A Fair Investigation Does Not Mean Treating Every Account The Same

One of the concerns I hear regularly from new investigators is whether treating evidence differently risks being unfair.

The question usually comes from a good place. Investigators want to demonstrate neutrality. They want everybody involved to feel they have been treated fairly. They want to avoid accusations of bias or preconceived views.

What often sits behind that concern is an assumption that fairness requires every account, every piece of evidence and every explanation to be treated exactly the same.

The longer I have worked in investigations, the more I have come to believe that this is one of the most common misunderstandings about fairness.

A fair investigation does not require every account to be treated the same.

It requires every account to be tested in the same way.

At first glance, that distinction may seem subtle, but it has a significant impact on how investigations are conducted.

Most workplace investigations involve competing accounts. One person says something happened. Another person disputes it. Sometimes there are witnesses. Sometimes there are documents. Sometimes there is very little beyond the recollections of the individuals involved.

Faced with conflicting evidence, investigators can feel pressure to demonstrate neutrality by treating every version of events as equally persuasive.

The problem is that evidence does not become equally reliable simply because it has been presented.

One account may be supported by contemporaneous emails. Another may be contradicted by documentary evidence. One witness may have direct knowledge of an event whilst another is repeating information they heard from somebody else. One explanation may fit the available evidence more closely than another.

Acknowledging those differences is not bias.

It is the job.

This is where I think investigations sometimes become confused by the idea of balance.

Balance does not mean giving every piece of evidence the same weight. It means applying the same level of scrutiny to all evidence before deciding what weight it deserves.

When investigators become overly concerned about appearing neutral, they can sometimes drift towards false equivalence. They begin treating all evidence as though it carries the same value regardless of its source, reliability or level of corroboration.

In practice, that approach can produce investigations that appear fair on the surface whilst failing to engage properly with the evidence underneath.

I occasionally see this reflected in findings that read as though every perspective has been given equal standing simply because it exists.

A witness account supported by multiple contemporaneous documents is positioned alongside an explanation that has no supporting evidence at all. An individual’s recollection of events is treated as carrying exactly the same weight as records created at the time. Contradictions are noted but never explored.

The result is often a report that feels balanced but provides very little analysis.

Good investigations require more than that.

They require investigators to make reasoned judgements about reliability.

That word can sometimes make people uncomfortable because it sounds subjective. In reality, investigators assess reliability constantly. They consider consistency, supporting evidence, plausibility, context and whether accounts align with other information gathered during the investigation.

The important point is that these judgements should be based on evidence rather than assumptions about status, confidence or credibility.

A confident witness is not necessarily a reliable witness. A senior leader’s account does not automatically carry more weight than a junior employee’s account. Equally, an allegation should not be accepted simply because it has been made.

The evidence still needs to be tested.

This is why I think procedural fairness and false equivalence are often confused.

Procedural fairness means giving people the opportunity to respond to allegations, present evidence and have their account considered properly. It means approaching the investigation with an open mind and applying a consistent process throughout.

Procedural fairness does not require investigators to conclude that all evidence is equally persuasive once it has been examined.

In fact, investigations only become meaningful when investigators are willing to engage with the differences between evidence rather than pretend those differences do not exist.

The strongest investigators are often those who are comfortable sitting with that tension. They understand that fairness is not demonstrated by avoiding judgement. Fairness is demonstrated by ensuring that judgements are evidence based, transparent and capable of being explained.

After all, the purpose of an investigation is not simply to gather information.

The purpose is to assess that information carefully enough to reach findings that people can understand, even when they disagree with the outcome.

That is why I do not think fairness means treating every account the same.

I think fairness means testing every account fairly and being prepared to explain why some evidence ultimately carries more weight than other evidence.

At Tell Jane, we support organisations with workplace investigations, investigator training and quality assurance. If you’d like support developing investigation capability or navigating a complex workplace concern, we’d be happy to help.