Who’s the Boss? Investigations Involving Senior Leaders
I’ve received more than a few calls over the years that start the same way, “We’ve received a complaint about one of our senior leaders… what do we do?”
The details vary. Sometimes it’s inappropriate comments or behavior, other times it’s favoritism, retaliation, or a pattern of crossing boundaries. The complaints often come from direct reports who feel stuck, unsure of what’s safe to say, and uncertain whether raising a concern will lead to change, or just make things worse.
And more often than not, there’s hesitation.
“I don’t want to make trouble,” someone will say.
“I just want to be able to do my job.”
That hesitation isn’t just about discomfort, it’s often about fear. Fear of not being believed, of damaging their career, of being seen as the problem for pointing out a problem.
I’ll be honest, these aren’t rare cases. I’ve investigated a number of complaints involving senior leaders, and every time, I’m reminded, when the person at the center of the investigation holds power, everything about the process gets more complicated. The risks are higher. The pressure is greater. And the path forward requires more care.
In this week’s Investigative Edge, we’re talking about what makes these cases different, and what we as HR professionals and investigators need to consider when the person under scrutiny holds the most power in the room.
Why Executive Investigations Are Different
All investigations require neutrality, discretion, and good process. But when the subject of the complaint is an executive or someone in the C-suite, the stakes are higher and the environment gets a lot more complicated.
Here’s why:
1. Power Dynamics
When the accused is at the top, many employees fear retaliation, even when the organization has a clear anti-retaliation policy.
They might assume nothing will change, or that leadership will quietly “handle it” without any meaningful accountability. That fear, and the belief that the process isn’t built to protect them, can affect what gets reported to how candid employees are in interviews.
As investigators, we have to actively earn trust in those moments. That means more than stating that the process is neutral or that retaliation won’t be tolerated. It means showing, through our actions, that the process applies equally to everyone, including senior leaders.
Here’s how we do that:
We show up with transparency about the process, including sharing how decisions will be made and what each participant can expect.
We stay consistent in how we treat each party, regardless of title.
We set and enforce clear expectations around communication, interim measures, and retaliation protections.
And we follow through, whether that means interviewing senior leaders, recommending interim steps, or documenting findings that lead to tough decisions.
2. There’s Often Pressure to Minimize or Move On
In some cases, executives are seen as too important to the business to be questioned. They’re connected to clients, major projects, or public-facing roles. That can create pressure from inside or outside the organization, to make the problem go away quickly and quietly.
I’ve had clients gently suggest whether a “leadership coaching conversation” might be sufficient, even before we’ve gathered the facts.
It’s important to pause and ask, “Would we handle this the same way if it were anyone else?” If the answer is no, it’s time to prioritize consistency.
Here’s how to keep the process consistent when the pressure is high:
If there’s hesitation to proceed because of the leader’s position, bring that concern into the conversation. Naming it helps decision-makers see the inconsistency.
Anchor the decision in your organization’s own process and past precedent. If the policy says complaints of this nature warrant investigation, follow it, regardless of who’s involved.
If internal dynamics make it challenging to move forward objectively, consider shifting who owns the process.
Leadership is important, but so is accountability. Both can exist at the same time when we commit to a consistent approach, even when it’s uncomfortable.
3. Confidentiality Becomes More Difficult
Even without naming names, a senior leader can often infer who raised concerns simply based on reporting structures, team dynamics, or even the language used in interviews.
And while due process means that respondents are entitled to enough information to meaningfully respond, it doesn’t mean we have to expose employees unnecessarily.
That’s why we’re intentional in how we:
Draft interview questions
Choose what details to share during the fact-gathering process
Write our reports, using neutral language when possible
Frame findings and recommendations in ways that protect privacy while maintaining fairness
Confidentiality is about protecting the integrity of the process, safeguarding people’s privacy, and reducing the risk of retaliation as much as possible. When the person at the center of the investigation is in a position of power, finding that balance becomes even more important.
A Pattern I’ve Seen More Than Once
In several investigations I’ve worked on involving senior leaders, tough calls have been made, like placing a respondent on paid leave to minimize disruption and protect the integrity of the process. Those decisions are never taken lightly. These individuals often have direct reports, high visibility, and significant influence across the organization.
It’s important to take extra care in how we structure the process, conducting thoughtful interviews, avoiding leading questions, and building in regular check-ins with complainants and witnesses. In some cases, I’ve worked alongside outside counsel to make sure every step aligns with policy and holds up under scrutiny.
And while the behaviors may not always be easy to spot, the patterns can be serious enough to warrant change at the top.
One moment that sticks with me is a witness who’d been reluctant to participate following up after the investigation concluded.
“I didn’t think it would go anywhere,” they said. “But I’m glad I was wrong.”
That’s what a fair process can do, it builds trust where it’s needed most.
Key Considerations for Executive-Level Investigations
If you’re navigating an executive-level investigation, here are a few things to keep in mind:
1. Use an External Investigator When Possible
Internal teams may struggle to appear neutral if they report to or work closely with the executive. Bringing in an external investigator helps protect the integrity of the process and avoid conflicts of interest.
2. Anticipate Pushback
There may be efforts to soften the process or expedite the outcome. Set expectations early, and make a clear case for why the process matters just as much here as it would for any other employee.
3. Be Clear About Interim Measures
Don’t assume the executive can “just stay quiet and work remotely.” Consider how their ongoing presence might influence witnesses or the investigation itself. If separation is necessary, be ready to explain that decision using a risk based, fact based rationale.
4. Protect the People Who Came Forward
Keep communication channels open with complainants and witnesses. Be specific about anti-retaliation protections and follow up after the investigation closes. The risk doesn’t end when the final report is submitted.
5. Prepare for Organizational Impact
Leadership transitions can be messy. Build a plan for how you’ll communicate changes, internally and externally, while maintaining as much confidentiality as possible. If your process was sound, it will speak for itself.
Conclusion
Investigating senior leaders takes sound judgment, preparation, and a willingness to hold true to the process, even when the pressure is high.
These investigations often test more than our skills as investigators, they test the organization’s values. How a company responds when someone in power is under scrutiny sends a message, whether intentional or not.
These situations are challenging, and they rarely come with easy answers. But with the right approach, they can be handled with fairness, care, and integrity.
Want to Learn More?
Want to learn more about how to conduct initial assessments, determine when to investigate, and apply a structured approach to workplace investigations? Check out my online course, The Investigative Edge.
Inside, you’ll get:
A step-by-step framework for deciding when an investigation is necessary.
Best practices for conducting fair, defensible investigations from start to finish.
Investigation templates, checklists, and tools to help streamline your process.
Check out the course here.
