Summary

A compassionate culture will lead to the reduction, and better handling, of employee investigations.

This chapter discusses compassionate culture and compassionate practices in investigations.

It covers the employee's need for autonomy, belonging and contribution (ABC), and examines four elements of compassionate leadership – listening, understanding, empathizing and helping.

It concludes with the benefits of a compassionate culture to employees and organizations.

Introduction

Approaches to human resources (HR) management practices are ingrained in the DNA of organizations. In some cases, these practices are not written down, but the unwritten norms become established over time through repeated use.

Alongside this are HR policies designed historically in the context of legal frameworks. Here the emphasis is placed on risk mitigation and, in the case of employee investigations, avoidance of employment tribunal claims. This has led to HR practitioners adopting compliance- focused approaches to HR practices (see Chapter 2).

In developing HR professionals, emphasis has been placed on them knowing every facet of policy and not deviating from it. It can feel safer to avoid falling foul of the law by following policy and process to the letter.

Consequently, even in light of overtly poor outcomes, there can be a tendency to follow formal policy and process excessively rather than using it where it might fit. Moreover, this has become accepted by employees, employers and trade unions.

Summary

Conducting investigations can harm the people who lead them.

This chapter examines the role of investigators. It focuses on the way in which line managers handle disciplinary issues, but acknowledges that in some organizations, human resources (HR) practitioners may lead.

It concludes by discussing the impact that investigations may have on those involved.

Introduction

The previous chapter discussed the experience of individuals subject to investigation. This chapter examines the central role played by the people responsible for initiating and conducting investigations. The decisions made by managers, and the HR practitioners who advise them, can have huge consequences for those involved. However, there are also potential negative impacts on the investigators themselves.

Managing workplace discipline

In most organizations, operational managers are responsible for the management of discipline. This reflects the fact that in the UK, disciplinary procedures are essentially managerial processes with very little third- party involvement.

Managers usually initiate and conduct investigations. They also usually chair disciplinary hearings, make decisions and hear appeals. While in the past, HR practitioners would often take an active role in implementing disciplinary policy procedure, the devolution of people management from HR to the frontline has meant that this responsibility now usually rests with managers.

Summary

Disciplinary investigations can harm the employees involved.

This chapter discusses the professional, reputational, financial, health, emotional, social and family domains of wellbeing affected by investigations.

Each of the potential impacts may be amplified for people in marginalized groups.

Introduction

There has been a growing awareness of the impact that disciplinary processes can have on individuals taken through them.

The case of Amin Abdullah, a nurse who took his own life following a seriously flawed, unfair and protracted disciplinary procedure (Verita, 2018), led to discussion about the impact of these processes. An independent investigation of the organization followed, leading to the development of national guidance on employee investigations and robust communication from NHS England stating that ‘sadly, Amin's experiences are far from unique’ and that ‘we owe it to him and the others who have suffered in similar circumstances to act now’ (NHS Improvement, 2019).

Subsequent research has identified a wide range of impacts on employees ‘under investigation’. This includes exposure to extreme psychological pressure, distress linked to confusion, loss of agency, shame, and social and emotional isolation (Hussain, 2022). The distress is likely to have an impact on an employee's mental health and, in some cases, this can be severe and long- lasting.

The patient safety movement

Forty years ago, healthcare professionals came together to form a movement (Lark et al, 2018).

The patient safety movement acknowledged that, sometimes, their practice, behaviours and assumptions harmed patients – and that often this harm was avoidable.

It was a turning point for healthcare which had at its ethical core the intention to ‘do no harm’.

The ‘avoidable patient harm’ movement wasn't about pointing fingers or apportioning blame. It was a call to healthcare professionals to consider the possibility of unintentional harm in the care of their patients. They needed to stop assuming that everything they did had a positive impact or, in the worst- case scenario, a neutral one.

This simple change of assumption has led to the saving of thousands of lives across the world.

Avoiding harm

In 2024, the Healthcare People Management Association (HPMA), which represents human resources (HR) professionals working in healthcare across the UK, launched its ‘Avoiding Harm’ campaign (HPMA, 2025).

Summary

There are wider factors beyond the disciplinary policy that organizations need to consider when seeking to improve their employee investigations.

This chapter highlights key actions – some for the organization as a whole and some for individual human resources (HR) practitioners and investigating officers. Most of these factors lie beyond the substance of a disciplinary policy itself, though there are likely to be benefits from reviewing policy in light of them.

Introduction

Running a disciplinary process well means that investigators need to think and operate beyond a rigid and literal interpretation of the disciplinary policy itself.

The chapters in this book have highlighted the complexity of the process. This is principally because addressing workplace issues involving human beings is often as complex as the issues themselves. And disciplinaries often take place in demanding circumstances, within challenging systems and limited resources.

An organization's disciplinary policy is vitally important because it provides direction for the investigation and clarifies roles and responsibilities. It also serves to protect the organization from the legal and reputational harm that may arise from a failure to comply with established guidelines and good practice.

However, there are a wide range of factors that an organization's disciplinary policy, and guidelines from national bodies like the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas), is unlikely to cover. These factors are rarely documented, but understanding and using them to inform and support practice could make all the difference to the outcome of an investigation – for both employees and employer.

Conflict unfortunately is all around us. In wars and in growing tensions between nations. Within nations and across society, where there appears to be growing intolerance and polarization.

This impacts the world of work, and in organizations of all kinds, conflict, bullying and harassment are too prevalent and are detrimental to individuals as well as to organizational outcomes. Conflict is a drag on productivity. Every hour spent in conflict is an hour not spent on getting the job done. Conflict at work is aligned to higher rates of sickness and to a management and business leadership distracted from their core goals.

Organizations have a responsibility to understand and resolve conflicts, and to create supportive and inclusive cultures which are good for their people and which drive positive business outcomes. But equally, individuals have their role to play in collaborating, sharing and engaging with colleagues for the shared purpose.

Human resources (HR) as a profession has a crucial role to play in making all this happen. In a fast- changing and challenging world, and in complex work spaces, we help define, understand and express organizational culture. We help establish clear policies of what is expected, ensure that all the people recruitment, development and management practices are fair and open, and support mental as well as physical wellbeing. Together, these are all vital elements in enabling positive business outcomes and performance.

Summary

The harm that can be caused by avoidable or poorly managed disciplinary investigations affects more than the individuals involved. The organizational culture of teams and, indeed, the whole organization can be affected.

This chapter discusses four areas of organizational culture that might be negatively impacted by investigations: the psychological contract, psychological safety, organizational justice and organizational reputation.

Introduction

Organizational culture can have a major impact on how an organization functions, whatever its activity, be it public or private sector.

Within UK healthcare, numerous formal investigations over the past 50 years have made ‘poor working culture’ synonymous with failures in care, institutional abuse and very poor clinical practice.

The problem is not restricted to healthcare. The UK Post Office scandal has seen persecutory and illegal management practice linked to a ‘closed and toxic’ culture where employees feared raising concerns (see the following case study). Likewise, reference has been made to unhealthy culture and cover- ups in religious organizations around the world.

Summary

The concept of avoidable employee harm provides a novel lens for understanding and improving the impact of management practices, such as employee investigations, on employee wellbeing.

This chapter introduces the concept and its definition. It examines the benefits of introducing it into the workplace. It also considers steps which may help further develop the construct and its application within organizational settings. Introduction

Unnecessary harm to employees can be caused by:

• blindly or unthinkingly following policies;

• considering certain action as necessary;

• considering certain negative consequences as unavoidable.

This chapter aims to help human resources (HR) and managers understand and redress problems in this area.

It presents avoidable employee harm as a novel concept that may help minimize the negative effects on employees of HR policies and people management practice.

Development of the construct of avoidable employee harm

Through medical history, patients for the most part trusted their doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. The professionals themselves would have been affronted by any suggestion that they could harm their patients.

This changed in the 1980s, when patient safety and the closely related construct of avoidable patient harm started to become better understood. There is now a shared understanding of avoidable patient harm, which has become embedded in healthcare standards, procedures, training and research (World Health Organization, 2009). Avoidable patient harm still occurs, but patient safety has improved due to this work (Illingworth et al 2022).

Summary

Human resources (HR) practitioners need to ‘work in the grey’ – navigating tensions between minimizing risk to the organization and supporting the wellbeing of its people.

This chapter reflects on the evolution of the HR function, focusing on the UK experience.

It describes different HR roles, the legislative context within which HR works and the different tensions which arise – all in relation to employee investigations.

Introduction

The purpose of the HR function and the contributions of HR practitioners’ impact employee investigations.

The perception of how HR can add value to employee investigations is shaped by internal factors, such as what is valued in a workplace, and external factors, such as legislation.

There is a tension for HR professionals in balancing the best interests of both employer and employee. For example, they may be mitigating organizational risk while also trying to support employees. ‘Working in the grey’ is a phrase which will resonate with many HR colleagues.

This chapter considers the development of HR and offers some suggestions for how practitioners could work in disciplinary investigations. It argues that the focus should be on informal resolution where possible, using formal resolution as the last resort.

For the avoidance of doubt, the chapter is not arguing that formal resolution should always be avoided. However, a more inquirybased and compassionate approach brings opportunities to promote transparency, honesty and fairness in the workplace.

Summary

A new approach to employee investigations – making them a ‘last resort’ – led to one organization reducing its disciplinary investigations, sick days and costs.

This chapter describes the organization's systematic and coordinated approach, the lessons learnt and the results it achieved.

Introduction

In 2022, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (ABUHB), an organization in NHS Wales employing over 16,000 people, developed a plan to reduce avoidable disciplinary investigations (Cooper et al, 2024).

The plan introduced the concept of ‘avoidable employee harm’ (see Chapter 10) and aimed to make employee investigations a ‘last resort’. This is where cases could be managed informally, without jeopardizing the safety of staff and patients, and where no formal disciplinary investigation would be required.

The health board used a quality improvement (QI) approach, introduced into healthcare following application in other industries, notably manufacturing.

QI is a continuous process for enhancing the quality of products, services or processes. It involves identifying inefficiencies, understanding the root causes of problems and implementing changes to achieve better outcomes. QI typically relies on data driven methods, collaboration and iterative cycles of testing and refinement.

Summary

To minimize harm, possible discrimination and costs, it is vital that organizations have fair, comprehensive, clear and compassionate disciplinary policies and processes in place.

This chapter discusses the limited evidence on which to review or develop policy. It sets out a framework for policy review and an innovative, evidence- based approach to guide the development of new policy.

Introduction

Organizational policies and practices set out the rules of the workplace.

The disciplinary and grievance policies of UK employers must follow a full and fair procedure in line with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) Code of Practice. While employers are not mandated to enshrine this in a particular format, the code does make clear that ‘rules and procedures for handling disciplinary and grievance situations … should be set down in writing, be specific and clear’ (Acas, 2015).

Acas research on workplace conflict management highlights challenges in this area.

First, the greatest costs of workplace conflict arise from its escalation to formal procedures, particularly when it leads to resignation or dismissal, rather than from employment tribunal claims, as is often assumed (see Chapter 4).

While much policy focus is on tribunal challenges (Saundry and Urwin, 2021), Acas’ findings highlight the need for policies that encourage early resolution.

Second, while early informal resolution is widely supported in principle, several factors can make it difficult to implement in practice.

Workplace managers often lack the essential skills, confidence, relationships, systems and resources needed for effective resolution, as covered in Chapter 2 (Saundry et al, 2019; Nash and Hann, 2020; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2022).

The people profession faces choices every day that have ramifications for the quality of people's lives.

We make decisions that can impact people's financial security, their health and wellbeing, their happiness and their careers. It is an incredible responsibility to have and one that can, at times, be a heavy burden.

There are situations which dictate that, for the benefit or security of organizations, we must take action that we know will inevitably have negative impacts on people, whether that is individually or at scale. We should act with compassion and care in these circumstances, yet often we have limited choice as to what to do. There is a magnificent upside. The work the profession does really matters to people. Everyday, we work with living, breathing human beings who bring their hopes, dreams and aspirations to the workplace. We improve the trajectory of careers. We help people unlock potential they may not realize they have. Every time we help improve that capability, we create a ripple effect of better economic and social outcomes, an opportunity to shape better working lives and impact communities.

We have the opportunity to shape the future to ensure that it is more positive than the past. We can make changes to benefit organizations and the people within them, both today and in the future.

Disciplinary processes can be painful, draining, contentious and damaging to everyone involved. In some ways, they can seem like relics of a bygone age, reflecting approaches to education and justice that can seem out of step with other aspects of modern life.