Grievance witness, senior management

[RayOfLightness]

I’m on a horrible position, or so I feel, a senior manager has named me as a witness in a grievance against another senior manager. I get on fine with both, but professionally as they are both quite senior. Both are respectful towards me, but there is tension. I tend to ignore it, my role just isn’t at the same level.
Now the overall leader has instructed me to speak to external investigators. My ‘perspective’ is wanted. My own (less senior) line manager is not looped in.
I feel really uncomfortable, I don’t go in with a perspective on how they interact. I don’t feel it’s appropriate tbh. It’s a subtle long term thing, not a factual yes or no. I don’t really see an obvious issue.
Also, I’ll end up still work in with people, I feel my position is quite vulnerable to repercussions compared to the senior staff otherwise involved. I’m admin essentially, I just work in a position where I have a lot of contact with everyone
Is it unreasonable to not want to be involved? It feels either way it’s a unfair position

I think its very unfair but in your shoes I would just stick to facts
I assume they will ask you questions and you should just answer questions very factually and try not to give an opinion.

Just stick to the facts and be truthful and rational

So you work with them both
they both treat you respectfully
you have not witnessed any unprofessional behaviour from either of them
you are aware there is tension but you don’t know the reasons and you have seen nothing

I think it’s fine to say that to the external investigator. You are a fact witness but you have witnessed nothing of relevance .

If you are asked for your opinion / perspective / views , I’d just say that you have no qualification in psychology or human behaviour so are not able to comment. You just focus on doing your job to the best of your ability.

Don’t get drawn into giving any opinions or speculation, they need an expert witness for that.

It’s hard not to give details, but it’s very hard to be factual.
the first convo was very much pushing how did it come across to you/ what was your perspective not ‘what happened on x’. Subjective overview questions, I felt quite tripped up at points tbh

"Sometimes I sense a tension, I'm not sure from where or how it arises, it doesn't affect me or my work day to day. It would be better is the tension could be resolved".

"I may have a view, but I have no evidence and therefore it is not helpful to air that view".

"I respect both parties and neither make me feel as though I suffer detriment"

"I hope this matter will be resolved positively".

Do remember that is there is a.hearing both parties will have the note of your meeting.

You are not obliged to participate.

You should only be asked questions about things you have seen or heard directly, ie the matters under investigation. Nothing about your view of them.

so BAD might be eg…
were you at a meeting on x
yes
tell me about the meeting
it was ok, a bit tense
what was tense
m said to n …

GOOD eg would be
youve been named as someone present at the meeting if x. During that meeting did you hear M say to N “blah blah”.
yes/no
thank you

If the investigation is done properly, you'll just be asked for facts. E.g. did you hear Tom say this to Fred. You shouldn't be asked for opinion and if you are, I'd tell the investigator you're not prepared to answer.

You need to not give any opinions, just keep saying you don’t know, you are not qualified to comment.

Just keep repeating this.

Im an admin person doing an admin job , my qualifications are an HND in Business administration ( or whenever ). I’m not a psychologist, I can’t comment on that.

I feel you are asking me to speculate and I’m uncomfortable with that. As I said before, I’ve never seen any unprofessional behaviour from either of them.

I have no problems working with either of them.