Many workplace investigations turn on a single, uncorroborated exchange between two people. Where there are no witnesses and no documentary trail, the outcome depends less on who the investigator instinctively believes and more on how the interviews were conducted.

Asking the right questions

Within each interview, the type of question matters as much as the question itself. Begin with TED and open questions, such as “tell me what happened”, to obtain an unprompted account before any detail is introduced.

Move to probing questions that narrow the account without suggesting an answer. Reserve closed questions for confirming specifics: dates, exact wording and who else was present.

Leading questions, at any stage, risk contaminating the account and undermining its evidential value.

Fairness and focus

Fairness requires more than a hearing on the facts. The person facing the allegation should be told the specific standard or policy said to be engaged, not left to guess at the yardstick against which they are being measured.

Equally, investigators should resist pressing a respondent to accept a hypothetical conclusion, or to speculate on how the complainant might feel if disbelieved. Both stray from fact-finding into advocacy for an outcome and both invite challenge on the basis that the process was not conducted with an open mind.