Conducting workplace investigations can be a delicate and complex process. At its core is the challenge of determining the credibility of the individuals involved. Whether dealing with allegations of misconduct, harassment, or other workplace issues, ensuring a fair and impartial investigation is key to upholding justice and maintaining trust within the organization. Below, we outline best practices for assessing credibility effectively during workplace investigations.

1. Understand Credibility as a Multidimensional Concept

Credibility is not just about whether someone is telling the truth; it’s about the reliability, consistency, and plausibility of their account. Investigators must consider the following dimensions:

Factors to Consider:

  • Corroboration: Do other evidence or witness statements support their version of events?
  • Plausibility: Does their explanation appear reasonable?
  • Consistent or Inconsistent Statements: Are the details provided consistent with earlier statements?
  • Bias: Could the individual have biases or ulterior motives?
  • Demeanor: Does the person appear honest based on their demeanor, body language, and verbal responses?
  • Motive to Falsify (i.e. lie)/Truthfulness: Does the person appear honest, or do they have a reason to lie?
  • Manner in Responding to Questions: Does the person respond to questions directly and openly? Does the person overstate? Do they provide evasive responses?
  • Past Record/Past History: Does the witness have a history of past similar behavior?
  • Reputation for Veracity of Deceit: Does the person have a reputation for being honest or for being deceitful?

2. Use Open-Ended and Neutral Questions

The way questions are framed can significantly impact the responses provided. Use open-ended questions to encourage detailed narratives, such as:

“Can you walk me through what happened that day?”

“What stood out to you during this interaction?”

Avoid leading or loaded questions that may suggest a preferred answer. Neutral phrasing fosters trust and helps gather untainted accounts.

3. Evaluate Consistency Over Time

Credibility is bolstered when a person’s account remains consistent across multiple conversations. However, investigators should also be mindful of the natural variations in memory over time, especially for events that occurred weeks or months prior. Look for substantial inconsistencies rather than minor differences in phrasing or recall.

4. Assess Corroborating Evidence

Physical evidence, documents, or other witness testimonies that align with an individual’s account can strengthen their credibility. However, lack of corroboration does not automatically mean a statement is untruthful—some situations may inherently lack witnesses or tangible proof.

5. Pay Attention to Demeanor—but Cautiously

An individual’s demeanor during an interview—such as nervousness, confidence, or calmness—can provide clues about credibility. However, this should never be the sole determinant. Cultural differences, personality traits, and the stress of being interviewed can influence behavior. Avoid making assumptions based solely on body language or tone.

6. Investigate Potential Bias or Motive

Consider whether the individual might have a reason to fabricate or exaggerate their claims. Questions to explore include:

  • Do they have a history of conflict with the complainant or respondent?
  • Could they benefit personally or professionally from the outcome of the investigation?
  • Understanding potential biases or motivations provides context without discrediting valid concerns outright.

7. Document Everything Meticulously

Detailed and impartial documentation is essential for evaluating credibility. Record the exact words used by interviewees, noting any significant pauses, contradictions, or clarifications. These records allow investigators to revisit key details and make informed judgments about credibility.

8. Apply a Holistic Approach

Credibility should not hinge on a single factor. Investigators must weigh all aspects, including the plausibility of the story, supporting evidence, and any contextual information. By taking a holistic view, they can arrive at a fair and balanced conclusion.

9. Maintain Impartiality

Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, can skew the evaluation of credibility. To mitigate this risk, investigators should:

  • Use standardized checklists or criteria for assessing credibility.
  • Seek input from other investigators or legal counsel when necessary.
  • Regularly undergo training to recognize and counteract biases.

10. Communicate Findings Transparently

Once credibility assessments are made, explain the reasoning behind them clearly and objectively in the investigation report. Transparency builds trust in the process and ensures that all parties understand the rationale behind the findings.

Conclusion

Assessing credibility is an art as much as it is a science. By combining methodical techniques, thoughtful analysis, and impartial judgment, investigators can ensure a fair and effective process. The ultimate goal is to create a workplace environment where truth and fairness prevail, reinforcing organizational values and employee trust.

RPLG practices throughout California, advising and advocating for public agencies, nonprofit entities, individuals and private entities in need of effective, responsive and creative legal solutions.