Last week, I was at the Ethisphere conference when my ears perked up with a new best practice for investigations. We all love a new best practice, right? I certainly do!
We all want to do great investigations. But here is the question too few companies ask: how do you know your investigations are actually being done well?
Not just completed. Not just closed. Done well. This is especially critical when you’ve got many investigation functions stirring the pot. HR, Legal, Internal Audit, Finance, Compliance, outside counsel – the list can go on and on.
That is where a quality assurance audit of investigations comes in.
What a Quality Assurance Audit Actually Does
A quality assurance audit is a review of completed investigations to assess whether they were handled consistently, fairly, thoroughly, and in a way that supports the final outcome.
This is not about second-guessing every investigator or creating bureaucratic misery. This is about checking whether your system is working the way you think it is.
A good audit will answer questions like:
- Was the documentation sufficient?
- Did the findings match the evidence?
- Was there a clear rationale for substantiated or unsubstantiated conclusions?
- Was root cause analysis considered where appropriate?
- Were sanctions calibrated fairly and consistently?
- Does the file support the outcome if someone later asks, “Why did you decide this?”
That last one matters a lot. If your documentation cannot support the conclusion, you do not really have a conclusion. You also don’t have a good record if somebody sues.
Why This Matters So Much
Improved fairness
When investigations are reviewed for consistency, you reduce the risk that similar issues get wildly different treatment depending on who handled the matter, how busy they were, or how comfortable they are with difficult calls. That is better for employees, better for culture, and better for trust in the process.
Improved quality
Some investigators are excellent. Some are new. Some are careful but slow. Some are fast but miss key steps. A QA audit helps you spot patterns. You may find that one investigator needs help with documentation, another needs support with root cause analysis, and another is struggling to tie evidence clearly to conclusions. That is useful information. You cannot coach to a problem you cannot see.
Increased internal confidence in the process
Investigations are high stakes. They can involve senior people, sensitive allegations, retaliation risk, legal exposure, and employee morale. If no one is checking the quality of completed matters, there is a lot of blind faith involved. A QA process replaces blind faith with actual assurance.
Better speak up culture
People are more likely to trust a reporting system when they believe investigations are taken seriously and handled fairly. If employees think outcomes are random, sloppy, or influenced by personalities, confidence drops fast. A quality review process helps protect the integrity of the whole system.
What You Should Review
If you want to start this process, don’t make it too complicated. Begin by choosing a specific set of criteria to review across each sampled investigation.
For example:
- Quality and completeness of documentation
- Clarity of the allegation and scope
- Whether the evidence supports the outcome
- Whether the matter was substantiated, unsubstantiated, or inconclusive, and whether that decision was explained
- Whether root cause analysis was performed when appropriate
- Whether sanctions or remediation were calibrated and consistent
- Whether follow-up actions were documented
- Whether follow-up actions were assigned and/or followed up on
You do not need twenty-seven categories and a color-coded dashboard. You need a manageable set of factors that tell you whether the investigation was handled well.
Start with the basics. Then add elements to view.
How often should you do it?
The right answer depends on your volume.
If your company handles a large number of investigations, you may want to audit a sample every month. If your volume is lower, quarterly may make more sense. For organizations that are just getting started, reviewing four investigations a quarter can be a very reasonable beginning.
The point is not to hit a magical number. The point is to create a regular discipline of review. Pick a cadence that fits your company. Then stick with it long enough to learn something.
What to watch out for
A QA audit should not turn into a blame exercise.
If people believe the review exists to call them out, they will become defensive, and the whole thing will lose value. Position the audit correctly. This is about improving the process, promoting fairness, and building consistency.
It is also important to be clear about who is doing the reviewing. The reviewer should have enough credibility and experience to assess investigative quality, and ideally enough independence to make the review meaningful.
And finally, do something with what you learn.
If the same issues keep appearing, that is not just “interesting.” It is a training need. Or a process problem. Or a documentation issue. Or a signal that your investigation framework needs tightening.
The Bigger Point
If you are not auditing your investigations, you may be assuming they are consistent when they are not. You may be assuming your outcomes are well supported when they are not. You may be assuming employees trust the process more than they actually do.
A quality assurance audit helps close that gap.
And in a world where trust, fairness, and consistency matter this much, that is work worth doing.