A conversation with Travis Foster, Chief Legal Officer at Work Shield
___________________________
Employee reporting is often treated like a communication issue when it is really a visibility and process problem. A hotline, portal, or internal reporting process only helps employers when employees trust the system enough to speak up and leadership receives usable information quickly. The real question is not whether employees can submit reports. It is whether the reporting process gives employers earlier insight into risk, stronger documentation, and a clear path to move into a defensible investigation.
Why Employee Reporting Channels Still Fail Employers
Why do employees still stay silent when a reporting channel exists?
Travis: Most employees stay silent because they are running the math in their head before they ever say a word. They are thinking, “Is this actually going to help me, or is this going to make my life harder at work?” That fear is real.
The EEOC’s Select Task Force reported that roughly 75% of people who experienced harassment never reported it, often because they feared disbelief, inaction, blame, or retaliation. From the employer’s side, that matters because silence does not mean nothing is happening. It usually means leadership has less visibility into risk than they think they do.
What does low reporting volume signal to leadership?
Travis: A lot of employers look at low reporting numbers and think, “Great, we do not really have issues here.” Sometimes that is true. A lot of times, it is not. Low reporting volume can mean employees are not comfortable speaking up, do not trust the process, or do not think anything is going to happen if they report something.
From a leadership standpoint, low numbers are not automatically a win. Sometimes they are a sign you have less visibility into what is happening inside the organization than you think you do.
Where Employers Lose Control During Intake
What gets lost when HR files the report instead of the employee?
Travis: Usually, the details that really matter. HR is trying to help, but anytime a concern gets filtered through another person, pieces start falling out. The timeline gets fuzzy, exact wording gets softened, small details get left behind, and sometimes the employee’s actual frustration or concern does not fully come through. Then investigators end up spending the first part of the process trying to reconstruct what should have been captured from the beginning. That is one reason our investigation process checklist emphasizes direct intake and documentation early in the process. Weak intake can slow investigations down before the first interview even starts.
Anonymous Reporting and Employee Reporting Require Different Controls
Does anonymous reporting reduce risk or complicate investigations?
Travis: Honestly, it can do both. Anonymous reporting gives employees a way to speak up when they are nervous about retaliation, office politics, or becoming “the person who reported it.” At the same time, anonymous reports can make investigations harder because investigators may not be able to ask follow-up questions, clarify timelines, or gather additional context as easily.
The mistake employers make is thinking anonymous reporting is the goal by itself. What actually matters is whether employees trust the reporting process enough to come forward at all. Interestingly, Work Shield data shows as many as 84% of reports are non-anonymous when employees feel comfortable using the process, and that usually gives employers stronger information to act on faster.
When does a hotline help and when is it just optics?
Travis: A hotline helps when there is an actual process behind it. Somebody is reviewing reports quickly, documenting what comes in, tracking follow-up, watching for retaliation concerns, and moving issues into investigations when needed.
Where employers get into trouble is when the hotline exists mostly because they think they are supposed to have one. If leadership cannot explain what happens after a report comes in, the system usually turns into optics instead of a real risk-management tool. The EEOC focuses heavily on whether reporting systems function in practice, not whether the company can simply say one exists.
What Leadership Should Measure Beyond Report Volume
What should employers measure if low reporting volume is unreliable?
Travis: Employers usually focus on how many reports come in, but the more important question is what the reports are actually telling you. Are the same departments showing up repeatedly? Are managers involved? Are reports coming in early, or only after problems have escalated?
Leaders should also pay attention to whether employees are comfortable identifying themselves and whether reports move into investigations quickly without missing information slowing things down. The EEOC has pointed out that witnesses often spot patterns before leadership does, which is why reporting systems should allow employees to report concerns they experience and concerns they observe. The strongest reporting data gives employers visibility into where risk is building before it turns into a larger problem.
How should employers think about retaliation risk after a report?
Travis: A lot of employers think retaliation risk starts after an investigation is over. In reality, it starts the minute somebody raises a concern. Once a report comes in, employees start paying attention to everything around them. Schedule changes, performance conversations, reduced hours, being left out of meetings, all of those things can suddenly feel connected to the report whether leadership intended that or not.
That is why the EEOC pushes employers to document decisions carefully, train managers appropriately, and pay attention to how employees and witnesses are treated throughout the process. Some of the biggest problems we see are not the original complaint itself. It is what happens afterward when leaders stop paying attention.
Why Reporting Structure Matters More Than Employers Think
The strongest reporting processes are usually the ones employees trust enough to use. Employers sometimes focus heavily on adding more ways to report concerns, but the bigger issue is whether the process produces usable information early enough for leadership to act on it. When reports come in late, incomplete, or filtered through multiple people, investigations usually become harder from the start.
That is also why identified reporting matters more than many employers realize. In environments where employees feel comfortable speaking up, investigators can ask follow-up questions earlier, clarify timelines faster, and gather better context from the beginning. Anonymous reporting absolutely has a place, but the larger issue is whether employees trust the process enough to come forward at all.
Employers that measure success by low report volume, hotline availability, or policy language are usually measuring the wrong things. The more important question is whether the reporting process gives leadership earlier visibility into risk before issues escalate further inside the organization.
When reporting is silent, filtered, or incomplete, leadership is not operating with the full picture. Review whether your reporting process gives leadership enough usable information to act before risk escalates.
