The Fundamentals of Interviewing
3.2 Qualities of a Professional Investigative Interviewer
3.2.4 Ethical
As my organization’s chief ethics officer, this is a subject dear to my heart. It would be fair to argue that impartiality is an ethical characteristic. However, my use of ethical in the context of describing the necessary characteristics of the professional investigative interviewer is far more expansive. The American Heritage Dictionary® defines ethical as:
eth–i–cal (ĕth'ĭ-kel) adj.
Of or dealing with ethics
Being in accordance with the accepted principles that govern the conduct of a group, esp. a profession2
As the definition suggests, ethics is a collection of “accepted principles that gov-ern” a particular group or profession. In this case, the operative term is profession.
In order to be professional, the interviewer must adhere to an assortment of guiding principles any reasonable person or trier of fact would embrace as proper. Actions, such as truthfulness, honesty, and impartiality, collectively constitute ethical behavior. To be ethical requires the fact finder to behave in such a fashion as to protect the rights of those under investigation, obey the law, and to protect the integrality of the process. The preamble for Private Investigators’ Association of British Columbia’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct elegantly captures this essence with the following:
Private Investigators have an important role to play in society. In per-formance of that role, the investigator’s actions have an effect on the wel-fare of other people. Because of their social responsibilities, members of a profession are obligated to act in the interest of these other parties, who have a stake in the nature and quality of professional activities. These stakeholders include employers, clients, various identifiable third par-ties, and the public at large.3
To put it another way, ethics for our purposes are the rules of conduct by which members of a profession or group regulate their behavior among themselves and with all other persons with whom they deal.
For example, if the fact finder uncovers exculpatory evidence, exonerating his subject, he brings it forth and reveals it. If the fact finder hasn’t the evidence to accuse his subject, he does not conduct an accusatory interview of that subject. If the fact finder knows the employer is likely to discharge an offender who makes an admission, the fact finder does not tell the subject an admission will cleanse his soul, and that his job will be protected if only he makes a “confession.”
In this sense, ethics provide us guardrails within which we conduct ourselves, business, and interaction with others. Though many deny it, ethics also provides the construct on which all laws and freedoms are based. A quick look at the U.S.
Bill of Rights affirms this assertion, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Tip: Treat all of your subjects with respect and dignity. Remember: A reputation of being ethical takes years to develop and moments to destroy.
Professional ethical behavior in this sense is not something we simply possess, it is something we must live. It is something that requires work and constant atten-tion. Even then, the effort to be ethical can pose challenges. For those occasions, I have fashioned for myself this simple ethics test:
◾ Is it legal?
◾ Is it fair?
◾ Is it balanced?
◾ Is it necessary?
◾ Is it consistent with our organizational values?
I adopted this test from something I heard discussed at a Rotary International meeting. The members (they called themselves Rotarians) shared with me what they were discussing, something they call The Four-Way Test. According to Rotary International’s website (https://www.rotary.org/en/guiding-principles), “The Four-Way Test is a nonpartisan and nonsectarian ethical guide for Rotarians to use for their personal and professional relationships. The test has been translated into more than 100 languages, and Rotarians recite it at club meetings.” It goes like this:
Of the things we think, say, or do 1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
Quaint, but powerful. I was so moved by it I created my own ethics test. Since the creation of my simple little test, it has helped me successfully confront dozens of A summary of each right as provided by the U.S. Bill of Rights when adopted in 1791
I. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition II. Right to keep and bear arms
III. No quartering of soldiers in time of peace IV. No unreasonable search and seizure
V. No unlawful imprisonment; double jeopardy, self-incrimination; taking of private property without just compensation
VI. Speedy trial, opportunity to confront witnesses VII. Trial by jury
VIII. No excessive bail, no cruel or unusual punishment IX. Preservation of states’ rights, residual rights to the people
X. Federal reservation of rights, residual rights to the state or people
Figure 3.1 A summary of each right as provided by the U.S. Bill of Rights when adopted in 1791.
ethical dilemmas and has yet to fail me or my customers. Here is one example. The matter began with an anonymous tip from a concerned employee. The employee, using his employer’s anonymous incident-reporting mechanism (in this case, a toll-free hotline) reported that a small group of co-workers had been co-opted by a foreman and were regularly assisting him divert material from a large jobsite to a relative’s home. The concerned individual (CI) also reported that the thieves fre-quently drank on the job and that on more than one occasion the foreman had nearly wrecked a company vehicle while driving when impaired. The report was quickly passed up the chain of command and soon was on the desk of the CEO.
He immediately called my office and requested advice. As the reader might imag-ine, I suggested that some fact finding was in order. Work orders, timecards, and inventories needed to be examined. First order of business when allegations of this sort are received is to somehow substantiate them. I outlined for the CEO an appro-priate plan and he instructed me to coordinate the effort through his director of human resources, a woman with whom I had worked previously. In a short time, together we were able to corroborate some of the allegations and uncover additional irregularities. We quickly packaged the result and recommended that my team interview the suspected transgressors. The CEO balked, however. Concluding that his human resources director better knew the personalities involved and his organi-zation’s processes, he directed her to conduct the interviews. Experienced as she was with routine internal investigations, she had never confronted or interviewed any-one suspected of such serious offenses. Reluctantly, she proceeded and resultantly failed miserably. Not a single individual made an admission. Instead, to a person, each accused her and the organization of a witch hunt. Inexperienced in conduct-ing difficult investigatory interviews, she visibly demonstrated her uneasiness and lack of confidence. She was unable to overcome the most meager of denials, and quickly found herself and her employer defending the investigation and all of the evidence it had produced in court. I was ultimately designated as a witness. In prep-aration for my testimony, the attorney representing my client asked me to testify that I thought the human resources director had the experience and skill necessary to conduct the investigative interviews she had undertaken and that her efforts had met industry standards. It is not hard to see the value of such testimony. However, applying my ethics test, I respectfully declined the request. Instead I offered to tell the truth and testify (I paraphrase) that she was an experienced and highly quali-fied HR professional, but her effort was less than that of current industry standards.
However, because she was not a professional investigative interviewer, she ought not to be held to the standard of one. As such, the outcome of the investigation should not be judged on her conduct or result, but on the result of the underlying investi-gation that had been performed. The matter was soon settled for a small sum and, in exchange for the settlement, the employees involved in the theft agreed to resign.
This example demonstrates that professional ethics is not just the words that comprise an organization’s code of ethics but the way the organization behaves.
Thrusting a little deeper, ethical behavior is a component of an organization’s broader
goal of something I call Principled Compliance.™ The state or condition of principled compliance is achieved by properly aligning an organization’s culture with effective governance. That governance includes its policies, procedures, practices, and codes, which regulate and prescribe the behaviors of those comprising that culture. To perpetuate principled compliance, the organization and its members must work at it. Figure 3.2 illustrates the relationship of the elements involved in that effort.
Because the examination of ethics and ethical behavior is not the purpose of this book, I will end this discussion here. For more information on the topic of organizational ethics and ethics management visit The Open Compliance and Ethics Group website (OCEG.org). OCEG is a global nonprofit think tank and community. Its mission is to help organizations achieve higher performance by integrating governance, assurance, and management of performance, risk, compli-ance, and ethics.