– by Mary Cullen, Founder and Managing Director of Insight HR
Why Witnesses Don’t Always Tell You Everything They Know
One of the questions I am asked most frequently during workplace investigations is whether witnesses tell the truth. The answer is usually yes. Most witnesses participate in good faith. They want to assist the investigation process and provide an honest account of what they saw, heard or experienced. Contrary to popular belief, most workplace investigations are not filled with individuals deliberately attempting to mislead investigators. However, that does not mean investigators always receive the full picture immediately.
After more than twenty years conducting workplace investigations, I have learned that there is a significant difference between a witness telling the truth and a witness telling you everything they know. Understanding that distinction is one of the most important skills an investigator can develop.
Workplace Investigations Involve More Than Facts
When people think about workplace investigations, they often imagine a relatively straightforward process. An investigator asks questions. A witness provides answers. The facts emerge. The reality is often far more complex.
At Insight HR, our barrister-led workplace investigations team regularly conducts investigations involving bullying allegations, sexual harassment complaints, protected disclosures, grievances, fraud, theft, workplace violence, governance concerns, disciplinary matters and allegations involving senior leaders.
In many of these cases, witnesses are not simply considering what they know. They are considering what might happen if they say it. That changes everything.
The Stakes Are Not Always the Same
In some investigations, witnesses are extremely cooperative. They attend meetings willingly, provide detailed evidence and actively assist the investigation process. They understand the purpose of the investigation and recognise the importance of establishing facts. However, the level of comfort a witness feels often depends on the nature of the allegations being investigated.
There is a significant difference between providing evidence about a routine workplace disagreement and providing evidence about allegations of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, theft, fraud, workplace violence, sabotage or serious misconduct. The stakes become even higher when a senior leader is involved.
At that point, witnesses often begin asking themselves questions that have very little to do with the investigation itself.
Will the person I am speaking about know what I said?
Will I still have to work with them after the investigation?
Will this affect my career?
Will I become a target?
Will colleagues find out I participated?
Will management support me if things become difficult afterwards?
These concerns are entirely understandable. Human beings are naturally inclined to protect themselves.
One of the Hardest Conversations an Investigator Has
One of the most difficult conversations I have with witnesses concerns confidentiality and procedural fairness. Many witnesses hope they can provide information anonymously. Unfortunately, that is not how a fair workplace investigation operates. Witness statements are disclosed. Evidence is shared. Individuals who are the subject of allegations have a right to understand the evidence being relied upon and to respond to it. This is a fundamental principle of natural justice and fair procedures.
When witnesses hear this, their concerns often intensify. Some become visibly anxious. Some become emotional. Some begin questioning whether they should participate at all. Others ask whether certain information can be removed from their statement or whether their identity can somehow be concealed.
As investigators, we can explain the process, the safeguards in place and the organisation’s expectations regarding cooperation. What we cannot do is promise anonymity where it does not exist.
Why Witnesses Sometimes Hold Back
Over the years, I have encountered witnesses who refused to participate entirely. I have met individuals who attended interviews but provided very little information despite clearly having relevant knowledge. I have interviewed witnesses who whispered their evidence because they were frightened of being overheard. Some have cried throughout interviews. Some have challenged every line of their witness statement. Some have refused to sign statements. Others have repeatedly asked for reassurance that there will be no negative consequences for participating.
In many cases, these individuals are not being dishonest. They are frightened. They are worried about workplace relationships. They are concerned about retaliation. They are anxious about becoming involved in conflict. They are thinking about what happens after the investigation concludes. These concerns are particularly common where allegations involve power imbalances, influential individuals or workplace cultures where employees do not feel entirely safe speaking up.
Reluctance Does Not Mean a Witness Lacks Credibility
One of the biggest mistakes organisations can make is assuming that a hesitant witness is an unreliable witness. In reality, some of the most credible witnesses I have encountered have been reluctant participants. Their reluctance did not stem from dishonesty. It stemmed from fear. A skilled investigator understands the difference.
Assessing credibility involves examining consistency, corroboration, plausibility, documentary evidence and context. It requires understanding workplace dynamics, power structures and human behaviour. It is rarely as simple as deciding whether a witness appeared confident during an interview.
What Witnesses Reveal About Organisational Culture
One of the most interesting aspects of workplace investigations is that witness behaviour often tells us something about the organisation itself. When employees feel safe, supported and confident in organisational processes, participation tends to be more straightforward.
When employees are fearful of speaking openly, worried about retaliation or concerned about how they will be treated after the investigation concludes, that often raises broader questions.
Do employees trust leadership?
Do they believe concerns will be handled fairly?
Do they feel psychologically safe?
Do they believe the organisation will protect those who participate in workplace investigations?
These questions are often just as important as the allegations being investigated.
The Human Side of Workplace Investigations
People often assume that the most difficult part of a workplace investigation is analysing evidence or reaching findings. In my experience, one of the most challenging aspects is understanding the human dynamics that influence the evidence being provided.
Fear, loyalty, workplace politics, personal relationships, organisational culture and self-preservation can all influence how people participate in investigations. That does not necessarily mean witnesses are being dishonest. More often, it means they are human. Perhaps that is one of the most important lessons from the investigation room. Workplace investigations are not simply about gathering facts. They are about understanding people. And understanding why people do – or do not – tell you everything they know.
For more information about our workplace investigation services, contact us for a confidential call.
