One thing I’ve learned over the years is this: credibility shapes every workplace investigation long before the first interview ever takes place.

Among the topics we cover in our training courses is the idea of credibility. Not only the credibility of the investigator, but also the credibility of the organization.

Having a high level of credibility in both areas can help inevitable investigations proceed as smoothly as possible while minimizing negative impacts on the workplace. Unfortunately, low credibility can have the opposite effect, leading to a lack of cooperation, unnecessary delays and, ultimately, a process that is more difficult to conduct fairly.

Most professional investigators understand this when it comes to their own credibility. We spend a lot of time thinking about the integrity of the process we run. We pay attention to managing bias, ensuring a fair and balanced process for every party, basing our questions on the evidence presented, and staying within the scope of the investigation. We know it can take years to build credibility, and only a moment to lose it.

What can sometimes be overlooked, however, is organizational credibility.

How have investigations been handled in the past? Have other investigators and leaders approached workplace issues fairly and consistently, not just during formal harassment investigations, but in other similar workplace processes as well?

Employees don’t experience investigations in isolation. Every interaction they have with leadership shapes their expectations. Those experiences either build confidence in the organization or gradually erode it.

One of the biggest differences I notice when investigating in organizations with low credibility versus those with high credibility is how people engage with the process. In workplaces where trust has been damaged, it can be harder to schedule interviews with complainants, respondents and witnesses alike. Even when interviews are booked, there is often an underlying tension in the conversation, through no fault of the investigator. There can be an uphill battle to convince people that the process is necessary, fair, impartial and balanced.

So, what can organizations do?

In my opinion, it starts with committing to a fair and balanced investigation process. Communicate that process clearly to those involved. Answer questions openly and honestly. Be intentional about how today’s decisions and actions will shape trust in future investigations.

Yes, investigations are about answering the who, what, when, where and how. But they are also about minimizing the overall negative impact on everyone involved, regardless of the outcome. Building and protecting credibility, both personal and organizational, is one of the most important ways we can do that.

That’s something I’ve focused on not only in our training, but every time I sit down to interview someone.

– Dylan

Question Planning: How a small shift in perspective can make your planning more efficient—and your interviews more flexible.

In my experience, there are three points in any investigation where structure and analysis make all the difference: the end, the middle, and the beginning. Over time, the way I approach each of these has changed, and I talk about them often in our workshops. I thought I’d share a quick overview here.

The End: Organizing What We’ve Gathered

This was the first analysis stage I became familiar with. At the end of an investigation, all the material is collected, including verbal information formalized into signed statements, documentary evidence in the form of email and other communication, as well as evidence like audio and video recordings. At this point, we have to organize the evidence, test whether it’s in scope, and decide if it’s enough to support conclusions.

I feel like most of us are very familiar with this stage of analysis and also familiar with the feeling we get when we reach this stage and identify gaps of information. A very real choice comes with how to proceed and remedy the situation.

The Middle: Checking Completeness Midway

With experience, I learned to add another checkpoint halfway through. After interviewing and reviewing signed statements by the complainant and the respondent, I compile their information into the draft report. Seeing their accounts side by side helps me see what’s clear, what’s missing, and what I need from witnesses.

This midway analysis shapes the witness list and the questions I ask. In Level 1 of our training, we start participants on this step at level one and go deeper in level two. It’s now a routine part of every investigation I do.

The Beginning: Building the Essence Paragraph

The last checkpoint actually comes first. After reading the complainant’s signed statement, I create what I call an Essence Paragraph. It’s a short summary that captures the core elements of the complaint.

That paragraph becomes a quick reference throughout the process.I have used it in every investigation for the past few years and find myself relying on it in a number of ways that I believe increase the efficiency of the investigation and also have a side benefit of preventing scope creep. If you would like to see a sample essence paragraph, please get in touch and I can share an example from our training course.

I review it before meeting with the respondent, so I know exactly what they need to respond to. I remind myself that these are the elements that the complainant has said the respondent has done, and are in relation to them and the relevant policy under review. By focussing on the essential elements in my interview with the respondent, I can ensure that they have had a chance to respond to each essential element in their defense and I am therefore able to bring a more complete, focused product to the reporting stage of the investigation. As well, I refresh myself on the essence as I prepare for each witness interview as well as the re-direct interviews at the very end.

Added bonus: the essence paragraph also carries into the final report template. Decision-makers see the essence of the complaint right away, which helps them understand the case before diving into details.

Why It Matters

This multitiered analysis — beginning, middle, and end — keeps investigations on track. Starting early and progressing throughout keeps us on track, efficient and gets us to the finish line with the most complete information possible, enabling stronger conclusions, based on the evidence, the goal of any workplace investigation.

I’ve come to rely on this structure in every case, and I encourage you to give it a try. Please send me any questions you have about this or any other question that relates to workplace investigations, I could (and do) go on and on about it!

— Dylan