INCOMING ALLEGATIONS: GO INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL?
Updated: May 16
We often see organizations begin this discussion with cost or availability. Those considerations matter, but they rarely drive how people ultimately experience the process. More often, confidence in the investigation depends on whether employees believe the process was fair, independent, and appropriately matched to the issue itself.
Organizations must determine whether the matter can reasonably be managed internally or whether an external investigator is essential.
Each option carries different strengths, limitations, costs, and risks. Regardless of who conducts the investigation, WorkSafeBC, Human Rights Tribunal, and Canadian courts reinforce the importance of neutrality, appropriate training, procedural fairness, confidentiality, and timely investigations. Organizations must consider whether the investigator has the operational capacity and subject matter expertise required to conduct a fair, thorough, and defensible process in a timely manner.
Below is a quick decision snapshot to help organizations and leaders assess whether allegations may be suitable for an internal investigation or whether external investigator should be considered.
*For a more detailed breakdown of organizational consideration, risk factors, and investigation suitability, download the full reference guide from Crossroads Connections
Key Considerations Before Choosing an Investigator
While every workplace concern is context-specific, organizations should assess several factors before determining whether an investigation can be managed internally or should be referred to an external investigator.
How serious and complex are the allegations?
How many people are involved?
Is there a real or perceived conflict of interest?
What are the operational, legal, or reputational risks?
Does the organization have trained internal investigators available?
Can the organization maintain procedural fairness and neutrality throughout the process?
Do internal HR professionals need to remain at arm’s length due to ongoing workplace relationships or operational responsibilities?
Lower complexity matters may include isolated workplace conflicts, interpersonal disputes, lower-level policy concerns, or conduct issues involving a limited number of parties. In these situations, organizations may be able to conduct an effective internal investigation if trained personnel are available and the organization can maintain fairness, consistency, confidentiality, and timely communication throughout the process.
More serious or high-risk allegations may involve sexual harassment, bullying and harassment, discrimination, reprisal, abuse of authority, or human rights concerns. Risk increases further when multiple parties are involved, senior leadership is implicated, or there is a heightened likelihood of litigation, grievance proceedings, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational damage. Recent cases, including the $11.5 million verdict against Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM), demonstrate how organizational response failures and investigation processes may later come under significant legal and reputational scrutiny. In these situations, organizations often benefit from retaining an external investigator to provide neutral fact-finding and procedural credibility to ensure a defensible process.
“A poorly done investigation can cost significantly more than the invoice of the investigator” - Roper Greyell, LLP
Internal investigations are not simply a question of technical competence. Organizations must also assess whether they have the operational capacity to manage:
Competing priorities
Investigation delays
Inconsistent communication
Procedural drift
Long-term credibility and neutrality
Supporting parties through a stressful process
Operational Capacity and Investigation Delays
This is often where organizations encounter difficulty. Even capable internal investigators may struggle to balance complex investigations alongside operational responsibilities and day-to-day workplace demands. Over time, delays, inconsistent communication, or perceived procedural unfairness can undermine confidence in the investigation process itself.
Credibility and Neutrality
Organizations must also consider the long-term credibility and perceived neutrality of in-house investigators. For example, reporting on the recent SHRM discrimination and retaliation case highlighted concerns where the same HR professional investigating employee complaints was also involved in management communications and termination documentation related to the same employee. Situations like these may undermine confidence in the neutrality of an internal investigation process.
This is particularly important where internal investigators are HR practitioners who continue supporting recruitment, performance management, workplace restoration, learning and development, labour relations, or employee support functions involving the same parties after the investigation concludes.
Perception matters. Even where an internal investigator acts appropriately and objectively, employees may still question the neutrality of the process if the investigator remains closely connected to operational leadership or ongoing employment decisions affecting the parties involved. Regulators and courts have similarly recognized circumstances where internal reporting relationships or organizational influence may undermine confidence in the objectivity of an investigation.
Supporting Employees Through the Process
Appropriate psychological supports should be available during and after investigation process for both parties and the internal investigator. This may include access to Employee Assistance Programs (EAP), leadership support, workplace restoration planning, or other resources to help reduce additional workplace disruption during and after an investigation. Inadequate psychological supports may contribute to workplace disruption, absenteeism, stress-related leave, and reduced productivity during and after investigations.
A combination of these factors may increase organizational risk and support retaining a third-party investigator to conduct a fair, thorough, confidential, and defensible investigation.
Final Considerations
Every workplace concern carries different operational, legal, and human considerations. Organizations should assess not only the nature of the allegations, but also their internal capacity, perceived neutrality, and ability to support parties throughout the investigation process.
At Crossroads Connections, we help organizations navigate workplace concerns at critical decision points and assess the most appropriate path forward. Reach out to us for a free initial consultation to see how we may support you.
Related Articles
Infograph