Investigations stand or fall on the quality of the questions asked. The way you frame a question determines not only the kind of information you receive, but also how the person sitting across from you feels about the process. Poorly phrased or inappropriate questions can provoke defensiveness, lead people into giving opinions rather than facts, and ultimately undermine the fairness of the investigation.
This blog looks at why questions matter, how to plan them properly, examples of what to ask witnesses and employees, and how to avoid leading or biased phrasing. The aim is to give you clarity, confidence and legal awareness when running investigation meetings. For the bigger picture on process, you can also visit our investigations guide.
The role of questions in a fair investigation
A fair investigation is about facts, not feelings or assumptions. The questions you ask play a huge part in making sure those facts are uncovered.
Questions that invite opinion “Do you think they were being rude?” or make assumptions “Why did you shout at her?” create problems. They risk putting the interviewee on the defensive and encourage them to give subjective views rather than evidence. This not only clouds the investigation but can give the impression that you have already reached a conclusion.
Factual, open questions, on the other hand, keep the focus on what actually happened. Asking “Can you describe what happened?” is neutral and leaves space for the witness or employee to explain in their own words. The answers are more reliable, easier to test against other accounts, and provide a solid foundation for an unbiased report.
In short, the right style of questioning protects both the fairness of the process and the credibility of the outcome.
Pre-planning your questions
Walking into an investigation meeting without a clear framework can leave you vulnerable to drifting off track, missing key details, or asking reactive questions that sound biased. This is where pre-planning makes all the difference.
A useful approach is to map your questions directly to the allegations being investigated. Breaking each allegation down into its key elements who, what, when, where, how ensures that the meeting is focused and that every question serves a purpose.
For example:
- Allegation: An employee was spoken to aggressively in a team meeting.
- Key elements: what was said, how it was said, when and where it took place, who else was present.
- Sample questions: “Can you describe what was said?” / “How would you describe the tone?” / “Who else was in the room?”
This mapping helps in two ways. First, it keeps the interview structured and makes sure you test each allegation fairly. Second, when it comes time to write the report, you can demonstrate how every allegation was addressed through evidence. The report becomes logical, defensible and easier for others to follow.
Pre-planning doesn’t mean you can’t follow up on unexpected details you absolutely should. But having a framework gives you an anchor, so even when new issues come up you can bring the conversation back to what matters.
Questions for witnesses
Witnesses are there to provide context, establish facts and, ideally, corroborate parts of the story. The danger is that witnesses often drift into giving opinions or repeating office gossip rather than sticking to what they saw or heard.
Good questions for witnesses include:
- “What did you see or hear?”
- “When and where did this take place?”
- “Who else was present at the time?”
- “Have you spoken to anyone else about this?”
- “Is there anything you noticed about body language, tone or reactions?”
These questions are short, clear and focused on facts. They encourage the witness to give a direct account without speculating or embellishing.
A common pitfall is revealing too much during questioning. For example, telling a witness what someone else has said risks breaching confidentiality and colouring their evidence. Keep the questioning tight and neutral, and avoid feeding information that could influence their answer.
Questions for the employee under investigation
An investigation must always give the employee under investigation a fair opportunity to respond. The tone here is particularly important: accusatory or loaded questions can make the employee feel the decision has already been made.
Useful questions include:
- “Can you talk me through your version of events?”
- “Were there any witnesses who might support your account?”
- “Is there anything that might explain why the complaint has been raised?”
- “Is there anything else you feel is relevant that we haven’t covered?”
These questions signal that you are open to hearing their perspective in full. They also make sure you gather any additional information that could influence the outcome.
The key pitfall is assuming guilt. Even subtle language choices “Why did you do that?” can send the message that the case is already proven. Neutral phrasing protects both the process and your organisation if the investigation is later challenged.
Avoiding leading or biased questions
Leading or biased questions undermine the credibility of an investigation. They don’t just affect the answers given in the moment, they can also make it easy for someone to claim the process wasn’t fair.
Compare these examples:
- Leading: “You were angry when you said that, weren’t you?”
- Neutral: “How were you feeling at the time?”
The first suggests the answer you want to hear. The second leaves space for the individual to describe their own perspective.
Bias can also creep in more subtly, such as giving more weight to senior employees’ accounts or asking irrelevant questions about someone’s personal life. Keeping questions factual and focused on behaviour, rather than character or lifestyle, helps protect against this.
A good self-check is to ask: “Does this question help establish a fact linked to the allegation?” If the answer is no, it probably doesn’t belong in the interview.
Practical takeaways
A few simple principles will help you ask the right questions in disciplinary and investigation meetings:
Checklist
- Map questions to the allegations before the meeting.
- Keep questions open, neutral and fact-based.
- Use “who, what, when, where, how” to structure your approach.
- Probe timelines and details for clarity.
- Avoid opinion-based, leading or accusatory phrasing.
- Give the employee under investigation a full opportunity to respond.
- Document both the questions asked and the answers given.
Do: stay impartial, listen actively, and bring the conversation back to the facts.
Don’t: assume guilt, interrupt, or introduce information that could influence someone’s evidence.
Remember that questioning is only one part of a fair investigation. For the full process, see our disciplinary investigations guide.
Good questioning is the backbone of a fair and robust investigation. By planning carefully, keeping questions factual and neutral, and avoiding bias, you build trust with participants and protect the integrity of the process.
If your organisation would benefit from independent investigation support, or if you’d like training for managers on how to conduct investigations fairly, Tell Jane can help. Explore our disciplinary investigations services or get in touch to start the conversation.
