September 2024
PSHRA Annual Conference 2024 officially kicks off on Wednesday, Sept. 4, with a host of afternoon concurrent sessions, to be followed by an opening keynote address from Jennifer Moss.
This year’s event also offered attendees a chance to get a head start on their conference experience with a trio of preconference workshops.
Beatriz Coningham, Ed.D, led one of those workshops, “Fair and Effective Workplace Investigations for Public Sector HR Professionals.” Coningham, a global consultant in organizational leadership, learning, change and human resource management, laid out a number of objectives for the group, such as:
⃰ Understanding the legal frameworks and compliance requirements necessary for conducting workplace investigations,
⃰ Mastering communication techniques that prioritize confidentiality and victim protection,
⃰ Learning advanced investigative techniques to conduct thorough and effective investigations, and
⃰ Engaging in scenario-based activities that simulate real-life challenges.
Throughout a series of small group discussions, the 20 HR leaders attending the workshop collaborated to talk through investigation principles and best practices, such as determining who should be on investigation teams, the steps involved in receiving a complaint, and how the complainant is informed of the process, for example.
Coningham laid out a theoretical situation to demonstrate how to put some of those practices into action.
Hypothetical State Government Agency (HSGA) recently promoted several employees to leadership roles. Karen Mitchell, a respected 62-year-old senior project manager who has been with HSGA for 30 years, was not among those promoted.
Her 25-year old colleague John Davis, however, did receive a promotion, to the same position for which Karen applied. Disheartened and disappointed in the organization, Karen believes that her age was the primary factor in the decision to pass her over for a promotion, and submitted a formal complaint to HSGA’s HR department.
As part of the group activity that followed, Coningham outlined steps to address such a complaint. First, for example, is how to receive a complaint—practicing active listening, empathy and impartiality; managing expectations by laying out timelines and what the process will encompass; covering confidentiality concerns and ensuring protection from retaliation.
In the discussion surrounding the hypothetical scenario, attendees uncovered some very real challenges that they and their HR teams encounter in conducting investigations within their agencies, such as being careful with the words they use during conversations with the affected employees.
For example, one attendee noted that her agency’s legal counsel has advised the HR team to be extremely careful to avoid saying “sorry” in conversation with a complainant, as saying that HR is “sorry” that he or she did not receive a promotion could imply that the agency “did wrong,” and could unintentionally add to the complainant’s frustration.
Coningham urged attendees to follow the advice of their agency’s legal counsel in such a case. She also recommended thinking about ways to be empathetic without risking further escalating the situation.
“Instead, maybe say something like, ‘Thank you for coming forward, and giving us an opportunity to hear you,’ ” Coningham said.
These potential pitfalls underscore the importance of having strong written policies that spell out what investigations will entail, and give HR a framework to work within as they conduct an investigation, she said, offering final conclusions and recommendations for conducting investigations.
For example, Coningham suggested working with the agency’s legal team, using straightforward terms with involved parties, confirming or disconfirming any alleged policy violations, and managing expectations by explaining the process. She also reiterated the need to remain impartial throughout the course of an investigation as well.
“If an employee comes forward with a complaint, that’s a big step,” said Coningham. “And remember that there are several parties that are impacted by an investigation, and they all expect due process. We owe that to them before we make any decisions, even in our own minds.”
