When people think about investigations, they usually picture the interviews. They imagine an investigator sitting across from a complainant, a respondent, or a witness, asking thoughtful questions and carefully documenting the conversation. Those interviews are certainly important, but they represent only one part of the investigative process.
In my experience, some of the most important work happens before anyone ever sits down for that first conversation.
After conducting more than a thousand investigations, I have come to appreciate that preparation is not simply something you do before an investigation begins. Preparation is part of the investigation. The quality of every interview, every decision, and every conclusion is shaped by the work that happens long before the first question is asked.
Every Investigation Begins Before the First Conversation
Early in my career, I thought the best way to move an investigation forward was to schedule interviews as quickly as possible. My reasoning seemed logical at the time. If I could start gathering information immediately, I could begin understanding what happened sooner.
Over time, my perspective changed.
I realized there is a significant difference between moving quickly and moving thoughtfully. Rushing into interviews without fully understanding the allegation or developing a strategy often creates more work later. Important questions are missed, follow-up interviews become necessary, and valuable opportunities to collect evidence can be overlooked.
Now, before I contact anyone, I spend time studying the complaint. I review the available information several times and ask myself what I actually know, what I still need to learn, and what assumptions I might already be making without realizing it.
That last question is one I never ignore.
The longer I have worked as an investigator, the more I have learned that assumptions can quietly influence even experienced professionals. If I allow myself to become convinced of a particular narrative before gathering the facts, I risk looking for evidence that confirms my thinking instead of remaining open to wherever the investigation leads.
Preparation should encourage curiosity rather than certainty.
Understanding the Policy Comes First
One of the first things I do is review the applicable policy.
Some people are eager to focus immediately on the facts of the complaint, but I have found that understanding the policy first makes every other part of the investigation more effective.
Each allegation requires investigators to establish different elements. A stalking complaint requires different factual findings than a hostile environment complaint. A discrimination allegation requires a different analysis than a retaliation complaint. If I do not understand exactly what I am responsible for evaluating, it becomes much more difficult to ask meaningful questions or recognize what evidence is truly relevant.
Reviewing the policy allows me to identify the specific issues that need to be addressed. Instead of conducting broad conversations and hoping the answers eventually point me in the right direction, I can develop an investigative plan that focuses on the information that actually matters.
That preparation helps create a more efficient investigation, but more importantly, it creates a fairer one.
Witnesses Require More Planning Than Most People Realize
Another part of the process that often receives very little attention is identifying witnesses.
At first glance, this may seem like a simple task. Someone provides a list of names, and the investigator contacts those individuals.
In reality, there is much more to consider.
I spend time thinking about what each witness may actually contribute to the investigation. Some witnesses observed the alleged conduct firsthand. Others may only have knowledge of conversations that occurred afterward. Some may help establish timelines, while others may provide context that supports or challenges other evidence.
I also think carefully about whether there are witnesses who have not yet been identified. Sometimes a document references another individual. Sometimes a text message introduces someone whose name never appeared in the original complaint. Those details often become important as the investigation develops.
Experience has taught me not to assume that the most obvious witnesses will necessarily provide the most meaningful information.
The Order of Interviews Is Part of the Strategy
Planning the sequence of interviews is another decision that deserves careful thought.
There is no universal formula because every investigation presents different circumstances. In some situations, speaking with one individual first provides information that shapes every interview that follows. In other situations, preserving an independent recollection from a witness before they have an opportunity to discuss the matter with others becomes more important.
Before scheduling interviews, I usually ask myself several questions.
Would reviewing additional evidence first help me ask better questions?
Would another witness provide important context before I meet with one of the parties?
Is there information that could easily be forgotten if I wait too long?
Those decisions are rarely visible to anyone outside the investigation, yet they often influence the overall quality of the fact-finding process.
Evidence Deserves Immediate Attention
One lesson experience has reinforced repeatedly is that evidence does not always wait for investigators.
People replace their phones.
Text messages are deleted.
Surveillance systems automatically overwrite recordings.
Documents are misplaced.
Even people’s memories begin to change as time passes.
Because of that reality, I spend considerable time early in an investigation identifying the evidence that should be preserved before focusing on anything else.
My goal is not simply to collect as much information as possible. My goal is to preserve the information that may no longer exist if I delay.
Thinking about evidence at the beginning of an investigation often prevents much larger problems later.
The Investigator’s Greatest Responsibility Is Managing Personal Bias
People often ask how investigators avoid bias.
I do not believe there is a simple answer because every investigator brings personal experiences, professional backgrounds, and individual perspectives into every case.
The challenge is not eliminating those experiences. The challenge is recognizing when they may be influencing our thinking.
Throughout every investigation, I try to remind myself that my responsibility is not to prove my first impression correct. My responsibility is to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
There have been investigations where I initially believed the facts were pointing in one direction, only to discover later that additional interviews or documentation completely changed my understanding of what had happened.
Those moments serve as valuable reminders that confidence should come from evidence rather than instinct.
Preparation Makes Better Investigations Possible
One of the unexpected benefits of careful preparation is that it allows the interviews themselves to become more productive.
When I already understand the applicable policy, have organized the available evidence, identified the appropriate witnesses, and developed a thoughtful investigative strategy, I am free to focus on the conversation itself.
Instead of worrying about what question comes next, I can actively listen. Instead of rushing through a checklist, I can explore new information as it emerges. Instead of trying to organize the investigation while conducting it, I can devote my full attention to understanding the person sitting across from me.
That preparation ultimately leads to better questions, better listening, and better investigations.
The Foundation Is Often Invisible
Looking back over my career, I have come to appreciate that the strongest investigations are often built on work that no one outside the investigative team ever sees.
People naturally focus on interviews, findings, and outcome letters because those are the visible parts of the process. What they do not see is the careful review of policies, the thoughtful identification of witnesses, the planning behind interview sequencing, the effort to preserve evidence before it disappears, and the ongoing discipline required to recognize and challenge personal assumptions.
Those tasks may never receive much attention, but they form the foundation of every investigation that deserves to be trusted.
For me, that hidden work has always been one of the most meaningful parts of the job because it creates the conditions that allow every other part of the investigation to be conducted fairly, thoughtfully, and with integrity.