What employers need to know:
Trauma‑informed interviewing shifts workplace investigations from what may be perceived by employees as adversarial questioning to a structured, supportive dialogue that prioritises psychological safety, enhances memory recall, and produces more accurate and reliable accounts. By applying the techniques outlined in this article to interviews as part of workplace investigations, employers can minimise psychosocial harm while strengthening the reliability and fairness of an investigation.
A traditional interview in a workplace investigation, with its focus on a linear timeline and often an adversarial style of questioning, can feel like an interrogation. It can often fail to elicit a complete and accurate account of events, particularly from someone affected by trauma.
Trauma-informed interviewing represents a shift towards an approach that favours dialogue, which is designed to gather more comprehensive information while prioritising the interviewee’s psychological safety. It also acknowledges the profound ways trauma can re-wire memory and influence communication. In this way, a trauma-informed interview techniques require investigators to evolve from being “fact-collectors”, to becoming skilled facilitators of structured conversations that assist with memory and recall.
In this article, we explain how each phase of an interview, from pre-interview to closing, can improve the fact-finding process by applying a trauma-informed approach to investigations.
Pre-interview stage: Laying the foundations before the first question is asked
The success of a trauma-informed interview is determined before the questions begin, and the initial moments of the interview are dedicated to building a foundation of safety and trust.
The first objective of the interview is to create a safe environment for the interviewee, both from a physical and psychological perspective. This can be done by giving the interviewee choice about when and where the interview will be conducted (within reason), such as choice in relation to the time of day, the venue or whether the interview is conducted in person or virtually.
If the interview is to be conducted in person, the room should be neutral, private, quiet and comfortable. The interviewer should consider whether there is a way to arrange seating to avoid it being perceived as being confrontational, such as by sitting around a corner of a table (as opposed to being opposite each other).
In some circumstances, conducting the interview virtually allows the interviewee to have full control over the physical environment they are in.
Once the interview begins, the investigator’s initial task is rapport-building. This starts with:
- A warm introduction.
- A clear explanation of the investigator’s role as a neutral fact-finder.
- A clear explanation of the investigative process.
The investigator should also explain the interviewee’s rights during the interview, including any right to have a support person present, the ability to take a break at any point for any reason, and the right to not answer a question they are uncomfortable with (while explaining any potential consequences of their refusal, such as whether adverse inferences might be drawn).
The investigator should also be transparent in relation to any responsibilities of the interviewee (such as obligations regarding confidentiality), as well as with how the interviewee’s evidence will be used and who may have access to it.
These steps promote a number of trauma-informed principles, such as safety, empowerment, choice and collaboration. They do this by giving the interviewee a sense of informed agency leading up to and during the interview. It assists in providing interviewees with meaningful and informed choices about their participation in the interview.
During the interview: Questioning technique
The language an investigator uses is critical to the success of the interview. The interviewer’s manner and tone, along with the right phrasing, facilitates the interviewee’s participation in the dialogue and can assist recall. By contrast, using an adversarial tone, or sceptical or accusatorial language, may cause a person to feel unsafe and reluctant to provide the interviewer with a complete version of events.
A number of small changes to an interviewer’s approach to an interview, which are informed by trauma-informed principles, can have a big impact on the quality of the information obtained from the interviewee.
- Start with “free recall”, not a chronology: In some circumstances, asking the interviewee for a linear account can be counterproductive and stressful for them. Beginning the interview by asking the interviewee to start with their own account can assist with soliciting important information and also start the interview in a positive manner.
| Traditional approach | “Okay, let’s start at 9:00 AM on Monday and walk me through the day, step-by-step.” |
|---|---|
| Trauma-informed approach | “Thank you for being here. I would like to understand your account of what happened. To begin, could you please share with me what you are able to remember about the event, starting wherever feels most important for you to tell me?” |
| Why it works | Allowing the person to start with their strongest or most clear memory helps build their confidence and often triggers the recall of associated details.The investigator can gently piece together the timeline later. |
- Use open ended questions and prompts: The goal of the interview is to ask open questions to encourage a narrative, not to obtain specific information. Closed questions can feel accusatory, limit the response and result in “leading the witness”.
| Traditional approach | “Did your manager yell at you?” |
|---|---|
| Trauma-informed approach | “Can you describe the conversation to me, including the tone and volume used by your manager?” |
| Why it works | This approach allows the interviewee to recount the event in their own words, focusing on the details that are most salient to them.It gives them control of the narrative, and often reveals crucial context and nuance that a direct question might miss. |
- Avoid the use of “why-questions”: In an interview context, “why?” is almost universally interpreted as a demand for justification and implies blame. It can immediately put the interviewee on the defensive.
| Traditional approach | “Why didn’t you leave the room?” or “Why did you wait a week to report this?” |
|---|---|
| Trauma-informed approach | “What were some of the things you were thinking or feeling in that moment that made it difficult to leave?” or “Can you help me understand some of the factors that influenced the timing of your report?” |
| Why it works | This technique reframes the question from a judgment of the interviewee’s actions to an enquiry as to their experience and perspective. It validates the complexity of their situation rather than implicitly blaming them for a natural and human response (like freezing) or a common fear of reporting concerns. |
- Use prompts associated with sensory perceptions or feeling-states to aid recall: When cognitive recall is blocked, sensory memory can provide an alternative pathway to unlocking recall of events. This reflects the ways in which trauma impacts memory and recall.
| Traditional approach | “What exactly did they say next?” |
|---|---|
| Trauma-informed approach | “What do you remember hearing around that time, even if you don’t remember what was said to you?” or “Can you describe what you were feeling at that moment?” or “What’s one thing that stands out the most in your mind from that interaction?” |
| Why it works | During a traumatic event, sensory input (sights, sounds, physical sensations) is often more memorable than conversational detail. Gently probing these areas can unlock memories that a direct, cognitive question may not be able to access. |
Managing the flow of the interview and closing
An interview is a dynamic process. The investigator must be prepared to manage difficult moments and conclude the conversation in a way that reinforces safety and trust.
Emotions are often the most difficult aspects of an interview to manage, and the appropriate response will depend on the emotion being expressed:
| Sadness / tearfulness | |
|---|---|
| Do | Pause and provide respectful silence. This allows the interviewee the space to emote.Then, gently guide them back to the issue being discussed, for example, by saying “When you are ready, you can tell me more about what happened next”. |
| Don’t | Do not press the interviewee to continue with the conversation or say “It’s okay”. |
| Anger / Defensiveness | |
| Do | Acknowledge the feeling without validating the behaviour. For example, you might say “I can see that you are having a strong reaction to this issue and, given what you’ve described, I can understand your position”.Then, guide the interviewee back to the conversation. For example, you might say “While I can see that this is a frustrating situation for you, my role is to be a neutral fact-finder and to get everyone’s perspective on what has happened”. |
| Don’t | Do not mirror the anger, become defensive or take the reaction personally (such as by feeling responsible for the anger). |
| Frustration / impatience (for example, because they feel the investigation is pointless) | |
| Do | Explain to the interviewee the information that is required and ask them for the participation to progress the interview. For example, the interviewer should say “I have a list of ten questions to ask you. Once we work through these, I will have the information I need from you. Are you happy for me to continue?”. |
| Don’t | Acknowledge, but not validate, the feelings. |
| Anxiety / fear | |
| Do | Explain the purpose of the interview / questions and the supports available to the interviewee. The interviewer could offer to move to less controversial topics, while indicating that they can return to the current topic at a later point. |
| Don’t | Do not make assurances that cannot be kept, such as “absolute confidentiality”. |
| Shame / guilt | |
| Do | Use open-ended questions to solicit information in a non-judgemental way, such as by saying “Can you describe the events of that day from your perspective?” |
| Don’t | The interviewer should avoid using language that is judgmental or suggests they have already formed an opinion about what occurred or the appropriateness of the conduct. |
The conclusion of the interview is an equally important part of the interview, as any other. It is often the final impression given by the interviewer and can significantly impact later engagements between the investigator and the interviewee.
To close the interview, the investigator should:
- Briefly summarise the key points discussed in the interview to ensure an accurate understanding of the issues discussed, and give the interviewee a chance to correct or clarify any matters. This can also be done as the interview progresses, for lengthy interviews.
- Be explicit about what happens next. Many complaints about investigators arise because the investigator has failed to provide the interviewee with clarity about the next steps following the end of the interview.
- Proactively re-offer information regarding the available support services, such as supports available through the Employee Assistance Program.
- Thank the interviewee for their participation in the interview.
Action items for employers
We recommend that employers ensure that their investigators are well-versed and practiced in effective interview techniques. By mastering these techniques, an investigator minimises the potential adverse impacts on the health and wellbeing of investigation participants, while increasing the likelihood of obtaining a complete, accurate and reliable account of events.
We can assist your organisation by conducting workplace investigations in a manner that minimises the risk of harm, in accordance with the guidance in the article for the conduct of effective interviews. We can also provide quality training for your human resources team and investigators.
In the next article, we explain how an organisation embeds a trauma-informed approach to workplace investigations.