Credibility Assessments in Workplace Investigations
How many times have you conducted an investigation where two people give entirely different versions of the same event, with no clear evidence to prove who is telling the truth?
This is one of the biggest challenges in workplace investigations—determining credibility when you don’t have an email, video footage, or a third-party witness to confirm what actually happened.
I’ve seen too many investigators avoid credibility determinations altogether, either because they don’t feel confident making them or they’re worried about how it might be perceived. Others rely too much on gut instinct—who sounded more believable, who seemed more confident—without applying a structured approach. And I get it. Credibility assessments can feel subjective if you don’t have a framework in place.
But credibility assessments aren’t about deciding who “seems” truthful. They’re about using objective, reliable factors to evaluate the strength of statements within the full context of the investigation. Done well, they enhance the integrity of your findings and ensure your conclusions are fair, defensible, and evidence-based.
The Dreaded He Said, She Said
I handled a sexual harassment investigation not too long ago where I had to work through exactly this challenge. It was a he said, she said situation. The complainant and respondent gave completely different accounts. The complainant provided a detailed statement, but a few of the details didn’t quite line up. The respondent, gave a perfectly consistent statement every time I interviewed them.
At first glance, the respondent seemed more credible. Their story never changed. But as I dug deeper, I realized I was putting too much weight on consistency alone. I wasn’t looking at why the inconsistencies existed or whether they actually mattered in the bigger picture.
So I paused. I sat with the case, revisited my notes, and carefully worked through each credibility factor—not just consistency, but corroboration, plausibility, and motive. As I did, it became clear that consistency alone wasn’t the best measure of credibility in this case.
Taking the time to step back and assess credibility in the broader context led me to a finding I felt confident in, and one the organization could rely on to make an informed decision about what to do next.
This case reinforced something I already knew: credibility assessments require a structured, fact-based approach to determine which account is more reliable. Without them, stakeholders can lose trust in the process and organizations struggle to take action.
Why Credibility Assessments Matter in Workplace Investigations
Here’s why credibility assessments matter:
1. They Help Resolve “He Said, She Said” Cases
Not every investigation has a clear-cut answer. In many cases, particularly those involving harassment, discrimination, or misconduct, there may not be direct evidence supporting one version of events over another. Credibility assessments help you analyze conflicting accounts and make a determination based on available information.
2. They Reduce Bias in Investigations
Without a structured approach, personal biases can influence our perception of credibility. Confidence, nervousness, or even how articulate someone is should not determine whether they are believed. A sound credibility assessment allows us to make findings based on facts, not personal impressions.
3. They Strengthen the Integrity of Your Investigation
A workplace investigation should be able to withstand scrutiny from leadership, legal teams, regulatory bodies, or even a courtroom. If a decision relies heavily on witness statements, it’s important to explain why one account was found more credible than another. This ensures transparency and shows that your findings were based on objective criteria, not assumptions.
How to Assess Credibility Effectively
Here are some common factors to evaluate during your credibility assessment:
1. Consistency
If there’s one thing that case taught me, it’s that consistency, while an important factor can be impacted by stress, trauma, memory gaps, and the passage of time.
When analyzing consistency, consider:
Internal consistency: Does the person’s story remain generally the same over time, or do key details change significantly?
External consistency: Does their account align with available evidence, such as documents, recordings, or witness statements?
Situational context: Would it be reasonable for them to remember certain details while forgetting others?
2. Plausibility
A person’s story should align with common sense, workplace norms, and known facts. If a claim seems highly unlikely or inconsistent with how people typically behave, take a closer look by asking yourself:
Does this version of events make logical sense?
Are they describing a reasonable sequence of events?
Would it have been possible for this to happen as described?
3. Corroboration
Corroboration doesn’t always mean having a document or witness that directly proves a claim. Sometimes, circumstantial evidence supports credibility.
Look for:
Documents, emails, or records that confirm aspects of a person’s statement.
Witnesses who provide supporting details, even if they didn’t observe the incident directly.
Patterns of past behavior that align with (or contradict) the allegations. Be careful with this one, as past behavior is not always confirmation of current conduct.
4. Motive and Bias
Everyone involved in an investigation has some level of personal interest in the outcome. That doesn’t mean they’re lying, but it’s important to consider whether personal motives could influence their statement.
Consider:
Does this person stand to gain or lose something based on the findings?
Do they have a prior conflict with the other party?
Are they downplaying their own involvement or shifting blame?
At the same time, be careful not to assume that a person with a potential motive is being dishonest. Just because a complainant dislikes their manager doesn’t mean they’re making up claims. Just because a respondent is worried about their job doesn’t mean they are lying. Motive is just one factor to weigh alongside others.
5. Demeanor
Many people instinctively rely on demeanor when assessing credibility, but this is one of the least reliable factors. Someone who appears calm and confident isn’t necessarily truthful, just as someone who is nervous or hesitant isn’t necessarily lying.
However, demeanor can be a factor when considered carefully and in context. Does their body language, tone, or reaction align with the situation? Some red flags may include:
Extreme defensiveness when asked routine questions.
Unexplained hesitation or vagueness when discussing key details.
Contradictions between verbal statements and nonverbal behavior.
Demeanor should never be the primary factor in a credibility assessment. Instead, it should be considered alongside the other elements above. Remember that factors such as stress, trauma and cultural background may impact an individual’s demeanor.
Common Mistakes in Credibility Assessments
Here are a few mistakes to avoid:
Assuming inconsistencies automatically mean deception. Memory gaps and minor contradictions are normal. What matters is whether the inconsistencies are on key facts or just small details.
Failing to document credibility determinations. If your report states that you found one party more credible than another, you need to explain why—using clear, objective reasoning.
Ignoring corroboration. Even partial corroboration (such as a witness recalling part of an incident) can strengthen credibility assessments.
Conclusion
Credibility assessments are one of the most challenging aspects of workplace investigations, but they’re also one of the most important, particularly in “he said, she said” cases. A fact-based approach using the credibility factors will allow you to make credibility determinations that are fair, defensible, and rooted in evidence.
If you liked this article, do me a favor and share it with a colleague or repost it to your network.
Together we’re building a community of investigators committed to elevating workplace culture.
Want to learn more?
If you want to improve your credibility assessments check out my online course, The Investigative Edge.
Inside, you’ll get:
✔ A step-by-step framework for assessing credibility.
✔ My credibility assessment tool to help streamline your process.
✔ Best practices and examples for documenting credibility assessments in your reports clearly and defensibly.
Check out the course here.
