The Question Almost Everyone Forgets to Ask When Choosing a Workplace Investigator

Recently, I've noticed a trend.  I've had a surprising number of conversations with organizations preparing to retain an external workplace investigator. Nearly everyone understood the importance of conducting a high-quality investigation. Surprisingly, however, very few had given much thought to how to choose the right investigator for their needs.

That's understandable. Most of us don't hire workplace investigators often enough to develop a thoughtful selection process. As a result, we tend to compare qualifications, experience, availability and fees, while overlooking questions that may have an even greater impact on the investigation—and on our organization long after it's over.

I've had the unusual opportunity to experience workplace investigations from several perspectives: as a lawyer litigating investigations, as the senior executive responsible for workplace culture and safety, and now as an external workplace investigator. Those experiences have shaped the questions I would ask if I were selecting an investigator today.

Over the next several weeks, I'll share some of those questions. My hope is not to tell you which investigator to choose, but to help you ask better questions before making that decision so you can select an investigator that helps pursue your unique goals.

The first question I would ask a prospective investigator is this:  What is your investigation style?

More Than a Matter of Personality

Most people assume an investigator's style is simply a matter of personality. I don't see it that way. An investigator's style influences how information is gathered, how participants experience the process, and, ultimately, what message the investigation sends about your organization and it’s culture.

In my experience, investigative styles generally fall along a spectrum between investigative and interrogative.

An investigative approach begins with curiosity. The investigator approaches interviews without predetermined conclusions, asking open-ended questions, testing evidence, exploring inconsistencies and allowing the facts to emerge through careful analysis. 

An interrogative approach is more likely to begin by testing a theory. Interviews may be more directive or confrontational, with greater emphasis on obtaining admissions, challenging explanations and resolving inconsistencies through pressure or persistent questioning.

Like most things, this is not a binary choice. Investigators often move along the spectrum depending on the circumstances, and both approaches have situations where they may be appropriate.

The important question is not which style is universally "better."  The important question is whether the investigator's style aligns with your organization's objectives and values.

Why It Matters

Investigation style affects more than the interview itself. For example, it can influence the quality of the evidence. Participants often communicate differently depending on whether they feel respected, defensive, pressured or psychologically safe. Memories can become clearer through thoughtful exploration, and credibility can be tested without unnecessarily escalating tension. An investigative approach is no less rigorous—it simply applies that rigor differently than an interrogative approach.

Style can also influence perceptions of fairness. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing not only the conclusions investigators reach, but also the fairness of the investigative process itself. Participants who believe they were treated respectfully are more likely to accept that they were heard, even when they disagree with the outcome.

Perhaps most importantly, investigation style communicates something about your organization.  After all, every investigation is a leadership moment.

Imagine someone on your team comes to you with a problem.

"There's an issue on the assembly line."

"We've discovered an error in our proposal."

"This isn’t working and we don't know why."

Every effective leader wants to understand what happened and resolve the problem quickly. But there is another question worth asking:  How do you want people to feel when they bring problems forward? Do you want employees to raise concerns early, or only when they believe they have no other choice? Do you want them to believe leadership is committed to understanding what happened, or primarily focused on assigning blame? Do they trust that they will be treated with dignity, even if they made a serious mistake?

Those questions shape organizational culture every day.  Workplace investigations are no different.  Participants may forget many of the specific questions they were asked but they rarely forget how they were treated. That experience influences whether they trust leadership, whether they feel comfortable raising future concerns, and whether they believe accountability and respect can coexist. 

One of my goals as a leader was to build a culture where people felt safe bringing problems forward. Not because mistakes were acceptable, but because identifying problems early is one of the hallmarks of a high-performing organization. Accountability and psychological safety are not competing values—they reinforce one another when handled well.  The investigator you select becomes part of that message.

A Better Question Leads to Better Decisions

When organizations evaluate investigators, they often ask about experience, credentials and cost. Those questions matter.  But I would add another: "Can you describe your investigation style, and why you believe it is effective?"

The answer may tell you as much about the investigator—and the experience your employees will have—as any résumé ever could.

In the coming weeks, I'll share additional questions that I believe organizations should ask before selecting a workplace investigator. My hope is that they help you make a more informed decision, leading to better alignment to your organization’s goals and culture.