How Managers Blunder into Investigations

Many workplace investigations land with findings against management and supervisory Respondents who express genuine shock at the allegations, exude confidence in their conduct, and end up in disbelief that their words and actions constituted a breach of policy.

With standard supervisory harassment training completed by most employers, why, aside from simple negligence or incompetence, do supervisors tend to land in this jarring situation?

Here are a few operational culprits we've seen responsible for these situations:

1) Workplace Accommodation practices

Even in organizations with professional disability claims professionals, it's possible for the frontline leader to be blissfully unaware that employees on their teams, especially new or newly transferred employees, have temporary or permanent workplace accommodations in place. The employee doesn't always wish to disclose and re-disclose their disability or other protected grounds after they've already gone through a formal accommodation process once.

Make sure that your Early and Safe Return to Work program includes ongoing communication with leaders, especially when a new supervisor is assigned or an employee transfers to a new work location.

Managers often land in discrimination and harassment allegations when someone in the organization knows there is an existing accommodation, but that information doesn't reach the new leader. This can go two ways - employees may assume that an unofficial past work practice was a sanctioned workplace accommodation, and perceive the new leader as hostile to them and their disability. The manager can become a villain to their employee over a misunderstanding between leadership styles, casual work arrangements, and professionally managed accommodations.

Or, employees may have a well-documented accommodation that the new manager simply wasn't aware of. Too often, managers take action, or blurt out words they can't take back when presented with an unexpected accommodation-linked comment, request, or reminder. Managers need to know how to manage that first key moment when they hear even a hint of an accommodation request, both to preserve their working relationship with a team member and to avoid claims that they ignored or dismissed a request, or overtly refused an accommodation request.

2) Allegations of Advocacy Obstruction and Oppressive Practice

Managers at organizations where employees are more likely to advocate for vulnerable or protected groups have sometimes been accused of discrimination on the basis that they obstructed their employee from engaging in client-group advocacy. This has happened, for example, when a racialized employee in a role serving vulnerable clientele such as children or people with developmental disabilities holds a strong value in dedicating time and effort toward clients of the same identity group. We've conducted multiple investigations in which a manager has made operational changes that cut off or lessen an employee's highly valued advocacy and service to clients and clients groups the employee has a deep affinity for. These investigations tend to start with an allegation that the manager discriminated against the employee and the client(s), and extend to varying volumes of supporting evidence that the manager is more generally discriminatory in their outlook and behaviour.

Managers can mitigate these types of investigations by identifying the and discussing the employees' values and having the hard conversation about what legitimate operational interests are driving their decisions. When operational decisions change practices that employees feel are vital to their values and to the service outcomes for their clients, managers need to identify the jarring effect of their choices, support their rationale, and expect pushback. While unpleasant work at times, these conversations ultimately protect managers from allegations of prejudice and arbitrary decision making.

3) Excessive Familiarity is Fine, Until it's Not

Stable teams in some sectors tend to build strong social bonds that blur the lines of friendship and work. In some organizations we've worked with, the workplace culture includes rampant graphic sexual references toward co-workers in almost any situation, from physical posture, work tools, to 'that's what she said' style banter anytime the moment arises. While this type of workplace culture may go on for years in harmony, and with the behaviour forming a sort of internal bond among willing participants, a dangerous fuse has been lit. It's on a question of time until something gives:

• A new employee enters the group and refuses to assimilate into what they see as a toxic culture. This is particularly difficult if the new team member is the first member of a protected group to join the team.

• A long-time participant in the culture has a life or personal change that causes them to rethink the appropriateness of the conduct around them. These Complainants are often chastised in investigations for being hypocrites and 'flipping 180 degrees out of the blue'.

• An employee who participated in and encouraged the culture is terminated, performance-managed, transferred or has a co-worker relationship breakdown, and retaliates by alleging harassment and discrimination.

Managers perceive close in-group bonding in such cultures have built a house on a foundation of sand - the premise of the bonding is fragile, toxic, and likely discriminatory. The absence of warning signs when the fuse runs out can be jarring to managers hit by a 'sudden' complaint.

Appropriate implementation of respectful workplace policies should alert managers to these risks and help them to manage. Teams do not have to behave like perfect angels, and managers will lose all legitimacy in many coarse workplace cultures by expecting overnight culture change. This is where skilled and nuanced HR and workplace culture transformation practices can set minimum expectations while retaining elements of the culture that build bonds that don't rely on disrespect.

These are just a few examples among many of Respondent-Supervisor investigations in which the Respondent is truly taken aback. What other examples of 'surprised Respondents' does your organization see come back time and again? Let us know in the blog or LinkedIn comments.