Workplace misconduct allegations are treated as more credible when men sound the alarm than when women report identical concerns, according to research from Harvard Business Review — making it paramount that HR establish clear protocols for reporting and reviewing those reports.  

Researchers Tim Kundro, Marissa Shandell, Alyssa Tedder-King, and Olivia Walker examined how gender influenced responses to whistleblowing. Their analysis of five experiments found that biases about women’s objectivity often undermined their credibility — especially when initial reports lacked corroboration.

“When a report lacks clear evidence, decision-makers tend to fall back on judgments about credibility,” the study’s authors wrote.  

When those judgments, sometimes referred to as credibility assessments, happen informally — say, in casual conversation with a manager or otherwise outside of standard reporting protocols — the women’s reports often aren’t escalated, thanks to “long-standing stereotypes that women are more emotional or less objective than men,” the authors wrote.

When individuals report concerns to a manager or person in authority, that person’s opinion of the reporter and the situation may affect whether they elevate or even dismiss allegations, SHRM research also found.  

Because employees often turn to managers rather than formal reporting channels after witnessing misconduct, HR must ensure that managers and supervisors follow clear guidelines for every reported case.

Sample Policy: Whistleblowing

If your organization’s reporting procedures are unclear or inconsistent, the credibility gap is even more worrying because there’s evidence that misconduct is under-reported for various reasons. SHRM research from 2024 found that 49% of workers who experienced or witnessed incivility didn’t report it to HR or their manager.

But HR can set up systems that facilitate effective reporting and objective evaluations, including requirements that anyone receiving a misconduct report pass it along according to specific protocols, designation of HR as the reviewer of any reports, and a commitment that every report will receive follow-up, according to the Harvard Business Review researchers.

HR’s reviews of misconduct claims are often more objective than assessments by individual managers. More than half of HR professionals surveyed by SHRM in March (59%) said the workplace investigations they conduct rarely (33%) or never (26%) require credibility assessments.

SHRM research found that many HR professionals already standardize investigations. Nearly half of HR pros surveyed (47%) said that they use a standardized framework or checklist to determine credibility when necessary. Still, there’s always room for improvement.  

“While half of HR professionals report being extremely or very confident in assessing credibility, 1 in 3 are only moderately confident, and 17% report low confidence,” said Ragan Decker, manager of Executive Network and enterprise research at SHRM. “This suggests there may be opportunities to strengthen training or support systems to build confidence and effectiveness.”

By adopting consistent procedures — and training everyone — organizations can demonstrate a commitment to fairness, shoring up a culture of accountability.  

How to Guide: Workplace Investigations

Best Practices

• Don’t be inconsistent. Do institute a formal process to investigate complaints.
• Don’t reveal identifying characteristics. Do redact names, genders, or job titles if they might reveal the name of the accuser, even if reports include this information.
• Don’t rely on managers’ assessments of allegations. Do ensure that managers pass along all reports and that trained, impartial professionals evaluate all reports of misconduct.
• Don’t create a bottleneck. Do offer multiple methods for employees to report misconduct, rather than relying solely on managers or a hotline.
  
• Don’t assume employees will come to you. Do implement both reactive and proactive feedback channels to receive concerns in real time and reveal patterns that may emerge through surveys or other trend aggregation tools.
• Don’t make it difficult for employees to add supporting evidence. Do provide ways for colleagues to corroborate reports and for the reporter to supplement their original allegation.
• Don’t leave whistleblowers hanging. Do close the loop on every investigation, regardless of findings, with documentation.  

“Improving these procedures isn’t just about adding new tools, but rather it’s about redesigning the process to ensure every report gets a fair evaluation,” the researchers explained in Harvard Business Review. “That is, to build fairer systems, organizations should limit informal judgment and ensure all reports are evaluated consistently.”