A Case for Workplace Investigations

I am a long-standing supporter of the Democratic Party since I first voted in 1992.?I believe strongly in DEI principles and even wrote my dissertation on implicit bias in workplace investigations, which is about to be published.?I lay my positionality on the table for an important purpose: discussing unpopular subjects can lead to unfair allegations. Hence, a reader needs to understand that I am not a "hater." I don't have a political agenda. I am not going to ignore an important issue because it might result in backlash. I think, today, more than ever, we need to engage one another in dialogue. That begins with courage.

Workplace environments, toxic cultures, and employee maltreatment are important issues to me.?I am an internal workplace investigator. I receive reports of allegations or, if one prefers, concerns and my job is to determine whether the alleged conduct occurred and whether the alleged conduct violated the company policy. Anytime an employee raises an issue impacting their ability to work, the organization has a responsibility to look into the problem appropriately and, then, remedy the concern, if substantiated.?It is what the EEOC expects employers to do in situations involving discrimination. The courts have articulated similar standards in various contexts; it's what the Obama-Biden Title IX campaign required, too, for students.

Management style is a handy hiding place for bad behavior, whether male, female, transgender, or non-binary.

Whether you work for a small business or for a large governmental organization, like the White House, there is no justification for maltreatment of employees. Management style is a handy hiding place for bad behavior, whether male, female, transgender, or non-binary. Likewise, employees who raise concerns often face allegations of being too sensitive. So, management style isn't a defense and neither is the perceived sensitivity of the employee who is human; as humans, people are appropriately sensitive and it is up to each of us to modulate our communication approach.

Nonetheless, the altitude of the person and the progress that person represents doesn't shield the person from inquiry into behavior that concerns us...

The higher you are on the ladder of life, the more scrutiny you face. The spotlight is hotter and brighter. If your attainment of that space in our culture is a milestone, the spotlight is brighter still. One can't boast the benefit of achieving status and then use it as a shield to maintaining that status. Nonetheless, the altitude of the person and the progress that person represents doesn't shield the person from inquiry into behavior that concerns us just like when allegations are made against people lower in altitude or who are representative of ordinariness should be investigated.

So I was concerned when I read multiple articles, including one in Business Insider and one in Politico that painted a picture of workplaces that were led by Vice President Harris that might not be healthy, that might be less than optimal cultures , that might be places where employees are struggling. Then, my concern increased when I read that after stories surfaced in media, the Vice President threw a party for her staff – which may have zero connection to the allegations about her leadership, and may have been pre-planned (or not). The optics weren't good, for sure. If there were any suggestions of knowledge of an anticipated or pending investigation into her conduct, I'd like to understand the timing.

The arguments about the Vice President being held to a double standard are irrational. One expects investigators to investigate concerns when they come to our attention. There is anger when investigations are not conducted. But when issues are raised, the defense is that, as a woman, she is treated differently??I’ve investigated men and women, so have other investigators. When more women attain leadership roles, the investigations will equal out. Civility and professionalism need to be met expectations by everyone.

Civility and professionalism need to be met expectations by everyone.

The reports contained key indicators of concerns.

"All of the paces she put us through were the same paces she put herself through."? That could be true and it could also be an example of identifying with the person engaging in what may be abusive conduct. The statement could, in fact, be representative of the normalization of Queen Bee Syndrome .

“Everyone who worked there was also "so stressed out that they were making themselves sick. Is that toxic? I don't know."? Let me help, working in an environment where co-workers are experiencing such distress that they were becoming ill, if true, is toxic.

Moreover, the use of complementary statements doesn't obliterate the concern. It is not uncommon to find employees who are happy with the work environment and their relationship with the employer. It is not uncommon for employees to perceive things differently. Employees who are able to thrive in the described environment, if true, won't change, that other employees didn't experience something awful. Researchers have spent decades trying to unravel what creates these situations, whether it is a lack of ethics or something else .

Like normalization, there are many other diversionary tactics used to deflect allegations when allegations are asserted against someone that we see favorably or who is perceived as valuable. For all time, the correct response to learning of the allegations is to thank the person for bringing them to your attention and state that the organization will assess the person's allegations and investigate them if warranted.?That's the response. There is no other response. So it is not, "I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources," thereby indirectly discrediting the allegation, or "I will say that the vice president is an incredibly important partner to the president," thereby suggesting the people asserting allegations are less important and thus less credible, and definitely not, "She has a challenging job, a hard job. And she has a great, supportive team of people around her. But other than that, I'm not going to have any more comments on those reports, thereby using power to tamp down allegations.

Take any of those statements made by the White House Press Secretary and pretend they were said about a male executive, and the uproar would be Twitter worthy. The White House Press Secretary speaks for the White House.

What was offered were excuses.

Anonymous reports are not uncommon in workplaces, and they start workplace investigations. Anonymity alone doesn't eliminate the responsibility to ascertain whether more information may be available using reasonable means.?Anonymity can make the process more difficult. I hope we could agree that every employee who works for an organization is "important" and that the perceived importance of the position or the perceived importance of the person in the position doesn't provide a hall pass to behave any way they like? The challenge of the job, the difficulty of the job, or the perceived beliefs about the support of the people who work in the environment at present are not important to whether to begin an internal investigation into allegations of maltreatment. These might be factors that could mitigate or aggravate the assessment, but it is not, again, a hall pass granting permission to behave in any manner that one chooses to behave.

The response should have been, "I can't comment on the story, but I understand that the matter is being assessed. While I don't want to disappoint you or appear like I am obstructive, you know that personnel matters are private, and I cannot comment further. The President will have a comment if and when appropriate."

Then, the White House needed to follow through and conduct an investigation (which might be happening). It may be that no one has concerns in the current workplace. Matter resolved.?It may be that there are people who do have concerns and, when given space, treated with empathy, advised of any rights they may have, and assured that any allegations of retaliation would be assessed and, if appropriate, investigated, that relevant evidence in the form of witnesses interviews and documentary evidence would be gathered. It may be that when considered in the light most favorable to the reporter with all inferences drawn in their favor, an investigation is warranted. After notifying those against whom the allegations are made (we can't assume it is the Vice President in the case of the White House, it could involve someone else), that the person or persons will also provide evidence to be considered. Then, we can consider the totality of the evidence to determine whether the allegations are substantiated and whether the conduct established, if any, as applied against a policy is a violation.?

As an investigator, I am not concerned about the kind of pen Vice President Harris prefers. For the record, I prefer a Sharpie Roller in Blue Arrow Point 0.7mm. The requirement that you keep the preferred pen on your desk is not misconduct. Asking for the right kind of pen is not misconduct. Was the pen thrown at the employee? Was the employee berated, based on articulated details?

Am I concerned about incivility??Yes.?Isolated instances are bound to happen, but a pattern of behavior in the current environment may suggest many things, including a need to provide more support to those in charge.

Am I concerned about turnover? Yes. Employees don't leave bad jobs; they leave bad bosses. You don't work this hard to achieve this level of proximity to power to leave quickly, except in isolated situations, like a more secure job opportunity, more money, or personal, family situations.?

Am I concerned about behavior that might be paralyzing to employees such that it impacts their performance? Hell yes. Employers have an affirmative obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment to employees. If the behavior of those with power and privilege are undermining the ability of the employee to work because of fear or anxiety, that is a scientifically proven red flag of a hostile work environment .

Am I going to bootstrap uninvestigated allegations from a prior workplace to the present circumstances? No.?A pattern of purported behavior certainly grabs attention, but uninvestigated allegations are not of evidentiary importance in these circumstances as investigators have limited jurisdiction.

Am I going to give any weight to payment and an NDA for a sum of money given for unknown reasons??No. It doesn't pertain to this work environment or work engagement. It would have to be relevant, meaning that those facts, if proven, prove or disprove conduct alleged occurred here. It's an example of improper use of character evidence.

What is relevant? I want to know what the employees in the current situation or employees who in the last seven months have to share with me. I'll go from there.?It could be the case that middle management is the source of the problem or that there are root cause factors that, if addressed, would improve the situation. Obtaining those employee perspectives only happens with a competent investigation.

Doing the necessary work to conduct investigations to secure a healthy and safe environment for employees is a message that must come from leadership.

Doing the necessary work to conduct investigations to secure a healthy and safe environment for employees is a message that must come from leadership. These investigations can't happen unless the organization wants the investigation to happen. Investigations aren’t adequate unless the organization allows the investigator responsible the autonomy and authority to do it without interference.?

Is it part of White House culture to treat concerns seriously regardless of how they come to the employer?

If it is, please get on it, Mr. President.? It's what other organizations are required to do.