Workplace investigators are expected to be objective fact finders and to conduct fair and impartial investigations. However, bias can creep into workplace investigations resulting in unfair results. To prevent bias from negatively impacting investigation outcomes, investigators should be aware of their potential biases. Biases generally show up in investigations as affinity bias, confirmation bias or a combination of both.

Affinity Bias

Affinity bias, also known as “like me” bias occurs when an investigator has a predisposition to relate to people they perceive as being like them. When an investigator finds that they have things in common with a witness, it can affect the way the investigator interacts with the witness. An investigator who identifies a witness as being like them, may be inclined to see the witness as more credible. In addition, they may feel more comfortable with and/or spend more time speaking with a witness with whom they identify. This will prevent other witnesses from having a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and put their version of events on the record.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias occurs when an investigator develops a theory of what happened and then gathers or evaluates the evidence in a manner that confirms their theory of events. Engaging in confirmation bias may result in a failure to give parties opportunity to fully respond to allegations, failing to verify information, ignoring key evidence and using assumptions to reach findings and conclusions. Like affinity bias, confirmation bias will adversely impact an investigation.

To check your biases as an investigator, you may ask the following questions:

1.       Are you familiar, friendly with or do you identify with one or more of the involved parties? If so, it’s likely affinity bias may impact your ability to engage in fair and neutral investigation practices. Consider recusing yourself from an investigation where you are familiar or friendly with the parties.

2.       Do you follow a standard investigation procedure and process? If not, bias may affect how you gather and evaluate evidence. Create a consistent intake process, interview process, and system to summarize interviews to ensure you are giving parties full opportunity to put their version of events on the record.

3.       Have you gathered and analyzed ALL the information before reaching a conclusion? If not, you may be using assumptions to reach your findings and conclusions. Consider having a neutral party review your findings and conclusions for signs of bias.

4.       Do your recommendations provide a consistent classification of misconduct and remedial action? If not, employees may be treated more or less leniently based on an affinity for certain employees. You should ensure that the remedial action recommended is consistent and equal to the level of misconduct and distributed fairly in cases with similar facts.

An investigative process that takes these elements into consideration will decrease the likelihood that bias has a negative impact on the outcome of an investigation. 

If you found this blog helpful, do me a favor and share it with your colleagues. For more tips, download my FREE Guide to Equitable, Transparent and Accountable Workplace Investigations.