Everyone Has a Different Story: How to Investigate Conflicting Accounts
The complainant says one thing. The Subject/Respondent says something completely different. Five witnesses give you five different versions of what happened. Now what? Conflicting accounts are one of the most challenging—and most common—aspects of workplace investigations. In this episode of The HR Investigations Podcast, Natalie Ivey discusses how investigators can evaluate competing versions of events without prematurely deciding who is telling the truth. The goal isn't to determine whose story you like best. It's to determine what the evidence actually supports. In This Episode, We Discuss: Why conflicting testimony does not mean an investigation has failed How to build a timeline to test competing accounts The importance of separating observable facts from interpretations How to evaluate credibility without relying on confidence, personality, or personal impressions Factors investigators should consider when assessing credibility, including consistency, corroboration, motive, and whether a witness acknowledges facts that aren't favorable to them How confirmation bias can influence an investigator's conclusions How to test a respondent's explanation rather than simply accepting or rejecting it The role of emails, text messages, meeting records, chat messages, documents, and other evidence in corroborating—or challenging—witness testimony Why investigators shouldn't overstate what the evidence proves How to handle situations where you cannot determine exactly what was said or what happened Why an investigation may support some aspects of an allegation but not others How to make findings that accurately reflect the evidence rather than forcing the evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion A Key Investigative Principle When accounts conflict, investigators don't necessarily have to determine every detail with absolute certainty. Instead, the investigator should ask: What does the available evidence establish? That may mean finding that a specific statement cannot be substantiated while determining that other conduct did occur. Breaking allegations into separate issues can result in findings that are more accurate, defensible, and useful to the organization. The fundamental principle is simple: Don't make the evidence fit the allegation. Make the finding fit the evidence. For HR & Employee Relations Leaders If your HR or Employee Relations team is responsible for conducting workplace investigations, having a consistent investigative process is critical. RPC Human Resources partners with organizations to provide practical, HRCI- and SHRM-approved workplace investigations training for HR and Employee Relations teams. Training options include: 1-Day Investigations Training — 6 contact hours 2-Day Investigations Training — 12 contact hours Available virtually or on-site for your organization If you have 2026 training budget that needs to be used before year-end, RPC Human Resources still has a limited number of mid-week December dates available. Those dates are expected to fill by the end of October. And if Q4 isn't realistic for your organization, start planning now for 2027. Training programs are typically booked several months in advance, and RPC Human Resources is currently scheduling organizations for February and March 2027. Don't wait until the next investigation exposes a training gap. Think strategically about your team's capabilities, your remaining training budget, and your 2027 priorities. Visit rpchr.com/contact to start a conversation about bringing investigations training to your HR or Employee Relations team. About the Podcast The HR Investigations Podcast provides practical guidance for HR professionals who conduct, manage, or oversee workplace investigations. Hosted by Natalie Ivey, MBA, SPHR, SHRM-SCP, the podcast explores the real-world challenges investigators face—from interviewing and credibility assessments to evidence, documentation, legal considerations, and making defensible findings. The best investigation is the one you don't have to do.






