The Case Against Rigid Deadlines in Workplace Investigations

Introduction

In many corporate environments, deadlines are seen as a hallmark of productivity. Projects are scheduled, milestones tracked, and completion dates celebrated. This approach works well for predictable, controllable workflows, such as producing a marketing campaign, completing a financial report, or rolling out a new IT system.

When it comes to workplace investigations, however, the same philosophy can be dangerously misguided.

Investigations are not simple linear projects. They are dynamic, fact-finding missions shaped by evolving evidence, human behaviour, and complex external dependencies. Imposing rigid completion deadlines on investigators may feel like a way to “maintain accountability” or “keep things moving,” but in reality, it often compromises the very purpose of the exercise: uncovering the truth, learning lessons, and preventing recurrence.

This is not to say investigations should be open-ended with no oversight. Timeliness is important, and unnecessary delays can cause harm in their own right. But arbitrary deadlines- ones set without regard for the complexity, scope, or unique circumstances of an incident, risk undermining the investigation’s integrity, procedural fairness, and long-term organisational learning.

This article explores why timeframes for completing an investigation should not be imposed in a rigid manner, how they can backfire, and what better alternatives exist for managing investigative timelines without sacrificing quality.

The Nature of Investigations: Why They’re Inherently Variable

One of the most important points to understand is that no two workplace investigations are alike. Even incidents that appear similar on the surface can differ dramatically in the factors that shape the investigative process.

a. Complexity of the Incident

A straightforward safety incident- for example, a minor equipment fault- might be investigated and resolved relatively quickly. In contrast, a systemic failure involving multiple departments, historical decisions, and interlinked technical systems could take months to properly dissect.

Complex incidents often require multiple layers of analysis, consultation with subject matter experts, and detailed evidence gathering. Setting a one-size-fits-all deadline ignores this complexity and forces investigators into an artificial “race to the finish” that risks missing deeper causal factors.

b. Factors Beyond Investigator Control

The pace of an investigation is heavily influenced by factors outside the investigator’s control, including:

• Witness availability- Key individuals may be on leave, working remotely, or otherwise unavailable for timely interviews.

• Evidence delays- Access to documents, CCTV footage, maintenance logs, or technical analysis can be delayed by other teams’ workloads or external agencies.

• Regulatory intersections- Where an incident involves legal or compliance dimensions, investigators may need to wait for clearances or coordinate with regulators whose timelines do not align with corporate expectations.

These realities make it impossible to guarantee a completion date without either making risky assumptions or cutting corners later.

c. Scope Expansion

Investigations rarely proceed in a perfectly straight line. As evidence is gathered, new leads can emerge, new witnesses may be identified, and previously unknown contributing factors can surface. Expanding the scope is often essential for accuracy, but when a rigid deadline looms, investigators face the dilemma of either truncating the scope or requesting more time, which may be politically challenging.

Risks of Arbitrary Timeframes

While deadlines in project management can drive efficiency, in investigative work they can produce unintended and damaging consequences.

a. Compromised Thoroughness

When the clock is ticking towards a non-negotiable deadline, the temptation is to prioritise speed over completeness. Evidence may be reviewed superficially, interviews condensed or skipped, and analysis limited to the most obvious causes.

This is particularly dangerous in systemic or organisational-factor investigations, where latent conditions are often hidden beneath layers of operational routine and cultural norms. These take time and patience to identify.

b. Rushed Witness Engagement

Witnesses are not just boxes to be ticked. Building rapport, creating psychological safety, and allowing people to recall events without pressure are all critical to getting accurate, reliable testimony. Rigid timeframes encourage rushed interviews, leading to incomplete accounts, inconsistent statements, or misunderstandings that can derail the fact-finding process.

c. Missed Latent Conditions

In methodologies like ICAM, identifying latent conditions, the underlying organisational, cultural, and systemic contributors, is vital. These are seldom found in quick surface-level reviews. They require triangulating multiple data sources, connecting subtle patterns, and often, challenging long-held assumptions. When time is short, the focus shifts to visible, active failures rather than the harder-to-find root contributors.

d. Procedural Fairness at Risk

Procedural fairness — ensuring all parties have a fair opportunity to respond, present evidence, and have their views considered, cannot be rushed. Setting arbitrary deadlines can lead to situations where affected parties are not given adequate time to prepare responses or provide information, which may in turn create legal vulnerabilities for the organisation.

Quality vs Speed: The False Trade-off

There is a common belief that speed in investigations equates to efficiency, and that efficiency always benefits the organisation. The truth is more complicated.

a. The Cost of Getting It Wrong

A rushed investigation might deliver a report on time, but if that report contains errors, omissions, or poorly supported conclusions, the costs can be significant:

• Loss of credibility with regulators, courts, and the workforce.

• The need for costly re-investigations.

• Damage to organisational trust and safety culture.

• Failure to identify corrective actions that actually prevent recurrence.

b. Repeat Incidents

If the investigation is incomplete, the conditions that caused the incident will likely persist, leading to repeat incidents. These are not just embarrassing; they can result in increased harm, regulatory sanctions, and reputational damage.

c. The Illusion of Timeliness

Delivering a report “on time” but of poor quality creates a false sense of closure. Leaders may believe the issue has been addressed, only to be blindsided later when the same problems resurface. True timeliness must be measured in terms of lasting resolution, not calendar speed.

External Dependencies

Investigations do not exist in a vacuum. Many depend on information, cooperation, or analysis from sources the investigator cannot control.

a. Regulatory Body Involvement

In many jurisdictions, workplace incidents must be reported to safety regulators, who may conduct their own parallel investigations. Coordination with regulators often means working within their schedules, not forcing them into an internal corporate deadline.

b. Technical or Forensic Analysis

When incidents involve specialised equipment, chemical analysis, or complex data recovery, third-party laboratories or technical experts may be required. These services operate on their own schedules, and rushing them can lead to incomplete or inconclusive results.

c. Third-Party Cooperation

In cases involving contractors, suppliers, or other external stakeholders, obtaining relevant information may require formal requests, legal processes, or negotiation. Each of these steps can take time, and is not improved by imposing pressure solely on the investigator.

Human Factors

The human element in investigations is often underestimated when setting deadlines.

a. Investigator Cognitive Load

Investigators are not machines. Rigid deadlines can push them into high-stress, high-pressure environments that reduce critical thinking, increase cognitive bias, and lead to decision-making shortcuts. This compromises the objectivity and analytical depth required for sound conclusions.

b. Witness Recall Quality

While it is true that memories can fade over time, that does not mean rushing is the best solution. Good investigative interviewing involves allowing witnesses to recall events without feeling pressured or hurried. Poorly timed interviews conducted simply to “meet a deadline” can produce lower-quality evidence than interviews scheduled at a time when the witness feels prepared and safe to speak openly.

c. Mental Health and Resilience of Investigators

Workplace investigations often involve emotionally challenging subject matter: fatalities, serious injuries, harassment, and misconduct. Investigators require time to process and manage these factors, and unrealistic deadlines can contribute to burnout, anxiety, and decreased job satisfaction, all of which further erode investigative quality.

Alternative to Fixed Deadlines

Rejecting rigid timeframes does not mean abandoning accountability. Instead, organisations can adopt more intelligent, flexible approaches to tracking progress and ensuring investigations remain timely without compromising quality.

a. Milestone-Based Progress Tracking

Rather than setting a single fixed completion date, break the process into clear stages with indicative (but flexible) target dates:

• Planning & Scoping — Confirming Terms of Reference, stakeholders, and methodology.

• Data Gathering — Interviews, evidence collection, site inspections.

• Analysis — Reviewing findings, identifying contributing factors, validating evidence.

• Reporting — Drafting, peer review, finalisation.

This allows leaders to monitor progress without forcing premature closure.

b. Prioritisation Frameworks

Not all incidents require the same urgency. A low-risk, high-complexity issue may justifiably take longer to investigate than a high-risk issue where immediate safety hazards must be addressed quickly. Having a framework that differentiates investigation urgency based on risk and complexity helps avoid the “one deadline fits all” trap.

c. Stakeholder Communication

Regular updates to stakeholders on progress, challenges, and anticipated next steps build trust and reduce the pressure to simply “get it over with.” Transparent communication can achieve the accountability that rigid deadlines attempt to create, without the downsides.

Balancing Timeliness with Thoroughness

Ultimately, the goal is not to choose between speed and quality, but to balance them intelligently.

a. Regulatory Compliance Needs

Some regulations do impose certain time-bound requirements — for example, notifying authorities within a set period after an incident. These must, of course, be complied with. But compliance with notification requirements is not the same as completing the entire investigation. The latter should remain flexible.

b. Realistic Timeframes Based on Scope and Complexity

At the outset of an investigation, experienced investigators can usually provide a range of likely completion times based on initial assessments. This range can be updated as the investigation evolves, ensuring stakeholders have a realistic view of progress.

c. Embedding Flexibility in Policy

Organisational policies on investigations should emphasise quality and fairness over arbitrary speed. They can require timely commencement, regular progress updates, and escalation processes if unreasonable delays occur, without enforcing fixed completion dates.

Conclusion

Workplace investigations are among the most important processes an organisation can undertake. They determine not only what happened in a given incident, but also what the organisation will learn, or fail to learn, from it.

Imposing rigid timeframes on investigators misunderstands the nature of the work. It assumes investigations are predictable, controllable processes like any other project. In reality, they are dynamic, evidence-driven, and subject to variables outside the investigator’s control. When deadlines are forced, the risk is clear: compromised quality, incomplete findings, procedural unfairness, and missed opportunities to prevent future harm.

The smarter approach is to focus on progress, not arbitrary completion dates. Use milestones, communicate openly, and match urgency to actual risk. In doing so, organisations protect not only the integrity of their investigations, but also their credibility, safety culture, and ability to learn from the past.

The choice is stark: do we want investigations that meet deadlines, or investigations that meet their purpose? The organisations that choose the latter are the ones that truly build safer, fairer, and more resilient workplaces.