Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association

After more than three decades working in policing, government and private investigations, I have learned that workplace conflict rarely begins with one dramatic incident. More often, it develops gradually: a difficult conversation is avoided, expectations remain unclear, communication becomes increasingly guarded, and employees begin interpreting every exchange through a perspective of mistrust.

By the time a formal complaint is made, the workplace may already be deeply divided.

An investigation can determine what more likely than not occurred and whether workplace policies were breached. What it cannot do, on its own, is restore working relationships, rebuild confidence in leadership or address the conditions that allowed the conflict to escalate.

A finding is not a recovery plan.

This is especially important when allegations are not substantiated. Employers may conclude that no further action is required because the evidence did not establish harassment or another policy violation. However, “not substantiated” does not necessarily mean that nothing happened or that the workplace is functioning well. The evidence may still reveal disrespectful communication, inconsistent management practices, unresolved role confusion, ineffective supervision or employees who can no longer work together productively.

Those issues do not disappear when the investigation report is delivered.

Workplace recovery begins via acknowledging what the process revealed beyond the formal findings. Was the conflict intensified by unclear authority? Were concerns allowed to linger? Did employees receive inconsistent direction? Was a manager avoiding intervention because the individuals involved were experienced, influential or simply difficult to manage? Did employees lose confidence that concerns would be addressed fairly?

In my experience, delayed intervention frequently transforms manageable conflict into competing allegations about motive, credibility and character. By then, each person may have accumulated months, or years of examples confirming their view of the other.

Recovery requires structure. The parties need well-defined expectations about professional conduct, communication and decision-making. Reporting relationships and responsibilities may need to be clarified. Mediation or facilitated discussion may be appropriate, but it should not be treated as a compulsory exercise in forgiveness. In some cases, separation of duties, changes to reporting structures or reassignment may be necessary.

Leaders must also distinguish accountability from punishment. Accountability means identifying the conduct or workplace conditions that need to change, establishing measurable expectations and following up. It should not depend entirely on whether every allegation met the threshold required for a formal finding.

Communication following an investigation also matters. Confidentiality will properly limit what can be disclosed, but silence creates its own problems. Employees should understand that the matter was addressed, that appropriate action is being taken, and what expectations apply going forward. Otherwise, rumours fill the information vacuum, and participants may reasonably wonder whether speaking up accomplished anything.

Finally, recovery requires follow-through. A single mediation session, training course or simple reminder about respectful conduct will not repair entrenched conflict. Employers should monitor the workplace, check in with involved employees and respond quickly if harmful patterns reappear.

The conclusion of an investigation should therefore be viewed as a transition point, not the end of the employer’s responsibility. The report establishes what the evidence supports. What happens next determines whether the workplace remains trapped in the conflict or begins to recover from it.

Written by: Kelly Burgess, Director and Senior Investigator, Workplace Investigations, Reed Research