WEBVTT 00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:11.000 As I said, we're really thrilled to be here. A little bit of housekeeping. I can still see that some people are coming in at the moment 00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:22.000 And I do encourage you to hang around at the end, because there is an advertisement for our next webinar, which I don't really want to talk about right now. But I have opened up both the chat box 00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:38.000 the question and answer box, Courtney and I will probably talk at you about this endlessly. But if you do have a burning question that you'd like to ask us coming into this webinar, we'd be very, very keen to hear it and we'll answer it as best we can over the next 45 minutes 00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:51.000 So, Courtney, this is your first webinar. I'm going to put you on the spot today because you have a significant background, which I'll let you talk to as you go through in investigative interviewing 00:01:51.000 --> 00:02:05.000 I think one of my things about workplace investigations is there are a couple of skills that oftentimes people sometimes sort of overlook or they think that they might be, you know, particularly proficient at it 00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:24.000 And, you know, when they get themselves into a bit of a pickle in the investigation process, they realize that there's probably some skills gap there. Drafting allegations comes to mind, but we've talked about that in a previous webinar. The other one is investigative interviewing, and why I think this is so very, very important is 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:35.000 A, they can be very stressful, not only for the investigator, but also for the participant. But a lot of the evidence that you get in a workplace investigation will come from interviewing people 00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:50.000 And I think there's been a lot of talk over the last two years, I'd say, two to three years, around improving the way that we conduct workplace investigations, and certainly the way we treat participants from a trauma-informed point of view 00:02:50.000 --> 00:03:12.000 But also the way we conduct interviews, sort of talks to parts around that procedural fairness as well, making reasonable accommodations, engaging in cultural sensitivity and things like that. But Courtney, I don't want to do all the talking because you have a significant amount of experience, which I'm hoping to sort of wrinkle out of you today 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:14.000 Yeah. 00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:28.000 So not only do I think sort of the way we conduct interviews is just as important, but what else in terms of like questions and things like that do you think is important from an investigative interview point of view? 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:49.000 Yeah, look, I think I'd just like to open by saying I think the way we conduct interviews directly affects how safe and respected and comfortable a participant feels. I think that's really important as an investigator and interviewer. So if a person feels intimidated or judged or rushed, I think they, and I have experienced they struggle to communicate effectively or engage in the process 00:03:49.000 --> 00:04:12.000 And that really affects the information that we receive. So I think we need to remember that we're not interviewing just to collect information, but we are building that trust and ensuring that we are remaining procedurally fair. So looking at trauma informed or a cultural sensitive approach, this really helps participants feel heard and supported, and it improves the quality and reliability of the information we gather 00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:17.000 And as you said, that really affects the outcome of the investigation overall. 00:04:17.000 --> 00:04:18.000 Yeah. 00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:32.000 So, looking at good interview practices, I think looking at preventing misunderstanding or unintended bias. So ultimately how a participant feels directly impacts the integrity of our investigation 00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:49.000 So looking at poor interviewing and looking at the consequences of that poor interviewing practices can re-traumatize a participant, and I think that's a really important point that we overlook. So we overlook that someone may have previous experience of harassment or discrimination, or they may have reported 00:04:49.000 --> 00:05:19.000 an incident before, and they haven't had the outcome that they desired or expected. So, looking at how we interview, I think if we are overly aggressive, or we are dismissive, or we fail to recognise those signs of stress early on, it may affect them and prevent them from feeling safe and unsupported. And then, of course, this can also 00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:23.000 Yeah 00:05:23.000 --> 00:05:24.000 directly affect perhaps contamination of evidence, so they won't be giving us reliable information. They'll be looking to just answer the questions to get out of the interview, and that's really for me and in my experience, what we want to avoid. So 00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:46.000 In practical terms, I think what we need to do and what I would recommend is to avoid leading questions. Certainly avoid making assumptions and interrupting the participant. Because if we put pressure on them or we make them feel that we're not listening, we unintentionally influence the responses. And I also find we affect the reliability of information 00:05:46.000 --> 00:06:03.000 So with all of that being said, I think as an investigator, we need to create an environment where participants can provide information safely and in their own words and as freely as possible. So without any expectation of what I as the interviewer or investigator wants, but really what happened 00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:09.000 in their, sort of, from their perspective. 00:06:09.000 --> 00:06:11.000 And so I think we 00:06:11.000 --> 00:06:14.000 No, that's okay 00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:15.000 Yeah. 00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:24.000 Yeah, I think that's sorry, I don't want to interrupt because that's poor interview. That's absolute poor interview technique, but I just wanted to jump in on something that I thought was really, really important there about the way you treat an interviewee 00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:36.000 not only from that sort of perspective of… from a human-to-human point of view, but can also derail… it can also derail the interview in terms of what evidence or information you come out of that 00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:51.000 that interview with. And I think one of the things that we sort of talk about when we do in-house training around workplace investigations and interviewing techniques and things like that is you should treat every time that you get the interviewee in the room as the only time 00:06:51.000 --> 00:07:07.000 You're going to get them in that room because, you know, most people don't want to be involved in these processes. Even the complainant who's made the complaint doesn't necessarily want to have to go through the process of, you know, answering a whole heap of questions about things that they believe they've already put in the complaint letter 00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:25.000 And so, the way you treat the person can really inhibit the amount of information you get from them as well. And I do have a question for you a little bit later on about rapport building, if we get time. But I think for anyone who's sort of listening, you get a clear understanding. There's quite a lot that does go into the mechanics of 00:07:25.000 --> 00:07:46.000 and interviewing. It's not just simply question and answer, and we sort of get on with the rest of the day. But the other thing I wanted to focus on, if you'll let me, is this concept of a trauma-informed approach. Now, I sort of mentioned this at the outset, and I was talking to someone about this the other day, about the tension with trauma-informed practice and the need to conduct an investigation in a particular way 00:07:46.000 --> 00:08:00.000 to gather evidence and things like that. But it's certainly something that has been talked about and referred to a lot over the last couple of years. But from your perspective, and you might have just already sort of spoken to some of these things, but 00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:09.000 From your perspective, what's actually trauma-informed practice look like during an investigative interview? 00:08:09.000 --> 00:08:17.000 Look, for me, it really comes down to how we manage and engage with people in a practical sense. So we need to look at 00:08:17.000 --> 00:08:33.000 These might not be the person's first experience, but it also might be. So we need to look at creating an environment where they feel psychologically safe. We need to make sure that they understand the process, and they also need to make… we also need to make sure that we approach them respectfully 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:49.000 And we are really clear about what to expect. So for me, and something that I find works really well is to give the participants where possible choice and a sense of control, because in every situation, we want to have some sense of control, so that way we don't feel lost 00:08:49.000 --> 00:09:03.000 that our complaint or concern isn't been heard properly. I do this, just throughout the process by starting an open dialogue and asking questions before we start the interview. You know, what accommodations do you need? How… what that might look like. 00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:09.000 And what it is that any questions they have for me, because that sort of brings on how 00:09:09.000 --> 00:09:24.000 I might interview them in the interview and looking at trauma forms, it's about offering breaks, making sure they understand the process and making sure that they understand that they can speak freely about sort of accommodations that they may need in this process 00:09:24.000 --> 00:09:50.000 So it's about building trust for me and explaining how the interview will work. So that could be things like that why a note's been taken, how's information being used? What's the next step in the process, and being really clear to help reduce that uncertainty, because a lot of the time, they won't know why I'm taking notes. They won't know where my information is going, and they might not know how or who sees the information and how's that reported 00:09:50.000 --> 00:10:03.000 So it's all about minimising harm while still maintaining that objectivity. So, I avoid using language that could be perceived as accusatory, and focus on asking open questions. 00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:20.000 I think the biggest, thing for me is avoiding assumptions about a person's behaviour. This is really important in trauma-informed approaches, because no one's going to act the way you expect them to act. They might be quite stern in their responses, they might laugh 00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:37.000 They might be really guarded. And all of these responses can affect memory, the way they communicate, and also the responses that we receive. So if we fail to notice or recognise those signs of distress, because they can come in many forms, ultimately, we're going to 00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:49.000 be disengaging with our participants, and we're going to really affect the credibility of the information that we're provided. And I think that's really important with a trauma-informed approach, it's that openness 00:10:49.000 --> 00:11:04.000 and willingness to listen to the person you're interviewing without bias, and making sure that you have those accommodations in place, because then you have a free flow of information, reliable evidence, and then they feel that they're being treated fairly in the process. 00:11:04.000 --> 00:11:19.000 Yeah, yeah. And I think that that's really, really key. I mean, I can remember when I first many, many, many years ago, when I first began investigating or learning to be an investigator, the instructors that I had 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:43.000 had a very, very strict approach to interviewing. It was very much about pulling the information out of a person, as opposed to sort of coaching them, or at least allowing them to speak freely and things like that. A couple of things that I just wanted to highlight there that you mentioned, too, about that non-judgmental questioning and things like that, and I've been asked this question before by instructors in the past about, well, you know, I have a sexual harassment 00:11:43.000 --> 00:12:02.000 complainant. The complainant is a female. They don't necessarily want to talk to the specifics of the alleged physical conduct, if you like, in that in that case. And so, you know, it's not necessary 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:16.000 you and I have talked about this before, because just as a side note, Courtney's been quite humble here, but she's, she was a senior detective, investigator in sexual crimes in New South Wales Police before we were lucky enough to, 00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:28.000 to bring her on, so she has significant experience in dealing with trauma and trauma-informed situations as well. But in a workplace investigation. 00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:46.000 It's not necessary like it would be investigating, say, a sex crime where you'd have to go down into the level of detail that you would need, where you're establishing criminal behaviour in a workplace investigation, it's sufficient for a person to say that, you know, that they felt like they were sexually harassed by this, we don't need to get into the physicality 00:12:46.000 --> 00:13:03.000 And I think that's really, really important because there has been that element of re-traumatization, and people do go away from these processes and share their experiences, and that sometimes stops people from making requests as… sorry, making complaints 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:05.000 As well. 00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:06.000 The other thing I want, oh, sorry, go on 00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:22.000 I think and just sorry to interrupt, but I was going to say that's that lends to sort of with that trauma reformed approach, being upfront. So as an example, we might, we don't need to go to the depths, as you said, I would in a criminal setting, but in a workplace setting, it's still really important to get all of the information because it can come back 00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:42.000 As part of the process, and then a respondent, in that sense will also say, well, they had 10 drinks, they misinterpreted it, or they might suggest that their behaviour, the complainant's behaviour, led them to do certain things, or that they were engaging themselves. So I think it's okay to offer that safe space to a complainant and say. 00:13:42.000 --> 00:14:02.000 you know, explain to me what happened before, you know, your actions didn't lead to this, but it's really important that I understand the whole picture. That's not to say that I'm going to change my perspective, or that your experience or your actions led to this, or made that open door for the respondent to act a certain way, but I think being open about why you need that information 00:14:02.000 --> 00:14:13.000 It's really important too because it lends to being fair. You need to be seen to be fair and also they need to know that it's okay what happened leading up to an experience. 00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:16.000 It's about what happened from that point on. 00:14:16.000 --> 00:14:32.000 Hmm, yeah, exactly. And being a little bit thoughtful about the logistics, and I just wanted to talk sort of very briefly about what are internal investigator or HR should sort of do before they go into an interview. And one of the things 00:14:32.000 --> 00:14:49.000 Apart from some of the other things I'm about to talk about is thinking about the choice of investigators. So, for example, it is a normal practice here at WorkLogic, where we have a complaint of sexual harassment, where the complainant is a female, to give them the option to have a female investigator 00:14:49.000 --> 00:15:05.000 And I've recently just done that where I'm managing the investigation and I'm still conducting the investigation. But one of our other colleagues, Isabella, did the interview with the complainant on my behalf because that person was feeling more comfortable 00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:22.000 Talking about her experiences with a female than she would be with a male, and that's completely… I don't think that's remarkable or controversial. And, you know, I mean, we work… we work fairly closely, so it's a seamless process, and it's all about, again, making… making some of those adjustments and some of those 00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:37.000 Early considerations in planning before sort of just running off and launching into the process. The other thing I'll say about planning and investigative interview is it's one of those, again, things that 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:44.000 does take a couple of minutes just to think about and take the time to do. You have to think about it 00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:59.000 from the perspective of a complainant or responder, or even a witness, they may very well never have been involved in this sort of situation before, and they're anticipating that you're going to come in, and that you know what you're talking about, you understand the policy, you know what that particular person is there for to be asked 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:07.000 And things like that. We'll talk about rapport, but one of the things that I find becomes a blocker for communication is where a participant doesn't think you know what 00:16:07.000 --> 00:16:24.000 what the context is, or you don't look you're up to the job. And I'm not suggesting that that would necessarily be the case, but just taking a couple of minutes to plan, think about the allegations, think about their role in the investigation as well, whether they are the complainant and the respondent, because there are different approaches 00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:37.000 in those interviews. Likewise, for the witness, again, adjusting for any of those risks around psychosocial risks that might exist. Cultural sensitivity, thinking about whether or not you have to have 00:16:37.000 --> 00:16:50.000 Or you should have a cultural advisor in the room, or an uncle or an auntie, or a support person. I mean, we have, you know, you should be offering support people anyway. But even minor things, like 00:16:50.000 --> 00:17:02.000 Where are we actually going to have you? Are we going to have it off-site? Is it going to be somewhere private and quiet? We never interview a person in their office. How are we going to record the interview 00:17:02.000 --> 00:17:21.000 What provisions will we provide with breaks? How long do we think this interview is going to take? You know, a person is sort of relying on you for a lot of that management of the process as well. As you were saying, Courtney, that communication piece at the beginning is also part of that trauma-informed framework about talking about what the process looks like 00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:33.000 But what I'm sort of curious about is you've got to this point, you've taken all of those considerations, you've done a plan, you've got your questions, you've got the complainant in the room 00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:43.000 What sort of things do you do, or what sort of tips do you advise to sort of help settle the interview back, or into the interview in the first place? 00:17:43.000 --> 00:18:02.000 I think for me, and I found this works every time, is to not start straight out with the interview. So especially if there's someone that I don't know, and this is obviously as an independent investigator, I might have had a five minute conversation over the phone and I might have planned the interview and this is a time and the date, this is how we get it. So the logistics are all organized 00:18:02.000 --> 00:18:22.000 But there's no rapport there. So I haven't had general conversation and I haven't really found out that what experience I had with interviews. So before anything starts, I always start with general conversation. How's your day going? How, you know if they're coming to me, how'd you get here? Was it okay? Do you have any stresses? Because 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:37.000 Opening that dialogue starts the process of a participant getting used to me asking questions and then providing responses. You know, a common one now is technology. We use Zoom, which we know is not the choice for everybody, so sometimes there's icebreaking and saying, you know, you're right, can you hear me 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:47.000 have any difficulties, often I have difficulties, I have to apologize, I'm coming in and out. It's all of those little things that make you feel human to them, and I find that that 00:18:47.000 --> 00:19:07.000 ability to see me as a human behind the interviewer really changes a person's perspective and also shows that I'm neutral to this whole situation, and I make that very clear at the start as well. I also, before hitting record and getting that underway, I give the participants both complainant, respondent witness, whoever you might be, an opportunity to ask me questions. So 00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:23.000 I make sure they know there's no silly questions, I ask them anything they want to know to a level about myself so that I can help them feel better about the interview. So then leading into the interview and rapport then continues once we hit start and we are actually in the formal process 00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:42.000 I explain the process really well. I tell them what to expect. I tell them roughly how long that they will be there, and why I'm doing certain things. So I will explain to them that I'm going to ask really obvious questions. You might think I don't… you might tell me that you feel bullied, but I'm going to ask you how and why, or 00:19:42.000 --> 00:19:59.000 You might tell me that someone yelled at you, but I'm going to ask you to explain what that looks like to you. I think also letting them know that I might be asking questions that they'll feel challenges there, their response. I explain why I need to do that, because it's the why and explaining 00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:15.000 The questions that I ask is not to say that I don't believe what they're saying or that I am trying to poke holes in their version of the incident. It's to explain that I need to be procedurally fair to everybody. So if I don't do that, then I'm going to be lost in the next phase or when I go into reporting 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:32.000 I can't give an informed response. I find this really works, because in that flow of information, they get comfortable. Then when I do ask throughout the interview questions that are, quite confronting, I'll remind them at the start of the interview. I'll say, remember at the start of the interview when I said to you 00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:48.000 I'm gonna ask silly questions or obvious questions, and they instantly relax, because they know they're prepared, for starters, they know why I'm doing so, and then they're not hesitant or reluctant to answer, because they know that I'm not challenging them, I'm simply gathering all the information 00:20:48.000 --> 00:21:04.000 I also do things throughout the interview, like offering breaks. You know, I will recognize that someone, you know two hours in an interview is quite long. Might be half an hour is too long. So I make sure that I have all those accommodations as I go along as well 00:21:04.000 --> 00:21:19.000 And I think that really works for me, and I think it really works as an investigator in this independent setting, but also internally as well, because internally, they might have a preconceived idea about you as someone in HR, they might have heard certain things, and I think it breaks down that barrier to say, this is about you 00:21:19.000 --> 00:21:26.000 We're here to listen to you today, and let's make this as open and honest and transparent as possible. 00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:49.000 Yeah, and one of those things that I always say, and you just reflected on it, is that I'm going to ask you questions that sometimes seem obvious to you, but I have to hear it from your perspective. And I try and give them a bit of an example. So sometimes I'll say to them, for example, I might ask you why you thought something was unreasonable. Now, it might be glaringly obvious based on the complaint why it would be unreasonable, but I actually have to hear it from you because 00:21:49.000 --> 00:22:05.000 At some point, I'm probably going to hear from the respondent on why they don't think that was unreasonable, and I need to obtain… it's not my… it's not my opinion, it's not my narrative that I'm relying on, or that person's evidence that I need to be able to reflect back and test. 00:22:05.000 --> 00:22:32.000 So yeah, absolutely, I think, you know, and it's good to offer it's good to give a person an end time. Like, you know, I always say, oh, I think, look, depend… and I try to make it a little… I don't, you know, remain professional and not too flippant, but I normally will say something along the lines of, look, depending upon how chatty you are, we'll probably be here for at least 90 minutes. If not. 00:22:32.000 --> 00:22:33.000 Yeah 00:22:33.000 --> 00:22:41.000 Yeah, you know, once we're done, we're done. But I'd see at least 90 minutes, you know, to give them some sort of idea, because you might have a clock watcher in the room, they might be looking at the clock going, alright, I've been here for half an hour, I've only got another hour to go, and it seems to be going okay, and things like that. You just want them to be constantly settled 00:22:41.000 --> 00:22:42.000 Alright, so we've got 00:22:42.000 --> 00:22:56.000 Yeah, absolutely. And I only recently, so just as an example, I recently had a respondent who was extremely unsure of me and they weren't sure about the process. And we had that open, transparent conversation throughout our interview and at the end they said, you know, thank you for making that 00:22:56.000 --> 00:23:04.000 feel that I was able to have a voice. And I think that those little recognitions are really important, because everybody has a voice in this 00:23:04.000 --> 00:23:08.000 Sort of setting, so we all need to be able to listen and understand. 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:10.000 Yeah. 00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:20.000 Okay, so we've got them in the room. We've we've got them in a nice private room. We've explained everything. They're very settled. They're very chatty. We've built some rapport with 00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:27.000 From your point of view, in order to present as impartial, whilst also being impartial 00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:42.000 But whilst presenting impartial, what are the ways we can sort of ask some questions of a participant without making it look like we've prejudged something we're going to ask? They're going to say, or, you know, to try and elicit as much information from them as possible. 00:23:42.000 --> 00:23:58.000 Yeah, absolutely. So for me, I really look at doing and using both open questions and closed questions. So when I say I use closed questions, I only use those for specific facts or to clarify points that I need answered. It might be dates, it might be times 00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:12.000 It might be locations, but I rely heavily on open questions when I want a participant to tell me about their account. So it gives people, for me, space to explain without being restricted, which often leads to more accurate information. I do 00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:30.000 really stress the importance of avoiding questions that can influence a response, or make someone feel uncomfortable. So, for example, if I have… if someone's talking for a long period of time, and they've given me all the information, and I need to clarify so that I understand correctly, and I have got the correct information 00:24:30.000 --> 00:24:45.000 I avoid putting my own interpretation, so I repeat exactly what they say, and then I ask, is this… is this what you meant? You know, did I understand this correctly? If I didn't, can you please elaborate on where I misunderstood 00:24:45.000 --> 00:25:03.000 So what you have to avoid is changing or putting my interpretation on the information or the response that they gave, because quite often, in most settings, they will agree with my version, because they think that that's what I am looking for, and that they think that that's what I need in order to substantiate 00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:20.000 their version of a facts or events, and I think that's really important. Something I also do is I avoid leading questions, because I… they can sometimes suggest or steer someone into a particular direction, and then I'm then influencing the interview, and I'm influencing their responses 00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:27.000 So I avoid language that can carry judgement as well, and assumptions, because all of that 00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:42.000 as a human being, you're naturally thinking, this person wants this from me, or they need this information. If I give the right answer, I'm going to get the outcome that I want, and that's what we need to avoid. Some… and I think you speak to this as well, you're careful about why questions 00:25:42.000 --> 00:26:02.000 So even though they can seem quite natural in a conversation, they can often come across as blaming or confrontational. So, instead of asking, why did you do that? I might say, can you talk me through what was happening at that time? Because that way I'm removing what they might see as blame or confrontation, and they just 00:26:02.000 --> 00:26:12.000 Hmm. 00:26:12.000 --> 00:26:13.000 Yeah. 00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:18.000 They just continue on with what they're telling me without being defensive. I know you speak to this as well, different techniques and I've had this in my previous world and you would have had this in your training as well is using the TED questions or the five W for H, it really does lead 00:26:18.000 --> 00:26:36.000 To a really successful interview and ultimately an investigation. So, tell me why things happened, you know, that's the… so the TED questions, tell me why. Explain to me, describe to me. Because then it's putting the onus back on the interviewee to explain all the incident in detail 00:26:36.000 --> 00:27:04.000 I think also encouraging that open response is really important. So the who, what, where, when, why, how, we might think it's so simple, and we might all be thinking, we all know that, but we tend to forget about it when we're in an interview, because we get caught up in the process, and we get caught up in needing that detail and requiring that information, because if I don't have that information, I can't be successful in my investigation. 00:27:04.000 --> 00:27:05.000 Hmm. 00:27:05.000 --> 00:27:11.000 Yeah. And I think it's interesting the why question. I noticed you sort of focused on that just for a moment. That might be because we had a conversation about a question I asked in an interview a couple of weeks ago where the respondent was absolutely adamant 00:27:11.000 --> 00:27:22.000 In the face of the allegations that they hadn't engaged, in the behaviour at all. They made some conditional responses, I suppose, to put themselves at a moderate arm's length to the behaviour. And 00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:37.000 you know, not talking riddles, it was mostly around overly sexualized language in the workplace. And I just simply posed the question to the respondents, you know, so 00:27:37.000 --> 00:27:45.000 Just recapping on everything that you've just said to me about, you know, your response, and that this didn't happen, and that didn't happen 00:27:45.000 --> 00:27:49.000 Why would the complainant make that up? 00:27:49.000 --> 00:27:57.000 And just simply have them ask answer the question more so. Now, there's a problem which leads me to my next question for you, though. 00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:13.000 Making conversation or having a conversation around that topic about why would someone have made that up. You say this never happened. This person was very adamant that it did. You say it didn't. So why? Why? So basically, your proposition is in response to the allegation that 00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:23.000 that this person must be lying, so why would they make it up? The risk you have is that that person becomes a little distressed, or worse, becomes 00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:27.000 Angry. What have you had to do in the past 00:28:27.000 --> 00:28:39.000 to sort of deal with that, where you have asked a question, and it's invoked a response that you might not have anticipated, that become a little bit annoyed, and the interview feels like it might be starting… you've started to lose a bit of rapport, and you've, you know, etc. 00:28:39.000 --> 00:28:43.000 What have you had to do there 00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:58.000 For me, I identify it. I will say, look, I can see from the question that I asked that you've been either upset by my minor questioning. So I take that break. I get them to explain why they felt that way and then I also explain 00:28:58.000 --> 00:29:13.000 Why I ask the question, and I asked them if they're even more comfortable if I reframe my question, and then we start again. It does usually… it doesn't always work, they might be defensive at that point, and just happily say, that's it, you've already made assumptions about what we're doing, but 00:29:13.000 --> 00:29:29.000 If you give them enough information, they certainly will trail back on and they will be more receptive. I think, just talking more broadly than just that example, in an interview, it's really important that we do stay calm and supportive, and consistent with how we manage people 00:29:29.000 --> 00:29:50.000 So if I do notice broadly if someone's becoming emotional, may not be because of a question I asked, it might just be because they're being not re-traumatized, but they're having to recount their version of a situation again. I will stop and pause, and I don't rush them to answer any further questions. I give them some time, and I also ask if they want to break for a while 00:29:50.000 --> 00:30:05.000 And then we can reconvene when they're feeling better or feeling like they can re-engage. So tips for me is in that situation, I will ask something, you know, I can see this is difficult, or I can see my questions are causing some stress 00:30:05.000 --> 00:30:22.000 Let's have a breather, I need a breather, and then we'll reconvene at a later time. Not to say I stop the interview and I re… I go back another day, because we need to make sure that we get the information, as you said, people are quick to leave, or that we might only get one opportunity with them 00:30:22.000 --> 00:30:38.000 With distress, I also make sure, and I think this is really important, that we're not… we're careful not to shut down emotions too quickly. Why we need to keep interviews on track, and we need to move them in the right direction, acknowledging an emotional response can make a participant feel, 00:30:38.000 --> 00:30:59.000 heard. If we don't, then they'll feel dismissed, or they won't engage in our process. So, it's that even balance of giving them time to feel heard, telling them why they didn't like something that we did, but then steering them back on course, and making them feel re-engaged in our process. So just gently guiding the conversation back, and then if they absolutely say I won't be answering those questions 00:30:59.000 --> 00:31:00.000 Yeah. 00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:22.000 You leave it. That's fine. You're in a position to answer. And then I move on with the interview, because what we don't want to do is have a stalemate where I'm demanding information or seeming to need information, and that puts them on the back foot, so I just flow back into the next series of questions, and I continue going along. So, in all of that, and a lot of words I've used, it's really important to be impartial 00:31:22.000 --> 00:31:45.000 But also showing empathy without showing bias, or drifting to give advice. I think we've talked about this before in certain situations, it's so easy to say, sorry you feel that way, or that must have been really difficult for you, because then we're starting to show empathy and advice, or we might be going, I understand that and you know understand being sexually 00:31:45.000 --> 00:31:51.000 You're saying you're being sexually harassed, this must be in these settings, it might be like this, but we need to make sure we remain impartial, and manage those emotions effectively. So. 00:31:51.000 --> 00:31:59.000 Yeah, I mean, I have used in the past, and just going back to that example that I provided before, where 00:31:59.000 --> 00:32:15.000 you know, and I probably should have said this in the context leading into that that statement was that the respondents' response to the allegations was illogical, given the circumstances of the allegation. So to simply… simply not concede any point on it 00:32:15.000 --> 00:32:38.000 just effectively made this… made the point that this guy was just making everything else up. His anger was, you know, useful from another point of view that might be applied later in the process around credibility and exaggeration and things like that. But one of the things that I did do was lean then on their super 00:32:38.000 --> 00:32:39.000 Yes. 00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:50.000 Their support person as well. But I also called it out. So I absolutely agree with what you say. Don't reflect behaviors back, but I did say I can't help but notice that that question invoked a bit of a response in you. Can you tell me what it was about that question, you know? 00:32:50.000 --> 00:33:05.000 you know, that way you're showing them that you recognize that, yeah, there's been a bit of a breakdown here, and then followed by immediately by a break. At the end of the day, we don't want to be oppressive in our interviews. The person doesn't want to answer the question. They don't have to answer the question. They don't even have to be there if they don't want to be 00:33:05.000 --> 00:33:19.000 Some participants aren't aware of that. And and so, you know, we do, we do need to manage those behaviors. But now we can probably swap to the other way where we've got the anger, or perhaps we've got the person who's a bit limited in their 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:26.000 responses. And we were talking about this the other day as well, because, you know. 00:33:26.000 --> 00:33:42.000 We do see quite a large breadth and depth of different matters all of the time, but the rambler, for the want of a better word, the person who you ask a question, and this is where open questions sometimes aren't your friend, where you say, look, describe for me in as much detail as possible about this, and they go 00:33:42.000 --> 00:33:59.000 I normally give the pretext, and I just give some context first. That sort of indicates that they're going to probably be one of those people that can sometimes stray, and would be, for the want of a better term, class as a rambler in an interview. What are some of your tips for that 00:33:59.000 --> 00:34:04.000 How do you manage a rambler 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:21.000 Again, it's about being upfront. So at the start I'll say, you know, I will ask you certain questions, but if we need to divert back to making sure that we stay on track, I will calmly, I'll do that and I might just say to you, let's go refocus on what we're doing here, all the important points 00:34:21.000 --> 00:34:39.000 What I don't do is I don't cut them off at the start, because you have to remember that sometimes context, you need that context. So you give them the space to answer or provide the context, but if they're not flowing into the direct question, or the… what you're anticipating. 00:34:39.000 --> 00:34:55.000 Then I just steer them back and I say, look, that's such great information, and I really, I really appreciate you giving me that context. Can we just focus on the question for now, or what we need to establish? And then I certainly will give you an opportunity at the end if there's further context that I need to understand and we have that space 00:34:55.000 --> 00:35:10.000 at the… to do that, please let me know. Alternatively, if we are going to run out of time, because we are both here, then I also invite them to give me a written response, or to follow up in writing if there's anything that they feel that they've missed, or that I've had to over… I've had to steer away 00:35:10.000 --> 00:35:23.000 But being mindful to stay structured is key. And I know that's really difficult because we want people to be heard and we want people to have that opportunity to speak freely. But sometimes what they're providing us 00:35:23.000 --> 00:35:38.000 Can't be used or is is not relevant. They might be talking about a situation or a 2-year relationship that led up to one key example that we want. Again, I will be, you know, I'll say things like, that's helpful context, and thank you, can I just bring you back to the main point 00:35:38.000 --> 00:36:03.000 Or I'll say, I just want to focus on this specific bit of information before we move on. But also, I think when you said at the start, you know, you'll say, can you tell me about what happened on Tuesday from 10am? I narrow that down, and I'll give them clear guidelines, so I'll… instead of giving them really open questions, so I said open, I might say, look, we're here to because you reported this 00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:15.000 Can you tell me from this point until the comment was made, let's say that they made a really awful comment to you, what happened in that space, and then what happened directly after the comment was made? So by limiting or giving them sort of 00:36:15.000 --> 00:36:16.000 Yeah. 00:36:16.000 --> 00:36:19.000 guidelines about what you're expecting. I find it opens them up to give that context, but then brings them back as well 00:36:19.000 --> 00:36:43.000 I think that's important, because, again, it's 99.98% of the time the participant isn't there to be disruptive. They're there to be helpful. They might not want to answer all of the questions for self-interest reasons, but they generally want to be quite helpful, and they probably think that the information that they're giving you is helpful. They don't understand the difference between direct and indirect 00:36:43.000 --> 00:36:59.000 you know, irrelevant and private value and all of that sort of stuff. And and so they just want to give you the full picture. I mean, especially where you ask them an open question. I mean, you've basically given them the opportunity to, you know, come in quite wide, and then it's up to us to sort of narrow it 00:36:59.000 --> 00:37:27.000 So I think, as you say, you know, making sure that you still maintain that level of patience and respect for the fact that they that all sounds very interesting. I'd be interested to hear about it perhaps at the end of the interview, but can we just refocus for a moment and just talk about this 00:37:27.000 --> 00:37:28.000 Yes. 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:31.000 particular thing is really important. And again, sometimes that's all that it takes. A person who really wants to give that context will, and you just sometimes have to sit there. And there is some benefit sometimes to having people provide a lot of context as well, because they might inadvertently say something that 00:37:31.000 --> 00:37:41.000 You know, they weren't meant to, or they didn't think about, and that's something that, oh, we have a bit of a light bulb, moment. 00:37:41.000 --> 00:37:42.000 I think 00:37:42.000 --> 00:37:43.000 So that's when everything goes… oh, sorry, go on. 00:37:43.000 --> 00:38:06.000 So I was going to say that the key part of that is where they are providing context. And as you just said, if there's is to have those notes down. So you as the interviewer must be alert that they'll be giving you new information. And if there are key points to note down so then you can say at the end of their context or after your question, can I just please bring you back to this point because it's something that I need to or there's new information, can you tell me about that 00:38:06.000 --> 00:38:15.000 So that's where you also, as the interviewer, need to have that flow and that responsibility to make sure that you are picking up on key evidence if it wasn't in the original complaint that happens every interview. 00:38:15.000 --> 00:38:23.000 Yeah. Now I'm conscious of time. We've only got about four or five minutes to go, and there is a question that I do want to ask that's come in from a listener 00:38:23.000 --> 00:38:40.000 But I guess we talked about how things, you know perfectly go in an interview, we've dealt with, you know, any anger, we've dealt with emotion, everyone's happy, we're getting all the answers. But what are some of the mistakes that you've seen? I mean, you've managed investigation teams before, so what are some of the 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:49.000 What are some of the mistakes you see that happen in interviews? 00:38:49.000 --> 00:39:03.000 I think the key and one I see most commonly, and this happens when you don't have a lot of experience, it happened to me too. So we're not immune, but is over talking or interrupting because if you start to overtalk, the participant will cut off 00:39:03.000 --> 00:39:25.000 And if you are interrupting, they might think, okay, that's not important, I won't bother with that bit of information. And that may be really key to your investigation. So that also can lend to feeling like you're rushing, or there's a lot of pressure for time. You don't want to do that because you want the key information. As you said at the start, we only… we might get one shot, and if we do that, then we're going to miss the evidence 00:39:25.000 --> 00:39:42.000 One thing that I've seen in both this world and my previous world is the chance of turning into an interrogation. So, where you start to really hone in on direct questioning that makes someone feel unsure about what they're doing, it 00:39:42.000 --> 00:39:57.000 Make them feel that they themselves are being called out for lying. It's all of those processes, because interrogation can be so easy to form, you know, I need to know this, I need to know it now, and it'll really sway a participant 00:39:57.000 --> 00:40:20.000 a complaint and a witness or a respondent to giving you incorrect information. I also think ignoring trauma signals, and that's something that's a really big part of what we're speaking about today, directly affects our interviews as well. So, if you just think, I can see that person's upset, and I can see, but I'm just going to keep rolling on, because at the end of the day, I need to get this done. At the end of the day, I just want it to be over or at the end of the day 00:40:20.000 --> 00:40:43.000 that I still need the information, even though they're upset. So I think it's just about recognizing in not only yourself, but in the person that you're interviewing, that you're both human, and that you both need to… you've got a certain… I've got something that I need to achieve in order to make sure my investigation runs smoothly and is procedurally fair, and everybody gets the right to speak, but also that that person you're interviewing has a right to their time and their airspace 00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:49.000 I think, but yeah, they're sort of the main things for me, I find, and something that I like to teach when I'm engaging with new investigators. 00:40:49.000 --> 00:41:06.000 Yeah, I think that's really important is not turning it into interrogation because it's not. And rushing them out the door, but also trying to talk to someone when it's clear that they're upset. So look, we have got a couple of minutes to go before the end 00:41:06.000 --> 00:41:21.000 There is a question here that we haven't covered and I think this is quite an interesting one because this does come up and I've had a more recent example of this. But the question that was asked was you mentioned before that asking particip 00:41:21.000 --> 00:41:26.000 Whether they require any accommodations to assist, sorry, I mentioned 00:41:26.000 --> 00:41:34.000 accommodations to assist with participating in the interview. Can you ask participants directly about medical conditions 00:41:34.000 --> 00:42:04.000 No. Simply, I would never ask directly about a medical condition. So what I do, and for me, the correct way to do this is while you know sometimes you might be advised that they're a suspected condition this person might have, but we don't have that information and that's not for us to ask directly. So 00:42:17.000 --> 00:42:18.000 Hmm 00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:20.000 When I'm asking about accommodation, I might say, you know, here, this is your opportunity for your interview today. Is there anything about this process that I need to understand, or is there anything that you need from me? So I'll offer my supports. I'll offer the, you know, different… the support people, the breaks, and if they… and hope… and I might also mention, are there any medical conditions that require you to have a break more regularly or is there any anything that I should be aware of 00:42:20.000 --> 00:42:40.000 The setting that we're in, is there anything that you… that's confronting or upsetting about the setting? I opened it up in a broad term, and that way it gives them the opportunity, if they don't want to tell me, or if there isn't one, then they don't have to. But what I think is important, and probably the main part of this, is if someone opens and says, actually, I am suffering from this medical condition, I have ADHD, 00:42:40.000 --> 00:43:03.000 I need to… I then that sort of opens for me to say, okay, you've told me that now, can I just be understand? Does your employer know about this? And if they don't, then I need… then I'm obliged to obtain permission from them to either… I have to remove it from the transcript if they say, look, I don't want that to be known, then I have to make sure that that's removed 00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:04.000 Yeah. 00:43:04.000 --> 00:43:13.000 And that's for health and privacy reasons, because we're not allowed to pass that information on. And I think that's really key. So whilst we might think we have something that we need to know, it's up to the interviewee to provide us that information. 00:43:13.000 --> 00:43:29.000 Yeah, that's right. I mean, that's exactly correct. I mean, we do have to be, we will be provided with a lot of information that sometimes participants don't anticipate, even though we might have told them in a guide for participants or something else that anything you tell us will go back as in the transcript 00:43:29.000 --> 00:43:37.000 They may not think about that at the time and disclose something that they don't want their employer to know, and it's not my role as the external. And this is more so for external investigators 00:43:37.000 --> 00:43:39.000 Turner, yeah 00:43:39.000 --> 00:43:54.000 Because generally speaking, internals will already have some clarity around any medical conditions and things like that. But if I have had occasion where someone has declared that they're ADHD, and the employer didn't know, and they didn't want that passed on, they wanted to do it in their own time, and that's perfectly fine 00:43:54.000 --> 00:44:09.000 I got time for we've got one more question here and I'm going to give Courtney a break so she can have a glass of just a sip of water. This question is around leading questions. There's how do you to avoid the leading questions 00:44:09.000 --> 00:44:20.000 And I'm just going to reflect back on what Courtney said about the use of open questions, or if you get really stuck, the acronym TED, there'll be times in an interview where you will go, I just there's 00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:37.000 I want to ask this question, but maybe you can check and confirm in a way without leading the evidence or leading it. So, you know, tell me more about this, explain more for me about that, describe for me what you meant when you said that. What did you mean by this? You know, those sort of things 00:44:37.000 --> 00:44:39.000 As opposed to 00:44:39.000 --> 00:44:50.000 You know saying something like, so, you know, you told you told Jason that Courtney said such and such about someone else, didn't you maybe more about well tell me more about what Courtney told you 00:44:50.000 --> 00:45:06.000 Describe for me the language that you should use and things like that. It's one of those sort of nuanced things that you have to sort of get used to. And there are times in an interview where you'll get a little bit excited, you've gotten a little bit of information, and you'll want to check and confirm it, and it'll sound like a leading question 00:45:06.000 --> 00:45:23.000 And it probably is. There are versions of leading questions, but unfortunately, I've run out of time because I can talk about this subject for ages. We do want to say, and what I'll do is I'll provide that person, because they have requested to remain anonymous, if they'd like to 00:45:23.000 --> 00:45:44.000 Email me directly, I can give them awful system, or Courtney can give them awful some response. The one thing I would want to do is, first of all, on behalf of Courtney and I say thank you for your participation. It's been a great session. I hope you got something from it. The person who just raised their hand, happy to hang around for you 00:45:44.000 --> 00:45:59.000 To answer any questions you might have. I am flagging there, there's a QR code. Our next webinar is going to be on the 16th of June, when our colleague Angela Siege will talk about all things workplace reviews 00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:14.000 And what they can uncover in a culture about what is really going on in circumstances where perhaps an investigation isn't necessarily needed. But otherwise, thanks very much for your time. Hope you got something from it. Look forward to seeing you the next time. 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:15.000 All the best. 00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:23.000 Thank you. Thank you.