the employees. Their purpose is to determine and understand the facts so that the company can assess whether the allegations are substantiated and what further steps are required. But bias is a key risk in any internal investigation. When investigators judge a set of events or become tied to a certain narrative before the investigation is complete, they are unlikely to consider evidence that disputes ļñÕõİļñõčăõčëʞ²čÑļñÕõİţčÑõčëĴ will inevitably distort the truth. The evidence in the inquiry shows that huge amounts of investigative work was carried out, but the organization and its investigators had already formed a narrative early in the investigation. This bias is most likely why the investigators stopped short of ÕŗĭĆĔİõčëļñÕĴŁÊʴĭĔĴļČ²ĴļÕİĴʿ ËĔčļݲİŘÕŕõÑÕčËÕ²čÑËĔŁčļÕİʴ allegations any further than they did. :ĔİÕŗ²ČĭĆÕʞļñÕ|ĔĴļcêţËÕ could have investigated whether ļñÕĭÕİĴĔč²Ćţč²čËÕĴĔİĆõêÕĴļŘĆÕĴ ĔêĴŁÊʴĭĔĴļČ²ĴļÕİĴĴñĔŖÕѲčŘ ÕŕõÑÕčËÕĔêļñÕêļʣŁÊʴĭĔĴļČ²ĴļÕİĴ would likely have been happy to cooperate with these investigations, including providing personal bank statements, to corroborate their position that they had committed no theft. Act with fairness &ŕÕčŖñõĆÕ²ËļõčëĔčÊÕñ²ĆêĔê a company, internal investigators should always treat individuals with professionalism and respect, especially when undertaking interviews. The interview is part ĔêļñÕê²ËļʴţčÑõčëĭİĔËÕĴĴ²čÑļñÕ interviewees’ position in respect
“When investigators judge a set of events or become tied to a certain narrative before the investigation is complete, they are unlikely to consider evidence that disputes their thinking, ²čÑļñÕõİţčÑõčëĴŖõĆĆõčÕŕõļ²ÊĆŘÑõĴļĔİļļñÕ truth.”
to misconduct allegations must be considered fully and fairly. This means keeping an open mind to the possible conclusion of “no wrongdoing.” ñÕõčįŁõİŘñÕ²İÑļñ²ļĴŁÊʴ postmasters felt bullied and may have been lied to when airing their concerns about the IT systems. Those interviews were all missed opportunities to identify the real issue. If an interviewee is bullied, belittled or simply ignored by investigators, the stress and frustration make them less capable of putting forward their version of events, and the ËĔČĭ²čŘİõĴăĴĴõëčõţ˲čļë²ĭĴõč their understanding of the facts or further investigative leads. Companies must ensure that ļñÕõİõčŕÕĴļõë²ļĔİĴ²İÕŖÕĆĆʴļݲõčÕÑ and provide adequate resources and support to maintain their fairness during investigations. This might include measures like regular debriefs and upward reporting, involving a larger number of investigators to bring more perspective, or involving outside assistance who do not have close ties to anyone in the company. Independent oversight In investigations that might have a material impact on the company ʲİÕĭŁļ²ļõĔč²ĆĔİţč²čËõ²Ćʲõļ
is in the company’s interest to ensure some level of independent oversight. The private prosecution ĔêñŁčÑİÕÑĴĔêĴŁÊʴĭĔĴļČ²ĴļÕİĴ for serious offenses ought to have triggered this consideration at the ñõëñÕĴļĆÕŕÕĆĔêļñÕ|ĔĴļcêţËÕʿĴ management. A good practice is for the company to form a committee of relevant senior managers and independent board members to oversee the investigation process. This independent oversight can challenge poor investigative practices and ensure that alternative hypotheses are given proper consideration. Companies should also have a process for identifying the investigations that warrant outside assistance from lawyers, forensic accountants or data specialists. For serious matters, this is an important step to reduce the risk of bias and future fallout for the company. An internal investigation is only worth doing if the process is fair ²čÑĔÊāÕËļõŕÕʣñÕ|ĔĴļcêţËÕ debacle shows how poorly executed investigations can do more harm ļñ²čëĔĔѲčÑñĔŖê²İʴİÕ²Ëñõčë that damage can be.
Shaf Sohail is a director in Forensic ¥ƎǨƢхƥƥƎļưŘŧЩǨхhƺưşƺưхƺɫŘŧϭ
UK Post Office scandal
corporatecomplianceinsights.com | 27
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator