INTERVIEWING
It’s All about Context: Part 3 I
n our last two columns, we discussed how context matters in conversations and the questions that are appropriate to ask. In part two, we began the discussion of context and questions as they relate to the beginning of an admission-seeking interview. In this third part, we will look at the introductory statement as the context changes for the subject and the interviewer.
The Interviewer’s Introductory Statement
The beginning of the introductory statement transitions the context of the conversation from eliciting information about the subject’s life and interests to a discussion about the interviewer’s job and responsibilities. To a large extent the transition of the discussion to center around the interviewer’s role in an investigation is controlled by reciprocity. Reciprocity simply means a change in obligation. For example, if one is invited out to dinner there is an expectation that at some point the invitee reciprocate the invitation of the inviter. Simply stated, if I buy you dinner there’s an expectation you buy me dinner. Reciprocity is a cross-cultural, cross-gender, cross-geographic human characteristic making it applicable to almost everyone. The subject has had a chance to talk during the development of rapport and now is expected to listen while the interviewer discusses his or her job and interests. So essentially the context of the conversation has become an obligation where the subject should politely listen in the same way that the interviewer has done previously. However, as the interviewer begins to describe herself and what she does for a job, there is a subtext applicable only to the guilty party who now interprets the interviewer’s words in light of criminal activity. What starts out as a simple description of what the interviewer does for a living quickly turns into a somewhat disquieting conversation for the guilty. The interviewer describes their job and introduces the idea of employees stealing or other criminal behavior. An innocent individual does not understand the subtext and views the conversation as an interesting disclosure of what an investigator does. However, a guilty party views the same words as an indication that their dishonest behavior has been discovered. In the next part of the introductory statement, the interviewer describes different forms of dishonesty that they are responsible for investigating. The context for an innocent person is non-stressful and merely revolves around an interesting discussion of the ways criminals commit crimes. The guilty party listens carefully wondering when and if their method of theft or criminal activity will be listed in the discussion. For example, when the method of theft the subject is using is presented, there
12
by David E. Zulawski, CFI, CFE and Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP
Zulawski and Sturman are executives in the investigative and training firm of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates (w-z.com). Zulawski is a senior partner, and Sturman is president. Sturman is also a member of ASIS International’s Retail Loss Prevention Council. They can be reached at 800-222-7789 or via email at dzulawski@w-z.com and ssturman@w-z.com. © 2015 Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc.
is often a behavioral response reflecting the potential threat this discovery may have on the guilty person’s future. The third part of the introductory statement is a discussion of how investigations are conducted. Again, the innocent party reacts with interest since they have no fear of detection or discovery because they have done nothing wrong. The guilty party listens to the discussion of how investigations are conducted with a sense of fear that the interviewer knows of their dishonesty. At the conclusion of these three parts, the guilty party often comes to the conclusion that their guilt is known. Psychologically and
Essentially, the context provided by the first three parts of the introductory statement creates a collaborative environment where the guilty can come to their own conclusions whether or not their dishonesty has been discovered. In allowing the guilty to come to their own conclusions, it prevents them from seeing the investigator as an opponent and someone to be challenged. physiologically the deceptive individual is rocked by the realization that they are about to have to face what they have done. So the same words presented to an innocent and a dishonest individual provide an entirely different context to the discussion. The introductory statement’s words and message have no effect on innocent subjects because they have done nothing wrong and
SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER 2015
continued on page 14 |
LPPORTAL.COM
