Auréa RH Conseil Philosophy Services FAQ Blog Contact me Français
Mediation · Investigation · Prevention

Healthy workplaces, through listening and integrity

Auréa RH Conseil supports management, HR teams and employees in harassment prevention, conflict resolution and sensitive situation management, to build healthy, equitable and sustainable organizations.

Workplace mediation, Auréa RH Conseil
25+
Years of experience in HR and LR
CHRA
Certified member
100%
Guaranteed impartiality
6
Specialized areas of expertise

An outside perspective, human-centered
and rigorously impartial

Workplaces thrive when people feel heard, respected and safe. Every engagement I undertake aims to create the conditions necessary for organizations to move forward with clarity, and for individuals to express themselves without fear.

At Auréa RH Conseil, I believe that every situation is unique and every person deserves to be received with sensitivity. I take the time to understand each person's experience, the nuances and emotions involved, and the dynamics that influence workplace relationships. This allows me to build a climate of trust, essential for obtaining accurate information and fostering lasting solutions.

All our interventions comply with the professional standards of the Ordre des CRHA and the expectations of the CNESST regarding investigations, dispute resolution and prevention.

By understanding people deeply, approaching situations with clarity and disciplined analysis, and acting with unwavering integrity, I help organizations make decisions that are fair, respectful, and impactful.
Hugues Thibault, CRIA · Accredited Mediator · Founder
Hugues Thibault, CRIA, Founder of Auréa RH Conseil
Hugues Thibault
CRIA · Accredited Mediator · Founder
L
Listening
Welcoming each person with attention, sensitivity and respect to truly understand their experience.
I
Impartiality
I analyze situations with objectivity and independence, without bias, to preserve the integrity of every process.
M
Method
Our processes follow best practices and the standards of the Ordre des CRHA. Clear, documented and consistent criteria, in compliance with the professional code of ethics.
I
Integrity
Acting with consistency, honesty and responsibility, respecting people as much as principles.

Comprehensive expertise in human resources
and labour relations management

Intervening early protects your budget: every ignored tension ends up costing far more in absenteeism, lost productivity and mobilized resources. A neutral and structured approach saves you money right away by quickly restoring a healthy climate and avoiding weeks of crisis management.

01

Harassment and incivility investigation

Independent and impartial investigations into psychological harassment, incivility, discrimination and misconduct. Rigorous reports with concrete recommendations.

Learn more
02

Mediation and dispute resolution

Mediation is not a last resort, it is strategic support. By creating a space where emotions can be expressed and heard without judgment, it allows the parties to co-create their own solutions.

Learn more
03

Climate analysis

Deeply understanding what teams experience to inform decisions, guide fair actions and sustainably strengthen workplace climate.

Learn more
04

Harassment and psychosocial risk prevention

Providing organizations with clear and reassuring benchmarks to prevent psychological harassment and truly protect individuals.

Learn more
05

Labour relations and sensitive situation management

Strategically supporting managers in their sensitive decisions and helping them communicate with clarity, consistency and respect.

Learn more
06

Strategic consulting in human issues

Helping organizations see clearly through their human challenges, make structuring decisions and take actions that truly transform their culture.

Learn more

What my clients
often ask me

Before starting a process, it's natural to want to understand how it works, what it involves and what it delivers. Here are the answers to the most frequently asked questions to help you make an informed decision.

I conduct an independent and impartial process aimed at establishing the facts with rigour. My role is to listen to each person with respect, analyze information objectively and present clear conclusions that enable the organization to make informed decisions.

Mediation is a confidential, structured and reassuring space where individuals can finally express what they are experiencing, without fear of judgment. My role is to help each person clarify their needs, understand the real issues behind the conflict and find common ground. Through a guided, respectful and solution-focused process, mediation restores authentic dialogue, reduces tensions and helps co-create lasting agreements. It is a humane, fast and effective approach to preventing escalation and preserving working relationships.

An investigation aims to establish the facts and determine whether a situation constitutes harassment under the law. Mediation is a voluntary process that allows the parties to co-create a lasting solution in a confidential, non-judgmental space. Both approaches address different needs and can be complementary.

A climate analysis helps understand what teams are truly experiencing: tensions, strengths, irritants and relational dynamics. It provides a clear picture that helps the organization act wisely and make lasting improvements to the workplace.

Impartiality rests on a constant posture of fairness, non-judgmental listening and transparency. I clarify the steps, boundaries and protections from the outset, so that each person knows they are treated with the same consideration. Furthermore, independence is at the core of my professional obligations.

Yes. I review the existing policy, ensure its compliance with legal obligations and rewrite it so it is clear, accessible and consistent with your internal practices. I can also support its implementation with your teams.

I help them clarify the issues, assess risks, choose appropriate actions and communicate with consistency and respect. My role is to offer them a safe space to reflect and make decisions with confidence.

My approach combines extensive experience in diverse unionized environments, public, parapublic and private, with a deeply human and rigorous posture. I place central importance on authentic listening, active impartiality and clarity in communications. Every engagement is conducted with sensitivity, transparency and method, in order to offer realistic, consistent and lasting solutions that respect both people and organizations.

Confidentiality is at the heart of my practice. I specify from the outset what can be shared, with whom and for what purpose, so that each person understands the protections in place. The information gathered is handled with caution and transparency, in strict compliance with legal obligations and agreed-upon boundaries.

Yes. Although based in the Montreal area, I support organizations across Quebec. Several steps of the process can be carried out remotely, interviews by videoconference and secure exchanges, while maintaining the rigour and confidentiality that characterize my practice.

Costs vary depending on the type of mandate, the number of people involved and the complexity of the situation. We always provide a clear estimate before the mandate begins, including the planned steps, deliverables and terms. Our goal: to offer you a rigorous, transparent approach proportionate to your needs.

Insights and resources

What distinguishes an acceptable investigation from a rigorous investigation
Investigation · Rigour

What distinguishes an acceptable investigation from a rigorous investigation

From mandate definition to credibility assessment, explore the factors that make workplace investigations more reliable, fair, and defensible.

5 min read
Internal or external workplace investigation: when is an independent perspective necessary?
Investigation · Rigour

Internal or external workplace investigation: when is an independent perspective necessary?

Learn when an internal workplace investigation is appropriate and when an independent external investigator is the better choice to protect credibility, neutrality, and organizational trust.

5 min read
Workplace mediation: when it works (and when it isn’t enough)
Mediation

Workplace mediation: when it works (and when it isn’t enough)

“We should try mediation.” It’s often the first suggestion a manager makes when faced with a conflict that has dragged on. It isn’t always the right one.

Mediation is a powerful tool, but only under certain conditions. Mistaking it for a universal solution leads to failures that, in turn, make any future intervention harder.

5 min read

Act before the situation escalates

Workplace tensions don't resolve themselves. Let's talk in complete confidentiality, before positions become entrenched.

Schedule a free consultation

Let's discuss your situation

Every exchange is confidential. Don't hesitate to reach out to discuss your needs.

Phone
Service area
Greater Montreal and across Quebec

What distinguishes an acceptable investigation from a rigorous investigation

What distinguishes an acceptable investigation from a rigorous investigation

Two investigations may follow the same general steps, meeting with the parties involved, gathering witness statements, and producing a report, yet still differ significantly in their quality and reliability. The difference is not always apparent in the final report itself. It lies in the rigour of the process that leads to it.

What an acceptable investigation accomplishes

An acceptable investigation follows the basic steps: the parties are interviewed, relevant witnesses are identified, and a report is produced with a conclusion. This represents the minimum standard and is often sufficient to resolve a straightforward matter with a low risk of challenge.

What makes an investigation rigorous

A rigorous investigation goes beyond simply completing the required steps. It incorporates safeguards and methodological discipline designed to ensure that findings can withstand close scrutiny.

·        A clearly defined mandate from the outset: a scoping document outlines the scope of the investigation, the allegations to be examined, and what falls outside its scope. This helps prevent the investigation from drifting as evidence and witness accounts emerge.

·        A consistently applied methodology: the same core questions and analytical framework are used for every party and witness, rather than an approach that varies depending on the individual being interviewed.

·        A structured credibility assessment: when accounts conflict, the strength of each version is evaluated using predefined criteria such as internal consistency, corroboration, and plausibility, rather than relying on general impressions.

·        A documented conclusion, not merely an assertion: the report explains the reasoning behind the conclusion, identifies which evidence was accepted, and sets out why it was accepted, rather than simply stating the outcome.

·        Protection of confidentiality throughout the process: a clear protocol, communicated to all parties, specifies what information will be shared, with whom, and at what stage of the investigation.

The test that reveals the difference

The most useful question when evaluating an investigation is not "Is the conclusion reasonable?" but rather "Would this investigation withstand a challenge, a grievance, or cross-examination?"

An acceptable investigation may appear sufficient until it is tested. A rigorous investigation is designed from the outset with that possibility in mind. Its objective is not merely to reach a conclusion, but to demonstrate that the conclusion was reached through a fair, consistent, and defensible process.

Investing in methodological rigour at the beginning requires more time than a minimal approach. However, that investment is generally far less costly than dealing with an investigation that is later challenged, reopened, or set aside because the process cannot withstand scrutiny.

Internal or external workplace investigation: when is an independent perspective necessary?

Internal or external workplace investigation: when is an independent perspective necessary?

A harassment complaint has been filed. One of the first decisions to make, often under pressure and on short notice, is determining who will conduct the investigation. Many organizations default to using an internal resource, sometimes out of habit, sometimes to control costs. In many cases, that choice is appropriate. In others, it is not.

When an internal investigation is appropriate

A qualified internal investigator can conduct a credible investigation when certain conditions are met:

  • The individuals involved do not have a direct reporting relationship with the investigator.
  • The investigator does not have a significant personal relationship with either party.
  • The situation does not involve a senior leader or someone with authority over the organization as a whole.
  • The organization has an established and proven investigation methodology.

Signs that an external perspective is necessary

Some situations make an internal investigation more vulnerable to challenge, regardless of the investigator's competence:

The complaint involves someone in a position of authority

This may include a member of senior management, an owner, shareholder, or anyone whose influence extends beyond the department involved. Even when an internal investigator acts in good faith, it can be difficult to demonstrate the appearance of impartiality.

The organization is small

When everyone knows each other, maintaining the distance required for a credible investigation becomes more challenging, and the parties involved are well aware of it.

A previous internal attempt has already been challenged

Whether the challenge comes from one of the parties, a union, or another stakeholder, launching a second internal process in this context can weaken the credibility of the outcome before it is even reached.

There is significant legal or reputational risk

The issues extend beyond the normal management of a workplace conflict and could lead to litigation, a grievance, or public scrutiny.

The climate around the complaint is already polarized

Dividing lines have formed before the investigation has even begun, making it harder for any internal investigator to be perceived as neutral.

A simple question before deciding

The question is not only, «Do we have someone internally who is competent to conduct this investigation?" It is also, «Will that person be perceived as neutral and objective by both parties once the findings are known?"

If the answer is uncertain, bringing in an external investigator helps protect both the individuals involved and the credibility of the process, regardless of the investigation's outcome.

Delaying that decision comes at a cost: the further an internal investigation progresses before being challenged, the more time, resources, and trust may be required to restart the process with an independent external perspective.

Workplace mediation: when it works (and when it isn’t enough)

Workplace mediation: when it works (and when it isn’t enough)

What mediation actually is

Mediation is a voluntary, structured process in which an impartial third party helps two or more people work toward an agreement they build themselves. The mediator does not rule on the matter. They do not determine who is right. Their role is to create the conditions for a dialogue the parties can no longer manage on their own.

That last point is what sets mediation apart from management. A manager who brings two employees in conflict together and "smooths things over" is not conducting mediation. They are managing. This confusion between the two is common, and it comes at a cost, since the underlying issues are never actually addressed.

When mediation works

Three conditions come up almost every time. Both parties genuinely want a resolution, there is no power imbalance preventing either party from speaking freely, and the situation has not yet crossed the line into formal harassment allegations. An interpersonal conflict, a difference in management style, a communication breakdown following an organizational change — that is mediation's natural territory.

When it isn't enough

Mediation fails, or worse, it does harm, when it is used to avoid a harder decision. If a harassment complaint has been filed, if one of the parties fears for their psychological safety, or if the imbalance between the individuals is too pronounced to allow for free dialogue, mediation is no longer the right tool. In these cases, it can even make the situation worse by creating the impression that the alleged facts are up for negotiation.

This is where a distinction becomes essential. Mediation addresses a conflict between two people who remain, despite everything, on relatively equal footing. It does not address a broken power dynamic.

Before launching a mediation process

A quick assessment of the situation (the nature of the dispute, the parties' genuine willingness, and whether a power imbalance exists) helps avoid the costliest mistake: starting a mediation that should never have begun in the first place. Most failed mediations share this same story. Their failure was foreseeable before the first meeting ever took place.

In summary

Mediation is neither a miracle solution nor a shortcut. It is a precise tool, for a precise type of conflict. Used well, it resolves situations that would otherwise fester for months. Used poorly, it delays an intervention that should have taken a different form from the outset.

If you're unsure whether mediation, an investigation, or a diagnostic is the right path, an initial conversation can often help clarify the right approach quickly.

Employers obligations regarding psychological harassment

Employers obligations regarding psychological harassment

The duty to prevent and to put a stop to it

The Act respecting labour standards imposes a dual obligation on every Quebec employer: to take reasonable steps to prevent psychological harassment, and to put a stop to it once it is brought to the employer's attention. This is not an absolute obligation of result, but an obligation of means — which, in practice, means the employer must be able to demonstrate what it did, not merely assert that it acted properly.

The policy is an obligation, not a formality

Section 81.19 of the Act respecting labour standards requires every employer to adopt and make available to its staff a policy for the prevention of psychological harassment and the handling of complaints, including a component addressing sexual violence. The CNESST publishes tools to guide its drafting. A policy that exists but was never communicated, never updated, or copied without adapting it to the organization's reality offers protection that is largely illusory.

A two (2) year time limit to file a complaint

An employee has two (2) years from the last occurrence of the alleged conduct to file a complaint with the CNESST under section 123.7 of the Act. This relatively long time limit means a situation left unaddressed today can formally resurface much later, by which point the organization's institutional memory may have faded or partly disappeared.

The 2024 changes

The act to prevent and combat psychological harassment and sexual violence in the workplace, passed in 2024, strengthened several obligations: stricter rules governing confidentiality clauses in complaint settlements, enhanced protections against reprisals, and clarifications on the handling of sexual violence situations, which are now explicitly covered by the same prevention obligations.

For employers, these changes do more than amend the wording of the law. They raise the implicit standard for what counts as a serious organizational response.

What "reasonable steps" means in practice

An up-to-date policy. A complaint procedure that is known and accessible. A genuine capacity to investigate, whether internally or with an external third party depending on the situation. A prompt response to a report need not be a perfect response, but it must be a response. It is the combination of these elements, more than any one of them taken in isolation, that forms an employer's defence before the CNESST or a tribunal.

In summary

This text is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is intended to provide a frame of reference, not an answer to a specific situation.

The legal obligation is not just another administrative burden. It is a safety net, for employees, but also for the organization itself, which finds itself exposed when that net was never woven in the first place.

A quick review of your current policy and processes can often help identify blind spots before they turn into cases.

Bill 27 and the prevention program: what employers need to know ahead of 2026

Bill 27 and the prevention program: what employers need to know ahead of 2026

# Bill 27: Must the prevention program be implemented before October 2026?

One of the main questions employers are asking concerns the October 1, 2026 deadline. Many are wondering whether it is enough to draft a prevention program before that date, or whether concrete measures must already be in place.

Under the requirements set out in the legislation, employers must not only develop their prevention program but also begin implementing it within the prescribed timelines. The program cannot remain a purely administrative document. It must translate into real, on-the-ground action, such as putting preventive measures in place, delivering training activities, or carrying out other initiatives aimed at reducing workplace risks.

Best practices for employers

●       Carry out an identification of the risks present within the organization;

●       Plan and document corrective and preventive measures;

●       Train managers and workers;

●       Ensure follow-up on the implementation of the adopted measures.

# Prevention program and CNESST: what are the obligations?

Contrary to a common misconception, the prevention program does not have to be automatically submitted to the CNESST as soon as it is created. Employers must, however, keep the program on file and be able to provide it if the organization requests it.

Where a workplace has a health and safety committee, the program and any updates to it must also be provided to that committee. In addition, every three years following the program's implementation, employers will be required to report to the CNESST on the status of preventive measures, action priorities, and follow-up on the interventions carried out, using the form provided for that purpose.

# Workplace sexual violence: is a separate policy required?

Bill 27 does not require employers to adopt a standalone policy dealing exclusively with sexual violence. An existing policy on the prevention of psychological and sexual harassment may be used, provided it explicitly incorporates the elements required by law.

This policy must, in particular, address:

●       conduct, gestures, and words of a sexual nature;

●       prevention measures;

●       complaint or reporting mechanisms;

●       the process for handling reported situations;

●       measures to ensure the confidentiality of information collected.

The goal remains to provide a safe and respectful work environment while meeting the new regulatory requirements.

# Bill 27 and federally regulated businesses: which rules apply?

Federally regulated organizations need to distinguish between amendments affecting the Act respecting occupational health and safety (LSST) and those affecting the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases (LATMP).

The main changes introduced by Bill 27 in relation to prevention, prevention programs, and participation mechanisms fall essentially under the LSST. As a result, these obligations do not apply to federally regulated employers in the same way as they apply to employers governed by Quebec's occupational health and safety legislation.

Federally regulated employers should instead focus their attention on the administrative and structural adjustments affecting the industrial accident and occupational disease regime.

# FAQ on Bill 27

When does Bill 27 require a prevention program?

Employers must develop and implement their prevention program within the timelines set out in the regulations.

Does the prevention program have to be sent to the CNESST?

No, except when the CNESST requests it.

Is a policy on sexual violence mandatory?

Yes, but it may be incorporated into an existing psychological and sexual harassment prevention policy, provided that policy contains all of the required elements.

Do federally regulated businesses have to comply with all of Bill 27's requirements?

The new prevention obligations introduced under the LSST may not apply to federally regulated employers, in the context described in the source article.

# Conclusion

Compliance with Bill 27 calls for a proactive approach. Employers must go beyond simply drafting documents and demonstrate real implementation of their prevention measures. Adequate preparation now will help reduce the risk of non-compliance and foster a safe, healthy workplace that meets regulatory requirements.

Values conflict in the workplace: an illustration of a professional mediation process

Values conflict in the workplace: an illustration of a professional mediation process

Context

A mid-sized organization requested a mediation intervention following a persistent conflict between two employees holding key roles within the same team. Although the disagreements initially centred on work-related issues, the analysis of the situation revealed that the conflict stemmed primarily from a misalignment of professional values.

The individuals involved expressed differing views on ways of working, task prioritization, expectations around rigour, and their understanding of professional respect. These differences, largely unspoken at the outset, gradually contributed to a deterioration in communication and in the relational climate.

Initially, the immediate supervisor attempted to intervene to facilitate a discussion between the parties. Despite good intentions, this internal approach did not ease the situation and added discomfort tied to the supervisor's hierarchical role.

Given the complexity of the context and the observed impact on the workplace climate, the organization chose to bring in external professional mediation, including the immediate supervisor's participation in a tripartite process.

Nature of the issue

●       Disagreements rooted in differing professional values

●       Difficulty naming and acknowledging these values in a safe setting

●       Diverging interpretations of intentions and behaviour

●       Discomfort tied to the hierarchical relationship during resolution attempts

●       Risk of the conflict becoming entrenched and of lasting damage to working relationships

Previous internal interventions, which focused mainly on observable behaviour, had not addressed the underlying values-based issues.

Mediation approach

An external, neutral, and confidential mediation process was proposed and accepted by the individuals involved.

The intervention followed a structured approach that included:

●       confidential individual interviews, aimed at clarifying the perceptions, needs, and values at stake;

●       a joint tripartite mediation session, conducted in a setting that fostered respectful and balanced expression;

●       a clarification of roles, including the immediate supervisor's role in managing conflict situations;

●       identification of areas of divergence and convergence, taking organizational requirements into account;

●       development of working agreements, defined by the parties themselves.

Observed outcomes

By the end of the process, the individuals involved were able to:

●       better understand the nature of the conflict and the underlying values;

●       clarify their respective professional expectations;

●       establish clearer terms for communication and collaboration;

●       draw on a shared framework for managing future disagreements.

The mediation provided a structured space for dialogue and reflection, contributing to better mutual understanding and a more functional workplace climate.

Scope of the intervention

This example illustrates how professional mediation can be used to:

●       address values-based conflicts in the workplace;

●       provide a neutral setting, separate from hierarchical relationships;

●       support organizations in managing complex situations, while respecting everyone's roles and responsibilities.

Ethical disclosure

This case is presented as an illustrative example of an intervention. It has been anonymized and does not constitute a testimonial or a guarantee of results, in accordance with the CRHA Code of Ethics.

Psychological harassment at work: why reconciliation is not enough

Psychological harassment at work: why reconciliation is not enough

Psychological harassment: a real case that sets a precedent

In this case, an employee alleged having experienced psychological harassment in the workplace, including demeaning remarks and a far more serious event: a physical assault by a coworker.

Following the incident, the employer was informed but chose not to intervene. Why? Because it considered the two employees to have "reconciled."

Several months later, however, a complaint was filed. The Tribunal then had to determine whether this inaction met the obligations set out under the Act respecting labour standards.

A single serious incident can constitute harassment

The TAT reaffirmed a key principle of labour law: a single incident can be enough to establish psychological harassment, provided it is serious.

In this case, the Tribunal concluded that:

●       a physical assault constitutes a direct violation of the employee's integrity;

●       this single incident was sufficient, on its own, to establish harassment;

●       the impact on the victim (ongoing anxiety and distress) confirmed the existence of a harmful work environment.

Even in the absence of repeated incidents, psychological harassment can therefore be recognized when a single event is particularly serious.

Employer's obligation: act without delay

The central issue in this decision concerns employers' obligations regarding psychological harassment.

The law imposes two main duties:

1. Prevent harassment

●       Put in place a psychological harassment policy;

●       Inform employees and set clear expectations for conduct.

2. Put a stop to harassment

●       Intervene as soon as a situation is brought to the employer's attention;

●       Take reasonable steps (investigation, follow-up, discipline).

In this case, the employer took no action following the assault. The Tribunal was unequivocal:

Inaction is never an option.

Reconciliation between employees: beware a false sense of security

One of the most important lessons from this decision concerns the notion of reconciliation in the workplace.

The TAT specified that:

●       an apparent return to calm does not mean the problem has been resolved;

●       an apology or a temporary easing of tension is not enough;

●       the employer must verify, document, and follow up on the situation.

In other words, an apparent reconciliation between employees does not relieve the employer of its responsibilities.

Legal risks for employers

Failing to act on a harassment situation can lead to significant consequences:

●       a psychological harassment complaint being upheld;

●       employer liability;

●       damage to the organization's reputation;

●       a deteriorated workplace climate.

The decision also underscores that the analysis does not turn on the employer's intentions, but on the concrete actions actually taken.

HR best practices to prevent disputes

To avoid this type of situation, employers should adopt a proactive approach:

●       Launch an internal investigation as soon as an incident is reported

●       Document every step taken

●       Follow up with the employees involved

●       Apply disciplinary measures where warranted

●       Maintain a clear, actively enforced harassment policy

Even where an apology has been made or things appear to have improved, a formal intervention remains essential.

Conclusion: when in doubt, act

This TAT decision sends a clear message: when it comes to psychological harassment in Quebec, employers must act quickly, even when a situation appears to have settled down.

Caution, rigour, and documentation remain the best protection against legal risk.

In short: reconciliation is never a substitute for intervention.

Impartiality in Investigations: Why It's Difficult — and How to Achieve It

Impartiality in Investigations: Why It's Difficult — and How to Achieve It

Impartiality is the foundation of any credible investigation. Without it, conclusions are contestable, recommendations are ignored, and the trust of all parties — and the organization — is lost. Yet maintaining genuine impartiality is one of the most difficult challenges in workplace investigations.

Why it's so difficult

We all have biases. Past experiences that colour how we read situations. Patterns we recognize too quickly. First impressions that impose themselves before we even realize it. In an investigation, these biases can distort fact-gathering, the assessment of witness credibility, and the final conclusions.

Add to that organizational pressure. The internal investigator knows the parties. They have hierarchical ties. They know what the organization hopes to find. These factors create real — or perceived — conflicts of interest that compromise the integrity of the process.

Impartiality isn't the absence of opinion. It's the discipline of setting your opinions aside and letting the facts speak.

The principles of an impartial investigation

  • Independence — the investigator must have no significant hierarchical or personal ties to the parties
  • Factual rigour — conclusions rest on established facts, not impressions or probabilities
  • Transparency of reasoning

— every conclusion is substantiated, explainable, and defensible before a third party

Why engage an external investigator

In most sensitive situations, an external investigation isn't a luxury — it's a necessity. Not only because it guarantees independence, but because it protects the organization itself. A rigorous external investigation report is defensible. It withstands challenge. It gives the organization a solid foundation for action.

What Your Harassment Policies Aren't Telling You

What Your Harassment Policies Aren't Telling You

Most organizations have a harassment policy. It's in the employee handbook. It's been approved by a lawyer. It defines prohibited behaviours. It outlines the available recourses. And yet — the complaints keep coming. Tensions persist. People suffer in silence.

The problem with policies

A policy is a document. It doesn't change behaviours. It doesn't create a climate. It doesn't give managers the tools to detect tensions before they become formal complaints.

In most harassment cases I've had to handle, the policy existed. The problem wasn't the absence of rules — it was the absence of skills to apply them consistently, fairly, and humanely.

A well-drafted policy is worthless in the hands of a manager who lacks the skills to create a safe climate.

What must accompany the policy

  • Real training for managers — not a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation, but training that actually changes behaviours
  • Reporting mechanisms that are accessible, confidential, and credible
  • Visible commitment from leadership to the principles, not just the documents
  • Consistent management practices that make the policy real, not symbolic

Prevention is a system

Preventing harassment isn't about checking a box. It's about building a system where expected behaviours are clear, applied consistently, and where people know they will be heard if they report a problem. The policy is the starting point — not the destination.

Psychological Safety: The Invisible Foundation of a High-Performing Team

Psychological Safety: The Invisible Foundation of a High-Performing Team

We measure team performance with numbers. But what allows a team to perform sustainably — to innovate, to make mistakes and correct course, to say what really needs to be said — rests on something less visible: psychological safety.

What it is — and what it isn't

Psychological safety is the shared belief that team members can speak up, ask questions, flag a problem, or admit a mistake without risk of being punished, ridiculed, or excluded. It's not niceness. It's not the absence of conflict. It's an environment where truth can flow.

Why it's strategic

Without psychological safety, problems go unspoken. Mistakes accumulate in silence. Top performers leave — or burn out quietly. Conflicts seem to emerge from nowhere, because tensions were never allowed to surface early.

A psychologically safe climate isn't a luxury — it's the baseline condition for an organization to learn and improve.

The four levels

  • Inclusion safety — feeling accepted as you are, without a mask
  • Learner safety — being able to ask questions and make mistakes
  • Contributor safety — daring to propose different ideas
  • Challenger safety — being able to question the status quo

Most organizations operate at level 1 or 2. Reaching levels 3 and 4 requires deliberate effort from leadership — and it starts with the manager's behaviours, not with policies.

Inconsistent Decisions, Real Impact: Preventing Arbitrary Management

Inconsistent Decisions, Real Impact: Preventing Arbitrary Management

Arbitrary management is when decisions rest on preferences, moods, or impressions rather than clear, documented criteria. It's often invisible to the person doing it. But it's never invisible to those on the receiving end.

Three criteria to recognize it

  • Lack of objective criteria — decisions cannot be explained or justified by standards known in advance
  • Inconsistency — rules are applied differently depending on the person or context, with no transparent rationale
  • Unpredictability — employees don't know what to expect, forcing them to constantly adjust their behaviour based on the mood of the day

Why it's dangerous

Arbitrary management erodes trust — not all at once, but gradually. An employee who doesn't understand why their colleague was promoted and they weren't. A sanction that seems disproportionate compared to similar behaviour ignored in someone else. A favour never explained.

Each inconsistent decision chips away a little more at the fabric of the working relationship. And once trust is lost, it's very difficult to rebuild without outside intervention.

You can't ask your teams to trust a system they don't understand.

Psychological safety at stake

When the rules of the game aren't clear or aren't applied fairly, people stop investing themselves. They do the bare minimum. They protect themselves by avoiding initiative. Creativity, loyalty, and engagement decline gradually — often long before the situation reaches the stage of a formal complaint.

What can be done concretely

  • Document and communicate the criteria used for important decisions (promotions, evaluations, disciplinary measures)
  • Apply rules consistently, regardless of the individual or personal affinities
  • Allow employees to understand the decisions that affect them, even when the answer isn't the one they hoped for
  • Train managers to recognize their own biases in decision-making

Preventing arbitrary management is one of the most concrete and lasting forms of harassment prevention. Because a fair and predictable environment leaves no room for escalation.

When Rationality Fails: Why Conflict Management Starts with Managing Emotions

When Rationality Fails: Why Conflict Management Starts with Managing Emotions

In a conflict, presenting rational arguments isn't enough. Often, it makes things worse. Not because the arguments are wrong — but because the other person isn't in analysis mode. They're in protection mode.

What actually happens in a conflict

When someone feels attacked, unfairly treated, or ignored, their brain doesn't function the same way it does under normal conditions. It interprets, generalizes, reacts. It looks for evidence that validates the feeling. Rationality simply doesn't have access to the mental space it needs to prevail.

That's why conflicts resist logical arguments. You can be right — completely, objectively right — and still not move an inch forward. Because logic cannot dislodge an unnamed emotion.

You don't resolve a conflict with arguments. You resolve it by creating the conditions where people can truly hear each other again.

The role of emotions in mediation

Mediation creates a space where emotions can be expressed, named, and heard without judgment. It's not therapy. It's a structured space, with clear rules, that allows each party to feel genuinely heard — before solutions are even discussed.

Only once that space has been created can people reflect, listen, and co-build their own solutions. Solutions that last, because they come from the people themselves.

Three concrete steps

  • Acknowledge the emotional state at play — without judging it, without trying to fix it
  • Create a safe space for expression: structure, confidentiality, neutrality
  • Only then introduce the facts, the needs, and potential solutions

This sequence feels counterintuitive to many managers trained to solve problems. But in a conflict situation, it's the only approach that produces lasting results.

Emotional Literacy: The Key Skill for Leaders Who Want to Prevent Conflict

Emotional Literacy: The Key Skill for Leaders Who Want to Prevent Conflict

We talk a lot about leadership. But the skill that would prevent the most conflicts in organizations is neither technical nor legal. It's emotional. And yet, it's often the least developed competency among managers.

What it really is

Emotional literacy is the ability to identify, name, and understand emotions — your own and those of others. It's not naive empathy. It's not psychology. It's a rigorous, observable skill that can be learned and practiced. And in a management context, it changes everything.

Why it matters in management

Workplace conflicts follow an emotional logic that few leaders know how to read. An employee who's been silent for three weeks. A meeting where everyone nods but nobody truly speaks. A decision that "doesn't land" without anyone understanding why. These signals almost always precede escalation — and a leader who can decode them can intervene long before the situation spirals.

Spotting tensions early doesn't require being a psychologist. It requires being present — and knowing what to look for.

The management training paradox

We value certifications, technical skills, and processes. We train managers in performance management, HR policies, and legal obligations. All important things. But the skill that truly maintains a healthy work environment — the ability to read the emotional state of a team — is often missing from management training programs.

What it changes in practice

A manager who understands the emotional dynamics at play within their team can:

  • Intervene before tension becomes an open conflict
  • Make decisions perceived as fairer and more consistent
  • Maintain a psychologically safe climate without imposing additional rules
  • Retain the trust of their team, even in difficult moments

Emotional literacy is not a luxury reserved for "sensitive" leaders. It's a strategic skill for any manager who wants to build a strong team and prevent situations that are costly — both in human and organizational terms.

Insights & Resources

All articles

What distinguishes an acceptable investigation from a rigorous investigation
Investigation · Rigour

What distinguishes an acceptable investigation from a rigorous investigation

September 4, 2026 · 5 min read
Internal or external workplace investigation: when is an independent perspective necessary?
Investigation · Rigour

Internal or external workplace investigation: when is an independent perspective necessary?

September 3, 2026 · 5 min read
Workplace mediation: when it works (and when it isn’t enough)
Mediation

Workplace mediation: when it works (and when it isn’t enough)

August 6, 2026 · 5 min read
Employers obligations regarding psychological harassment
Prevention

Employers obligations regarding psychological harassment

August 5, 2026 · 5 min read
Bill 27 and the prevention program: what employers need to know ahead of 2026
Prevention

Bill 27 and the prevention program: what employers need to know ahead of 2026

August 5, 2026 · 7 min read
Values conflict in the workplace: an illustration of a professional mediation process
Mediation

Values conflict in the workplace: an illustration of a professional mediation process

July 6, 2026 · 7 min read
Psychological harassment at work: why reconciliation is not enough
Management · Workplace Climate

Psychological harassment at work: why reconciliation is not enough

June 15, 2026 · 5 min read
Impartiality in Investigations: Why It's Difficult — and How to Achieve It
Investigation · Rigour

Impartiality in Investigations: Why It's Difficult — and How to Achieve It

March 15, 2024 · 6 min read
What Your Harassment Policies Aren't Telling You
Prevention · Legislation

What Your Harassment Policies Aren't Telling You

March 1, 2024 · 4 min read
Psychological Safety: The Invisible Foundation of a High-Performing Team
Climate · Prevention

Psychological Safety: The Invisible Foundation of a High-Performing Team

February 15, 2024 · 5 min read
Inconsistent Decisions, Real Impact: Preventing Arbitrary Management
Management · Work Climate

Inconsistent Decisions, Real Impact: Preventing Arbitrary Management

February 1, 2024 · 4 min read
When Rationality Fails: Why Conflict Management Starts with Managing Emotions
Mediation · Emotions

When Rationality Fails: Why Conflict Management Starts with Managing Emotions

January 22, 2024 · 6 min read
Emotional Literacy: The Key Skill for Leaders Who Want to Prevent Conflict
Leadership · Prevention

Emotional Literacy: The Key Skill for Leaders Who Want to Prevent Conflict

January 15, 2024 · 5 min read