Question

Some HR workers investigate possible company violations. Why is it important for these workers to reserve judgment and be impartial? Explain in your own words. Then, imagine a situation in which someone may NOT reserve judgment and/or may NOT be impartial. Describe that situation.

Answer 1

Why reserve judgment and be impartial (in simple terms)
- To find the truth: Jumping to conclusions can make you miss facts or ignore evidence. Staying neutral lets you gather all relevant information before deciding what happened.
- To be fair to everyone: People’s jobs, reputations, and livelihoods can be at stake. An impartial approach protects both the person who raised the issue and the person accused.
- To avoid legal and financial risk: Biased handling of complaints can lead to wrongful-discipline claims, lawsuits, regulatory penalties, or costly settlements.
- To keep trust in the process: Employees need to believe investigations are fair; otherwise they won’t report problems, morale falls, and the company’s culture suffers.
- To maintain credibility: Decisions based on a thorough, unbiased investigation are easier to defend internally and legally and lead to better, more consistent outcomes.

An example of not reserving judgment / not being impartial
Imagine an HR investigator who is good friends with a department manager. A staff member files a harassment complaint against that manager. Before interviewing anybody, the investigator tells colleagues they “know Mike wouldn’t do that” and only contacts the complainant once, then conducts most of the interviews informally with the manager’s team (who are coached by the manager). The investigator also downplays text messages and emails that support the complaint and omits those items from the final report.

Consequences in that situation:
- The investigator misses or ignores key evidence, so the outcome is skewed in favor of the manager.
- The complainant feels silenced and loses trust in HR, and other employees become reluctant to report issues.
- If the complainant pursues legal action, the company faces a stronger case because HR’s process was biased and can be shown to be unfair.
- The investigator’s credibility and the company’s reputation suffer.

Signs this is happening include statements of assumed guilt/innocence early on, unequal interviewing of witnesses, ignoring documentary evidence, or clear conflicts of interest (personal relationships). An effective investigator avoids those pitfalls by declaring conflicts, collecting all relevant evidence, interviewing all sides, and making findings only after reviewing the full picture.