Conducting Trauma-Informed Workplace Investigations from Start to Finish | Part 1

We’re increasingly asked what a trauma-informed investigation looks like in practice. In this two-part blog, I walk through how a trauma-informed approach applies at each stage of the investigation.

One of the best compliments I get as a workplace investigator is a participant thanking me for making the process easier and more comfortable than they anticipated.

Workplace investigations often involve sensitive situations with allegations of harassment, discrimination, violence and sexual violence. We’ve heard a lot about being trauma-informed in recent years, but what exactly does it mean?

A trauma-informed approach doesn’t compromise neutrality or the robustness of the investigation; it enhances them. It’s sensitive to the parties’ experience in the investigation and the underlying events. And it recognizes how trauma can affect memory, communication, and participation, while ensuring that all parties are treated fairly and with dignity.

A trauma-informed approach supports participants in sharing complete information, facilitates more reliable findings, reduces the risk of re traumatization and encourages trust in the process. It recognizes that trauma-informed is not just for a complainant, but for everyone involved in the investigation.

Being trauma-informed guides every stage of the process from the first notice to the final communication of findings and actions taken afterward. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, what follows is a roadmap to help apply a trauma-informed approach at each stage of the investigation.

1. The initial notice: setting the tone

The first communication sets the tone for the entire process. It can influence people’s comfort and openness to engage in the process. The goal is to establish safety and transparency, and avoid surprises. Opt for an initial meeting or call before sending the written notice. A human touch at the beginning can make all the difference.

A trauma-informed notice:

• Avoids legalese and uses clear, neutral, and respectful language
• Is timely and sensitive to the impact of the process on the parties
• Explains the investigator’s role, the process, and what to expect
• Sets out what information will be gathered and how it will be used
• Identifies who may have access to the information and outcome
• Provides realistic timelines and next steps
• Identifies available supports (e.g., EAP, union representation, support person)

Removing uncertainty is key. Individuals are more likely to participate meaningfully where they understand what to expect.

2. Providing choice where possible

Many individuals involved in investigations may feel a loss of control. Small procedural choices can help restore a sense of agency.

Consider offering parties:

• Scheduling flexibility (within reason)
• A choice of a virtual or in-person interview
• Input on interview pacing (one session versus multiple shorter sessions)
• The option to provide a written account before or after the interview

Choices support a feeling of psychological safety and reduce the risk of re traumatization. For example, some parties may feel more comfortable participating from the comfort of their home. Multiple shorter interviews may be easier emotionally for some than having to recount all details in one sitting. A written account allows the parties to formulate their thoughts outside the pressures they may feel in an interview setting, allowing them to better process and articulate their evidence.

3. Planning the process to minimize harm

Before interviews begin, give thought to how the process may affect participants. Consider:

• Sequencing interviews to minimize repetition of traumatic events
• Whether accommodations may be required
• What concerns the party may have that you can speak to
• Avoiding lengthy or inflammatory summaries of allegations for respondents while ensuring they have enough information to understand the allegations and not feel blindsided in the interview

Planning in a trauma-informed way means anticipating barriers to participation and minimizing avoidable harm, while maintaining procedural fairness.

4. Conversational interviews

Interviews are often the most sensitive stage of the investigation, especially in cases involving sexual harassment or sexual violence. Apply a structured, nonjudgmental dialogue that supports recall and a safe forum to share information.

i. Creating a safe environment

This includes:

• A private, neutral, and non intimidating setting
• Clearly explaining roles and the process and answering questions about them
• Setting expectations about confidentiality and its limits
• Confirming who will be present in the interview and why
• Allowing a support person where appropriate
• Conversational questioning and showing empathy
• Taking breaks and being mindful of interview pacing

Small details like conversational seating arrangements, having the participant sit closest to the door, and having water and tissues, can affect a person’s comfort level.

ii. Asking questions to support recall

Trauma can affect how people remember and communicate events. Memory may be fragmented or non-linear, and they may experience emotional responses during interviews.

Effective trauma-informed interviewing:

• Maintains a calm, neutral tone
• Uses open-ended, “free narrative,” and non-leading questions rather than guiding a participant through a strict chronology
• Avoids “why” questions, which can feel like blame or judgment
• Uses prompts that support recall (e.g., sensory or contextual cues)
• Allows pauses for reflection and processing of thoughts and emotions
• Is empathetic of emotional responses

Allowing a participant to recount events in their own words before probing helps them provide information in a way that aligns with how they recall it. Trauma-experienced parties will often have better recall of sensory details versus the words spoken.

Participants may experience distress, anger, fear, or disengagement, among other emotions. Acknowledging those feelings with statements like, “I can see this is difficult for you,” and “I hear your frustration,” shows empathy without compromising neutrality.

5. Support persons and external supports

Allowing participants to bring a support person (someone who is not a potential witness in the investigation) can help ease their anxiousness about the process. It can also support engagement and improve the participant’s comfort and ability to provide complete information.

Support persons are present for support only and cannot answer questions or interfere with the process. Unionized employees are often accompanied by a union representative and some parties choose to attend with legal counsel. The role of the support person should be explained in advance to avoid any confusion during the interview.

Participants should also be told about employee assistance plans, peer supports, or other supportive resources the organization offers l. While it’s sometimes presumed that complainants need these more than others, all participants can benefit from available supports and they should be offered equally.

A trauma-informed approach during the initial stages and interviews can meaningfully influence the participant’s experience, and the quality and completeness of the information gathered. But the work doesn’t stop there.

Next week in Part 2, we will look at how a trauma-informed lens should continue through the assessment of evidence, communicating findings, and what happens after the investigation concludes.