Unknown User4
Things to check when selecting a workplace harassment investigator
2026.08.04 10:14
Workplace harassment investigators must be selected based on a review of their conflicts of interest, neutrality, investigative experience, interviewing capabilities, and confidentiality standards to ensure the process feels fair to both the complainant and the accused. Rather than assuming that only specific job titles or departments are eligible to act as investigators, it is crucial to consider the nature of the incident and internal organizational relationships when making the selection.
When a report of workplace harassment is received, the company must conduct an investigation to verify the facts. In this process, the credibility of the investigation results may be compromised if the investigator is in the same department as the accused, has a direct reporting relationship with them, or has a conflict of interest regarding the incident.
This article summarizes the criteria that HR personnel must verify when selecting an internal investigator following a workplace harassment report, and the situations in which an external investigation or review by external experts should be considered when it is difficult to ensure objectivity through an internal investigation alone.
short answer
The workplace harassment investigator A person who has no direct conflict of interest with the whistleblower or the accused, adheres to confidentiality standards, and can reliably conduct interviews with relevant parties and manage records. It is recommended to decide as follows.
The person in charge of the investigation should not be selected simply based on "who is available." Neutrality issues may arise if they have a personal relationship with the complainant, are in the same chain of command as the accused, or are connected to the evaluation or personnel authority of the department where the incident occurred.
Furthermore, the investigator is not someone who prematurely concludes whether harassment has occurred; rather, their role is to verify the details of the report and related materials, organize statements from the parties involved and witnesses, and manage the investigation process to enable the company to make a reasonable judgment.
The key point is Selection of investigator → Identification of interests → Confidentiality guidance → Definition of investigation scope → Interviews and data verification → Designation of responsibility for results review It is to create a flow.
When will it be applied?
This article can be used as a reference in situations where you need to decide internally who should handle the investigation after a workplace harassment report has been filed.
For example, if the complainant identifies a team leader as the accused and the HR representative has worked closely with that team leader, if a manager from the same department intends to participate in the investigation, or if the accused is an executive or someone with personnel authority, greater caution must be exercised in selecting the investigator.
Furthermore, the neutrality and confidentiality standards of the investigator are crucial, especially when the reported content spans multiple departments, involves many witnesses, or has already spread within the organization. Depending on who the investigator is, it can vary whether the complainant feels safe making a statement, whether the accused feels their right to defense is guaranteed, and whether witnesses can speak the truth without pressure.
While an internal investigation may be sufficient in some cases, if it is difficult to ensure objectivity solely through an internal investigation or if there is a significant risk of conflicts of interest, you may consider a review by external experts, such as labor consultants, attorneys, or specialized investigation agencies. However, choosing an external investigation does not eliminate the company's internal responsibilities regarding receipt records, protective measures, confidentiality, and review of results.
What HR Managers Should Do
1. First, define the role of the investigator.
A workplace harassment investigator is not someone who predetermines the conclusion of a case. The investigator's role is to verify the facts based on the report, listen to statements from the parties involved and witnesses, review relevant materials, and document the investigation process.
The investigator must inform the complainant of the procedures and the scope of confidentiality, and inform the accused of the details under investigation and the opportunity to provide an explanation. Questions must be asked of witnesses only to the extent necessary, and measures must be taken to ensure that the contents of their statements are not shared unnecessarily.
Furthermore, investigators must not confuse the roles of counselor and investigator. While a complainant may express psychological distress, investigators must not treat counseling content as investigative data or present counseling as a condition for participation in the investigation. It is safer to guide complainants toward counseling support as a supplementary procedure separate from the investigation.
2. Verify the relationship of interest with the complainant and the respondent.
When selecting an investigator, the first thing to check is a conflict of interest. If the investigator has a direct personal relationship, conflict, evaluation relationship, supervisory relationship, or conflict of interest with the complainant or the accused, doubts may arise regarding the fairness of the investigation.
For example, if the investigator has worked in the same department as the accused for a long time, is the accused's direct superior or subordinate, or has a close personal relationship with the complainant, their suitability as the investigator must be re-evaluated. Rather than simply judging that "it is acceptable because they are HR" or "they are a manager, so they can be assigned the task," both their distance from the incident and their role must be considered.
If there are multiple candidates for the investigation manager, it is recommended to check the following points for each candidate.
-
Whether there is a direct acquaintance or conflict with the whistleblower
-
Whether there is a direct acquaintance or conflict with the accused
-
Whether they are in the same department or have a direct reporting relationship
-
Whether or not authority is connected to evaluation, personnel, promotion, disciplinary action, and compensation
-
The possibility of being involved in the process of the incident or becoming a witness
-
The possibility of being affected by the investigation results
-
Whether it can be accepted neutrally within the organization
If interests are ambiguous, you may consider having other HR personnel or external experts review the case together, rather than having a sole investigator.
3. Verify the same department or direct reporting relationship.
In workplace harassment cases, the same department or chain of command is a significant variable. If the accused is the complainant's direct superior, or if the investigator is on the same line as the accused, the complainant may feel anxious during the investigation process.
In particular, if the accused is a team leader, department head, executive, or evaluator, conducting the investigation solely within that line of authority can be burdensome. In such cases, you may consider a method in which personnel with minimal direct interest in the incident, such as HR, audit, compliance, or external experts, participate in the investigation.
Conversely, one must also be careful not to have someone close to the whistleblower serve as the investigator. While protecting the whistleblower is important, if the investigator appears biased toward one side, the accused or witnesses may question the fairness of the procedure.
The investigator must protect the whistleblower while maintaining the neutrality of the investigation process itself. If it is difficult to strike this balance, it may be necessary to change the investigator or consider an external investigation.
4. Verify investigation experience and interview capabilities.
A high rank alone does not make an investigator suitable. Investigating workplace harassment is a task that requires interviews, documentation, evidence review, confidentiality, and the prevention of secondary harm.
The investigator must be able to interview the complainant, the accused, and the witness separately, and must not induce a conclusion or pressure for a specific answer during the questioning process. In addition, the heard content must be recorded by distinguishing between facts and opinions, and unverified rumors or emotional expressions must not be written down as if they were investigation results.
If an investigation is handled by a person lacking interviewing skills, the complainant may experience secondary harm, or the accused may feel that they were not given sufficient opportunity to defend themselves. Therefore, when selecting an investigator, it is advisable to consider investigation experience, communication skills, documentation abilities, and awareness of confidentiality together, rather than just job title.
The interview questions can be organized in the following ways.
-
When, where, and what happened
-
Whether there were any remarks or actions
-
Whether it was repeated and what the duration was
-
Whether it was related to work instructions or evaluations
-
Are there any materials or references?
-
Is there currently a concern about additional damage or contact?
-
Is there any guidance on protective measures or procedures that you would like?
Investigators must verify the facts through questioning and avoid expressions that imply conclusions during the interview, such as “That is indeed harassment” or “You have to endure that much.”
5. Establish standards for personal information and confidentiality.
Workplace harassment investigations may involve sensitive personal information and statements. The investigator must determine the scope of information sharing and data retention standards before the investigation begins.
Report details, interview records, evidence, witness statements, and reviews of protective measures should be shared only with those who need them. Even if sharing with managers or relevant departments is necessary, it is advisable to limit the information to the minimum scope required for action rather than sharing the entire details of the incident.
In particular, to prevent the spread of rumors, the roles and scopes of access for investigators, review managers, personnel action managers, and EAP counselors must be distinguished. It is safer to manage counseling records separately from investigation records.
When managing survey data, it is recommended to establish the following standards.
-
People with access to survey data
-
Interview Record Writer and Storage Location
-
Method of submitting and storing evidence
-
Scope of information to share with the administrator
-
Witness Protection Standards
-
Data retention method after investigation is completed
-
Criteria for Separating Counseling Records and Investigation Records
Confidentiality does not end with simply saying, "Please keep it a secret." You must specifically manage who can view what information, for what purpose it is shared, and what information should not be shared.
6. Review the criteria for selecting internal and external investigations.
Not all cases must be handled through external investigation. If an internal representative with minimal conflicts of interest can be selected and sufficient investigative experience and confidentiality standards are met, the case can proceed as an internal investigation.
However, if it is difficult to ensure objectivity through an internal investigation alone, an external investigation or review by external experts may be considered. For example, an external review may be necessary if the accused is a representative, executive, or senior manager; if internal HR is closely connected to the incident; or if both the complainant and the accused find it difficult to trust the fairness of the internal investigation.
The situations in which an external investigation may be considered are as follows.
-
Cases where the reported person is a representative, executive, person with personnel authority, or senior manager
-
If all candidates for the investigation officer have a conflict of interest with the person involved in the case
-
In cases where the complainant or the accused has expressed strong distrust in the internal investigation
-
Cases where rumors have already spread within the organization and the credibility of the internal investigation has decreased
-
When an incident spans multiple departments or affiliates
-
When legal and labor issues are complex
-
Cases where there is a high risk of secondary damage or disadvantageous measures
-
In cases where issues were raised regarding existing investigation procedures
Utilizing external experts does not mean that the company is washing its hands of the matter. The company must continue to manage the scope of the investigation request, provision of materials, protective measures, confidentiality, review of results, and follow-up actions.
7. Determine the cases where a change of the investigator is necessary.
It may be necessary to change the investigator even during the investigation. Although there initially appeared to be no conflict of interest, specific relationships may be identified during the process, or specific questions regarding the investigator's neutrality may be raised.
In addition, problems may arise where the investigator made inappropriate remarks during the interview, the contents of the investigation were unnecessarily shared, or questions were asked that were excessively biased toward only one party.
Situations requiring a change in the investigator can be summarized as follows.
-
If it is confirmed that the investigator has a direct conflict of interest with the complainant or the accused
-
If the investigator is identified as a witness or related party to the case
-
When the investigator is part of the reported party's chain of command
-
Cases where investigation details were unnecessarily shared externally
-
If there are circumstances indicating that a conclusion was induced or pressure was exerted during the interview process
-
In cases where a party raises an issue of neutrality and a review reveals reasonable concerns
-
Cases where it is difficult to ensure the operational independence of the investigator
When changing the investigator, you must record the reason for the change, the date of the change, the method of handing over existing investigation data, and whether additional interviews are necessary. The change itself is not the issue; rather, what matters is why the change was made and how the subsequent procedures unfolded.
8. Identify the person responsible for reviewing the investigation results.
It is advisable to distinguish between the investigator and the person responsible for reviewing the investigation results. The investigator is responsible for verifying facts and organizing data, while the person responsible for reviewing results can play the role of examining the company's judgment and direction for follow-up actions based on the investigation materials.
In small organizations, there are cases where one person inevitably has to assume multiple roles, but it is advisable to separate investigation execution, results review, personnel decision-making, and counseling support whenever possible. If roles are mixed, the neutrality of the investigation or the management of personal information may be compromised.
The person responsible for reviewing the results must verify whether the investigation materials are sufficient, whether the parties were provided with an opportunity to explain, whether protective measures were appropriate, whether standards for preventing secondary harm were observed, and whether follow-up measures are necessary.
When reviewing investigation results, it is advisable to determine whether organizational-level measures are necessary to prevent recurrence, rather than focusing solely on the responsibility of specific individuals. For example, if issues such as inappropriate communication by managers, work allocation methods, company dinner culture, evaluation procedures, or reporting systems are interconnected, these should be designated as tasks for organizational improvement.
Checklist for Selecting Investigator
The checklist below is for internal inspection purposes to verify neutrality and procedural stability when selecting an internal investigator following a workplace harassment report.
especially Identification of conflicts of interest, verification of same department/direct reporting relationships, confidentiality standards, interview capabilities, and identification of the person responsible for reviewing results. These are basic verification items. If even one of these items is not sorted out, it is recommended to address it first before finalizing the investigator.
Among all items If 3 or more are insufficient It is recommended to re-examine whether an internal investigation alone is sufficient, or if a change in the investigator or a review by an external expert is necessary.
| division | Confirmation items | check |
|---|---|---|
| Role Definition | The role of the investigator and the scope of the investigation were determined first. | ☐ |
| Interests | We verified whether there was any friendship, conflict, or evaluation relationship with the complainant. | ☐ |
| Interests | We verified whether there was any friendship, conflict, or evaluation relationship with the reported party. | ☐ |
| Department relationship | The investigator confirmed whether the person in charge of the investigation was in the same department as the complainant and the person reported. | ☐ |
| command line | We checked the direct reporting relationship and whether there was a connection to personnel authority. | ☐ |
| Research experience | I checked if the person in charge had experience with interviews, records, and data review. | ☐ |
| Interview Competency | We verified whether it was possible to conduct an interview focused on fact-checking without leading to a conclusion. | ☐ |
| Confidentiality | We determined the access rights and sharing scope of the research data. | ☐ |
| personal information | Standards for the storage of interview records and evidence were established. | ☐ |
| External Review | We reviewed whether it is difficult to ensure objectivity through internal investigation alone. | ☐ |
| Change of person in charge | Situations requiring a change of person in charge during an investigation were established. | ☐ |
| Review of results | The investigator and the person responsible for reviewing the results were distinguished. | ☐ |
Common mistakes
The first mistake is assuming that someone is the "investigation manager" simply because they are an "HR manager."
While HR may participate in the investigation, neutrality issues may arise depending on their interests in the incident or their position within the organization. If an HR representative has a direct conflict of interest with the accused or is closely associated with the department involved in the incident, consideration should be given to using another representative or conducting an external review.
The second mistake is appointing a manager from the same department as the investigator.
While a manager within the same department may be well aware of the operational context of the incident, they may be in a supervisory or evaluative relationship with the complainant or the accused. In such cases, even if their participation as a witness or on-site explainer is permissible, a separate review is required to determine their suitability as an investigator.
The third mistake is assigning the role of counselor to the investigator as well.
An investigation is a procedure to verify facts, while counseling is a procedure to provide psychological support. Investigators must not treat counseling content as investigation data or link the use of counseling to cooperation with the investigation.
The fourth mistake is starting an investigation without establishing confidentiality standards.
Workplace harassment investigations may involve sensitive statements and personal information. You must determine who can view what information and to what extent it will be shared with managers before the investigation begins.
The fifth mistake is not reviewing whether an internal investigation alone is sufficient.
If the accused is a senior manager or has complex internal interests, it may be difficult to ensure objectivity through an internal investigation alone. In such cases, it is advisable to leave open the possibility of review by external experts.
If EAP support is needed
A workplace harassment investigation is a procedure for verifying facts and taking organizational measures. The EAP does not replace a workplace harassment investigation, legal judgment, disciplinary judgment, or formal reporting procedures.
However, the complainant, the accused, witnesses, and managers may all experience psychological burden during the investigation process. The complainant may worry about retaliation or the spread of rumors, while the accused may feel anxious about their right to defense and the fairness of the procedure. Witnesses may feel burdened by the responsibility of giving statements, and managers may struggle with team dynamics and preventing secondary harm.
In this case, the EAP can direct the user to a psychological support channel separate from the investigation. The important thing is to distinguish this so that whether counseling was used or the content of the counseling is not used as evidence for the investigation's judgment.
EAP guidance text can be used as follows.
If you experience psychological burden, anxiety, sleep problems, or stress from workplace relationships during the workplace harassment investigation process, you may utilize EAP counseling channels. EAP does not replace an investigation or legal judgment, and counseling is conducted separately from the investigation procedure.
Related Posts
-
Comprehensive Guide to Workplace Harassment Reporting Procedures and Prevention Education
-
What should HR do first when a workplace harassment report is received?
-
Guidelines for Operating Counseling Support After Reporting Workplace Harassment
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Must the person in charge of workplace harassment investigations be from HR?
It cannot be concluded that HR must be the sole investigator. It may vary depending on the organizational situation, involving HR, auditing, compliance, or external experts. What matters is whether there is minimal conflict of interest with the whistleblower and the accused, and whether the investigation process can be conducted neutrally.
Q2. Is it permissible for a manager from the same department to be the investigator?
While a manager in the same department may be familiar with the work context, they may have a supervisory or evaluative relationship with the complainant or the accused. In such cases, instead of appointing them as the investigator, you may consider having them participate as a witness or on-site explainer, while appointing the investigator separately.
Q3. Is it permissible to conduct an internal investigation if the accused is an executive or the representative?
If the accused is a senior manager or if it is difficult to ensure the credibility of an internal investigation, it is advisable to consider a review by an external expert. Even if an internal investigation is conducted, the independence of the investigator, the scope of access to data, and the person responsible for reviewing the results must be clearly distinguished.
Q4. Is it acceptable to assign the role of counseling support to the investigator?
Investigation and counseling have different purposes. It is advisable for the investigator to verify and record the facts, while counseling should be conducted as a separate procedure to provide psychological support. You must provide guidance to prevent any misunderstanding that counseling content is being used as investigation material.
Q5. Is it permissible to change the investigator during the investigation?
You may consider changing the investigator if a conflict of interest is identified late, if there are reasonable concerns regarding neutrality, or if a confidentiality issue arises. When making a change, it is recommended to record the reason for the change, the date of the change, the method of handing over existing investigation materials, and whether additional interviews are necessary.
Next step
The selection of a workplace harassment investigator is a critical step that determines the credibility of the process following the receipt of a report. HR personnel must verify the investigator's role, conflicts of interest, departmental and direct reporting relationships, interviewing capabilities, confidentiality standards, criteria for selecting internal or external investigations, and the person responsible for reviewing the results.
If you wish to overhaul your workplace harassment reporting response, investigator selection, victim protection, prevention of secondary harm, and EAP counseling support systems at the organizational level, review the operational methods suitable for your organization through a Nudge EAP implementation consultation.
👉 Go to Nudge EAP Implementation Consultation →
Source and Information
-
Ministry of Employment and Labor, Workplace Harassment Judgment and Prevention/Response Manual
-
Korea Labor Welfare Network, Introduction to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
This content is intended for general informational purposes. Specific legal matters, labor issues, investigation procedures, disciplinary actions, personal data protection, and psychological counseling matters may vary depending on the specific workplace situation, the latest laws, and official guidelines; therefore, a review by relevant experts or authorities may be required.
Comments5
- Unknown User3
넛지EAP(관리자) - Unknown User2
- Unknown User1