Interviews are often the most important source of evidence in workplace harassment investigations. They provide an opportunity for complainants, respondents and witnesses to explain what happened, share their perspectives and identify information that may assist in establishing the facts.
Effective investigative interviewing involves more than asking questions. It requires preparation, active listening, impartiality and an understanding of how people may respond when discussing difficult or emotionally charged experiences.
A psychologically informed approach to interviewing recognizes that individuals may experience stress, anxiety, fear, embarrassment or defensiveness during an investigation. These reactions can influence how information is recalled and communicated. The investigator’s role is to create an environment that supports open communication without compromising the objectivity of the process.
Investigators must approach each interview with an open mind, avoiding assumptions about what occurred or whether an allegation is substantiated.
Before conducting interviews, investigators are advised to review:
Questions can be prepared in advance, but investigators need to remain flexible. Information disclosed during an interview may lead to additional questions, new witnesses or evidence requiring further examination.
Choosing an Appropriate Interview Setting
Interviews are best conducted in a private, neutral setting where individuals can speak without unnecessary interruptions or concerns about being overheard.
Virtual interviews may also be appropriate, provided privacy, confidentiality and the ability to communicate effectively can be maintained.
Investigators are advised to consider accessibility requirements, interpretation services, accommodation requests and any applicable rights to representation or support.
Workplace harassment investigations can be emotionally difficult for everyone involved.
A complainant may be anxious about discussing an upsetting experience. A respondent may feel defensive, distressed or concerned about their reputation. Witnesses may be uncomfortable becoming involved in a matter concerning colleagues or supervisors.
These reactions do not, on their own, establish whether someone is being truthful.
A psychologically informed interview is not an interrogation. It is an opportunity to understand what an individual experienced, observed or knows about the circumstances under investigation.
Investigators can support this approach by:
Being psychologically informed does not mean avoiding difficult questions or accepting information without examination. Investigators still need to clarify inconsistencies, explore alternative explanations and test the reliability of the evidence.
The goal is to obtain the most complete and accurate account possible while treating everyone involved with dignity and respect.
One of the most important interviewing skills is knowing how to ask questions without influencing the answers.
Investigators are advised to begin with broad, open-ended questions that allow individuals to describe events in their own words.
For example:
Opening Questions
These questions allow individuals to provide their account without being directed toward a particular conclusion.
Once an individual has explained what happened, the investigator can explore specific details:
These questions help distinguish between direct observations, personal interpretations and information received from others.
Consider an allegation involving an inappropriate comment during a staff meeting.
Rather than asking:
“Did the respondent make an offensive comment about the complainant?”
An investigator might begin with:
“Tell me what you remember about the staff meeting.”
If the individual does not mention the interaction, the investigator could follow up:
“Do you recall any exchanges between the complainant and respondent?”
And then:
“Was anything said during that exchange that stood out to you?”
As the interview progresses, more specific questions may be necessary to clarify the evidence and provide individuals with an opportunity to respond to relevant allegations.
The important distinction is that investigators begin by allowing individuals to provide their own recollection before introducing specific details that could influence their account.
People do not always recall difficult experiences in a clear, chronological sequence.
Stress and emotional responses can influence attention, memory and the way information is communicated. Some individuals may remember particular details vividly while having difficulty recalling other aspects of an event.
Investigators are advised not to assume that hesitation, emotional expression, limited eye contact or difficulty recalling dates necessarily indicates dishonesty.
A psychologically informed approach allows individuals time to explain their recollections and provides opportunities to clarify information without making assumptions about credibility.
For example, rather than asking:
“Why didn’t you report this immediately?”
Consider:
“Can you tell me about what happened after the incident and when you first discussed it with someone?”
Similarly, instead of:
“Why didn’t you tell the person to stop?”
Consider:
“How did you respond at the time, and what factors influenced your response?”
These questions gather relevant information without implying that the individual acted incorrectly.
Psychologically informed interviewing is not about accepting every account at face value. It is about asking questions in a manner that supports accurate information gathering while reducing unnecessary distress.
Investigators must remain impartial throughout the interview process.
This includes avoiding expressions of approval, disbelief, surprise or disapproval that could influence how an individual responds.
Active listening is essential. Investigators may paraphrase information, request clarification and ask additional questions to better understand the circumstances.
For example, if a witness states:
“The respondent was angry and aggressive.”
The investigator might ask:
“What did you observe that led you to describe the respondent as angry or aggressive?”
The witness may then explain that the respondent raised their voice, interrupted repeatedly or struck a hand against the table.
This distinction matters because investigative findings are based on evidence, not simply on how individuals characterize events.
Investigators must also distinguish between what a witness personally observed and information learned from others.
Where witnesses have discussed the allegations among themselves, investigators are advised to explore whether those conversations may have influenced their recollections.
Although the same principles of fairness and impartiality apply to every interview, the questions will vary depending on the individual’s involvement.
The complainant is given an opportunity to describe the alleged conduct, identify relevant incidents, explain the surrounding circumstances and identify potential witnesses or supporting documentation.
Investigators are advised to obtain sufficient particulars to allow the allegations to be understood and fairly examined.
The respondent must be provided with sufficient information about the allegations to understand and meaningfully respond to them.
Questions are intended to explore the respondent’s account, identify areas of agreement or disagreement, examine explanations and identify any additional relevant evidence.
A psychologically informed approach is equally important when interviewing respondents, who may experience anxiety, frustration or distress.
Witness interviews focus on what the individual personally observed, heard or otherwise knows about the events.
Investigators are advised to distinguish firsthand knowledge from assumptions, opinions or information shared by others.
The investigator determines which witnesses to interview based on the relevance of their potential evidence. Additional interviews may become necessary as new information emerges.
Accurate documentation is an essential component of a fair and defensible investigation.
Interview records generally include:
Interviews may be documented through handwritten notes, electronic notes or audio recordings, subject to applicable legal, privacy and organizational requirements.
Where interviews are recorded, investigators must consider consent and other applicable recording requirements, confidentiality and secure storage.
Interview notes are advised to reflect the individual’s actual words as accurately as possible, particularly where the precise language used is relevant to an allegation.
Providing interviewees with an opportunity to review their statements, clarify information and correct inaccuracies can help improve the reliability of the record.
All investigation records must be maintained securely, with access limited to those who require the information for legitimate purposes.
Before ending an interview, investigators are advised to ask whether the individual has additional information to share.
Useful closing questions include:
The investigator can then explain the next steps, including the possibility of follow-up questions or another interview.
Individuals can also be reminded of the organization’s expectations regarding confidentiality, cooperation and protection against reprisal, without promising absolute confidentiality.
The quality of a workplace harassment investigation depends significantly on the quality of the information gathered.
Effective interviewing requires preparation, impartiality, careful questioning and an understanding of how individuals may respond to stressful or emotionally difficult circumstances.
A psychologically informed approach recognizes the human experience behind workplace complaints while maintaining the investigator’s responsibility to objectively gather, examine and assess evidence.
The purpose of investigative interviewing is not to confirm an allegation or defend a particular position. It is to understand what happened and gather the information necessary to reach fair, evidence-based findings.
