CENTRE for EFFECTIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

www.c ed r .c om

CEDR Report

Human Resources
Based Investigations

Results of Survey
March 2016

70 Fleet Street,
London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001
email: info@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
Registered in England no. 2422813
Registered Charity no. 1060369

Acknowledgements
Over the course of this project, CEDR has worked with a large number of individuals who have given
advice and contributions about the conclusions of this report. We are extremely grateful to them all for
their insight and involvement with this project. They are:
Sheila Bates

CEDR

Dr Stephanie Bown

VeritaFiona Colquhoun

CEDR

Julie Crowther

Bank of England

Erika Ely

RadcliffesLeBrasseur LLP

Tracey Fox

CEDR

Matthew Harvey

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Alan Julyan

Charles Russell Speechleys LLP

Amanda Kear

Grovewood HR

Chiawen Kiew

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Anneke Loubser

Human Works Matters

Karl Mackie

CEDR

Richard Martin

Byrne Dean Associates

Leigh Mason

Mitsubishi USF International Trust LTD

Joachim Muller

CEDR

Andy Rogers

CEDR

Julie Southcombe

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Alison Trodd

BBC

Frederick Way

CEDR

Derryth Wright

Norfolk County Council

Please note that the views expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the views of any individual ororganisation.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

2

Overview of Results
In this document we set out the results of CEDR’s 2015 research into investigations carried out by Human Resources
departments. The survey was carried out as part of CEDR’s work into reforming the processes of investigations andreviews and follows on from CEDR’s three-year project to reform the Public Inquiry process. With this project, CEDR
has studied the time and resources that organisations put into investigations; the nature of investigations undertaken
by internal and external teams; and the efficacy of the recommendations and review process. Alongside this survey
work, CEDR has also consulted with a group of HR professionals about their qualitative experiences of theinvestigations process as well as analysing the work that CEDR itself frequently undertakes as an external provider ofinternal investigation services.

Executive Summary of Results
The key results we found from the survey of HR Professionals are as follows:

Types of Investigations


The majority of respondents said that they were involved in investigations multiple times a year with 36.1%
involved in more than 20 investigations a year. A fifth of respondent are also involved in conducting morethan 10 investigations at one time.

Qualities sought for investigators are similar for both internal and external investigators.

The qualities people are looking for from an investigator in order from most to least sought after are:1)

Experience in conducting investigations

2)

Neutrality

3)

Ability to see bigger picture

4)

Expertise in subject matter

5)

Communication Skills

6)

Problem Solving Abilities

7)

Legal Skills

There is no difference between internal and external investigators apart from the fact that with external investigators,
quality 4 – expertise in the subject matter – switches places with quality 3 – ability to see bigger picture – implyingthat when using an external investigator it may be because they have some additional understanding of the particularsubject matter which is why they have been brought in.


The survey shows the importance of word-of-mouth when selecting an individual externally to run a review orinvestigation, this happens in over half of instances.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

3

When to Use an Internal/External InvestigatorOn the question of whether an investigation should be led internally or externally there was a wide variety ofviews.



Whilst no issue was universally considered to only be suitable for external or internal investigationoexternal help was felt to be most appropriate for complaints of criminal/financial wrongdoing
where they may be external sanctions,owhereas internally led investigation procedures were felt to be more appropriate for complaints bymembers of the public, complaints against the HR department and complaints about the way aninvestigation had been carried out.

oThe biggest difference in thought in terms of whether to use an internal or external investigatingteam came with disputes involving board conflict and disputes involving very senior executives.

Timing and Methodology for Investigations


The survey showed an average of 26 hours was spent on internal investigations or reviews and 42 hours for an
external one. Perhaps noticeably people were using relatively short times for determining what it is was they
were investigating and how to do a methodology. 66% spent just one hour determining how they were goingto carry out the investigation (which might take 25 hours to do). Even in determining what the investigation
should cover, 41% would take less than an hour. This potentially belies an overly superficial consideration of
investigation ambit.

Of the time spent on investigations preparation was typically taking 1 or 2 - 3 hours and follow-up on any
recommendations was also typically taking 1 or 2 - 3 hours.

Recommendations and Review of recommendations


The survey showed that in the vast majority of instances investigations and reviews are accompanied byrecommendations.

Satisfaction with investigation recommendations was felt to be satisfactory within organisations and also by the
persons or units subject to the inquiry (approximately two thirds) though few organisations or individuals felt
investigations were very satisfactory.



Where recommendations are made they are more likely to be implemented if made by an external investigator
than an internal investigator. Just 7.4% of respondents report that over 90% of recommendations made byinternal investigators are implemented compared with 27.3% of respondents reporting over 90% ofrecommendations made by external investigators are implemented.

Over 60% of respondents had experienced criticism of an investigation after the findings had been reportedThe survey showed that in the majority of instances very few investigations needed to be reconducted (which
only happened very occasionally)© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

4

Results In depth
The Format of the Report
This report is divided into 4 sections. Following the report’s methodology, the first section looks at the types ofinvestigation that are undertaken by organisations. The second section looks at the profile of those who are called to
be investigators and what qualities are looked for in an investigator. The third section looks at the time and process
for an investigation and how these are carried out.

The fourth section is about the recommendations frominvestigations and how frequently they are implemented and reviewed.

Methodology and Profile of Respondents
The survey was carried out in May and June 2015 by web-based questionnaire. The survey had 48 respondents, whoworked in either HR or Employment Law. The respondents tended to have worked for their organisations for aconsiderable period of time, with the average length of service being 11 years, 6 months. At the extremes there wasa respondent who had worked for their present employer for 7 months and one who had worked for 25 years.

What size is your organisation?

Small (fewer than
50 employees),
18.8%
Very Large (Over750 employees),
54.2%

Medium (50-250
employees),
16.7%

Large (250-750
employees),
10.4%

Figure 1 Size of Respondents’ Organisations
The respondents came from organisations of all sizes with the majority of respondents coming from organisations
with more than 750 employees (Figure 1). The majority of respondents worked as HR directors or business partners(Figure 2), and many of the respondents who referred to themselves as “other” were using alternative names for
similar positions (eg. “Head of People”). Some of the respondents were employment lawyers or worked in the field ofinvestigations and there were also a number of consultants.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

5

What is your role?

20.8%

HR Director/Head of HR

39.6%

HR Business Partner
Employee Relations

14.6%

Consultant
Other (please specify)

10.4%
14.6%

Figure 2 Role of Respondents
The respondents were from a broad range of sectors but there was a heavy presence of those working in legal,banking and finance, and professional services backgrounds. This may skew the results towards having a more formal
or process-based investigation style of practice than in other types of organisations

Legal
Banking and Finance
Professional Services
Public Sector
Education
EnergyMedia
Telecommunications
Agriculture and Fishing
Other

31.3%
12.5%
10.4%
10.4%
8.3%
4.2%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
16.7%

(Includes Property, Charity, Aviation and others)
Figure 3 Sectors of Respondents© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

6

Section1: Types of Investigation Performed by HR
There is a large split in the experiences of organisations in terms of the numbers of internal investigations that they
are carrying out (Figure 4). 41.7% of respondents report carrying out fewer than 5 investigations a year (with 11.1%
having no investigations) whilst 36.1% are carrying out more than 20 investigations a year. Whilst much of thiscontrast is down to the difference in organisational size, it also reveals something of the difference between
organisations in terms of the extent to which an investigation they can be regarded as a routine activity for theorganisation or a special event.

On average, how many internal investigations do you think you or
your organisation are involved in during a single year?
40%

36.1%

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%

16.7%
13.9%
11.1%

11.1%
8.3%

10%
5%

2.8%

0%
None

1-2

3-5

6-10

10-15

16-20More than 20

Figure 4 Numbers of Internal investigations carried out each year
When compared with the number of investigations carried out at any one time by an organisation (Figure 5), it isstriking that whilst many organisations and HR professionals are dealing with one investigation at any one time, asignificant percentage (19.4%) are carrying out more than 10 investigations concurrently. This has the potential
implication that for these organisations investigations are the normalised default response for most difficult issues andthat the drive for using an investigation as opposed to another process is down to an organisational preference rather
than through appropriate need.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

7

Figure 5 Numbers of investigations carried out at any one time
Figure 6 shows the types of investigations carried out by organisations and how many instances there are of each
type. Unsurprisingly, there is a large focus on disciplinary and complaints investigations with the majority of HR
professionals dealing with these issues multiple times a year. Importantly there are also similar levels of issues being
dealt with in terms of team/relationship breakdowns with just 9% of respondents saying that they had never had todeal with this issue. In contrast there are extremely few investigations by HR into investor or shareholder complaints
and a large number (50%) of organisations have never carried out a special HR review into a particular area. In
addition as shown by Figure 7, although many organisations will not be subject to investigations imposed upon themby external parties, a significant percentage (39.4%) are subject to statutory regulatory investigations and 1 in 5
organisations has been subject to a criminal activity investigation. These investigations take up considerable time andcause considerable disruption to an organisation. Again, these results overall show how different organisations’experiences of investigations can be and the sorts of investigation types that can be required.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Disciplinary Investigation

50%

Internal investigation into alleged criminal or
fraudulent activity

18%

Regulatory investigation

18%

18%

12%

Race/Sex Discrimination investigation

19%

24%

Bullying/Harassment investigation

20%

Consumer complaints

38%

Complaints triggered by whistleblowing

17%

HR reviews into specific areas (eg. institutional
racism)General reviews of HR policy
Multiple times a year

9%

9%

15%

Once or twice a year

11%

22%

47%

29%

34%

* 9% *

28%

23%

Team or other relationship breakdowns

14%

18%

34%

Investor or shareholder complaints

33%

33%

31%

11%

32%

24%

42%

Code of conduct investigation

11%

32%

24%

Complaints investigation

Health and Safety investigation

28%

29%

14%

23%

29%

37%

20%

6% *

9%

53%

85%

17%

29%

37%

32%

35%

50%

35%

Once every few years

15%

Never
* = all 3%

Figure 6 Frequency of Investigation Types for respondent© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

9

Excluding audits, has your company in the last five years been subject toa non-voluntary external investigation in the following matters?

Investigation into alleged
criminal activity
Non-Statutory
investigation imposed byindustry bodyYes, 19.4%
No, 80.7%
Yes, 16.1%
No, 83.9%
Yes, 39.4%

Statutory Regulatory
investigationNo, 60.6%

Figure 7 Frequency of External Investigation types imposed on organisations© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

10

Section 2: Who is conducting the investigations?
The vast majority of respondents have personally conducted investigations within their careers (Figure 8), with asmaller percentage (though still a majority) also having used external investigators (Figure 9). Methods of selection
for external investigators demonstrate that this is largely done in an informal manner, based on word of mouth rather
than through any formal mechanism (Figure 10). Indeed, no organisation used a formal recruitment process forselecting an investigator. Overall, the results imply that frequently the investigator is a default option of someone who
has done similar investigations before and that there is little time spent on selecting the investigator.

Have you ever personally conducted an internal
investigation?

No
19%

Yes
81%

Figure 8 Respondents’ own experiences of conducting internal investigations

Have you ever used an external investigator to conduct
an Investigation?

No, 40.5%

Yes, 59.5%

Figure 9 Respondents’ Use of external investigators© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

11

If you have used an external party to conduct an investigation,
how have you selected this person?

8%

20%

16%

52%
4%

Via a recommendation by a law firm

Via a recommendation by a trade or industry associate

Via a recommendation from a professional association

From word of mouth

Other (please specify)

Figure 10 Methods of Selection of External Investigator
In looking at the qualities desired in an investigator (Figure 11) , the most popular qualities for both internal andexternal investigators is experience in conducting investigations followed by neutrality. These two qualities are both
vital to any sort of investigation and show an emphasis on the importance of having an investigator who is separate
from the issue which is being investigated. Neutrality is so critical that when we asked whether it was necessary for
an investigator to be neutral, 50% of respondents answered “Yes, in every circumstance” and 50% answer “Yes, inalmost every circumstance. No respondents felt that it was not an important quality.
There is a contrast between the third most necessary skill for internal and external investigators. Whilst for external
investigators, their expertise in the subject matter was the third most valued asset, perhaps explaining why an external
investigator had been chosen as they possessed a necessary knowledge that an internal investigator would not have(eg. in regulatory law); for internal investigators the ability to see the bigger picture was considered more importantas it allowed for investigators to consider the views of their organisation and how the process fitted in more widely.
Legal skills and problem solving abilities are less well considered for an investigator, even with those investigations
that are carried out by external investigators. It is clear that the fundamental intention of an investigation is a focus
on the initial diagnosis stage rather than on resolving a discovered issue later on.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

12

Experience in
conducting
Investigations
Neutrality
Reversed forexternal
investigations

Ability to see
bigger picture
Expertise in
the subject
matterCommunications
SkillsProblemSolving
Abilities
Legal
SkillsFigure 11 Skills looked for in an investigator
Finally, we asked respondents who else would become involved in any investigation. As can be seen from Figure 12,
the vast majority of investigations will involve large numbers of individuals from different areas of the organisationand thus the size of teams for either an internal or external investigation can be extremely large.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

13

When conducting an investigation, who else would you expect fromyour organisation to become involved? Percentage involving theseparties

80.8%
61.5%
53.8%
30.8%

Legal Department

ComplianceDepartment

Senior Management Other Stakeholder

Figure 12 Sections of the organisation who become involved in different types of investigation
In choosing whether to use an internal or external investigator (Figure 13), there is vast difference in individual
respondents’ views with no options being clear cut to being only suitable for an internal or external investigation
respectively.

Of those matters which tended towards being considered by respondents as suitable for external

investigation (not receiving any responses saying only suitable for internal investigations) were those about issues
which could result in criminal sanctions against the organisation, although even here there were a large number of
responses indicating that it was preferable to do an internal investigation, even with issues such as criminal
wrongdoing where it may be thought that it would be preferable to have an external perspective to remove
indications of potential bias. Overall there was a preference to keep investigations internal if possible.
Of those issues where there was a clear preference for internal investigations, these included complaints triggered bymembers of the public, discrimination/harassment/bullying allegations; complaints about the outcome of an internal
investigation; historic complaints against the company and press allegations about poor corporate culture. What is
intriguing particularly about historic complaints and press allegations is that both of these processes are likely totrigger the need for some external statement about what has been reported and therefore a wholly internal
investigation and response (as is the majority of respondents’ preference) is likely to be detrimental. This inclination
to keep these matters internal would also seem to contrast with current practice across sectors where issues ofhistorical allegations are increasingly being investigated by external reviewers with the intention by organisations tohave publically available reports published. One of the potential issues that could be seen here therefore is thecontrasting features for any HR investigation between transparency, publicity and confidentiality and the extent towhich an organisation can act in an internally confidential and private manner when conducting an investigation.
Whilst potentially desirable for reasons of protection of the institution’s reputation, in the modern age, such an
approach may defeat certain features of the investigation, in particular complainant confidence in the process andconclusion© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

14

There are also several types of issue generating responses from the spectrum of being only suitable for internal
investigation through to being only suitable for external investigation.

Of the 4 issues that generated the full

spectrum of responses, 3 of these issues were in relation to dealing with the most senior element of the organisation,
namely the dealing with complaints about very senior executives, complaints by board members and board conflict.
Interestingly, board conflict was the issue where the most people felt that it should be handled by an external
investigator (with 18% of respondents saying it should only be handled by an external investigator). The only otherissue which generated such a large difference of opinion was a complaint against the HR department itself. What canbe seen from these different issues is that they tend to deal with the upper ends of the organisation (with boards inparticular being an especially contentious issue). At play here are issues to do with the authority of an internal
investigator to make these sort of investigatory judgements about senior players; the expectation of confidentiality
about issues with these areas and the potential need for external review.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

15

Of the below issues do you think that they should be investigatedby an internal or external team?
0%20%

Allegations of criminal wrongdoing

21%

Allegations of corporate malpractice25%

Complaint about financial
misconduct

28%

Discrimination/Harassment/Bullying
allegations
Press allegations about poor
corporate culture in the company

Historic complaint against thecompany

18%

45%

9%

44%

25%

6%

16%

6%

39%

15%

27%

30%

9%

39%

12%

39%

31%

48%

12%

16%

24%

36%

6%

15%

27%

44%

27%

3%

30%

52%

12%

6%

9%

42%

Complaint about the way aninternal investigation had been
carried out

Board conflict

18%

55%

39%

Complaint against the HR
department

100%

52%

33%

Complaint about a very senior
3%executive of the company

Complaint by a board member 3%

80%

45%

12%

18%

60%

53%

18%

Complaint by member of the public

Complaint about the outcome of aninternal investigation

40%

12%

Only suitable for internal investigation

Preferable to do internal investigation

Could do either internal or external investigation

Preferable to do external investigation

12%

6%

3%

18%

Only suitable for external investigation
Figure 13 Views on suitability of types of investigation for internal or external investigation.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

16

Section 3: Methodology for conducting an investigation
In looking at how the investigations themselves are carried out, we found that there tended to be slightly more time
taken on external investigations compared with internal investigations, with the average external investigation taking
41 hours, compared with 25 hours for an internal investigation. This is still a considerable amount of time for an
organisation and does not take into account the number of staff hours taken up with an investigation if they use
multiple people.

How many hours would you expect an internal and external
investigation to take (Average)

41

25

Internal Investigation

External Investigation

Figure 14 Number of hours of internal and external investigations.
We then asked respondents about the number of hours they would devote to the different tasks of an investigationfrom inception to completion. The figures below show the percentage of respondents answering how many hours
they would give each task. For these questions, respondents were able to select any number including over 20 for thenumber of hours they would spend on each task.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

17

Determining the scope of theInquiry and what is being
investigatedWorking out a methodology
2-3
hours,
30.8%

1 hour,38.5%
2-3
hours,
61.5%

1 hour,69.2%

Carrying out the investigation
2-3 hours,
3.8%Over 20 hours,
23.1%

4-5 hours,
34.6%
15-20 hours,
3.8%

6-7 hours,
3.8%

10-15 hours,
23.1%

8-9 hours,
7.7%

Reviewing policy/law

2-3
hours,
50.0%

1 hour,50.0%© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

18

Writing the investigation report

10-15 hours
7.7%

Over 20 hours
3.8%
1 hour7.7%

6-7 hours
19.2%

2-3 hours
34.6%

4-5 hours
26.9%

Feeding back and delivering
investigation results
4-5
hours,
7.7%

1 hour,34.6%

Following up on
recommendations/taking action

4-5
hours,
3.8%

6-7
hours,
3.8%

8-9
hours,
3.8%
1 hour,38.5%

2-3
hours,
50.0%

2-3
hours,
57.7%
Figures 15-21 Numbers of hours devoted to each task by respondent

In looking at the amount of time that investigators spend on different elements of the investigation it can be clearlyseen that the majority of time is spent on carrying out the investigation (interviews etc) and writing up theinvestigation report and relatively little time is spent on preparation (determining what is being investigated anddefining a methodology) and on the end section of an investigation (debriefing the conclusions of the investigationand taking action). This potentially shows a default behaviour which confuses the action of doing the investigation
with the purpose of the investigation which may be to help improve the organisation through taking action or in
explaining a difficult finding. There is little efficiency in a process which takes 20 hours of time to investigate for only
1 hour of action.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

19

Section 4: Review processes and recommendations
One of the main outcomes of an investigation is to allow for a focus on the recommendations that come out of theInvestigation to allow for an improvement. However, as can be seen by the Figure 22 although recommendations are
the norm, a large number of investigations normally do not make recommendations at all. Where an external
investigation has been used, they are far more likely to produce recommendations. Excluding those who have noexperience of external investigation, 40.9% of the respondents reported that external investigations always makerecommendations compared with 29.6% of internal investigations.

In general are the internally and externally led investigations that you havebeen involved with purely fact finding or do they make recommendations as
well?

Always makerecommendations
Usually makerecommendations but
occasionally don't
Sometimes makerecommendations

37.0%
34.6%
29.6%
26.9%
18.5%
14.8%

15.4%

15.4%

7.7%

Normally don't makerecommendations
Never makerecommendations
No experience of this typeof investigation

Internal Investigation

External Investigation

Figure 22 Likelihood of investigations to make recommendations
It can also be seen from the below graphs (Figures 23 and 24) that where recommendations are made, they tend to
be one or two recommendations rather than multiple. External investigations are also likely to produce slightly more
recommendations than those which are conducted internally.
There are several potential reasons for this including potentially a greater pressure on an external investigator todemonstrate their utility and value by producing recommendations as well as also the ability for an external
investigator to have more free rein in making recommendations.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

20

Internal Investigation - Number ofRecommendations
56.7%

26.9%

11.5%
3.9%

0.0%
1-2

3-5

6-10

11-20

More than 20External Investigation - Number ofRecommendations

45.5%
36.4%

18.2%

1-2

3-5

6-10

0.0%

0.0%

11-20

More than 20

Figures 23 and 24 Numbers of recommendations by type of investigation
In comparing the percentage of recommendations that are implemented by internal or external investigation, it canbe seen that (with the exception of the respondents who gave extremely low scores), there is slightly greater scope for
uptake of recommendations in externally led investigations compared with internally led investigations. It has beensuggested from HR experts we have worked with on this project that this may be because investigations which use
external investigators tend to be those which are seen as more difficult or critical to an organisation and therefore
recommendations made within such an investigation are more likely to be adopted as an organisation has alreadyidentified a need for change.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

21

Percentage of Recommendations
implemented for internal investigations
33.3%

18.5%

18.5%

11.1%
7.4%
3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

Under 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90%
10%

Over
90%

N/A

Percentage of Recommendations
implemented for external investigations
27.3%
22.7%

9.1%

22.7%

9.1%

4.5%

4.6%

Under 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90%
10%

Over
90%

N/A

Figure 25 and 26 Percentage of recommendations implemented by internal and external investigation© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

22

In looking at the review process for recommendations to see if they have been implemented (Figure 27), a striking
number of investigations, 14.8% of internal investigations and 24% of external investigations have no mechanism forchecking to see whether or not the recommendations made in the report have actually been implemented. This canmean that important recommendations that are made do not actually get put into practice. As there is no review
process, there is not even the opportunity for people to turn down recommendations. Rather, recommendations areeither blanket adopted or not adopted at all.

Is there a review process in place for recommendations to see if they
have been implemented?

51.9%
Yes, formal review process
Yes, informal review process

36.0%
29.6%

No

28.0%
24.0%

N/A - Have not conducted thissort of investigation

14.8%
12.0%
3.7%
Internal Investigation

External Investigation

Figure 27 Existence of review process for internal and external investigations
In looking at the satisfaction levels between the organisation and those subject to the investigation it can immediately
be seen that the investigations results are far more popular with the organisation than those subject to theinvestigation. This could potentially show a preference towards writing a report that an organisation likes at theexpense of the individual, however, it more likely reflects the fact that many of the investigation reports are likely tobe about individuals who may be facing disciplinary investigations or similar and thus may be unhappy with a report.
That being said, there is no reason that a report which is critical of someone should not be satisfactory to that
individual in at least that they recognise that the process used to reach the conclusion is fair, even if the result is notwhat they would want.

Interestingly, the above two columns do not show a high level of “very satisfied”

organisations or individuals with the implication that investigations are a process whereby organisations “get throughit” rather than taking the process as a positive experience.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

23

In general, what is the satisfaction levelwith investigation recommendations?
81.5%

42.3%
30.8%
19.2%
11.1%

7.4%

3.9%

0.0% 0.0%
Organisation
Very Satisfied

Satisfied

3.9%

Person/Unit which is subject to Inquiry
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Figure 28 Satisfaction levels with investigation recommendations
Interestingly, although 60% of respondents reported that they had experienced criticism of an investigation report
after it had been published (Figure 29), only 20% of respondents for internal investigations and 30% of respondents
for external investigations had any experience of repeating an investigation (Figure 30). It would appear that a
criticised result is often allowed to stand even if there is substantial discontentment with the outcome.

Have you ever found that an Investigation report that you
have been involved with has been subject to criticism
afterwards?

No, 40.7%
Yes, 59.3%

Figure 29 Frequency of Criticism of Investigation reports© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

24

Have you ever had to reconduct an investigation after its conclusion
due to poor investigation practice?

77.8%
No

69.6%

Yes, once
Yes, a few times
Yes on several
occasions

11.1%
11.1%

21.7%

Internal Investigation

External Investigation

8.7%

Figure 30 Likelihood of redoing an investigation.
Finally we asked respondents about a process which combined recommendation implementation with investigation tosee if there could be a new way of making recommendations more likely to be implemented (Figure 31). Although
there was some reticence, the vast majority of respondents (81.5%), did think that this was a possibility dependent on
the issue.

What would be your view of an investigation methodology
which combined investigation with implementation?

3.7%

7.4%

7.4%

Not suitable process
Depends on issue
Yes, it would be preferable

81.5%

Don't know

Figure 31Views on investigation methodology combining investigation with implementation.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

25

Conclusion
In conclusion, investigations are a significant part of the majority of HR professionals’ work with many conducting
multiple investigations at any one time. Although the preference is to keep investigations internal if possible, as
investigations involve extraneous legal issues, then organisations are more likely to involve external investigators. The
biggest contrast in terms of thinking as to whether an investigation should be carried out internally or externally camein relation to investigations involving very senior figures in an organisation and its board. It would be arguable
therefore that particular thought needs to be given to whether it is most appropriate to use an external investigationteam in relation to issues which touch upon senior figures. Whether an investigation is carried out by an internal orexternal investigating team, it can be seen that experience and neutrality are considered the most important factors
for an investigator to possess. With external teams, there is more of a reliance on their expertise in the subject matteras being a relevant consideration (which may explain why an external team has been used as they have experiencethat an internal team do not have) whilst with internal investigators an ability to understand how the investigation fits
into a wider context is more preferable as the internal investigator can understand how the matter fits into theorganisation’s overall plan.
In looking at how the investigations are actually carried out there can be seen to be a focus on what for many is themain activity of the investigation, conducting interviews and gathering information. Whilst this is likely to be natural,
it can be seen that there is significantly less time being used in determining what the scope of the investigation is anddebriefing afterwards. Frequently it may be seen that it is assumed that it is known why an investigation is being
conducted and what the appropriate method is so that the investigation is launched extremely quickly. Whilst there is
merit in this, and that it can be seen that certain types of investigations (eg. a disciplinary investigation) will follow
largely similar patterns, it is not always appropriate to adopt a “one size fits all” model and there is benefit toconsidering what the appropriate investigation type is before commencing the investigation to avoid problems lateron. Additionally in terms of debriefing on an investigation and following up and taking action, it can be seen thatmany organisations spend surprisingly little time on this. This can have the unfortunate impact of making theinvestigation have the purpose of being done merely for the sake of having the investigation itself rather than for the
impact it will have. Within our work, some of the most important elements of reaching a decision or producing
recommendations, is then in looking at how to implement them in a way that will have high levels of take up andbring about the change needed. If the investigation is failing to bring about appropriate change due to an overly
long focus on investigation itself and not its impact then this can cause problems. Process design and thinking about
how to bring in the recommendations made, should therefore be a critical part of any investigation process.
In terms of looking at recommendations, it is noticeable that there are a significant number of investigations which
do not produce any recommendations and that also several organisations have no mechanism for reviewing therecommendations that have been made. Where recommendations are made, there are likely to be slightly more in areport by an external investigation team than by an internal team and there is likely to be slightly higher take up ofrecommendations made by an external team than an internal team. Whilst there may be more reliance on an external“expert” view of a situation, it is surprising that internal investigators’ recommendations are more easily overruled as
an organisation will be continuing to work with these people whose recommendations for change have been
disregarded. This is likely to be more frustrating for an internal investigator than an external investigator.
Interestingly although the majority of respondents have experienced an investigation they’ve been involved in being
subject to criticism afterwards, very few respondents had actually reconducted an investigation. This implies that
there may be a dogged acceptance of investigations as being a “necessary evil” even when they’re getting results withwhich no-one is happy. In this regard, it may be necessary to rethink how investigations are carried out from the© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

26

outset so that they are likely to be considered satisfactory (or even more positively) by those who are subject to them.
In this way, again we would argue for an emphasis on process.
Ultimately, it can be seen that investigations are an increasing part of the work of HR departments but that in orderto get maximum utility from them, thought needs to be given to:whether an investigation is the appropriate action to take;

how to devise the investigation’s methodology to get an appropriate outcome;

whether it is appropriate to use an internal or external investigating team depending on the subject
matter;

how to increase recommendation uptake by organisations;

how to debrief from the investigation correctly and take appropriate levels of follow up rather thanusing the conducting of an investigation as an outcome in itself;

how to deal with any criticism of the investigation and whether it is appropriate to revisit elements ofan investigation process or report to improve outcomes.

If emphasis is given to the above, an investigation is likely to be more successful.
© CEDR 2016

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813

Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

27