During investigations, we often seek clean answers: who is telling the truth and who is not. But credibility is rarely that simple. Not all lies are equal. Learn how to assess partial dishonesty.
A person may lie about one part of their account and still be truthful about the rest.
Scenario: Workplace Misconduct Investigation
Employee Lied About a Relationship:
A company is conducting an internal investigation into potential favoritism and unreported conflicts of interest. During interviews, a staff member, Ms. Chen, denies having a personal relationship with her direct supervisor, Mr. Davis, despite emerging rumors.
Initial Statement:
Ms. Chen affirms: “There is absolutely no personal relationship between us outside of work. We maintain a strictly professional dynamic.”
Contradictory Evidence:
Text messages and social media posts later reveal that Ms. Chen and Mr. Davis had been romantically involved for several months, overlapping with their reporting relationship.
Follow-Up Interview:
Upon confrontation with the evidence, Ms. Chen admits she was untruthful. She explains that she feared retaliation or job loss, especially due to her temporary visa status, and that she did not want Mr. Davis to face disciplinary action or public embarrassment. She also expresses shame and concern about how others might perceive her.
Analysis:
Deception occurred, but the motivation was fear-driven and arguably protective.
While it undermines her credibility, the lie was not intended to obstruct the investigation maliciously.
Investigators must document the falsehood but should also consider the surrounding context, including power imbalances, immigration-related concerns, or fear of reputational harm, when assessing the employee’s intent and the overall impact.
This idea challenges a common but flawed assumption: that dishonesty in one area undermines the entire narrative. Credibility is not binary; rather, it is complex, contextual, and must be assessed with nuance.
The Principle of Granular Credibility
Individuals may provide accounts that are part accurate, part mistaken, and part false, intentionally or otherwise. A granular analysis looks at each element separately. For example:
A complainant may omit a prior consensual relationship out of shame. A respondent may downplay their tone but still admit to key facts. The presence of one lie or inconsistency should prompt deeper inquiry, not automatic dismissal of the entire statement.
Why People Are Partially Dishonest
Common reasons include:
Shame or embarrassment Fear of retaliation Protecting others Self-preservation Trauma or memory gaps
These do not always indicate intent to deceive about the central facts.
Best Practices for Investigators
Assess each claim separately. Do not rely on demeanor alone. Use structured credibility criteria (consistency, plausibility, motive, corroboration). Consider context and psychological factors. Credibility is rarely all or nothing. Treating it as such can lead to flawed findings and legal exposure. The work requires discipline, neutrality, and precision.
Applying a granular lens allows investigators to move beyond surface-level contradictions and uncover the deeper truth embedded within complex accounts.
Social media reviews are one component of a comprehensive investigative strategy. To understand how these reviews fit into a complete fact-finding process, see our employee misconduct investigations service page.
Allen Morris Investigations Workplace Misconduct | Title IX | Harassment & Discrimination www.AllenMorrisPI.com | Kathie@AllenMorrisPI.com
Related resources: Read our tips for analyzing credibility during investigations, see our employee theft interview questions guide, or contact us for a confidential consultation.
