Being trauma-informed is something that we are hearing quite a lot about in the space of workplace investigations, and rightly so. There is a lot of good conversation happening as employers, investigators, lawyers, human resource personnel, etc., are all starting to understand and appreciate the value and importance of conducting trauma-informed workplace investigations. We teach a whole course on it here at RT called "Conducting Trauma Informed Investigations". That said, like anything else, while a lot of good conversation may be happening, we are hearing some things that do not necessarily align with best practices and also do not align with what is required of us as workplace investigators. So, in this blog, I want to talk about four misconceptions that I have heard about trauma-informed investigations, and seek to set the record straight, so to speak.
Before I discuss the misconceptions, I want to start by clarifying what being trauma-informed actually means, because, although the term is being used frequently, I am not sure how widely its meaning is understood. Being trauma-informed is, in essence, (i) recognizing the impact and manifestation of trauma, and (ii) avoiding actions that may have the effect of adding to the harm that someone believes they have experienced.
I now turn to address the four misconceptions about trauma-informed workplace investigations.
Misconception #1: It's okay to assure a complainant that they did the right thing in coming forward with a complaint
First off, no, it's not okay. Picture it, you are in an interview with a complainant who is crying uncontrollably, sharing the trauma and nightmares that they have been experiencing and wondering if they did the right thing by coming forward. What would be your response? The natural inclination may be to assure the complainant that they did the right thing. While that response may potentially validate and comfort a complainant in the moment, it is not a neutral response and is, therefore, not appropriate for an investigator. We cannot afford to say anything that conveys or gives the impression that we believe the complainant prior to the completion of the investigation.
We agree that it is important for investigators to be empathetic, however, being empathetic does not mean losing your neutrality. There is an important balance to be struck. Our role as investigators is never to comfort or validate any party because, not only is that contrary to the notion of neutrality, it also runs the risk of adding to the harm they believe they have experienced. What if, after validating them, you then find their allegation to be unsubstantiated? The effect of that outcome can be even more harmful on the complainant.
How, then, do you respond to a complainant in such a situation? First, you can acknowledge the impact of what they believe to be their experience but not confirm the truth of that experience. Second, inform them of the support that may be available to them. For example, direct them to the organization's employee assistance program, or inquire if there is any support that would assist them in the process. Third, remind them of your neutral role — that the decision for them to come forward is a personal decision and that your role is to investigate what they are alleging. Fourth, based on the emotional state of the complainant, offer to take a break or even reschedule the interview if that would be helpful to them. This is how you demonstrate being trauma-informed while maintaining your neutrality.
Misconception #2: A traumatized complainant is a credible complainant
One of the traps that investigators sometimes fall into is believing that, because a complainant is demonstrating signs of trauma, that demonstration adds to their credibility. In other words, the impact of the trauma makes them more compellable. That is flawed and dangerous reasoning.
Assessing credibility is a very challenging exercise in any investigation. However, that assessment is further complicated in cases involving trauma. Here are a few things to consider:
- Even people who experience trauma are sometimes dishonest
- Trauma can affect the brain, including memory or recall
- A person's perception of an alleged interaction may be informed or tainted by previous experiences of trauma not related to the incident(s) alleged
What these points should demonstrate is that, even if someone is showing signs of trauma, that trauma is not determinative of their credibility. So, what a trauma-informed approach requires is recognizing the impact of trauma and assessing the totality of the evidence with that understanding. For example, consider, on the totality of the evidence, whether the version offered by the complainant is plausible, or, where there is witness evidence, consider whether that evidence usually corroborates the complainant's evidence or not. With this approach, the findings will be based, not on the trauma or the manifestation of the trauma, but on the evidence adduced.
Misconception #3: Inconsistencies or changes to evidence means dishonesty
As investigators, one of the ways that we assess credibility is to look at the consistency of the evidence given. Where there are material inconsistencies or variations, those inconsistencies and variations may inform our assessment of credibility. However, one of the misconceptions that we sometimes hear is that inconsistencies or changes to the evidence means dishonesty. I acknowledge that sometimes that is indeed the case. However, the assessment of credibility is not so straight forward when trauma is a factor. As noted above, trauma can affect the brain, including memory or recall. What that means is that trauma can cause persons to suppress memories, it can cause them to remember bits and pieces of information at different times, their recall may intermittently change, or they may even have a delayed recall of all the details that they did not initially have. Trauma does not work logically or chronologically. Historically, there have been a number of sexual harassment cases, for example, that have been dismissed or disbelieved due to a lack of understanding of how trauma can affect the brain. The result of that lack of understanding is added trauma to those who may have been victims.
How, then, do we avoid this? The key thing to note is that inconsistencies do not always mean dishonesty. It could mean that trauma has affected a person's memory. That said, whatever may be the reason for the inconsistencies, an investigator still needs credible evidence on which to find that an alleged incident occurred. So, even a traumatized person needs to give credible evidence. If the inconsistencies are material, it may be that the individual is not credible, not because they are being dishonest, but because on the totality of the evidence, they are not reliable. The techniques outlined in the section above can also be applied here to help with conducting a credibility assessment through a trauma-informed lens. That is, assessing whether their evidence is plausible on the totality of the evidence and whether they have been otherwise corroborated by witness evidence, where witness evidence exists. A key part of the assessment is also to assess whether the inconsistencies are actually material. If they are not material and nothing turns on them, it is not likely that they should form the basis of an adverse credibility assessment.
Misconception#4: Workplace investigators can make conclusions or findings about the impact of trauma on a party
In all the talk about trauma-informed approaches to workplace investigation, we sometimes see and hear of investigators making conclusive findings about the impact of trauma on a party. Unless the investigator is a trained psychologist or medical professional or has received medical evidence, I caution against that practice. As workplace investigators, we adopt a trauma-informed approach; we do not make medical conclusions.
To clarify, a trauma-informed approach may involve two things: (i) adjusting our investigation process to create safety and to avoid any potential harm, and (ii) assessing the evidence that we receive with an understanding of the potential impact(s) of trauma. It is this second piece that may cause some difficulty. Our findings ought not to be based on any medical conclusions but based on our assessment of credibility on the totality of the evidence.
The takeaway for workplace investigators is that, while it is absolutely important to conduct trauma-informed investigations, it is important that we are implementing the correct principles and correct practices when doing so.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
