Few things are as humiliating as being asked to discuss your sex life with someone you work with, or, potentially worse, a complete stranger. It doesn't matter whether or not you've done something that warrants it or not.
In fact, given the situation, it's almost impossible for a person accused of sexual harassment not to become defensive. This can lead an investigator to conclude either a) the person must be guilty (why else would he be reacting this way?), or b) the person must be innocent (he must have been wrongly accused to be so upset).
In reality, the emotional reaction of the accused has little to do with whether or not the person actually did what s/he is accused of. In fact, whether or not the accusations are true, the person who's been accused of sexual harassment often feels just as victimized as the person who's made the complaint.
Common Mistakes When Interviewing the Accused
This can create problems for the investigator. Interviewing a person who's been accused of sexual harassment can be as uncomfortable for the novice investigator as for the accused. As a result, it's easy for him/her to fall into some common traps.
For example, some investigators use subterfuge in an attempt to get at "the truth." This ploy usually involves a) trying to ambush the respondent, or b) failing to provide sufficient details to allow the accused to address the allegations against him or her. Employers sometimes try to take the respondent by surprise to see how he or she reacts to the complaint, thinking this will prevent the accused from having time to make up a story.
However, the principle of procedural fairness dictates that the respondent should be advised that a complaint has been made and also advised that he or she will be given an opportunity to respond. Another error is to arbitrarily refuse to provide the identity of the complainant or details of the allegation in a sincere but misguided attempt to protect the complainants. However, failing to provide this essential information (without a very good reason, which will be discussed in a later article) makes it very difficult for respondents to adequately defend themselves.
Another pitfall is acting as if the accused is guilty. Employers often suspend respondents during a harassment investigation. Doing so without pay, though, is tantamount to disciplining the accused before a determination has been made. In fact, using the word "suspension" - even with pay - is suspect. When needed, it is much more preferable to e to simply advise respondents (and complainants, where appropriate) that they will be placed on a leave of absence with pay until the investigation is complete.
Third is the risk of subtly colluding with the accused. This trap is the other side of the investigative coin - showing bias in favor of the accused. This involves subtly implying that the complainant is either over-reacting or lying; this is especially likely when the complainant has a history of complaining or a poor work history. This can also happen when the accused is a high level executive or someone who is seen as too valuable to lose.
The Bottom Line
In another article we'll take a look at how to effectively interview the accused. For now, though, keep in mind that there are psychological traps, or biases, than can easily creep into interactions with the respondent. Fortunately, a bias recognized is the first step in a bias sterilized.
Joni E. Johnston, Psy.D. is a clinical/forensic psychologist, licensed private investigator, and CEO of WorkRelationships, an employee relations training and consulting firm. This firm specializes in difficult employee issues and provides workplace investigations, workplace violence assessments, and management training. http://www.workrelationships.com