It’s been a mixture of both tense and triumphant times in our household over recent weeks. As a vocal Brisbane Lions fan living under the same roof as a family of die-hard Hawthorn supporters, footy season is always high-stakes. But nothing prepared us for the dying seconds of the Preliminary Final. When the free kick was awarded to the Lions—securing our victory and booking our spot on for the game on the final Saturday in September—it sparked immediate, passionate household debate.
I, of course, viewed it as a completely fair and reasonable call. My family, on the other hand, presented a rapid-fire series of counterarguments: “They haven’t blown the whistle for that all year!” and “He was clearly trying to get rid of the ball!”
On the very quiet train ride home from the game, I was conscious of the need to be a humble victor. Sitting there, swallowing back my silent excitement, it struck me just how powerfully our existing loyalties shape the way we interpret the exact same set of facts. In everyday life, we see what we want to see. But in a workplace investigation, that same human tendency—whether driven by unconscious cognitive bias or subtle structural pressures—can blind us to the truth and compromise the fairness (and therefore the outcomes) of the entire process.
What Biases Are We Talking About?
Despite what my friends and family might say when I don my Lions scarf every weekend, I like to think of myself as an open-minded person. But even the most objective among us bring background assumptions to our roles as investigators. Here are a few common biases that can quietly creep into how we gather and weigh evidence:
- In-Group (Affinity) Bias: “They’re a Lions supporter, so they must be a sensible, trustworthy person.” It’s natural to feel an immediate rapport with people who share our background, interests, or communication style. But while following a great footy team shows good taste, it says absolutely nothing about a witness’s truthfulness.
- The Halo and Horns Effect: This is a frequent potential pitfall for in-house investigators. It’s the temptation to let an employee’s general reputation colour our assessment of their credibility. Assuming a top performer is automatically telling the truth—or that someone with a history of performance issues or complaints must be lying—is not an impartial evaluation. Recent high-profile cases across various industries have shown us time and again that there is no guarantee of flawless conduct by people who are perceived to have a ‘clean’ record.
- Perception & Demeanour Bias: It is a commonplace for investigators to place disproportionate weight on how someone behaves during an interview. Research consistently shows that “classic” signs of deception—like avoiding eye contact, fidgeting, or acting unusually nervous—are remarkably unreliable indicators of truthfulness, especially when someone is experiencing the stress of an investigation.
- Normalcy & Plausibility Bias: Because our own past experiences form our worldview, there is a risk we might dismiss an unusual or complex claim simply because it doesn’t match our personal idea of “how a workplace normally operates.”
- Outcome & Institutional Bias: We have seen recent high-profile instances where internal processes appear to prioritise protecting an organisation from reputational damage or legal exposure. The hallmarks of these cases are when investigators fail (or are prevented from) seeking out key witnesses, or forced to take internal narrative explanations at face value without critical examination.
How to Mitigate the Risk
Around our office, it’s a bit of a standing joke that my go-to tagline is: “The process will save you.” While there are always exceptions, having a structured, repeatable framework helps to keep you focussed when personal perspective or other biases threaten to cloud your judgment. To keep bias out of your findings, focus on building consistency across each phase of the investigation.
Of course, a key attribute of any workplace investigator is to be impartial and to appear impartial. If you feel, at the outset of the investigation that this is not possible, or you have conflict of interest, the best option is to remove yourself from the process and appoint another investigator.
- During the evidence gathering process
Standardising your evidence gathering process helps to ensure that it is less susceptible to conscious or unconscious bias. For me this includes:
- Having the same script for every participant for how you introduce and explain the investigation and interview process goes a long way toward ensuring every participant feels—and genuinely is—treated equally;
- Preparing detailed interview questions keeps you on track during your investigation interview and focused on relevant facts rather than the participant’s emotional cues. Reviewing the transcript after the meeting is equally valuable: Did you drift away from your planned questions? Did you let the witness steer you away from uncomfortable topics? Assessing why this is, may help you assess the credibility of the witness’ evidence;
- Having detailed interview questions is also a good tool to help you to remain curious. Curiosity is the best anti-dote to judgement; and
- Document your decisions. Committing your investigative decisions to paper often highlights any shortcomings in your process or your thinking. If you have to create a word salad to explain why you didn’t interview a key witness or examine key documents, it might be a clue that your process isn’t free from bias.
- Evidence Assessment
When drafting your analysis and findings, pause and critically evaluate your thinking and your conclusions by asking:
- Did I actively look for evidence that contradicts my initial impression?
- Is my assessment based on hard facts, internal consistency, and documentary evidence, rather than body language or demeanour?
- Am I giving a senior leader or star performer the benefit of the doubt without direct factual support? Am I discounting a complainant or witnesses account simply because they have an abrasive personality?
- Am I applying the exact same standard of scepticism to witnesses I personally relate to as those I don’t?
- Are my conclusions being influenced—even unconsciously—by what is most convenient or protective for the organisation?
By anchoring every finding in a disciplined, transparent process, an investigator can help ensure the findings are based on facts supported by credible and reliable evidence, not bias. For completeness, I note that applied the process above to the contention that the Brisbane Lions is one of the greatest AFL teams ever. Turns out it was proven. No bias there at all.