it’s the reporter who brought up the concern or the individual who was accused, make it clear that any retaliatory actions will not be tolerated. This helps maintain a sense of safety and fairness in the workplace, showing that the organization values transparency and integrity in its processes.
Express Gratitude for Cooperation: It’s essential to thank both parties for their participation throughout the investigation, regardless of the outcome. This reinforces the idea that bringing forward concerns or cooperating in an investigation is always the right thing to do. By showing appreciation, you help build a culture of openness and encourage future reporting or cooperation, which is vital for fostering a transparent workplace environment.
Offer Closure and Clarity: While the concerns may not have been substantiated, providing clear communication about the outcome is critical. Explain the steps taken during the investigation, the findings, and why the conclusion was reached. This not only gives closure but also demonstrates that the investigation was thorough and fair, reducing any lingering doubts or frustrations from the parties involved.
Last question. Even when an incident isn’t substantiated, it can potentially have an impact on culture. How can organizations keep track of these incidents to ensure they are not the beginnings to a toxic work environment?
[Ficner] Even when incidents aren’t substantiated, they can still signal underlying issues that may affect workplace culture. Here’s how organizations can keep track of these incidents to prevent the onset of a toxic environment:
Implement a Case Management Platform with Data Analytics: Utilizing a comprehensive case management system like Case IQ allows organizations to record all reported incidents, regardless of the outcome. The built-in data analytics can help identify troubling patterns in complaints, such as recurring types of issues, frequently involved individuals, or high-risk locations within the organization.
Identify and Analyze Trends: By systematically collecting data on all incidents, you can detect trends that might not be apparent from isolated cases. For example, an increase in reports related to a specific department or type of behavior could indicate a systemic problem that needs addressing.
Inform Policy Updates and Training: The insights gained from analyzing these trends can guide you in updating company policies and tailoring employee training programs. This proactive approach ensures that you address potential issues before they escalate, effectively reducing the likelihood of future ‘he said, she said’ situations.
By keeping a close eye on all reported incidents and acting on the data, organizations can proactively strengthen their workplace culture and prevent minor issues from developing into more significant problems.
I want to thank Jakub for taking the time to share his experience with us. If you’re looking for some resources on conducting investigations, visit the Case IQ Resources page. It includes templates, ebooks, articles, and webinars.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – in today’s work environments, we will not be friends with everyone. But that doesn’t mean that employees should treat each other with disrespectful or harassing language. When incidents happen, organizations can’t dismiss them. They always need to be investigated fully.
Image captured by Sharlyn Lauby after speaking at the Flora Icelandic HR Management Conference in Reykjavik, Iceland
The post Employee Conflicts and Misunderstandings Still Need an Investigation appeared first on hr bartender.
