Communication across cultures in workplace investigations

Communication styles differ across cultures. Directness, eye contact, and how a person tells a story can vary widely, and none of these alone indicates whether an account is credible.

A fair investigation depends on hearing each account as it is told, not as the investigator would tell it. This page sets out how cultural differences in communication are handled in our investigations.

Rachel Maxcy is an independent workplace investigator based in Vancouver, British Columbia. We conduct investigations for organizations in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, and for remote workplaces.

Why does culture matter in a workplace investigation?

Workplaces bring together people with different first languages, backgrounds, and ways of speaking to authority. In some cultures, directly disagreeing with or questioning a manager is unusual. In others, people share background and context before describing the event itself. Some people show little emotion when describing something distressing. Others avoid eye contact as a sign of respect.

Cultural background, like disability, may affect communication style, emotional restraint and regulation, or memory. An investigator who reads these differences as evasiveness or dishonesty risks reaching the wrong finding.

How is credibility assessed?

Demeanour is a poor guide to whether a person is telling the truth. Credibility is assessed on the substance of the evidence: whether an account is consistent, holds together, and fits with the documents and the rest of the evidence. This approach is set out in Faryna v. Chorny.

For example, the following are not treated, on their own, as signs of honesty or dishonesty:

• Avoiding eye contact
• Indirect answers or a long lead-in before the main point
• Little visible emotion, or emotion that seems out of step with the events described
• Differences in how dates, times or sequences are described
• Pauses while someone searches for a word in a second language

What does this look like in practice?

• Awareness of bias. We practise against systemic bias, cultural bias, racial or gender stereotypes, disability bias and historical trauma, and we watch for microaggressions in the evidence and in the process itself.
• Interpreters. We arrange certified language or ASL interpreters when they are needed, screened for independence and conflicts of interest. We do not use family members or coworkers as interpreters.
• Plain-language materials. Process documents and interview roadmaps are written in plain language and shared ahead of time.
• Clear questions. Questions are asked one at a time, without idioms, with time to answer.
• Checking understanding. Where a word or phrase could be read more than one way, we ask what the participant meant rather than assume.
• Time and format. Participants can ask for more time, breaks, or to give part of their account in writing first.

These practices apply equally to complainants, respondents and witnesses. See our trauma-informed approach.

What happens when culture is part of the complaint?

Some complaints allege discrimination or harassment connected to race, ancestry, place of origin, religion or another protected ground under human rights legislation: the BC Human Rights Code, the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code. In those matters, the same practices apply, and the analysis also considers whether the conduct breached the organization's policies and the human rights legislation that applies.

What training does the investigator have?

Rachel Maxcy holds the Certificate in Intercultural Communication and Global Citizenship from Mount Allison University, 2023. See Credentials and training.

Next step

To discuss a complaint or find out whether an investigation is needed, book a confidential call.

Book a call