Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 155
Tip: Because some students (interviewees), in fact, are smarter than others, the professional investigative interviewer should never, ever underestimate the cognitive abilities of those they interview.
6.2 Why Most People Tell the Truth
It is human nature to resist doing something that is uncomfortable. Even under the best of circumstances, admitting one’s transgressions to a stranger or someone of authority is uncomfortable. Whether the stakes are large or small, it is not fun to admit one’s mistakes. Fortunately, for most people, telling the truth is instinctual.
On the other hand, lying seems to be learned. One learns to lie through conditioning.
For example, a child frequently disciplined for misbehaving after admitting his/her offense might equate punishment with telling the truth. In the same fashion, a child might eventually learn that lying tends to prevent punishment. If this conditioning continues, we could expect the child to eventually conclude that lying is an acceptable behavior and, when used properly, it can prevent undesirable outcomes in some circumstances. This is not the type of person one would hope to marry or employ.
Although it may sound a bit trite, fortunately most of us in our Western society have learned that honesty is the best policy. Intellectually, we know that sometimes telling the truth can hurt and inflict emotional harm on both the truth teller and his victim. On other occasions telling the truth may result in severe punishment and very undesirable consequences. However, experience shows that all things
equal, most people in our society choose to tell the truth. That is a good thing.
Much of the normalcy in our lives depends on us and others consistently telling the truth. Be it personal relationships, interactions with our employer and co-workers, our criminal justice system, our tax system, or everyday commerce, exchanging the truth with those we interact with enables our society to function properly. Truth telling builds trust and improves the quality of our lives. It makes our life and interaction with those around us predictable. That predictability improves the efficiency of society. In contrast, imagine a society where the words of no one can be trusted; one in which every communication, message, label, advertisement, every spoken or written word could not be trusted and had to be vetted. What an awful, wasteful place that would be to live.
From the investigative interviewer’s perspective, one should assume the following:
◾ Most people are honest.
◾ Most people want to tell the truth.
◾ Most people know that those that are untruthful cannot be trusted.
◾ Most people know that those that are untruthful are punished.
156 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
It may appear these assumptions are naïve; however, remember our topic is investigative interviewing in the private sector. And, although occasionally the fact finder will investigate matters that are both allegations of policy violations and crimes, the criminal aspects of the offense are typically secondary. In most circumstances, the worst tangible punishment that the transgressor can receive is termination. While harsh, it is magnitudes less than life in prison or execution. Thus, comparatively, the price for admitting a workplace offense is less than that one would pay for that of admitting a crime. Secondarily, the people under investigation in a private sector matter are for the most part screened, tested, carefully selected, and demonstrably honest and trustworthy. As a result, there is a disparate impact on those who are not.
In essence, those who are honest and of good character are hired and those who are (were) not, are turned away. All the good reasons one was hired are the same reasons we should expect our investigative interviewees to be honest when confronted.
Granted, many of the transgressions we investigate deals with the absence of integrity.
However, in the final analysis, they are proved to have been transgressions involving the suspension of integrity. That is, the transgressions are not the product of a defect in character, but merely lapses of judgment—and poor decision making. Resultantly, the offender is more likely to be truthful and admit guilt when properly confronted.
However, there are some disturbing exceptions.
6.3 Why Good People Sometimes Do Bad Things
6.3.1 Guiltlessness and the Enemy Within
Many organizations mischaracterize charm and charisma as leadership traits. They like leaders with confidence and demeanor. In selecting them, they often fail to recognize their anointed leaders’ most deceptive skill—the ability to plausibly describe the opposite of their real intentions. Here’s such a case.
Bain skated through high school.1 With grades good enough to attend almost
any college, he chose a midtier state school. Rarely attending class and never appearing to study, he earned the name Bain the Brain. He was indifferent to the women he dated. He drank alcohol when served at parties and experimented with drugs.
His father, an accomplished lawyer, encouraged him to pursue a career in law.
What excited him, however, was money.
Misleading the headhunters and the HR professionals who interviewed him,
he was offered an entry-level position at a large investment bank on Wall Street.
Quickly he rose up through the organization and became a partner at the age of 30.
He married Sara the same year. Soon they had children. However, Bain was always distant. He blamed the demands of his job for not spending more time with his
family. While on travel, he lived large and recklessly. He over-imbibed, abused his expense account privileges, and slept with whoever would have him. Bain was also ruthless. Backstabbing his colleagues, undercutting his competitors, and swindling
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 157
unsuspecting investors came natural to him. He peddled influence and bartered
with information. At the age of 45, he was at the top of his game—and then he
made a mistake.
Using what regulators later described as insider information, he invested
his organization’s money on a $150 million bet. He was caught, tried, and con-
victed. He was ruined. But, during his sentencing, he smirked and whispered
in the ear of his attorney, “What disappoints me most is your inability to set
me free.”
Bain is a sociopath. Sociopaths are known for their shallowness of emotion,
and the hollow and transient nature of the affectionate feelings they claim to possess. They are risk-takers and adventure seekers. They possess no empathy, guilt, or remorse. Sociopaths may feel anger, but never experience sadness or shame. They have no conscience.
Are all malfeasants sociopaths? No. Most transgressors are not as complex as
Bain nor can they be clinically diagnosed as sociopaths. However, clinicians estimate that about 4 percent of the population are sociopaths or exhibit sociopathic behaviors.2 In comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that colon cancer rates in the United States are “alarmingly high” with roughly 40
individuals per 100,000 afflicted each year—a rate 100 times lower than those with an antisocial personality disorder.3 Arguably, those who wish to do us harm are all around us. In fact, many organizations unintentionally recruit them. There are four possible reasons for this.
1. The talents of many sociopathic wrongdoers often seem valuable to employ-
ers. Many are charming, seemingly gracious, polite, and considerate. They are
able to turn on their charm and use their charisma to disarm even the most
experienced professional. They are skilled at social manipulation and a job
interview is the perfect place to ply those talents.
2. Many organizations mischaracterize charm and charisma as leadership traits.
They seek talent that is able to think on its feet. They like leaders with confidence and demeanor. In selec
ting them, they often fail to recognize the ability of these individuals to plausibly describe the opposite of their real intentions.
3. In the race to embrace change, many organizations (and nations for that
matter) willfully overlook obvious character flaws and the shallowness of
those who promise to delivery that change. Desperate for the change they
seek, they assume the best of people and put aside their instincts and natural
aversions.
4. Sociopathic wrongdoers are characteristically rule breakers. They like fast-
paced, competitive, and transitional organizations. By their very nature, this
type of organization actively seeks individuals who are risk-takers and easily
motivated by opportunity and reward. A more perfect match for the malfea-
sant sociopath is not possible.4
158 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
6.3.2 The Ability to Rationalize
What distinguishes our species from all others is its capability for rational thought and conscious decision making. However, it is the ability to distinguish right from wrong that uniquely makes us human; the guardrail that provides that ability is our conscience. The late Dr. Donald Cressey was the first to recognize the relationship between transgression and the ability to rationalize. As a sociologist and criminolo-gist, Cressey expressed his theory in what has become known as the fraud triangle (Figure 6.1).5
Cressey points out that even the best systems of internal control cannot pro-
vide absolute safeguards against irregular activities perpetrated by malfeasants.
According to Cressey, of the three elements—opportunity, motivation, and ratio-
nalization—under most circumstances, society can only control opportunity.
Though created to assist in the design of organizational internal controls, this model is overly simplistic; however, it is still useful in understanding the mind of the malfeasant and the significance of his ability to rationalize. Let’s take a closer look.
Manipulation and deceit are essential components in almost all forms of work-
place misconduct. Barring unintentional negligence, malfeasant behavior requires the perpetrator to possess the ability to rationalize. Often this is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Most perpetrators rationalize the intended behavior by consciously minimizing the cost and exaggerating the benefit. Common rationalizations include
thoughts such as, “everybody does it, so why shouldn’t I,” or more pathetically, “I earned it and they owe it to me.” In doing so, the malfeasant uses rationalization to overcome the confines of his conscience. Sociopaths, on the other hand, intellectually recognize the true cost and value of the benefit, but simply do not care. For them, they are the center of the universe. They are unable to view their behavior as unethical, selfish, or immoral because they lack a conscience. Rationalization for them is merely a distraction.
Motivation
Rationalization
Fraud Triangle
Opportunity
Figure 6.1 The fraud triangle.
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 159
6.3.3 Motive and the Consciencelessness of Greed
Rationalization does not occur in a vacuum. In order for one to rationalize an
intended behavior, he must first have a motive. Simplistically, motives can be placed into one of three categories: greed, need, and stupidity.
6.3.3.1 The Greedy
The foundation of greed is envy. Envy breeds contempt, and contempt is a tool
that disassembles our conscience. Most often, greed manifests itself in small ways.
Using rationalization, employees tempted by greed first see themselves as victims.
Victimhood leads to vengeance and vengeance leads to action. In the final analysis, the greedy often conclude that their misconduct is permissible given their condition and desires. Ethical lapses and frauds most often start here.
6.3.3.2 The Needy
The needy usually transgress because of perceived or real needs. This individual may steal so they can support a drug habit, pay off a debt, or support a family. The need can be perceived as so urgent that the benefit derived from the act outweighs any comprehensible risk. Pilfering, theft, and petty schemes start here.
6.3.3.3 The Stupid and Foolish
The stupid is typically one who succumbs to temptation. Given sufficient opportunity, they are able to justify their behavior and whisk away their values and principles during a moment of emotional weakness. The stupid often commit crimes
of opportunity. The foolish, on the other hand, are slightly more complex. Their behavior might be driven by anger or disappointment. Deeply seated in their psyche is the desire to get even or punish. The progression toward acts of violence invariably starts here.
6.3.4 Importance and Influence of Opportunity
Cressey argued that in order to prevent fraud (malfeasance of any sort, actually) an organization must control opportunity. Of the required three elements, he said only opportunity was manageable. His conclusion was logical given the worldview of his times and the limitations of his research. In fact, to this day many lawmakers believe the laws and regulations they promulgate will diminish the opportunity to commit the very behavior they intend to regulate. This approach is wrong-minded, however. Most laws and regulations do not limit behavior; they instead
provide punishment for those who misbehave. Consider for a moment your own
160 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
organizational policies and work rules. How many can you identify that have the ability to actually stop the behavior they prohibit?
A better, more useful approach is to seek out and identify vulnerabilities and
address them before an otherwise dishonest employee does. Once identified, the
organization can intelligently build controls around these vulnerabilities. The sum of these controls is called governance. When the organization aligns its culture with properly measured governance, it achieves a state of compliance. Those in my organization and I have to call that state, Principled Compliance™. However, for most organizations, culture management is a passive activity. It is typically delegated to an array of tacit assumptions, unspoken rules, and traditions. Only those with sufficient organizational experience or history comprehend this aspect of the culture.
Though intangible, it still holds a powerful influence on organizational values and behavior. In summary, opportunity is a manageable risk factor. In order to prevent temptation and allowing good people to sometimes do bad things, opportunity
must be reduced to its smallest denominator, if not eliminated. Good governance is the only means by which that is possible.
6.3.5 But for Bad Decisions and Mistakes
Anthony Catanese takes another view.6 With over 30 years in academia and study
in the field of public planning and development, he believes good people are not only capable of doing bad things intentionally, but also because of susceptibility to common human foibles. Catanese cites five possible factors:
1. Timing and the push toward deadlines. Urgency breeds mistakes because
decision makers value the importance of time more than outcomes.
2. Distractions: The cause of most accidents and mishaps also influence our
decision making. When we allow them, distractions divert our attention and
energy.
3. Bad information often leads to bad decisions. If our assumptions are inac-
curate, our ability to make good decisions is greatly diminished.
4. Poor advice: Combining bad information with poor advice multiplies the
probability of ruin.
5. Satisfizing.
According to Catanese, decision makers often make profound decisions not
based on the best information available, but in the pursuit of outcomes that will satisfy the largest number of constituents. Thus, they
opt to satisfize and, in doing so, compromise the inner voice of their conscience and sometimes even their personal ethics.
Mistakes play a role as well. Consider the condition known as innumeracy—
the unfamiliarity with mathematical concepts and methods. Even the brightest
people suffer from this common malady. Unfortunately, innumeracy can lead to
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 161
Answer: The probability of at least two students with the same birthday in a
group of 30 is a whopping 70%. In fact, we find that in a group of 23 students, the odds are better than 50% to find at least two with the same birthday. Here’s the formula:
365!
(365- n)!
The exclamation point means “factorial.” Factorials are defined as n*(n-1)
*(n-2)… (3)(2)(1). For example, 6! = 6*5*4*3*2*1. In this example, n is the
number of students.
Figure 6.2 The birthday paradox.
disastrous outcomes. The bias it fosters provide its victims a false sense of assurance when making decisions. To make the point, consider your understanding and
appreciation of simple probability. In a class of 30 students, what is the probability that two or more will share the same birthday?
While an approximate answer to this seemingly simple question may appear
intuitively obvious, only the decision maker who has exceptional intuition will likely answer correctly. Intuition is an expression of probability and reflects the current state of knowledge about the problem being worked. This sort of leader
sees things others do not; that is, he demonstrates that unique creativity we sometimes call genius. What’s more, intuition is an attribute that is usually derived from life-long personal experiences and not necessarily from formal education. As such, incisive insight is a corresponding attribute that allows the prediction of events and the ability to visualize unexpected patterns, periodicity, or structure amid apparent chaos. It is likely your intuitive answer to the birthday paradox is surprisingly wrong (Figure 6.2).
Investigative Interviewing: Psychology, Method and Practice Page 25
