Anyone who Googles the terms ‘confidential advisor’ and ‘fact-finding’ will come across an endless string of results all saying the same thing: ‘The confidential advisor does not engage in fact-finding.’ Every confidential advisor is familiar with this little phrase. We use it in our basic training too. It is often uttered with a firm and confident expression, as if a profound piece of wisdom were being shared.
But what does it really mean? And could it lead you down the wrong path?
The danger of not asking enough questions
On the one hand, the meaning is simple. By definition, a confidential advisor only hears one side of the story; the accused party remains out of the picture. For that reason alone, a confidential advisor does not engage in fact-finding.
On the other hand, we see a risky trend in practice. Confidential advisors regularly advise the competent authority to launch a formal investigation, purely on the basis of descriptions such as ‘harassment’ or ‘an unsafe atmosphere’. When we then probe further, it becomes apparent that hardly any specific questions have been asked about the facts. Or the examples relate to a management style or a discussion about job responsibilities, rather than inappropriate behaviour. The reasoning behind this seems to be: ‘If we’re not establishing the truth anyway, there’s no need to ask further questions.’ This is a misconception with serious consequences.
A hammer as a tool
As a confidential advisor, you have a powerful tool at your disposal. Think of it as a hammer: you can use it to do useful things, but you can also cause considerable damage with it. A recommendation for a person-centred investigation carries significant weight. Such a powerful measure should only be used if there are serious, concrete facts and if less intrusive interventions have first been thoroughly explored.
At our sister company and investigation agency, Intagros B.V., we still turn down around 60 per cent of investigation requests. Often, there is a lack of concrete facts or examples to justify an investigation. We also regularly find that insufficient consideration has been given in advance to less intrusive ways of assessing or addressing the situation. And we consider this important, because a formal investigation brings with it considerable dynamics and always has an impact. In particular, on the accused party, regardless of the final outcome. That is why we explicitly ask the question in advance: is an investigation really necessary, and is this the most appropriate and proportionate course of action?
To put the cat among the pigeons
When the confidential advisor asks the complainant specific questions about facts and examples, this is not about establishing the truth. It is about mapping out the complainant’s experience as clearly as possible. So do not just ask about the feelings that arose, but also about the actual behaviours that underlie them:
To stir things up a bit: all too often we find that a story deflates like a balloon as soon as specific examples are requested. As a confidential advisor, you must have the courage to acknowledge this. Not to dismiss the reporter’s feelings, but to determine the appropriate next steps.
Not mistrust, but due diligence
In our training courses, we have noticed that confidential advisors sometimes find it difficult to ask sensitive questions. They are afraid that the person reporting the issue will perceive this as mistrust. However, experience shows the opposite to be true. In fact, those reporting issues appreciate it when further questions are asked. It demonstrates a genuine interest and the utmost care, enabling the confidential advisor to then provide them with truly sound advice on what a possible next step might be, with further support from the confidential advisor if required.
