Define responsibilities
Agree on the mandate, reporting recipient and communication arrangements. Keep the investigator’s role distinct from the board’s employment and governance decisions.
Non-profits & boards
An impartial process when leadership is part of the complaint.
Close working relationships, volunteer governance and limited internal capacity can complicate a complaint involving an Executive Director, board member or senior leader. Independent fact-finding helps separate the evidence from those relationships.
Clarity for boards without presuming an outcome.
A board may need to receive a complaint while some of its members have a relationship with the people involved. The initial discussion addresses who can give instructions, how conflicts will be considered, what is within scope and who is authorized to receive the findings.
- Complaints involving an Executive Director or other senior leader
- Harassment, bullying, misconduct or respectful workplace concerns
- Board–staff tensions with disputed facts or governance implications
- Allegations involving board members or overlapping volunteer and staff roles
Sensitive to the mission. Independent of the disputed accounts.
Examine the evidence
Interview relevant participants, review records and give a fair opportunity to respond. Consider credibility and reliability in context, not by seniority or organizational influence.
Plan the next steps
Provide a reasoned report with its limitations. Discuss communication, workplace relationships or further support without promising that an investigation will resolve every issue.
Confidentiality expectations and access to information are discussed at the outset. Absolute secrecy cannot be promised where fair participation, report access or applicable obligations require disclosure.
Read about the investigation processDiscuss a non-profit, board or leadership concern.
Discuss your organization’s situation and the options that may be appropriate.