The Investigative Interview Method
6. Successful investigative interviewers are professional, ethical, and honest with whom they interview
4.2 Eight Phases of the Investigative Interview
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
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 disci-pline arising from it. This portion of the interview should be very structured. Every interviewer should develop a uncomplicated, but credible, theme that can be con-sistently 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 accu-mulated. 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 cir-cumstance 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
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 gener-ally 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 called physical sur-veillance. Physical surveillance 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 photo-graphed or videoed. Early in our investigation, we learned that sometimes was taking place in the parking lot. In some instances, you were actually present.
This last sentence of this presentation is used only if the interviewee was actu-ally 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 pre-clude the use of physical surveillance for this purpose, this presentation should not be used. Instead, the interviewer discloses only the methods of investigations
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 subject 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 com-mitted 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 sub-ject 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 fully recognize why the policy is so important.
With confidence and conviction, the interviewer is affirming the results of his investigation. He is not asking if the subject is guilty, he is asking why he is guilty.
Unlike other popular methods of interrogation, the interviewee is not asked a string of leading questions or subjected to an obviously contrived conclusion offered up in a transparent interrogation disguised as an interview. I have found that most people are
not so easily convinced that an interviewer has evidence of their guilt simply because he says he does. Most people, even those who have no intention of lying, want to be convinced that evidence exists. Only by explaining how an investigation might be conducted and offering some detail regarding the methods of investigation can we hope to convince a reluctant interviewee to come clean and make an admission.