5 Chapter 5: Planning an Investigation

When one begins to plan an investigation, they may be preparing for a full scale investigation in which a formal report will be provided to the decision makers, or it may be a brief investigation to determine if a violation of policy, procedures, standards or legislation has occurred. Whichever approach one takes they want to be thorough in their preparation and have a well-grounded investigation that can support any action taken (or not taken) by the employer.

Objectives of the investigation.

There are several objectives when conducting a workplace investigation:

• Determine what happened in respect to an incident.
• Determine who was involved in the incident.
• Determine the events surrounding the incident.
• Determine if there is evidence to support a claim of workplace misconduct.
• Determine if there was a violation of company policy and procedures, a breach of compliance or a violation of the law.
• Complete a thorough investigation that can withstand scrutiny.

THE PEACE Model

When beginning any investigation, regardless of whether the investigation is going to be lengthy and complex or short and simple, it is helpful to have a template or a model to follow.

Police in conjunction with psychologists in England and Wales developed a model for collecting information that was non-confrontational and not aggressive. They developed a model called the PEACE investigative interviewing model. This model has been adapted to be used for workplace investigations as a way to plan an investigation while keeping it non-confrontational.

“PEACE is an acronym that stands for:

Planning and preparation: This requires investigators to find out as much as they can about the incident under investigation, including who needs to be interviewed and why.

Engage and Explain: The purpose of this stage is to establish rapport and is described in the literature as the most influential aspect in whether or not an interview is successful. It involves showing concern for the subject’s welfare by asking how they want to be addressed, how much time they’ve got available to be interviewed and giving reassurance if the person seems anxious or nervous.

Account — Clarification and challenge: This stage is where the interviewer attempts to obtain a full account of events from the subject without interrupting. Once the interviewee has explained what happened, the interviewer can ask follow up questions which allow them to expand and clarify their account of events. If necessary, this may involve challenging aspects of the interviewee’s story if contradictory information is available.

Closure: This stage involves summarizing the subject’s account of what happened and is designed to ensure there is mutual understanding between interviewer and interviewee about what has taken place. It also involves verifying that everything that needs to be discussed has been covered.

Evaluation: This stage requires the interviewer to examine whether they achieved what they wanted from the interview; to review the status of the investigation in the light of any new information that was received; and to reflect upon how well the interview went and what, if anything, could have been done differently.”^[1]

The premise is based upon good planning of the investigation, no matter how big or small, complex or simple the investigation is.

Prior to commencing, the investigator should have a basic plan as to how they are going to execute the investigation. It should follow any required procedures or processes outlined by a company policy or in a collective agreement. It should include the following items that are adapted from the PEACE model:

1. Determine the goal of the investigation.
2. Determine the scope of the investigation. Is it a single issue or multiple issues?
3. Identify a timeline of tasks if it is required.
4.  Identify resources needed: witnesses, records to be examined
5. Identify if any interim arrangements are required during the investigation e.g. placing an employee on paid leave.
6. Identify if a communication plan is required. Be mindful of confidentiality and reprisals in the workplace.
7. Identify any logistical or procedural obstacles that will need to be overcome.
8. Identify if a report is required, and if so, who it will be provided to.^[2]

Pre-investigation Preparation

As the HR practitioner prepares for an investigation, they will want to collect background information related to the matter being investigated. It is helpful to document the background information already collected either through fact finding or from HR files and capture it along with other information into one place. The following is some of the background information that an investigator may want to collect prior to the start of the investigation.

• What questions need to be answered in this investigation?
• Identify what information is already known.
• Identify what additional information is needed.
• Identify what evidence is already gathered.
• Identify what evidence/records are required.
• Identify witnesses- who they are, where they are, if they require representation at an interview. Determine how they will be notified of an interview.
• Identify logistical challenge. Where will witnesses be interviewed? Is there a communication plan needed? Is travel required? Do employees work different shifts?
• Identify any risks or safety concerns.

An investigator should be sure to read the complaint thoroughly and make note of their questions. This will assist in approaching the investigation with a curious mind. It is helpful to collect this information in either an electronic file or bound notebook where the investigator can refer to it easily throughout the investigation. An investigator may wish to make hand-written notes on a printed copy of the complaint.

Crafting interview questions is a crucial part of the investigation preparation and will be explored in detail later in this chapter.

From a logistical perspective, if a witness interview is going to be recorded, the investigator should ensure that they have all the proper equipment, and the equipment has been tested. At the beginning of the interview the investigator should state in the recording who is in the room. During the investigation it should be noted if anyone joins or leaves the room, and the investigator may want to explain on the recording any long periods of silence.

If the investigator is taking handwritten notes they should ensure ample paper, pens, etc. are available. They should also determine up front if the interviewee or union is entitled to see their notes or have a copy of the interview transcript.

Interviews should be conducted in a discreet location, out of the view of the general employee population. The space should be quiet and comfortable and accessible for those who may have mobility challenges or other disability. It is advisable to have water and a box of tissues available for interviewees.

An investigator must be flexible, as the interview may not go exactly according to plan. Regardless of what occurs during the meeting the investigator is responsible for running the interview. They should not be distracted or intimidated by others during the investigation – including supervisors or managers, union, or employees. Good planning will enable an investigator to adapt to the circumstances that arise and still meet their objectives.

The Trauma Informed Approach to Interviewing

Depending upon the nature of the complaint, additional preparations may be required by the investigator. Complaints that involve harassment, racial harassment, bullying, sexual harassment, sexual assault or workplace violence may involve employees who have experienced trauma from the alleged events. To understand how to best deal with complaints involving trauma one must first look at what trauma is and how it may affect the individuals involved.

There is debate in the mental health field as to the exact definition of trauma. The American Psychiatric Association’s definition of trauma is “experiencing or witnessing in person, or learning about an event to a family member or close friend that includes exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual violence.”^[3]  This is quite a narrow definition and focuses on life threatening events. One may feel that these instances would be few and far between in the workplace; and based on this definition that would be true. However, the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH) has a broader definition and refers to trauma as “the challenging emotional consequences that living through a distressing event can have for an individual.”^[4] This definition seems to apply to many more workplace complaints.

There is also great variability as to how individuals handle traumatic events, some individuals will easily manage the traumatic event and cope well; whereas other who experience a similar event may find that they are not able to cope and experience post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). What is important for the workplace investigator is not the definition of trauma or categorizing traumatic events; it is being aware that individuals going through a traumatic event may have different emotional responses.  This means being aware of the potentially different responses and how to minimize further traumatizing an individual through the investigation process.

Internal HR investigators and external investigators are not often trained psychologists or therapists and conducting a workplace investigation with traumatized individuals does not require psychology degree, but being aware of the different effects of trauma will hopefully lead to a more satisfactory outcome for both the interviewees and the investigator. Investigators will need to utilize some additional skills and preparation to ensure that the investigation process does not cause any further harm to the interviewees and to get the best possible information.

What is the Trauma-Informed approach?

Individuals who have experienced trauma have benefited from a “humanitarian interviewing approach; where the interviewer was perceived as helpful, obliging, cooperative, friendly and empathetic.” ^[5] The trauma-informed approach is defined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SMAHSA) as:

“Including an understanding of trauma and an awareness of the impact it can have across settings, services and populations. It involves viewing trauma through an ecological and cultural lens and recognizing that context plays a significant role in how individuals perceive and process traumatic events, whether acute of chronic.”^[6]

The first part of the definition includes understanding trauma and how it can impact the individual. A traumatic event can impact individuals in a variety of ways; it may impact their memory of the events, it may impact the emotions displayed, it may impact how an individual communicates and their perceived credibility.

Memory Issues

Author Tova Bar-Danyan notes that “in the aftermath of a traumatic event, neurological changes can occur in the brain (the housing unit for information) that impact how one remembers the traumatic event. These events can impact our authority over memory (e.g. the capacity to recall a trauma experience as a cohesive narrative), perception and the ability to recount details of the events.” ^[7]  People’s memories for traumatic events are-like their memories for more mundane events-easily distorted.^[8]   “In healthy individuals, memories of traumatic events are likely to be remembered due to the significance of the event.” ^[9]  On the other hand, studies have shown “a tendency for involuntary memory (intrusive memories, flashbacks) to be enhanced in clinical populations while voluntary memory of traumatic events tends to be effortful, incomplete, fragmented and disorganized.”^[10]

As well it is not uncommon for additional details of memories to come to an individual sometime after the event.  “After a traumatic experience, intentional remembering (effortful retrieval) and unintentional remembering (intrusive mental imagery) can introduce new details that, over time, assimilate into a person’s memory for the event.”^[11]  Again, there is no one definitive finding as to how all people remember traumatic events, but researchers do agree that trauma can and does impact memory.   This may make an investigator somewhat skeptical that days after the initial interview an individual may suddenly come up with more information, new details or have a clearer recollection of the traumatic event. This can be problematic if the interviewee has discussed the events with family or friends repeatedly. Research has shown that individuals’ memories can be influenced by inadvertent suggestions of misleading details by others (friends, family, co-workers), media and/or therapists. People may inadvertently generate additional imagery relating to the event that were not originally there. ^[12] What this means it that the investigator must recognize there may be memory impairment when piecing together sometimes incomplete, hazy or seemingly inconsistent testimony from individuals who have experienced trauma.

As well as not being able to retrieve memories some interviewees may appear to simply zone out of the interview. “This “zoning out” can be caused by intrusive memories or flashbacks which make it difficult for the interviewee to be present.”^[13]  A person who is “zoning out (who has experienced trauma) may also withdraw mentally during the interview to focus on incidental details such as an object in the interview room or a sound in the distance. These observations about trauma and memory would normally lead an investigation to make adverse assumptions about credibility.”^[14]  It is important to look at all the evidence in the case and consider that someone zoning out may not be dismissing the importance of the interview, avoiding questions or being difficult. Zoning out may be a coping mechanism that an individual is utilizing to manage their stress and anxiety brought about by the interview.   Investigators need to be aware that individuals who have experienced trauma may be “experiencing anxiety that may also influence their cognitive functioning like attention and memory.”^[15]

This can be particularly challenging for the investigator when the interviewee cannot recall details clearly, provides new or conflicting accounts of the event, or may zone out or appear disinterested when talking about the incident(s) in the interview. How an individual’s memories are impacted by trauma can vary from person to person and are very complex. An investigator needs to be aware of this and be mindful that inconsistent or incomplete memories may not be an indication of an interviewee’s credibility or truthfulness. Investigators must piece together the testimony as best they can and rely on other evidence to support the narrative. An investigator must understand that they may not get a perfectly clear picture of what went on because the interviewee may not actually have a perfect recollection of the events or be able to communicate their recollections.

 

Emotions and Communication

“Trauma is an emotional response to an event that a person finds physically or emotionally threatening or harmful. It can be triggered by incidents that are repeated events, significant single events and or even through a close association with someone who experiences a traumatic event (secondary trauma).”^[16]

Researchers Patrick Risan, Rebecca Milne and Per-Einar Binder have noted that “it is particularly important to be aware of how reactions to traumatic events are complex, can be extremely distressing and can have a major impact on the life of an individual. Symptoms may be transient and vary greatly. There may be initial symptoms of acute stress, fear, helplessness and dissociative symptoms (detachment or emotional numbness).”^[17] What this means is that emotional signs of trauma may change over time and may manifest themselves in a variety of different forms, no one person will react the same to a traumatic incident. “Traumatic impact may cause a range of emotions that can influence the information sought, as emotional experiences/distresses can have a significant impact on an individual’s response (or lack thereof) in the context of investigations. For example, an interviewee’s fear, shame or anger may lead to an outburst, which can derail an interview, curtail the individuals’ cooperation and prevent obtaining all the necessary and pertinent facts.” ^[18]

“The interviewee could experience a desire to avoid talking about certain issues, confusion, difficulties concentrating, hostility agitation… or a sudden rise in overwhelming feelings of anxiety or sadness can create barrier to providing a detailed and coherent account of the traumatic event.”^[19]  Investigators may observe a variety of behaviors such as depression, anxiety, irritability, impatience, agitation or anger. “Even a panic attack can be misinterpreted and possibly interpreted as a manifestation of guilt; it is important to recognize that an individual’s mastery of trauma-induced symptoms does not necessarily reflect a lack of credibility, such as a lack of eye contact, slumping posture and or reddening of the face and neck- all traditionally associated with shame and guilt.”^[20]  An emotional interviewee may make it challenging to conduct a comprehensive interview.

 

How to conduct a trauma-informed interview.

When an investigator is presented with a complaint, based upon the nature of the complaint, they may assume whether trauma is involved or not.  The problem is that the investigator will not really know the extent of potential trauma or who may be traumatized. It could be the complainant, witnesses or other parties in the investigation. The investigator will assume which might be correct or completely off the mark. In some cases where one may think trauma is a factor it might simply have no impact on the parties at all. Whereas in another case with no evident trauma, the parties may in fact turn out to be heavily influenced. Basically, the investigator simply does not know. Just as a good investigator will create a plan utilizing the PEACE interviewing method, they will also want to adopt a trauma-informed investigation approach whether it may be called for or not. The law firm Rublin Tomlinson note in their March 2, 2021, article that “while it is true the not every case involves trauma, we don’t actually know how much the parties or witnesses are affected by trauma, given how common it is. There’s really no “down-side” to taking a trauma-informed approach in our interviews, as it is also a great way to approach the process with respect and neutrality.”^[21]

The trauma-informed approach means that the investigator is:

• Able to recognize trauma
• Understand how, what, where and when to ask questions
• Employ techniques and strategies that support a process for mitigating or reducing the possibility of re-traumatization^[22]

Planning for a trauma-informed investigation can be easily incorporated in an investigator’s normal investigation planning. The investigator will want to consider the following items.

1) First Contact: The investigator may want to have first contact with the interviewee by phone or in a preliminary meeting. When meeting the interviewee, the investigator should greet the person in a respectful manner and show a genuine interest in the person, as well as endeavor to make a good first impression (friendly and professional). The investigator should introduce themselves by first name and refer to the interviewee by first name whereby they aim to develop a relationship where the interviewee can experience a sense of equality, trust and predictability.

2) Building Rapport: To make the interviewee socially comfortable it might be useful to engage in small talk. It may include asking the interviewee how they are doing or how they are feeling. The interviewer should use open-ended questions and encourage the interviewee to speak without interruption to prepare them for the style and format of the interview.

During the pre-meeting it is important to build rapport. This may be the single most important step in the trauma-informed interview process. “The first point of contact between the interviewer and the interviewee will often determine how well the interview proceeds, highlighting the significance of obtaining good rapport.^[23] When establishing rapport, the aim is to explain the purpose of the interview and build a working relationship that contributes to the interviewee providing information. ^[24] Researchers have described the nature of rapport as consisting of three essential interrelating components:

• • • Mutual attentiveness (shared interest and degree of involvement in the interaction)
    • Positivity (feeling of mutual friendliness)
    • Coordination (the balance, harmony and smoothness of the interaction)^[25]

3) Explain the process: The interviewee should be given an explanation as to the purpose and process of the future interview as well as respective roles, rights and regulations. It is important to ask the interviewee if they have any questions about the process.  During this initial meeting or phone call the investigator can provide the interviewee with a few potential dates and times for the future interview, and allow the interviewee to select their preferred date and time.  This allows the interviewee some measure of control over the process.

A pre-interview phone call or meeting also gives the interviewee time to process information and become familiar with the investigator. It also lets the investigator assess the interviewee’s readiness for the interview.

4) Set up the Interview Room: Ensure that the interview space is set up appropriately for the interview (blinds are closed, there are enough chairs, etc.), and allow the interviewee to select where they would like to sit.^[26] “Traumatized interviewees are concerned about giving up control, so it is important to allow them to decide where to sit such as choosing one chair over another. Interviewees who are very anxious or stressed may feel compelled to use their hands and may benefit from scribbling on a piece of paper or using a fidget toy, such items should be available.^[27]

Ensure that there is water and tissue in the room. If conducting the interview virtually the investigator can invite the interviewee to ensure that they have water or anything else, they might need with them before the interview begins. ^[28] “Offering a drink of water to a person recalling trauma can be helpful as it has several beneficial aspects. Firstly, there is a caring aspect which can help with building rapport. Secondly the act of drinking requires a person to breather which is inherently calming.” ^[29]

5) Preface the Interview: Prior to asking any question the interviewer will want to continue to build rapport. It will be important to review the interview process again to see if there are any additional questions that have arisen after the initial meeting. Continue to “explain what the interview might look like and what they can expect. In particular highlight where an interview might be unusual or uncomfortable – examples include witness interviews where the witnesses are given little to now context.^[30]

When conducting a trauma-informed investigation there may be long periods of silence prior to an interviewee speaking. This is normal and the interviewee should be informed that should this happen it is not a problem, and it may help the interviewee to think further about the events.  What this means is that the investigator will need to resist the urge to fill in that silence, which can be difficult. The investigator will need to be patient and allow the person time to process the question and formulate their answer.  The investigator will want to remind the interviewee that if they have trouble remembering or do not understand a question, they are welcome to ask for clarification at any time.

The interviewee should be told that, if relevant, the interview may touch upon topics that are highly personal. At this point the investigator should communicate that they are open and receptive to whatever might occur during the interview (crying, breaks, anger etc.) emphasizing that the interview is a safe space.^[31]

6) Beginning the Interview: As discussed earlier memory may be impaired due to trauma and it is important the interviewee have a sense of control author Charles Lentini suggests the following:

“Instead of beginning the interview with “start from the beginning” it is preferable to say “Start where you feel comfortable” or “tell me what you remember”.  This allows the interviewee to feel more control over how the narrative unfolds and minimizes contaminating fragile memories. 

Standard questions such as “what happened next?”  can be counterproductive for a traumatized person as nonchronological recollections can derive from a trauma situation. Questions such as “what else happened” or “what else do you remember?” can be more productive when trauma is present. 

During a traumatic event the primitive part of our brain records sensory information more effectively than cognitive facts. Therefore, question about sense memories such as sounds, smells sights and touch can enable an interviewee to recall significantly more information.”^[32]

The investigator may want to facilitate a free narrative to help the interviewee recall events in their own time and at their own pace. “The free narrative mode is about encouraging the interviewee to spontaneously provide an account. The interviewee should be encouraged to concentrate and focus their attention, they will not be interrupted and should use their own words, they will be doing most of the talking and will be given time to reflect and answer one question at a time.”^[33]

An interviewer may begin a free narrative by asking the interviewee to “tell me everything you can about the events, in as much detail as possible. You can decide where to start and go at your own pace.” This allows the person to control the narrative and begin with that they want to talk about first. If the narrative wanders off into areas that are unrelated the interviewer can gently direct the interview back with prompts or circling back to important items by saying things such as “tell me more about that” or “you mentioned….”

7) Showing Empathy: If the interviewee demonstrates signs of distress, it is important to be empathetic. “Empathy is about perceiving the experience of another person – their feelings, intentions and needs – and to communicate and act on the basis of such an understanding.^[34]

“There are different types of empathy on a continuum in the investigative interview. On one end there is rational/cognitive empathy (e.g. displaying an intellectual understanding of the interviewees situation), whilst affective empathy (e.g. experiencing the state of the interviewee) is toward the other end. The authors Bull and Baker argue that “investigative empathy” should lie somewhere in the middle of this continuum.”^[35] What this means is that the investigator should not just simply recognize the interviewee’s distress, but be open, understanding and present for the individual. This does not however mean joining the interviewee in their emotions, an investigator should maintain a level of professionalism.

Many interviewees who become emotional may be embarrassed by the behavioral manifestations of their emotions. It is important to let the person know it is ok to be emotional, they don’t need to be embarrassed or ashamed of expressing their emotions. “Managing emotions does not imply that the interviewer should aim to avoid or reduce all emotional arousal. Emotional states may assist the memory process and help the interviewee remember details of what happened. After all, emotions are connected to perception, memory, motivation, bodily sensations and ^{behavior.[36]}  It will be important to acknowledge that that the person is upset and that the topics being discussed are difficult. “The interviewer should acknowledge and show understanding of the interviewee’s state (e.g. I can see it is not easy to talk about this just take your time”) as affirmative experience can help regulate anxiety.”^[37] The investigator should let the interviewee know that the interview is a safe space and that it is ok to express emotions. The interviewee may apologize for expressing emotions, be worried or embarrassed of what the investigator may think. The investigator may need to assure the person that it is a safe space and that the investigator “can cope with the emotions experienced by the interviewee.”^[38] What this means is that as an investigator one will need to be able to handle an interviewee who is perhaps angry, upset or any other variety of emotions. If an investigator is self aware, and knows that they do not like or cannot handle emotional interviews, they may want to decline taking on the investigation if possible.

8) Taking a Break: If an interviewee is distressed, an investigator should be empathetic and ask if the person needs to take a break, if they would like a drink of water, or need a tissue. “Drinking water can be a very grounding activity, which the interviewee may find helpful’ having a snack may assist with a drop in blood sugar from the stress of the interview, which can be caused any increased cortisol levels as a result of stress.”^[39]

Giving a break or “temporary change in the topic of conversation or asking the interviewee to slow down (to show the interviewee that they are in control of the interview process” may also be helpful.^[40]  It also may mean that an interviewee does not answer a certain question immediately but comes back to the question later in the interview after a break. Researchers, Risan, Binder and Milne recommend “asking the interviewee to take three to four slow deep beaths and focus on the movement to their own breathing before continuing with their account of the events, to move attention to something the interviewee can control”, which may help to manage emotions.^[41]

“If the interviewee is perceived as reluctant or withdrawing from the interview. This may be a sign that the interviewee is dissociating, the interviewer can engage in approaches aimed to “ground” the interviewee by directing attention to the here and now, (e.g. by obtaining eye contact and saying the interviewee’s name, asking about objects in the room or offering water.”^[42] When the person appears ready to continue ask open ended questions or probes such as “tell me more about that.”

It will be important for an investigator to be able to gauge however when an interviewee is becoming too emotional and cannot continue the interview. This may mean re-scheduling the interview or taking an extended break.  What this does not mean is that the interviewee never answers important questions; as an investigator it is important to get the information that you need to determine the facts and create an accurate report. With a trauma-informed approach it may mean being more patient and coming back to topics to ask follow up questions for clarification and piece together disparate evidence.

Closing the Interview

Prior to closing the interview, the investigator will want to ensure that they have the information that they require. They will want to let the interviewee know what will happen next in the process and remind the person that they may need to be re-interviewed. It is important to give time for the interviewee to ask questions that they may have. The investigator has worked hard to develop trust and rapport with the interviewee so will want to reinforce a positive atmosphere. The investigator may want to return to neutral rapport building conversation topics or show appreciation for the interviewee’s time and cooperation.  As memory may be affected by trauma it will be important to give the interviewee a method to contact the interviewer if they need to add anything to their testimony.

Tips for Trauma Informed Interviews

• Exercise empathy, but do not say “I understand” or “I know how you feel”, use neutral language.
• Plan your questions but be flexible – do not lead with the hardest questions first
• Maintain open-ended and non-suggestive questions
• Afford interviewees a sense of control by potentially returning to unanswered questions later or seeking their permission before sharing graphical evidence.
• Minimize interruptions
• Permit a support person in the interview (though set guidelines as to the degree of their involvement)^[43]

Benefits of a Trauma-Informed Approach

Author Tova Bar-Dayan has highlighted the following benefits to utilizing a trauma-informed approach:

• 1) It avoids re-traumatization of the interviewee.
• 2) It can yield higher amounts of information than a regular interview approach.
• 3) The findings can be more accurate.
• 4) It can also indirectly enhance organizational trust.
• 5) May reduce potential underreporting of incidents^[44]

Researchers Langballe and Schultz reported that interviewees who participated in trauma-informed investigations reported it was a positive experience stating that they:

• Could control their own narrative
• Were able to present a coherent account
• Were listened to by an interviewer
• Perceived the “interviewer” as empathetic and professional
• Were able to cope with emotional reactions during the interview
• Regarded the interview as meaningful^[45]

When an investigator utilizes a trauma-informed approach, by setting the appropriate atmosphere, providing a roadmap for the interviewee as to the process and establishing rapport, the interview has a good start. With the skillful implementation of empathy, building trust and giving the interviewee some sense of control over the interview, it is likely that the interviewee will be able to recall more details and be more forthcoming with information. When an investigator is prepared to handle the emotions that may arise during a trauma-informed approach interview and by creating a safe space it may help to avoid re-traumatizing the individual. The last thing an organization wants is an interviewee who has bad interview experience and ends up on medical leave or refuses to participate further in the process.

If an investigator does not take into consideration the effects of trauma, and simply proceeds with an investigative interview or worse an interrogative interview, the consequences can be far reaching. At a minimum it will be a negative experience for the interviewee the other end of the spectrum it could result in re-traumatization of the interviewee, it can impact the investigation results and potentially the actions taken by the organization based on the investigation report. The investigator’s reputation and company reputation will be negatively impacted. This can also discourage other individuals from reporting trauma related complaints and could affect the credibility of the organization and indirectly morale within the organization.

 

An investigation entails gathering evidence in a systematic, impartial, and professional manner. Part of that evidence may be oral evidence from witnesses and individuals involved in the incident being investigated. The success of gathering oral evidence is dependent upon the quality of the interview to uncover the truth. Crafting good interview questions is essential to eliciting the best information from individuals.

An investigator wants to ensure that they get a good grasp of the facts through the interview. This involves questions on the 5 W’s

• Who was involved?
• What happened or what was said?
• When did the incident occur?
• Where did the incident occur?
• How did the incident occur?
• Do you know why the incident occurred?

“Why” is probably the least important for the investigation, as the investigator can determine if there was misconduct or the validity of a complaint without ever knowing the reason why. As humans, we want to make sense of the world that we live in and want to know the reasons why events take place so it is natural to want to know why an incident happened. However, an investigator may need to be satisfied to conclude the investigation never knowing the why.

The investigation may start with asking some “housekeeping” questions. These are questions that the investigator knows the person can answer and should be easy for the person to respond to. This will help the person to feel as comfortable as possible and get them used to answering questions. Housekeeping questions are simple, closed questions.

Some housekeeping questions may be asking the person their name, their job title, how long they have worked with the company, what their job entails on a daily basis, or who their supervisor/manager is.

After the housekeeping questions, the investigator will progress to more investigative and probing questions.

Creating Investigative Questions

Investigative questions get more to the heart of the matter. Now that the person has a level of comfort and is talking, the investigator will want to collect the facts and underlying information that is helpful to the investigation. Investigative questions should have the following characteristics:

1. They need to be open ended
2. They need to add clarity to the issue/complaint
3. They need to be on topic and relevant to the investigation
4. They need to be questions not an interrogation
5. They should check for inconsistencies and illuminate earlier answers
6. Should be neutrally worded (not blaming or accusing)

Questions should be prepared in advance to give the interview structure and free up time for the investigator to write accurate notes. Follow-up and probing questions may be used to gather further information. These follow-ups should be more fluid based upon what the interviewee says. The key is to get the interviewee telling the investigator a free flow narrative of what they saw, heard or experienced. An investigator may prepare questions in advance but never end up using them, and that is perfectly ok. It gives the investigator a sense of security to have questions prepared to ask even if they are not used.

Questions prepared in advance are helpful and can guide the investigation, but do not need to be followed strictly if the interview goes in a different direction, as long as the investigator is getting the information they require. Different questions will be prepared for the different parties that are interviewed and for each incident being investigated. What might be an appropriate question for a respondent to a harassment complaint may not be appropriate for a witness to that same complaint.

Different types of complaints will need different types of questions. In a discrimination or harassment complaint the investigator will need to craft unique questions for the complainant, respondent, and any witnesses. In a complaint of misconduct by a supervisor or manager, the investigator will speak to the supervisor or manager to get all of the information surrounding the misconduct, which is likely more like a conversation. However, the investigator will need to craft more formal questions for the respondent and any witnesses in misconduct complaints. A complaint of workplace fraud would again require a completely different set of questions.

It is important to remember to let the interviewee have time to think about an answer to a question, certain individuals may need more time to formulate their answers, as an investigator do not be afraid of silence. It is also important to conduct an interview not an interrogation. An interrogation is confrontational and accusatory, its goal is to make the interviewee uncomfortable and show the investigator’s power. Workplace investigators need to be mindful that at the end of the investigation they will possibly be working with the participants again, seeing them in the lunchroom or around the organization, thus it is important to maintain professionalism and good relations.

Sample Questions for the Complainant

Included are some sample questions for different types of complaints and different types of interviewees.

1. Harassment based questions

Housekeeping:

• What is your full name?
• What is your position at (Company Name), how long have you been in this position?
• What are the typical duties in your job/ what do you normally do in a day at your job?
• What is your working relationship with (Respondent’s name)?
• How long have you worked together?

Investigative:

• How would you describe your working relationship with (Respondent’s name)?
• You have made a complaint/complaints against (Respondent’s name) for alleged harassment. Tell me about the allegations that you have made. Let’s start with the first one
• Allegation explained
• Second Allegation explained (if more than one allegation the complainant will be asked to explain the circumstances surrounding each allegation)
• Was anyone else present who may have witnessed the incident? If so what was their involvement?
• How did the complainant respond to this alleged incident?

Follow up with probing questions, identify any inconsistencies and ask for clarification, capture the details required to establish the facts. Be curious.  Some investigators will refrain from asking behavioural type questions, but there can be value in asking these questions as it provides insight into the complainant.

• What were you hoping to achieve by bringing forward this complaint?
• Why did you make this complaint now?
• Why do you think the respondent did these actions?
• How do you think the respondent will respond to these allegations?
• What would you like to see happen? What is an appropriate sanction for what is alleged to have occurred?
• What do you think would be a fair outcome?

There are no correct answers to behavioral questions, but an investigator should look for responses that are disproportionate to the allegations or the rest of the evidence that may be revealing.^[46] If a response is disproportionate there might be something else going on. An example of a disproportionate answer may be “I want the person locked up forever, so they never see the light of day and their soul dies.” This might encourage the investigator to speak to the employer about what they have heard and inquire if there is something else going on.

Sample Questions for the Respondent

1. Misconduct based questions:

Housekeeping:

• What is your full name?
• What is your position at (Company Name), how long have you been in this position?
• What are the typical duties in your job/ what do you normally do in a day at your job?
• What training have you received to be able to do your job?
• Who else do you interact with in your job?
• What is your working relationship with (Complainant’s name)?
• How long have you worked together?

Investigative:

• On (DATE) an incident occurred on your job where your Supervisor (Supervisor Name or other Authority Figure) became involved. Can you tell me what happened that day?
• Or
• On (DATE) there was an incident that occurred while you were working, do you recall the incident? Please tell me about what happened?

Follow up with probing questions, identify any inconsistencies and ask for clarification, capture the details required to establish the facts. Be curious.

2.  Harassment based questions:

Housekeeping:

• What is your full name?
• What is your position at (Company Name), how long have you been in this position?
• What are the typical duties in your job/ what do you normally do in a day at your job?
• What is your working relationship with (Respondent’s name)?
• How long have you worked together?

Investigative:

• How would you describe your working relationship with (Complainant’s?
• ‘s name)
• Has your relationship changed at all from when you first met? If so, how?
• In the complaint received by (Complainant’s name) allegations have been made against you for (Harassment/Bullying/Alleged Behaviour) I would like you to walk me through each of the allegations from your perspective.
• Allegation #1
• Allegation #2 (if more than one allegation the Respondent should be asked to explain all the circumstances surrounding each allegation)

Follow up with probing questions, identify any inconsistencies and ask for clarification, capture the details required to establish the facts. Be curious.

Sample questions for the Witnesses

1. Misconduct based question

Housekeeping:

• What is your full name?
• What position do you hold at (Company name)?
• How long have you been in that role?
• What do you do in your current role in the typical day?
• What is your working relationship with (Respondent’s name)?

Investigative:

• How would you describe your working relationship with (Respondent’s name)?
• On (date) there was an incident involving (Respondent’s name) can you tell me about what you saw and heard?

Follow up with probing questions, identify any inconsistencies and ask for clarification, capture the details required to establish the facts. Be curious.

2. Harassment based questions

Housekeeping:

• What is your full name?
• What position do you hold at (Company name)?
• How long have you been in that role?
• What do you do in your current role in the typical day?
• Do you work with (Complainant’s name)?
• Do you work with (Respondent’s name)?
• How long have you worked together?

Investigative:

• How would you describe your working relationship with (Complainant’s name)?
• What is your working relationship with (Respondent’s name)?
• How would you describe your working relationship with (Respondent’s name)?
• How is (Respondent’s name) working relationship with others?
• Have you ever noticed any inappropriate behaviour by (Respondent’s name)?
• On (DATE) there was an incident that occurred did you notice anything unusual on that date?
• Did you notice anything unusual about (Complainant’s name) on (DATE)?
• Did you notice anything unusual about (Respondent’s name) on (DATE)?

Follow up with probing questions, identify any inconsistencies and ask for clarification, capture the details required to establish the facts, be curious.

Prompts or Follow ups

Sometimes an interviewee is not clear or they may be reluctant to expand upon their answers. Prompts or follow up questions can encourage people to continue talking. It also lets the interviewee know that the investigator is listening and interested in what they have to say. Some common prompts are:

• I’d like to hear what your thoughts are on (topic)
• Earlier you said (item), tell me more about that
• That is interesting, can please you expand upon that
• I’d be interested to hear what you have to say on that

Follow ups are questions that follow a question when you need more information. If an interviewee has not been clear or has not provided quite enough detail the following can be used:

• Tell me more
• How so
• Earlier you mentioned (item) now you stated something quite different, why is that
• I am not sure I understand, can you explain that
• What do you mean when you say “…..”
• Really

Even though an investigator may draft their questions in advance, they should be flexible and be prepared to probe or elicit additional information. Interviewees may provide information that the investigator had not thought to ask about but is valuable to the investigation.