Things that Matter

So you are grappling with a need for an investigation of your organization's activities or personnel. You are being careful about your public statements, avoiding terms like risk management and implications that you already know key outcomes of the forthcoming investigation. Of course, if there is to be an investigation, you need an investigator. That leads to the next potential pitfall.

#3: Don't choose the wrong investigator.

For starters, you do not need a novice: you want someone who has experience with investigations. Some type of law enforcement background is a plus. You need someone who communicates well with others. At the same time, given the sensitivity of the situation, you need someone who has a reputation for maturity, discretion, and integrity.

When there is public scandal, or a risk of public scandal, and a corresponding need to allay or address public concern, the independence of the investigator becomes especially important. Independence has several aspects.

First, the investigator needs to be independent of the accused. If an investigation of a business executive's behavior were required, one would not want to choose the executive's golf buddy. The appearance of bias would pose a problem. Similarly, when investigating a Christian leader, one would want to avoid choosing a ministry associate or other person who frequently appeared or worked with that leader.

Second, the investigator needs to be independent of the general situation. The investigator generally should not be known for taking sides on the types of issues that are involved. (However, if you already know that you have a problem and you know of a reputable organization that focuses on the other side, you may find it helpful to use that organization to help convince observers that you are truly serious about rooting out the problem). You especially do not want an investigator who is known for defending individuals or organizations finding themselves in similar difficulties.

Third, the investigator needs to be independent of you. This is not the time to choose a person who you would describe as a personal friend of the organization or its interim leadership. You do not yet know how far the problems go, and they may need to be investigated, too.

As part of that, information should not flow through the hands of your organization to get into the hands of the investigator. Persons with potentially relevant information should have clearly presented means to provide information directly to the investigators without going through your organization. (Note that, where it appears that crimes may have been committed, the investigator needs to take pains not to get in the way of information flowing to proper government authorities or to appear to be getting in the way.) The need for a direct channel for the flow of information is especially significant when there is prior history or other reasons to question the organization's handling of issues of this type. It need not be the case that any such accusations or doubts are actually true. Remember that the investigation and resulting action and outcome needs not only to be right but also to look right.

Further, the investigator must be sensitive to the issue of roles. The division of responsibility between the investigator and the organization and its interim leadership must be maintained. The investigator should not be presented as an interim leader or staff member or in some other way that could make the investigator look part of the organization and thus risk his independence.

Finally, the investigator needs to communicate through word and tone an appropriate sense of the seriousness about the situation. While humor is often a way to break the ice or ease tension, it generally does not fit in situations of this gravity. Moreover, humor can easily suggest that the person does not really grasp the gravity of the situation.

Independence and seriousness are critical. Do not fall into the pit.