Workplace investigations are often undertaken at moments of stress, uncertainty and fractured trust. In these circumstances, the way a process is designed and delivered matters. It can support fairness, dignity and confidence in the process, or compound existing harm.

As organisations place greater focus on psychosocial hazards in workplace investigations and other high-risk people processes, there is growing recognition of the importance of minimising harm and supporting participant wellbeing. An equally important consideration is cultural safety. Where cultural factors influence how people experience and engage with a formal process, cultural safety can affect participation, communication and the integrity of the investigation itself.

Embedding cultural safety helps people participate without feeling they need to minimise who they are, explain their culture, or carry the burden of educating others while navigating an already formal and often difficult process. When cultural safety is absent, important context can be overlooked, behaviours can be misinterpreted, and people may disengage or withhold information because they do not feel understood or respected. This creates risk not only for the individual, but for the integrity of the investigation itself.

Understanding Cultural Safety

Organisations often refer to cultural awareness, cultural capability, cultural responsiveness and cultural safety interchangeably. While related, they are not the same. Cultural awareness involves recognising that culture, identity and lived experience may influence how people engage with workplace systems. Cultural capability applies that understanding in practice, while cultural responsiveness involves adapting approaches to support meaningful participation. Cultural safety is the outcome these capabilities should support: a process that is experienced as respectful, accessible and free from discrimination, bias, stereotyping or challenges to identity.

Importantly, cultural safety is determined by the person experiencing the process, not by the investigator or organisation. A process may be procedurally compliant and well-intentioned yet still feel culturally unsafe if it fails to recognise the impact of power, history, systemic barriers, unconscious bias, cultural obligations or different ways of communicating and engaging. Cultural safety does not require a departure from procedural fairness. Rather, it strengthens it.

The Role of Context in Cultural Safety

People’s experiences, identities and circumstances can influence how they engage with workplace investigations. Experiences of workplace culture, power and authority, family and community responsibilities, discrimination, racism, trauma and exclusion can all affect how safe a person feels to participate in a formal process.

Recognising these realities is not about treating people differently or compromising procedural fairness. It is about recognising that fairness is about more than applying the same process to everyone. It also requires consideration of whether people can understand the process, engage with it effectively and participate meaningfully throughout it.

What Cultural Safety Looks Like in Practice

Cultural safety begins before an interview takes place. It is reflected in how the process is introduced, explained and prepared for. This may include using clear and accessible language, explaining the purpose of the investigation, outlining confidentiality and its limits, managing expectations, providing sufficient time and information to prepare, and asking whether there are cultural, personal or practical considerations that should be taken into account.

A culturally responsive approach recognises that people do not all engage with workplace processes in the same way. This may involve flexibility around interview timing because of cultural, family or community obligations, recognising Sorry Business, or allowing a support person where appropriate. In some circumstances, cultural capability may be strengthened by involving a suitably skilled First Nations person to support participation while preserving the independence and integrity of the investigation.

Interview Conduct Matters

Cultural safety is also reflected in the conduct of interviews. This includes creating space for participants to provide information in their own words, being attentive to different communication styles, checking understanding rather than making assumptions, and allowing participants time to gather their thoughts before responding. Investigators should be cautious about interpreting behaviour through a single cultural lens. Communication styles vary, and behaviours such as silence, hesitation, indirect communication or limited eye contact may reflect cultural, personal or contextual factors. Without understanding that context, there is a risk that normal differences in communication are misunderstood as evasiveness, inconsistency or a lack of credibility.

Cultural safety should also inform what happens after an interview. This includes providing clear information about next steps, explaining how records of interview will be used, reminding participants of available support and communicating outcomes in a respectful and appropriate manner. These actions do not alter findings or affect independence; they help ensure participants understand the process and experience it as fair, respectful and transparent.

Key Cultural Considerations

It is important to recognise that First Nations peoples are not homogeneous, and there is no single Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander experience. Perspectives are shaped by a person’s unique combination of Country, culture, community, family, identity, lived experience and personal history. Cultural responsiveness therefore requires moving beyond assumptions and engaging with people as individuals. What supports participation, trust and cultural safety for one person may not be appropriate or effective for another.

Communication

Communication styles vary considerably between and within First Nations communities, and there is no single First Nations communication style. Cultural norms, community expectations, family influences, language, lived experience and previous interactions with institutions may all influence how a person communicates and engages with formal processes. Investigators should avoid making assumptions about a person’s credibility or willingness to participate based solely on communication style and instead seek to understand the context in which communication is occurring.

Different ways of communicating do not necessarily affect the reliability of the information being provided. What matters is creating the conditions for people to participate meaningfully and engage with confidence that they will be heard and understood.

Sorry Business

Sorry Business is an important cultural obligation for First Nations people following the death of a family member, Elder or community member. It can involve cultural, spiritual, family and community responsibilities, and the nature and duration of these obligations vary between communities, families and cultural groups.

In workplace investigations, recognising Sorry Business is a practical aspect of cultural responsiveness. A participant who is fulfilling cultural obligations may not be in a position to engage effectively in an interview or other stages of the process. A culturally responsive approach recognises that cultural obligations can affect availability, wellbeing and capacity to engage, and may require discussion about appropriate timing or reasonable adjustments to process timeframes.

Shame

The concept of shame can have particular cultural significance for some First Nations people and may be experienced differently from mainstream understandings of embarrassment or discomfort. Shame can arise when a person feels exposed, judged, criticised, put on the spot or required to speak about sensitive matters in a formal setting.

Shame should not be interpreted as a lack of willingness to participate. Rather, it may affect how a person communicates, responds to questions or engages with authority figures and formal processes. A culturally responsive approach seeks to minimise unnecessary shame by creating an environment that supports trust, dignity and participation. This may involve taking time to build rapport, explaining the purpose of the process clearly, avoiding unnecessary jargon, allowing participants to tell their story in their own words and being mindful of how questions are framed.

How Azuhr Can Help

Creating culturally safe investigation processes requires more than procedural compliance. Effective leaders recognise that people engage with workplace processes from different starting points and that a procedurally sound process must also be accessible, respectful and culturally responsive.

At Azuhr, we approach workplace investigations through a lens of independence, procedural fairness, psychological safety and cultural responsiveness. Our team includes First Nations expertise, enabling us to support organisations to navigate cultural considerations in a practical, balanced and credible way. Where appropriate, our First Nations consultants can undertake investigations as independent external investigators and support organisations to strengthen cultural capability in workplace investigations.

Ultimately, organisations that embed cultural safety into investigation practice are better placed to build trust in their processes, support participant wellbeing and achieve outcomes that are not only legally and procedurally sound, but also experienced as fair and just by the people involved.

Loretta Romeo
Senior Consultant
Azuhr