SRIG 24-52: Does congruency between individual expectation and the behaviour reported by a complainant in workplace investigation bias individuals’ judgments of credibility and likelihood of the event?

What was the issue being addressed?

Workplace investigations are a tool used by organizations to support the health and safety of their employees. Often, they are conducted in the event of allegations regarding workplace misconduct, such as bullying, harassment, theft, and discrimination. Over the past years, there have been strides made in improving the quality and objectivity of workplace investigations to ensure fair assessments. We aimed to contribute to this work by looking specifically into the initial investigative stage due to the lack of research in this area. 

Provide a brief, lay description of the work undertaken/initiative.

In the initial stage of workplace investigations, investigators receive the names and positions of both the person that filed a complaint (complainant) and the person that was accused (respondent). The issue addressed was whether the respondents' racial names and workplace positions, when paired with stereotyped or non-stereotyped information, served as biasing information that affected subsequent credibility judgements of the complainant. We found that positions can indeed affect perceptions of how credible the complainant seems despite a lack of any conclusive evidence present in the complaint. 

What is the expected impact this project will have on the community?

The study revealed that knowledge of workplace position offered during the outset of investigations can set expectations regarding the complainant’s credibility. This can be considered moving forward by using standardized practices and bias mitigation strategies to improve the objectivity of workplace investigations.