How to Navigate “He Said/She Said” Situations in the Workplace

The road to the whole truth is messy. The only certainty you can count on are competing narratives.

I’ve overseen the representation of clients in thousands of cases, and I’ve learned something crucial: when you’re facing conflicting accounts of what happened in situations in the workplace, your response in those first critical moments determines whether you’ll resolve the issue constructively or watch it spiral into costly litigation. To understand how trauma-informed policies can help prevent such outcomes, visit this guide on workplace litigation prevention.

Why These Situations Feel So Impossible

When someone comes to you with a complaint and the accused person tells a completely different story, you’re not just dealing with a factual dispute. You’re dealing with human beings who feel their credibility, their reputation, and sometimes their livelihood are on the line.

The person making the complaint often feels vulnerable and fears they won’t be believed. The accused person may feel blindsided, defensive, or genuinely confused about why their actions are being questioned. Both parties are likely experiencing some form of trauma from the situation itself and from the investigation process.

Here’s what I’ve learned: when you have conflicting narratives, the best strategy toward getting at the facts is to treat everyone humanely and listen closely. In ethical situations in the workplace, approaching conversations with empathy and understanding is crucial. Interrupting, telling them they are wrong, expressing doubt, and cross-examining may work in an interrogation, but in an institutional investigation, those tactics will not get to the truth. Adopting a trauma-informed care approach can help foster trust and create a safer environment for open dialogue.

The Questions That Change Everything

How can you resolve this conflict in a manner that doesn’t dehumanize anyone and respects all people involved? How can you respond to the allegation in a manner that respects the humanity of the claimant? How can you take the next step in a manner that recognizes that someone feels harmed?

You don’t know all the facts, but you do know that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity.

By asking these questions of yourself, you stand a better chance of avoiding a lawsuit—and even if a lawsuit does come your way, you’re more likely to protect the reputation of your organization and minimize the fallout within.

What Not to Do (And Why It Backfires)

I’ve seen organizations make the same mistakes repeatedly when facing conflicting accounts:

Don’t suggest guilt before an investigation is complete. The moment you signal that you’ve already decided who’s telling the truth, you’ve lost the cooperation of at least one party—and possibly both.

Don’t blindside witnesses with surprise interviews and interrogations. This approach makes people defensive and less likely to share complete information.

Don’t communicate that the claimant is a problem. When you treat someone who’s reported wrongdoing as an inconvenience, they’ll take their concerns elsewhere—often to social media, regulatory agencies, or attorneys.

These actions expose you to a less effective investigation, higher risk of litigation, higher damages, and a hit to your reputation. Once you’ve violated these principles and parties become reactive, it can be nearly impossible to control the spill.

Creating Safety in Uncertainty

Whether it’s your own office, HR, or an Office of Equity and Diversity that is charged with investigating internal complaints, be sure that those who come to the office feel safe both entering and leaving.

Don’t threaten, don’t intimidate, and don’t bribe or otherwise manipulate anyone into changing what they came to you to say. Begin and end with fostering a sense of safety throughout your organization.

Everyone wants to feel they have power over their own lives, but when we’ve been injured we inevitably feel a loss of that power which, in turn, causes us to feel anxious. Building a safe, nontoxic organizational culture where people feel free to share their negative experiences, you may initially find you have more problems than ever, but this is only because what was once hidden is now coming to light.

The Culture You’re Really Building

Instead of viewing your impact as limited to just quashing the allegation and keeping your people in line, you can create an organizational culture that over time reduces incidences and reports of wrongdoing. You will have fewer reports not because people keep their mouths shut, but because the culture itself addresses concerns before they escalate.

To protect both the claimant and the accused, instruct all levels of management and all investigators to:

• Quash rumors and gossip
• Avoid and discourage retaliation
• Be as transparent as possible
• Constantly communicate the grave consequences of libel and retaliatory actions

Remember that ambiguity breeds rumors and anxiety. Just as raising a well-adjusted child means giving them clear rules about how they’re expected to behave and enforcing those rules consistently, creating a well-adjusted organizational culture removes ambiguity and follows through on set expectations according to its core values.

The Long View about situations in the workplace

No organization wants to deal with conflicts, injuries, and damage. No organization wants to devote untold hours and dollars to investigating and resolving such matters, but all organizations do so at some point.

When they do, if they understand the multiple points along the process that can become turning points, they are much less likely to suffer unnecessary time and expense correcting the problem or cleaning up the damage.

By making every touchpoint one that builds trust and confidence rather than distrust, suspicion, and resistance to the process, your institution is better served, your organizational culture is all the stronger, and your reputation is better protected.

The trauma-informed response fosters mutual understanding, respect, and a sense of safety so you can more effectively determine the truth, make the investigation less stressful, save you money, and safeguard your reputation without causing further injury.

When you’re facing competing narratives, remember: the goal isn’t to determine who’s lying. The goal is to create an environment where truth can emerge safely, where everyone feels heard, and where your organization emerges stronger rather than more divided.