Workplace Investigations: A Shield Against Blame
Workplace investigations have evolved from a useful tool into a costly and often futile industry, according to Howard Levitt. What began as a means to uncover the truth in serious misconduct cases has become a mechanism for boards and senior management to protect themselves from criticism. Levitt draws a parallel to the historical practice of bloodletting, which physicians continued despite its harm, simply because failing to do so would expose them to blame if the patient died.
Today, most workplace investigations serve a similar function: they are commissioned not because they are the best path to truth, but because failing to investigate invites criticism if matters worsen. The investigation becomes less a search for truth than a shield against blame.
The Thriving Investigation Industry
While workplace investigations remain essential for very serious allegations—such as harassment, discrimination, violence, fraud, and abuse of authority—the practice has grown into a thriving industry. Investigations are now conducted by lawyers, retired judges, arbitrators, consultants, specialized firms, and a growing network of professional organizations. Many investigators are conscientious professionals, but the issue lies in the incentives that support the industry's growth.
Organizations increasingly use investigations for matters that were once handled directly by leaders: personality conflicts, management disputes, governance disagreements, and interpersonal tensions. These could often be resolved or investigated by trained HR staff at a fraction of the cost.
Substantial Costs and Organizational Impact
The financial toll is significant. Investigations involving senior executives can and regularly do consume hundreds of thousands of dollars. They preoccupy boards for months, sideline key leaders, and divide or even immobilize organizations. Yet the conclusions often mirror what a competent board or executive team could have determined much earlier without the expense and corporate immobilization. One director described the process as paying six figures to postpone a difficult decision.
The financial cost is often the least significant impact. Careers are interrupted, reputations suffer, departments divide, strategic initiatives stall, productivity declines, and relationships deteriorate dramatically.
Questioning Investigator Independence
A more troubling question receives little attention: How independent is the modern workplace investigation industry? Investigators are selected and paid by one side and often retained repeatedly by the same organizations. While many would reject any suggestion that they consciously tailor findings to satisfy clients, the concern is not merely dishonesty—it is human nature. The incentives of the industry can subtly influence outcomes, undermining the very objectivity that investigations are meant to provide.
