Tip: If an interview witness is to be used, do not allow it to be another member of the interviewee’s organization or a decision maker.
102 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
Security or non-
participating
S
witness should
sit here
The interview
W
witness should
sit here
Conversational
Moderate
Intimate
S
I
Figure 4.4 The arrangement of the interview room.
In section 4.2.1.2 above, I noted that the interview room should be arranged
such that it allowed a place for the witness. In Figure 4.4, the interview room is arranged so that the witness is placed so that he is out of the line of sight of the interviewee. This is done so that the witness does not create a distraction for the interviewee who is focused fully on the interviewer.
However, occasionally, I will remind the interviewee that a witness is present.
I do this to diminish the possibility of him offering an untruthful answer to a question if I think he is preparing to give one or to keep his attention. To do this, I simply ask the witness if he has any questions. The pat answer is “no.” However, if the witness, in fact, has questions or wishes to bring something to my attention, he is free to do so during a break.
Another consideration is language barriers. I speak only English. If the inter-
viewee’s English is poor or nonexistent I will use an interpreter. The preferred interpreter is one that is court certified. Using a co-worker of the interviewee is not advisable for reasons of confidentiality. If using an interpreter during the interview,
The Investigative Interview Method ◾ 103
talk to the interviewee, not the interpreter. Using an interpreter will not affect the usefulness or power of the investigative interview method. It will only make your interview longer in duration.
Tip: Use an interpreter whenever there is a question regarding the interviewee’s ability to speak and understand the language of the interviewer.
4.2.1.8 Timing
The timing of one’s intended investigative interviews is a critical decision.
Subject and management availability, location availability, holidays and vaca-
tions, and safety all play obvious roles. Those considerations aside, I have found the best day to interview is the second day of the workweek. Studies show that
employees are more likely to be absent the first and last day of their workweek.
Choosing the last day of the workweek to interview also poses the potential
problem of not being able to continue the momentum generated from the coop-
eration and information provided by the first interviewees. Similarly, beginning one’s interview early in the workday is better than at the end of the workday.
The extra hours or days provide the opportunity to conduct additional inter-
views if appropriate, but also to follow up on any new information developed.
The assumption by some that interviewing late in the workweek or workday
diminishes the possibility of a violent employee returning to the workplace and finding more targets of opportunity (theoretically, the threat is reduced because fewer employees are available during those off days and hours) neglects much of what we have examined thus far in this chapter. If, in fact, we think an interviewee is that dangerous and capable of an attack, he probably should not be
interviewed. An entirely different strategy should be employed than is contained in this book. For those interested in learning more about such a strategy, I suggest you seek out a copy of ASIS International’s American National Standard
entitled, Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention.9 I am proud to have been a contributor to that work and highly recommend all investigative interviewers add it to their professional libraries. Another work on the topic is James Cawood’s, Violence Assessment and Intervention: The Practitioner’s Handbook.10
Co-authored by Michael H. Corcoran, this is an excellent examination of the
practical approaches of applying behavioral science to threats of violence in
communities, businesses, and schools, and describes how to effectively inter-
vene to preserve the safety of victims.
In moving to the next phase of the interview, now is a good time to look at
Appendix 3 entitled Interview Guidelines.
104 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
4.2.2 Phase II: Introduction
I recommend that workplace investigatory interviews begin with a proper intro-
duction. In most instances, it is helpful if the interviewee is not told of his intended interview in advance. Therefore, it will be necessary that some form
of structured introduction be made. The introduction should be made by some-
one other than the interviewer. A supervisor, manager, or someone of authority
over the interviewee is best. Because the most serious offenders are typically
interviewed first, the element of surprise still exists. It should be maintained if possible. The first interviewees are usually the easiest to obtain admissions from and very often the most cooperative. However, a proper introduction is
still necessary.
Once a manager has been selected and introduced to the interviewer (if not
already familiar with one another), she should be instructed how to introduce the subject to the interviewee. Because few things can derail a well-planned interview more effectively than the failure to properly introduce the interviewee to the interviewer, this effort should be carefully choreographed and rehearsed. The best procedure is for the management representative to contact the interviewee’s immediate supervisor (or manager as the case may be) telephonically and tell him or her that the employee (soon to be interviewee) is needed to participate immediately in an internal project underway. Not disclosing that the project is, in fact, an internal investigation or that the employee’s participation is that of an interviewee, arrangements should be made for the supervisor to escort the employee to a convenient, less than public place inside the building or site somewhere between where the
employee works and the interview will take place. At that location, a handoff will take place and the supervisor will be excused. From that location, the management representative should briskly proceed to the interview room.
Without knocking, the representative and employee should enter the room. The
interviewer should be seated and the room properly arranged (see the above section on location (section 4.2.1.2) for more details). The representative should position him/herself such that the employee/interviewee is standing between himself and
the interviewer. This should be the only time during the entire interview when the interviewee is not closest to the door. The representative should now make introductions. It is permissible, even desirable for the one making the introduction, to read it to the subject:
“ , this is . (He) and his team recently assisted us in
looking into (whatever the problem is). They have completed that effort and today he would like to share with you some of what (he or she) and his team learned during that effort. We expect and appreciate your cooperation.”
This introduction properly introduces the interviewer by name and subtly
instructs the interviewee to cooperate. Notice that the party making the introduction
The Investigative Interview Method ◾ 105
does not tell the interviewee that the interviewer has questions for him. Instead the interviewee is told that information will be shared with him. Telling someone he will be questioned puts him on guard and potentially makes the interviewee defensive. It encourages him to anticipate what will be asked and to prepare responses.
Tip: Note that the management representative does not use the word in
vestigation . It should not be used at this point unless absolutely necessary. The management representative also should not tell the subject “good luck” or inquire if he has any questions. Doing so will increase any concerns the subject already has and invite trouble for which the manager will not be prepared.
(See Appendix 4, Interview Guidelines for Management, for more details.)
Once a manager has introduced the subject, the interviewer should reintroduce
himself and the witness (if present) to the subject. Having done or said nothing more than that which is contained in the introduction script, the management
representative should be excused by the interviewer. As he is about to leave, the interviewer should stop him at the door and tell the interviewee that at any time during their “meeting” he may:
◾ take a break
◾ use the restroom
◾ use the telephone
◾ discontinue the meeting for any reason
Thus, using the representative as a witness, the interviewee is told he is not
going to be held against his will and may leave at any time. From the perspective of the interviewee, his participation is voluntary. However, he has been politely informed that his participation and cooperation is a directive, one made by an
individual with the authority to make it. As such, his failure to cooperate could be considered insubordination and resultantly actionable.
4.2.3 Phase III: Presentation
The interviewer should next disclose the following:
◾ Context and ground rules (if any)
◾ Provide the genesis of the investigation and its methods
◾ Disclose the investigation’s purpose
◾ Reveal some of its findings
◾ State his purpose
106 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
This monologue is called the theme. The interviewer should know it cold. He
should also disclose that he is only a fact finder and not a decision maker. As such, he has no control over the outcome of the investigation or the possibility of discipline arising from it. This portion of the interview should be very structured. Every interviewer should develop a uncomplicated, but credible, theme that can be consistently and efficiently used. The presentation phase reaffirms the investigation’s purpose and its genesis. It might begin like this:
As you know, this organization has had a long-standing policy addressing
sexual harassment and improper behavior in the workplace. Sometime ago,
it came to the attention of management here at this facility that that policy possibly had been violated. First, human resources received anonymous
reports that something was going on. Then, several employees came forward
and made complaints. One of those employees went so far as to submit her
complaint in writing. As such, management decided to undertake a formal
investigation. Today I am going to share with you some of the things we
learned during that investigation.
It offers the interviewee some rationale as to why an investigation was conducted and why the interviewee has been asked to meet the interviewer. The offering must be credible and not misrepresent the truth. If no one actually came forward or put their complaints in writing, it should not be said that they had. Notice also that the interviewer has made no accusations. He has succinctly summarized what the
suspected violation under investigation is and some of the evidence already accumulated. It sounds sincere and confident. Also notice how this same script could be used for other purposes. With only a small amount of word substitution, the entire theme is altered:
As you know, this organization has had a long-standing policy addressing
substance abuse [emphasis added] and improper behavior in the work-
place. Sometime ago, it came to the attention of management here at this
facility that that policy had been possibly violated. First, human resources received anonymous reports that something was going on. Then, several
employees came forward and made complaints. One of those employees
went so far as to submit his complaint in writing. As such, management
decided to undertake a formal investigation. Today I am going to share
with you some of the things we learned during that investigation.
Notice this theme allows its use for any number of issues or workplace prob-
lems. With the slightest modification, the theme can be used for almost any circumstance or situation. You are welcome to improvise and create your own theme, but recognize this one is the product of many years of conducting interviews in all sorts of circumstances and situations. It is so effective, I encourage my trainees to
The Investigative Interview Method ◾ 107
read it until it can be memorized. Not once have I observed an interviewee com-
ment or object that the interviewer was reading a script.
Tip: Good investigative interviewers know their theme cold.
Next, the interviewer should disclose his role in the investigative process. He might say something like this:
My role in that investigation has been that of an information gatherer. I am not a decision maker. My purpose was to collect information and seek out
the truth. The information I have gathered has been packaged in the form
of a report and given to those who will make decisions regarding discipline or corrective action. I am only an information gatherer.
By clearly stating that the interviewer is only an information gatherer and not a decision maker, the interviewer is making it clear that he has no control over the outcome of the investigation and any discipline the interviewee may face. There is no implication that the interviewer has any control over the future employment of the subject. The interviewee’s later claim that the interviewer told him he could save his job would not be credible. Thus, the claim that the interviewee was improperly induced to make an admission will not be successful. In fact, such a claim may
actually appear contrived or even untruthful.
Next, the interviewer should provide some idea as to how the investigation
could have been conducted. In doing so, the interviewer should avoid the temptation to exaggerate the quality or quantity of his evidence. The interviewer should generally describe the methods of investigation available to him and explain that, using one or more of them, he learned that the subject had some involvement in the issue under investigation. The interviewer might begin like this:
The first method of investigation available to us is something cal ed physical surveil ance. Physical surveil ance is nothing more than simply watching people, places, or things. All that is needed is something to watch and somebody to watch it. Then to capture what is observed; sometimes that which is seen is photographed or videoed. Early in our investigation, we learned that sometimes was taking place in the parking lot. In some instances, you were actual y present.
This last sentence of this presentation is used only if the interviewee was actually known to have been in the parking lot during the time in question. That being the case, note the difference in what was said and what the interviewee actually heard. He likely heard he was observed in the parking lot. However, that was not what was said. Furthermore, if he listened closely, he likely believes his activities there were photographed or videoed. If the organization’s culture or policies preclude the use of physical surveillance for this purpose, this presentation should not be used. Instead, the interviewer discloses only the methods of investigations
108 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
that the organization would use or has used in the past. To reinforce the strength of the presentation used, the interviewer might show the interviewee a preselected page from his field case file. Anticipating its use, the page selected should reveal the name of the subject and details concerning the activity in question. By highlight-ing the name of the su
bject and activity in some fashion allows the interviewee to scan and easily see the portions of the document desired without having to read the entire page. The document should not be given to the interviewee, only shown.
Of the methods that workplace investigations have available, the interview
method is always used. As such, a presentation like the one above is still possible, absent the use of any other method. Here is how it might be offered:
Of the many methods of investigation available to us, interviewing is the
most powerful. Used as an investigative tool, interviewing allows us to
not only learn what has taken place, but also why. All that is needed is
someone willing to cooperate and someone to listen. Then to capture that
which is revealed, those who cooperate are asked to provide a written
statement. For our purposes, that statement typically contains informa-
tion regarding and the identity of those involved. Early in our
investigation, we learned what was sometimes taking place in the parking
lot and, in some instances, you were actually present.
Again note the difference in what was said and what the interviewee actually
heard. He likely heard he was observed in the parking lot and those that observed him provided written statements to that effect. But, that was not what was said. It should be mentioned that if the interviewer cannot say this truthfully, it should not be said. If that is the case, maybe the subject should not be interviewed. Remember, investigatory interviews are reserved for those that are either known to have committed an offense or the interviewer has very good reason to believe that he has. The interviewer at this moment is proposing the interviewee is guilty. Without being accusatory or disclosing any of his true evidence, the interviewer is telling the subject he knows he is guilty. Cleverly, he asks the interviewee to justify his misconduct: Using one or more of the methods I just described, we learned you had
some role in the problem here at work and on more than one occasion vio-
lated our policy involving . What is not known at this time is why
you behaved the way you did or if you ful y recognize why the policy is so
Investigative Interviewing: Psychology, Method and Practice Page 18
