It rarely starts with a formal complaint.
More often, it starts with a conversation.
An employee approaches HR. Sometimes cautiously. Sometimes emotionally. They describe behaviour that has made work feel unsafe or untenable. Other people are mentioned. The timing is unclear. The employee may not yet know what they want to happen next.
HR listens. HR asks careful questions. HR documents what it can.
At this stage, one question should be asked early:
Are there any actual or perceived conflicts of interest — particularly involving senior leadership?
Where the concerns involve a senior manager, a member of leadership, or someone within HR’s reporting line, independence should be considered immediately. The integrity of the process depends not only on fairness, but on how fairness is experienced.
It is usually after this first conversation – once HR begins to grasp the scope of what has been raised – that a harder question surfaces:
Who should investigate?
This is typically when organisations reach out to Catalyse Consulting. Not at the very first signal, and not when things have already escalated – but when it becomes clear that this situation may require more than a routine HR response.
When HR investigates
For many organisations, asking HR to take the lead feels natural. HR understands internal policies, organisational context, and the people involved. They are trusted to handle sensitive matters.
In practice, HR often steps into investigations while juggling many other responsibilities. At the same time, they are expected to decide:
- whether what has surfaced warrants a formal investigation
- how to define scope when information is incomplete
- how many people need to be spoken to
- how to manage potential conflicts of interest
- how to document decisions that may later be scrutinised
Many HR professionals have not been trained as investigators. They may be unsure how to interpret differing accounts, how much detail to seek, or when an investigation has gone far enough. When concerns involve harassment or abuse of power, uncertainty increases.
HR is also embedded in the organisation. Existing relationships can shape how comfortable people feel speaking openly. This becomes especially acute where the concerns involve senior leaders or individuals with significant influence. In such cases, even a well-conducted internal investigation may struggle to command confidence. Perceived conflict of interest alone can undermine credibility.
When Managers investigate
In some organisations, particularly smaller ones, investigations are delegated to a line manager. The logic is practical: the manager knows the team and the context.
This can work for minor or straightforward issues. But when concerns involve seniority, power imbalance, or fear of repercussions, it becomes difficult.
Managers may feel personally implicated. They may have loyalties. Informal conversations can blur boundaries. From the employee’s perspective, speaking candidly to someone who controls workload or appraisal can feel risky. From the organisation’s perspective, the credibility of the process may later be questioned.
When Legal leads
Legal teams bring rigour and a strong understanding of risk. This is an important part of any investigation.
At the same time, legal processes are shaped by evidentiary thresholds and defensibility. In situations involving harassment or trauma, this focus can narrow what surfaces. Survivors may struggle to recount events in a linear way. Memories may be fragmented. Emotional responses vary widely.
Without an understanding of how trauma affects recall and disclosure, these patterns can be misunderstood. Important context may never fully emerge.
When external legal counsel investigates
Some organisations appoint external lawyers as investigators, assuming independence because they are not internal staff.
This can be appropriate in some contexts. However, when counsel is also advising the organisation, their role is not fully separate. Employees are often aware of this, and it can affect how much they are willing to share.
Increasingly, scrutiny extends beyond outcomes to the independence and credibility of the investigative process itself.
When independent investigators are brought in
By the time Catalyse is contacted, HR has usually already taken initial steps. They have spoken to the complainant at least once and begun to consider next steps.
What often prompts the call is a growing recognition:
- several people may be involved
- power dynamics appear significant
- the behaviour described may constitute harassment or misconduct
- HR is being pulled into multiple roles
- HR team does not have the bandwidth, expertise or capacity to take on an investigation.
At this point, organisations tend to engage Catalyse in one of two ways.
In some cases, we support HR to move forward with greater clarity – helping refine scope, assess conflicts of interest, decide on proportional next steps, and structure interviews so they are fair, careful, and defensible.
In other cases – particularly where senior leaders are involved, where reporting lines create actual or perceived conflicts of interest, or where independence is essential to maintain confidence – we conduct the investigation ourselves. In such situations, early appointment of an external investigator is often the most prudent course.
Why multidisciplinary expertise matters
Workplace investigations are not purely legal exercises. They involve people navigating stress, fear, and hierarchy.
Catalyse’s investigations are led by senior practitioners with legal training, deep experience in workplace harassment and misconduct, and long-standing work with survivors, organisations, and policymakers.
Legal expertise supports procedural fairness. Trauma-informed practice shapes how interviews are conducted and how disclosures are understood. Organisational and leadership experience ensures that power dynamics are recognised rather than overlooked.
Together, this allows investigations to be rigorous without becoming mechanical.
A decision that signals values
Choosing who investigates is not just a procedural decision.
Where conflicts of interest exist – or may reasonably be perceived – independence is not a sign of escalation. It is a safeguard.
There is no single model that fits every situation. But organisations that bring in the right expertise at the right moment – after listening carefully, but before complexity escalates – are better placed to navigate these situations with clarity and credibility.
And that, ultimately, protects both the organisation and the people within it.