Internal vs. External Workplace Investigators: Weighing the Pros and Cons for Your Organization
Throughout my career, I've had the unique opportunity to work both as an internal investigator within organizations and as an external investigator brought in to handle specific cases. This dual perspective has provided me with a comprehensive understanding of the nuances and dynamics that each role entails. Today’s newsletter aims to delve deeper into these differences, providing a comprehensive comparison of internal and external workplace investigators. Whether you're an HR professional, a business leader, or an investigator yourself, understanding these nuances can help in making a more informed decision for your organization's specific needs.
Internal Workplace Investigators Internal investigators are typically employees of the organization and are often part of the HR or ER team or a dedicated internal investigations unit.
Pros:
Organizational Familiarity: They have an intimate understanding of the company's culture, dynamics, and history, which can be instrumental in the investigation.
Cost-Effectiveness: Generally, utilizing internal resources can be more economical than hiring outside experts.
Immediate Availability: Internal investigators can typically begin their work promptly, minimizing delays in addressing the issue at hand.
Cons:
Perceptions of Bias: Internal investigators may struggle to appear impartial, particularly if they have prior relationships with involved parties.
Level of Specialization: They might lack the specific expertise or resources needed for certain complex or sensitive investigations.
Perceived Lack of Confidentiality: Employees might be hesitant to fully disclose information to an internal investigator, fearing potential repercussions.
External Workplace Investigators External investigators are independent professionals hired specifically for the investigation. They bring an outside perspective to the case.
Pros:
Impartiality and Objectivity: External investigators can offer a high degree of neutrality, having no prior connections within the organization.
Specialized Skills and Experience: They often bring specialized expertise and are well-versed in handling a variety of complex scenarios.
Increased Credibility: Their independent status can enhance the credibility of the investigation, especially in sensitive cases.
Cons:
Higher Costs: The services of external investigators are typically more expensive than using internal staff.
Initial Onboarding Required: They may need time to familiarize themselves with the organization's culture and environment, which can extend the investigation timeline.
Possible Disruption to Business: The presence of external investigators might create a sense of unease among employees, potentially impacting the workplace atmosphere.
Conclusion
From my personal experience, both roles have their distinct advantages and challenges. The choice between an internal and external investigator should be based on the specific circumstances of the case, considering factors like the investigation's complexity, the need for specialized skills, and the importance of impartiality. In some situations, an internal investigator's in-depth knowledge of the company can be a decisive factor, while in others, the objectivity and specialized expertise of an external investigator are crucial.
Found this post useful? Do me a favor and share it with a colleague. Together we’re building a community of investigators committed to elevating workplace culture.
And if you liked this blog, join my newsletter where I share weekly tips to uplevel your workplace investigations straight to your inbox.
