Workplace investigations often begin in chaos. Investigators are called upon to sort out messy work conflicts, which might include any one or more of the following:

• accusations of favoritism tied to a rumored office affair
• mounting microaggressions that blur lines between compliment and exclusion
• a gruff management style that borders on abusive
• unresolved past complaints that fester into a toxic work culture
• political tensions severing work relationships, etc.

Everyone has a perspective on work conflicts, and everyone has a story. And people’s stories often sound reasonable under the circumstances, even heartfelt. Yet, versions of the truth rarely line up. What exactly happened ─ and why? That is the puzzle investigators are called to solve.

Sometimes an investigation is straightforward. The respondent acknowledges the alleged conduct but offers no sensible explanation to excuse it or the documentary and witness evidence simply do not support the allegation. Other times, the path to clarity is not linear, and the truth feels elusive.

This can be true even when everyone is telling the same story. Multiple witnesses can tell a consistent account, corroborating each other’s explanations, and the investigator might nonetheless feel frustrated by a gut feeling that something is not quite right. That nagging sense that something is off, that the chorus of evidence being presented is not the full story, is familiar to many investigators.

Other times, the investigator’s task of finding clarity can feel daunting when witnesses offer conflicting testimony and the gulf between their accounts seems irreconcilable. Witnesses may offer sharply divergent stories, with each person sincerely believing their version of the truth. When all the witness accounts seem to be shaped by unconscious bias, personal experience, and loyalty to one party over the other, it can be difficult for the investigator to pin down exactly what occurred.

Tips for Reaching Investigative Clarity

When the dominant narrative is not adding up or various perspectives are shrouding the truth, the investigator must rely on a disciplined and objective process, not on a hunch, to reach clarity. Once all the evidence is in, whether the story that emerges is clear or cloudy, in making findings the investigator can employ one or more of the following methods.

Start with undisputed facts and zoom out

Identify facts no one contests and use them as anchors. Then, step back and consider the totality of the evidence around those core facts. Cross-check testimony and timelines with documentary evidence to see what holds up. Consider the context, sequence, and frequency of alleged events to determine if they could have plausibly occurred as described.

Prepare a detailed investigation timeline

Make a timeline of the significant undisputed events based on the information provided by the parties and witnesses, as well as the documentary evidence. Sometimes seeing a timeline can show relationships between certain events that were not apparent, bringing clarity to the story.

Review the evidence

Reread interview summaries and relevant documents. Look for details overlooked in the first pass. There is often a piece of evidence (a contemporaneous text, a throwaway comment, an implausible timeline, a peculiar reaction) that ties the puzzle together and brings a clearer picture into view.

Assess witness credibility

The truth of what occurred can usually be found in evaluating consistencies and inconsistencies between accounts, motive, and patterns of behavior. Weigh the quality of the testimony provided over the quantity of individuals offering a certain narrative. Ten people repeating the same rumor is less valuable than one person with firsthand information and no apparent reason to be untruthful.

Separate fact from fiction

Distinguish between testimony based on emotion, speculation, and conjecture from that based on firsthand knowledge and experience. Give greater weight to the latter.

Seek an unbiased perspective

When the facts still seem confusing, find a neutral witness with no stake in the outcome of the investigation and a close working relationship with all the parties involved who can objectively opine on the issues between them. Sometimes a witness who is a step removed from the conflict is best positioned to provide clarity on it.

Phone a friend

Talking through the case with a colleague, without breaching confidentiality, can provide a fresh perspective on the facts, and either confirm or challenge the investigator’s read on the situation.

Check your work and bias

An investigator should build into their standard process a substantive peer review. A second investigator can give that objective view as to whether the findings make sense taking into consideration all the evidence gathered.

Write the findings both ways

Sometimes writing a finding that sustains the allegation and one that does not sustain the claim can help the investigator see which finding is more objective and persuasive.

Make the call, based on facts not instinct

Ultimately, even when the leading narrative feels “off,” if there is little to no evidence contradicting it, the investigator must make a finding consistent with that narrative. The investigator’s intuition alone cannot override the outcome supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Similarly, if the evidence is mixed and the facts suggest that multiple versions of events are equally plausible, the investigator must find that the allegation cannot be sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, in view of all the reasonable possibilities that could have occurred.

Achieving Investigative Clarity

The investigator’s job of sorting through chaotic and layered workplace conflicts, considering divergent and sometimes biased perspectives, following documentary breadcrumbs, and reading the patterns that emerge can feel daunting when all the evidence gathered does not point to a clear finding. When those puzzle pieces are not fitting quite right, the investigator should follow a meticulous and fair process to check and double check their work, consulting others (while maintaining confidentially) for a fresh take, and challenging their own biases and assumptions.

In moments of confusion, taking time to sit with the facts, and even step away from them momentarily, helps to bring about that small and rewarding moment when the puzzle’s pieces click together. When a stray text, a previously unnoticed pattern, or a corroborating memory suddenly aligns competing stories or pierces that leading narrative. That simple, profound pleasure of putting it all in perspective and weaving together a coherent, defensible finding of what likely occurred is the investigator’s quiet joy. The satisfaction of finding clarity and insight into a chaotic workplace conflict is why many investigators return to this work.