Posted on: 13/11/2025

Thought Leadership

Rachael Simpson challenges the public sector’s instinct to keep workplace investigations in-house, exposing the risks of delays, bias, and strained relationships. For employees, outsourcing offers impartiality, quicker resolutions, and confidence in fairness. For employers, it safeguards trust, ensures legal robustness, reduces hidden costs, and signals strong leadership by valuing investigations as a strategic lever for culture, not just compliance.

By Rachael Simpson Chartered FCIPD, Principal Consultant HR

Picture the scenario: a senior manager explaining why their investigation has stalled for the third month running, echoing concerns heard across the sector. "We pride ourselves on handling everything in-house," comes the familiar response, "but sometimes there's a nagging question about whether we're doing our people—and our organisation—a disservice." But pause for a moment—if delays, lack of expertise, and strained relationships are so common, why do we still default to handling investigations internally? And what does this really say about leadership priorities in the public sector?"

This sentiment resonates increasingly across the public sector. Organisations have built their reputations on public service excellence, on being self-sufficient and accountable. Yet when it comes to workplace investigations—those complex, sensitive processes that can make or break careers and organisational culture—perhaps there's a tendency to be too protective about keeping everything within familiar boundaries.

The reality across numerous public sector organisations is that internal investigations, whilst well-intentioned, often become casualties of good intentions. The task assigned to an already stretched HR Business Partner or a well-meaning manager who, despite their best efforts, lacks the specialist investigation skills the situation demands. Meanwhile, the complainant grows frustrated with delays, the respondent remains in limbo, and the wider team watches nervously as workplace relationships deteriorate.

Consider the finance director who finds themself investigating allegations of bullying within their own senior team. Despite decades of experience and unquestionable integrity, the challenge becomes clear:

"How can there be true objectivity when investigating long-time colleagues? And perhaps more importantly what message does it send to employees if they believe impartiality is compromised from the outset?"

The concern extends beyond perception—it's about the genuine difficulty of maintaining professional distance when personal relationships are at stake.

This is where the strategic value of outsourcing becomes clear. When commissioning external investigation specialists, local authorities or public sector organisations are not admitting defeat or showing weakness. Instead, they’re demonstrating effective leadership by recognising that some situations require dedicated expertise that they simply don't possess in-house. Think of it like engaging external auditors or legal counsel—they wouldn't dream of conducting their own statutory audits, so why do they hesitate to seek specialist support for equally complex investigative work? Could it be that investigations are still undervalued as a strategic lever for culture and trust, rather than just a compliance task?"

The independence that external investigators bring cannot be overstated. They arrive without baggage, without preconceptions about personalities or politics, and without the concern that their findings might affect their own career prospects. This objectivity extends beyond just the investigation process—it provides reassurance to all parties that the outcome will be based purely on evidence and proper procedure, not influenced by internal dynamics or pressures.

However, independence is just the beginning. Independent investigators bring a depth of expertise that most internal teams simply cannot match. They understand the nuances of employment law, the intricacies of natural justice, and the psychological dynamics at play in workplace disputes. They know how to conduct interviews that extract meaningful information without leading or intimidating witnesses. They understand how to handle complex evidence and maintain proper documentation standards that will withstand scrutiny if matters escalate to employment tribunals.

The difference this expertise makes is evident across organisations. Where internal investigations might take months to reach tentative conclusions, experienced external investigators typically complete their work within weeks, producing comprehensive reports that stand up to legal challenge. The quality of questioning, the thoroughness of evidence gathering, and the clarity of recommendations consistently exceed what stretched internal teams can deliver.

From a resource perspective, the business case becomes even more compelling. When we calculate the true cost of internal investigations—the time invested by multiple senior staff members, the productivity lost while key people are distracted, the potential for repeated reviews and appeals—external investigation often proves remarkably cost-effective. More importantly, it frees up internal teams to focus on their core responsibilities rather than becoming hindered in complex investigative processes they're not trained to handle.

There's also the question of consistency. Public sector organisations rightly face scrutiny over fairness and equity in their processes. When different managers handle different investigations, using varying approaches and standards, risk of creating perceptions of unfairness that can damage employee confidence and expose to discrimination claims. External investigators bring standardised methodologies and consistent quality that helps maintain public and employee trust in our processes.

The risk mitigation benefits extend beyond just the immediate investigation. Poor internal investigations create legal vulnerabilities that can prove far more costly than the original external investigation fee. Organisations can face substantial tribunal awards not because they handled the underlying issue incorrectly, but because their investigation process was flawed. External independent specialists understand these risks and design their processes to minimise exposure.

Perhaps most importantly, outsourcing investigations helps preserve crucial internal relationships. When colleagues investigate colleagues, the process often leaves lasting damage to working relationships regardless of the outcome. The investigating manager may find it difficult to return to normal working relationships with both complainants and respondents. Team dynamics can be permanently altered. By using external investigators, these relationships can be protected and allow internal teams to focus on supporting people through difficult times rather than judging them.

The objections are usually predictable. "It's too expensive," managers protest, often without calculating the true cost of internal alternatives. "They won't understand our culture," others worry, missing the point that cultural understanding can sometimes hinder rather than help objective investigation. "It makes us look weak," some suggest, failing to recognise that seeking appropriate expertise actually demonstrates strong leadership.

The most effective organisations have moved beyond these concerns to develop strategic partnerships with independent investigation specialists. They've created frameworks that allow rapid deployment when needed, ensuring quality and value whilst maintaining the flexibility to handle routine matters internally. They've recognised that outsourcing investigations isn't about replacing internal capabilities—it's about complementing them with specialist expertise when the situation demands it.

As public sector leaders, they have a responsibility to ensure their investigation processes are robust, fair, and effective. In an era of increasing scrutiny and rising expectations, can they really afford to rely solely on well-meaning but under-equipped internal resources? Sometimes the most strategic decision they can make is knowing when to seek help.

The question isn't whether organisations can handle investigations internally—it's whether they should. Could it be that investigations are still undervalued as a strategic lever for culture and trust, rather than just a compliance task? At a time when trust in leadership is one of the most valuable currencies in the public sector, are leaders willing to risk that trust on processes that may not withstand scrutiny?"