When you conduct an HR investigation, you need to gather and assess evidence from different sources, such as documents, records, and witnesses. However, not all witnesses are equally reliable or truthful. How can you evaluate witness credibility for HR investigations? Here are some tips to help you.
One way to assess witness credibility is to check for consistency in their statements and behaviors. You can compare what they say with what they wrote in emails, reports, or other records. You can also cross-check their accounts with other witnesses or evidence. If you find discrepancies, contradictions, or gaps, you can ask them to explain or clarify. If they change their story, evade your questions, or show signs of nervousness, they may be lying or hiding something.
When asking a witness to explain a discrepancy, it’s important to do so in a way that maintains their trust and confidence. Many witnesses in investigations are traumatised by the interview experience because investigators don’t know how to challenge an inconsistency in an empathetic manner. If the interviewer acts like a jerk the witness is likely to stop talking. This comes down to whether or not the interviewer is well-practiced in the interview process and how well they have prepared.
Evaluating witness credibility in HR investigations requires a comprehensive analysis of factors such as consistency, corroboration, demeanor, first-hand knowledge, potential bias or motive, memory and detail, expertise, documentation, witness reputation, cross-examination responses, motives to lie, external evidence, legal consultation, statement timing, non-verbal communication, and independence. By considering these elements with sensitivity and impartiality, HR professionals can make well-informed assessments of witness credibility, contributing to fair and reliable investigation outcomes while upholding ethical standards and justice in the workplace.
Recueillir des preuves peut prendre différentes formes : examiner des documents officiels, éplucher des dossiers, mais aussi interviewer des témoins clés. En combinant ces différentes sources d'informations, il est possible de construire un tableau complet et objectif de la situation. Cependant, cette tache exige une grande rigueur et une approche méthodique. Il est essentiel de s'assurer de l'authenticité et de la fiabilité des preuves collectées, en vérifiant leur source et en croisant les informations recueillies. Cette étape permet de garantir l'intégrité et la crédibilité des conclusions qui seront ensuite tirées. De plus, la collecte de preuves doit se faire dans le respect des règles juridiques et éthiques en vigueur.
Evaluating witness credibility is a pivotal aspect of fair and effective HR investigations. In my experience, focusing on consistency, corroboration, and a thorough examination of biases and motives has been instrumental. Additionally, creating a safe and non-threatening environment for witnesses to come forward with their accounts can further enhance the credibility assessment process, ensuring a more equitable and objective outcome in HR investigations.
To establish witness credibility in HR investigations, ensure their statements are consistent over time and corroborated by other evidence. Evaluate the plausibility and detail of their accounts, assess potential biases or motives, and observe their demeanor during interviews. Consider their past behavior and reputation within the organization, and verify their claims with external sources. Use open-ended and follow-up questions during interviews, and cross-verify their statements with other witnesses and evidence. These strategies help ensure that findings are based on reliable and trustworthy information.
Another way to assess witness credibility is to consider their motive for participating in the investigation. You can ask them why they came forward, what they hope to gain or lose, and how they are related to the parties involved. You can also look for signs of bias, pressure, or influence from others. If they have a personal or professional stake in the outcome, a conflict of interest, or a history of animosity or favoritism, they may be less credible or objective.
Toute personne appelée à témoigner de faits liés à son environnement professionnel est déjà influencée par le processus d'enquête lui-même, qui peut être stressant ou à enjeux pour elle. Son positionnement hiérarchique ou son statut plus ou moins précaire dans la structure est également à prendre en compte pour mesurer sa réelle liberté de parole. Son degré d'intégration dans un service est aussi à prendre en considération en raison des liens de solidarité ou de rivalité qui peuvent en découler. Autrement dit, il convient d'accepter le témoignage en soi, dont la valeur procède moins de la qualité intrinsèque du témoin que de la substance de ce qui est dit ou révélé, confrontée aux éléments recueillis par ailleurs.
A third way to assess witness credibility is to evaluate their memory and recall of the events. You can ask them when, where, and how they witnessed the incident, and how confident they are about their recollection. You can also test their memory by asking them to repeat, summarize, or elaborate on their statements. If they have a vague, inconsistent, or inaccurate memory, they may be less credible or reliable.
La crédibilité d'un témoin entendu dans le cadre d'une enquête interne ne repose pas sur l'évaluation de sa mémoire, mais d'abord sur la connaissance directe ou indirecte qu'il peut exprimer des faits dont il est témoin. Un témoin qui relate des faits entendus ou vus de manière directe est toujours plus crédible qu'un témoin qui relate une rumeur ou indique avoir entendu qu'un tiers a pu dire que... Ensuite, la crédibilité du témoignage direct sera plus ou moins forte selon le degré de précision des circonstances rapportées et la possibilité de les corroborer par d'éventuels indices matériels objectifs.
Evaluating the memory of the witness is only possible if the interviewer has used a memory-enhancing interview technique. Memory is like untouched snow and every question asked by the interviewer is like adding a footprint to the snow. Every additional question has the potential to contaminate the memory. Investigators who simply “ask questions and write down the answers” cannot then accurately evaluate the quality of the witness’ memory because it has probably been contaminated. It’s crucial that investigators are appropriately trained in interviewing best practice and consistently practice and evaluate their interviewing technique. It’s also dangerous to assume that lack of detail equals lack of reliability.
A fourth way to assess witness credibility is to use the criteria developed by the courts and legal experts. These criteria include the following factors: the witness's opportunity to observe the incident, the witness's ability to perceive and communicate the incident, the witness's character and reputation, the witness's demeanor and attitude, and the witness's corroboration or contradiction by other evidence. You can use these criteria to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each witness and their testimony.
It’s important to distinguish between witness “credibility” and the “reliability” of testimony. A witness who lacks credibility can still provide reliable testimony. A witness who is very credible doesn’t necessarily provide a reliable account.
Il convient d'être prudent sur la prise en compte d'un critère de "moralité et de réputation du témoin", qui se révèle souvent très subjectif et nourrit de nombreux biais cognitifs. L'enquêteur doit toujours présumer que le témoin s'exprime de bonne foi. Ensuite, il lui revient de recouper les informations et témoignages recueillis pour identifier les éventuelles contradictions ou imprécisions. Autrement dit, l'analyse de crédibilité intervient plut?t en fin de processus d'enquête interne et peut alors conduire à relativiser certaines assertions.
A fifth way to assess witness credibility is to seek feedback from others who are involved in the investigation. You can consult with your HR colleagues, legal advisors, or external experts to get their opinions and insights. You can also ask them to review your findings and conclusions, and to point out any gaps or errors. By seeking feedback, you can enhance your objectivity and accuracy, and avoid any biases or assumptions.
When seeking feedback. It’s important to take measures to avoid cognitive bias. For example, often an investigator will seek feedback from someone else by providing their view then asking others for their views. This can create an anchor point which influences the views of everyone else. Instead, ask for feedback without providing your view first to avoid influencing the feedback you receive.
Pour évaluer plus largement la crédibilité des témoignages et informations recueillis il est indispensable de réaliser les entretiens et enquêtes en bin?me, en privilégiant si possible une mixité dans composition de l'équipe chargée des investigations et des auditions. Cela permet de débriefer régulièrement, pour confronter et modérer ses opinions, ressentis, après avoir entendu chaque témoin.
A final way to assess witness credibility is to document your assessment and rationale. You can write a report that summarizes the evidence, the witnesses, and their credibility. You can also explain how you applied the methods and criteria mentioned above, and how you reached your decisions. By documenting your assessment, you can support your investigation, justify your actions, and protect yourself from any legal or ethical challenges.
La crédibilité d'un témoignage est aussi nourrie de l'effort de retranscription de celui-ci sous la forme d'un enregistrement ou d'un procès-verbal, que reconna?t, authentifie et signe le témoin entendu. Ce formalisme responsabilise celui dont la parole est ainsi conservée, qui est informé qu'il sera cité et que ses propos pourront être confrontés à d'autres, voire que la découverte ultérieure de toute tentative de mensonge ou de manipulations aura des suites disciplinaires voire pénales.