Staff-Line Blog

Investigate First, Act Second

Published by Ed Kowalski on August 5th, 2010 in category Management

The Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, personally apologized to USDA employee Shirley Sherrod after wrongly accusing her of racial statements and forcing her to resign. Vilsack accepted full responsibly and extended his profound apologies to Sherrod. In Vilsack’s words the decision to seek her resignation was “made in haste.”

Vilsack’s statement followed a public apology issued by the President, the United State’s chief spokesman, who admitted that the Secretary and others acted without knowing all the facts of the case.

Sherrod was forced to resign after a conservative blog released an edited video of remarks she made at a NAACP conference. The edited video gave the impression that Sherrod discriminated against a white male farmer by showing only her remarks that the farmer had acted superior to her and she had been tempted not to use the full force of her authority to help him.

In full context, Sherrod actually made clear that she was relating the story from the 1980s to demonstrate that she ultimately learned an important lesson from the situation – to disregard race. Apparently, the issue for Sherrod was about the “have and have nots” rather than race. The wife of the farmer stated that Sherrod helped save their family farm and was a friend for life. Catherine Dodge “Vilsack Apologized to Ousted USDA Official Over Firing, Offers Post Back,” www.bloomberg.com (July 21, 2010); Brian Montopoli, “Vilsack: I will have to Live With Shirley Sherrod Mistake, ” www.cbsnews.com (July 21, 2010).
 
Commentary and Checklist

This public blunder demonstrates the value of accurate and thorough internal investigations when employees are accused of wrongdoing.

Most internal investigations include interviews with the parties involved as well as witnesses. In the matter with Ms. Sherrod, the investigators failed to receive a statement from the accused. Instead they took the clip for face value and terminated based on the clip.

Employers should never make decisions “in haste” or based on partial facts. Only after the truth is determined should employers take steps to remedy the situation. 

If investigators had reviewed the full tape and spoken to the alleged victim or his wife to determine the truth of the allegations in this case, they could have avoided the blunder.

Employers should have procedures in place to intake complaints and conduct workplace investigations. With standards in place, the employer is less likely to miss important information or make mistakes in the investigation that may cause more problems later.

In some high-risk matters, employers should consider turning investigations over to third-party investigators.

Here are some other tips to ensure effective investigations:

• Select a trained investigator. A professional is less likely to make the mistakes that will require you to dispute their findings.
• Your policy on investigations should not only determine when an investigation is needed, but who should conduct the investigation. Selecting a panel of neutral investigators prior to any incident is a best practice.
• Your investigation policy must also incorporate a standard of review for investigations. It should state when and how an investigation is scrutinized.
• If you believe that an investigation was done poorly, appoint someone to review the investigation and, if necessary, perform a second investigation.
• Do not let your investigators draw conclusions. Your investigators should be fact-finders. Allow another body to make decisions of guilt or innocence based on the investigation report.