Protecting Against Retaliation in Workplace Investigations
In workplace investigations, retaliation is a common concern that can appear subtly or overtly, particularly when the subject of an investigation holds a leadership position. In today’s Investigative Edge, we’re talking about what retaliation in workplace investigations looks like, how it can surface, and strategies to help maintain a safe and fair process.
What Retaliation Means in Workplace Investigations
Retaliation refers to any negative action taken against an employee who has made a complaint, participated as a witness, or otherwise engaged in the investigation process. In the context of workplace investigations, retaliation can have a chilling effect, discouraging employees from coming forward with concerns or participating truthfully. It can range from overt actions, like demotion or dismissal, to more covert forms, such as exclusion from meetings or unspoken workplace “shunning.”
It’s our responsibility as investigators to be alert to these risks and implement protective measures that encourage candid participation without fear of reprisal. But what happens when retaliation concerns surface during the investigation?
Signs of Retaliation: What to Watch For
In my experience, retaliation can show up in unexpected ways. Employees might express hesitance to share information, fearing repercussions. There could be a shift in workplace dynamics if others start acting differently toward the complainant or witnesses. Additionally, some leaders or managers involved might try to learn the identity of complainants, hoping to “manage” the narrative. Detecting retaliation requires awareness of subtle changes in workplace dynamics and behaviors. Here are some of the common signs:
Sudden Changes in Treatment: If a complainant or witness suddenly experiences negative changes in how they’re treated by peers or leadership, such as increased scrutiny or exclusion from team activities, this may be an early sign of retaliation.
Unexplained Changes in Role or Responsibilities: Retaliation can involve changing an employee’s job duties without justification, such as assigning low-level tasks or shifting them away from key projects.
Negative Performance Reviews or Disciplinary Actions: Retaliatory behavior may show up in the form of unexpected or unjustified performance reviews, criticism, or formal disciplinary action soon after an employee participates in an investigation.
Isolation or Ostracization: Social dynamics in the workplace may shift, with complainants or witnesses finding themselves excluded from meetings, communications, or collaborative efforts they would normally be part of.
Disrespectful or Hostile Communication: Increased hostility, whether through tone of voice, body language, or written communication, can signal that someone is being targeted for raising concerns or their involvement in the investigation.
A Case in Point: Protecting Identities to Prevent Retaliation
One investigation I handled highlights this challenge well. The subject of the investigation—a senior leader—seemed intent on identifying the employees who had raised complaints against them. The allegations were serious, and during the investigation, this leader began probing for details during our interview, clearly hoping to uncover the complainants’ identities. Given the leader’s authority, these actions raised immediate red flags, reinforcing the need for confidentiality measures to protect those involved.
To manage this, I implemented several steps to maintain confidentiality. In the interview, where possible, I framed questions broadly and avoided specifics that could potentially identify who had said what. For example, instead of asking about particular incidents linked to specific dates, I focused on general patterns of behavior over time. This allowed me to gather necessary information without giving away details that could lead to complainants’ identities.
When drafting the final report, I took similar precautions by using neutral language that referred to “employees” or “team members” in the plural and avoided listing job roles or department names. This approach minimized the chances of the leader identifying the individuals who had raised concerns, making it clear that the investigation process protected their right to participate without fear of retaliation.
Strategies for Handling Retaliation Concerns in Investigations
Preventing retaliation goes beyond just protecting people’s identities. We want to create spaces where everyone feels safe to speak openly and honestly. Here are some actionable strategies that can help in managing the risks of retaliation:
Build and Communicate Strong Anti-Retaliation Policies: Before even beginning the investigation, clearly communicate anti-retaliation policies to all employees. Include specific language about the consequences of retaliation, whether it involves formal complaints, informal warnings, or disciplinary action. Setting expectations early can serve as a deterrent.
Establish Communication Channels: Offer complainants and witnesses a way to raise concerns about retaliation throughout the investigation. These channels could involve private email inboxes or direct access to you, as the investigator. I like to let witnesses know they can reach out to me if they have any concerns. This allows individuals to report any retaliatory behavior without fear of exposure.
Carefully Structure Interview Questions: When asking questions, consider using generalized language that avoids identifying information. In cases where the investigation allows, focusing on general behaviors within a team or department—rather than particular interactions with named individuals—can protect the identities of complainants or witnesses. For example, rather than asking directly about incidents involving specific people, you might ask about broader patterns of behavior in the workplace. This approach is not always feasible, especially when investigating a specific incident that requires detailed, direct questioning.
Keep Reports Impersonal and Generalized: When documenting findings, particularly in the final report, use neutral language to protect the identities of those involved wherever possible. Consider referring to “employees,” “team members,” or other generalized terms to make it harder for others to pinpoint individual identities. While this approach may not always be feasible—especially if the investigation requires details regarding specific roles, individuals or incidents—using impersonal language where possible can help maintain confidentiality and reduce the risk of retaliation.
Monitor Post-Investigation Dynamics Actively: After the investigation, continue to check in with the complainants and witnesses to identify any signs of retaliation. If they mention any new negative behaviors, take these reports seriously and consider whether further action or an additional investigation is appropriate.
Provide Training to Leadership on Retaliation: Leaders play an important role in shaping workplace culture, and some may unknowingly engage in subtle forms of retaliation. Providing them with training on retaliation, including what it looks like and why it’s unacceptable, can help reduce these risks.
Conclusion
By taking proactive steps to prevent retaliation, we can uphold the integrity of the process and send the message that participation is valued and protected. Ultimately, handling retaliation in workplace investigations is about creating a culture where people feel secure to report issues. When people know their concerns will be taken seriously, the entire organization benefits.
If you liked this article, do me a favor and share it with a colleague or repost it to your network.
Together we’re building a community of investigators committed to elevating workplace culture.
