There are many things to consider when it comes to planning and preparing for an investigative interview. Essentially, think of it as ‘making plans for something’ and eventually ‘being made ready for that something’.
By putting yourself in somebody else’s shoes and changing your own perspective, you can understand why your subject felt a certain way, or why they did something they wouldn’t normally do.
Too-often when working on the planning stage and mapping out relevant questions, the questions are focused on specific bits of information; they are closed-ended questions that may even reflect biases you possess.
From Managing Perpetual Peak to Transparent Cross-Functional Teamwork—How the B&Q Asset Protection Team “Cements” Its Secure Selling Risk Reduction Strategy
Some of the most difficult investigations to conduct are the ‘he-said, she-said’ types of allegations where there is no evidence to support either side of the story.
Take a moment and think about how you might define success when it comes to an investigative interview, as a successful interview can be defined in many different ways.
Well first, what is rapport? Rapport is a relationship built upon affinity and trust. Building rapport in a short period of time might be challenging. One of the best ways to build rapport while conducting interviewers is quite easy: ask a simple question, “Can you tell me something about yourself?” That encourages your subject to open up through the process of autonomy.
The ability to come up with strategic questions and accurately identify the need to further explore are important traits for any investigative interviewer. Another trait that is often overlooked and loses focus is the ability to be a good listener and apply active listening skills.
In order to address our potential biases, a professional interviewer must reflect critically on personal judgements and be aware of their own blind spots.
Pret A Manger is Not Only “Ready” with its Fresh Approach to Food, But Has Invested in the Vital Ingredients for Greater Colleague Welfare
Through the course of an investigation, investigators must utilize some form of logic to help piece together the hypothesis of the event under investigation.
You might be thinking, "but I don’t carry any biases when I interview", but being aware of potential biases that you may carry is an important step to creating an objective observation and evaluation during the interview process.
As an investigator, the way you mentally approach an investigative interview is quite important. One consideration for your mindset should include the psychology-informed mindset.
Have you ever considered the importance of withholding evidence during your investigative interview?
Remember, any interview is a conversational interaction with another person and should be fluid. Having a plan and preparing that plan are essential elements, but rather than being so rigid in your preparation that you feel the need to stick to the plan, allow your interviewee the opportunity to dictate the flow of the conversation.
During the busy holiday season, many organisations utilise telephone or video conference interviews to address their investigative caseload.
Difficult conversations are definitely not on the list of the most enjoyable tasks to do at work. But one thing to keep in mind is that the way you manage those difficult conversations are critical to your success and the perception of your employees. There are a couple things to consider when it comes to difficult conversations.
Some of the most difficult investigations to conduct are the ‘he-said, she-said’ types of allegations where there is no evidence to support either side of the story.
From Office Supplies to Risk Management of Global Transport, Ann-Marie Martin Takes the European Helm on a New Voyage of Discovery
It's important to remember that during the investigative interview process you must never make any threats or promises. You don’t negotiate, offer leniency or minimize their actions to the point they don’t take responsibility.
When preparing for an investigative interview there are many factors that one should consider. What questions would be relevant during the interview? Most importantly, what approach and method should you utilize?
During the course of any investigative interview the interviewer must focus on developing as much detail as possible. Whether you are interviewing a complainant, witness or suspect, taking the initial piece of disclosure to another level becomes an important part of the process.
When strategizing the interview, take the time to determine what information would be valuable to your investigation and what’s the best way to obtain this information. Too often when working with groups on the planning stage and mapping out relevant questions, the questions are focused on specific bits of information; they are closed-ended questions.
One of the most challenging aspects of the development phase is developing implications on other people as co-conspirators.
A fact gathering interview is extremely important for any investigation. But fact gathering interviews should not be as simple as, “let’s go talk to him”. They need to be strategically planned. You should always conduct a thorough investigation to identify what pieces of information you need to fill during the interview process.
Preparation for any interview is essential. Whether you are interviewing a complainant, a victim, a witness or a suspect there are a number of items that you should prepare for the interview process.
There are many seasoned investigators who prefer to leave their subject sitting alone in the interview room to think about what they have done, but there are risks associated with this strategy.
Have you ever considered the most likely strategies a guilty subject may employ during the interview process?
By putting yourself in somebody else’s shoes and changing your perspective you can imagine why they felt a certain way, or why they did something they wouldn’t normally do and that may help you better understand their thought process and reasoning. This approach is especially beneficial for interviewers.
At the conclusion of your subject interview it is always recommended to obtain a recap of the conversation from your subject; a voluntary written statement.
The selection of the correct empathy statement can sometimes be the most difficult part of your interview strategy.
Your subject can offer a verbalized denial in one of two ways; emphatic or with explanation, and there are some basic rules you should follow when dealing with either form of denial coming from the responsible party.
The selection of the correct rationalisation, or empathetic story, can sometimes be the hardest part of developing your interview strategy.
During your subject interview, you will often find yourself developing information that carries you well beyond the scope of the initial investigation.
One aspect of the investigative interview that you must remember is to avoid arguing with your subject.
Have you ever considered the importance and value of not revealing evidence to your subject during your investigative interview? By not revealing your evidence, it provides several advantages during the conversation.
At the conclusion of any investigative interview it is always recommended to get your subject to provide a recap of the conversation; a voluntary written statement.
During the truth seeking interview, you will often find yourself developing information beyond the scope of the initial investigation. In many instances, the investigation may only reveal the tip of the iceberg.
As a teenager, I looked at being an oceanographer or marine biologist. There are definitely many degrees of separation from my initial interests to my expansive career in loss prevention and asset protection.
Psychology suggests that when an individual says something out loud, they are more likely to defend or commit to it. For this reason, the change of perspective becomes an important element to truth verification during the subject interview.
Documenting what is said and occurs during an interview is extremely important, but balancing the conversation and note taking can be a difficult task.
Boots’ Iona Blake Navigates the Unchartered Waters of Crime in a COVID World
Have you ever reflected on your own interview approach and style and examined specific areas of improvement?
It is believed that using the all-knowing silent look is a great way to get an admission. More importantly, it is a very risky tactic.
At the conclusion of any investigative interview it is always recommended to get your subject to provide a recap of the conversation; a written statement.
The rationalisation is used to help show understanding to your subject and promote cooperation during the interview. Once you’ve completed the difficult task of selecting an appropriate story to use for your rationalisation, you have to make sure you structure it properly.
When the time comes to discuss some wrongdoing based off evidence, it’s your duty to ensure you have conducted a thorough investigation before the interview.
Tesco’s Security Head Emma Swail on Northern Ireland, the home of ambition, and turning adversity into advancement
Ian Pogue’s risk journey from high street fashion to exotic wildlife
During an investigative interview, you want to avoid any harsh descriptive words that can induce unnecessary amounts of fear or concern in the person you’re interviewing.
Many of you are working from home, following Government recommendations and social distancing guidelines. If you need to conduct an interview over the phone, one thing that you should do when you initiate the call is remind your subject of those practices and the fact that you would prefer to be sitting face-to-face to get to know them and have a more personal connection.
There are several things to take into consideration when you execute a phone or video interview versus face to face.
Many organisations utilise telephone interviews to address their investigative caseload. While many of you may suddenly be forced to address an integrity issue from afar, don’t focus on the obvious, “but I can’t see them”.
Developing accurate information and details beyond the scope of your investigation from your subject is always a challenging task. One of the most challenging aspects of the development phase is developing information on other people in the workplace as co-conspirators.
Strategically there are many reasons why you may want to withhold details or evidence from your suspect during the interview process.
One of the ways you build rapport while conducting interviews is quite easy: by asking a simple question.
An important principle of rationalising during an interview is that rationalisation does not remove moral responsibility or suggest any signs of leniency towards your subject.
The busy fourth quarter may pull all of you in many directions. If your company allows, the telephone could be an investigator’s closest companion during this hectic time.
What’s really important when it comes to fact gathering interviews is an understanding of question formulation.
When it comes to obtaining an accurate written statement, there’s an important item to consider to maintain the value of that written document.
Rapport is creating a relationship in a very short period of time and encourages your subject to open up.
Too often, investigators go into a fact-gathering interview with the mindset of “Let’s see if he did it,” or “Let’s see if he knows anything about it,” or “Let’s see what we can find out.”
The Wicklander-Zulawski (WZ) Method of interview techniques is a non-confrontational interview process that allows the interviewer to build credibility through a brief introductory statement and then show understanding through rationalising.
One thing that’s really important when it comes to handling requests—a drink of water, use of the restroom, a telephone call, things of that nature—is that you should not say no.
As an experienced investigator and interviewer, we encourage you to collaborate with business partners who are tasked to address some of the most difficult investigations.
During WZ EU training courses we often get people who will ask, “Hey is it true that if the subject’s eyes go up and to the left, that means they’re telling the truth, and if they go to the right, they have to be lying?” Unfortunately, that’s how Hollywood introduced you to eye accessing, but that’s not how eye movement and eye accessing works.
There are many things you need to consider as you prepare to conduct an employee interview. One of those things you should consider is, “at what time should I conduct the interview?”
The WZ Introductory Statement is designed to help you gain credibility in a non-confrontational way. One common mistake in the construction of the Introductory Statement is being too specific in its design.
Before you ever obtain a written statement, you must consider a careful setup to encourage this important step.
When you’re having a difficult conversation about integrity issues, you need to anticipate denials, handle them properly, and return to rationalisation; just like WZ EU teaches.
As an investigator you may think you’re doing the right thing in searching for the truth during your interview, but sometimes it’s easy to fall victim to having confirmation bias.
Rationalisations help you show understanding during the interview process. Too often interviewers use a rationalisation story that mimics the crime or incident that the subject has committed.
Think for a moment about the statements you make during an interview with the subject of your investigation. Too often interviewers make an implicit promise or suggestion of leniency, without actually realising what they’re saying.
When executing an investigative interview, the only thing you should possess is your case file.
When it comes to rationalizing, the first thing to remember is that you rationalize the motive not the act. One very effective way to do that is with personal stories.
Rapport is creating a relationship in a very short period of time. How do you build rapport?
The way an interviewer dresses for an interview definitely matters.
Developing a behavioural norm prior to an interview will help to increase the interviewers understanding of any statement made during the interview. This is particularly true when an investigator is preparing to conduct an interview utilising the WZ method. But what is the best way?
Preparing for an investigative interview is essential to a positive outcome and your ability to achieve cooperation and obtain the truth from your subject.
Your emotions and demeanour play a huge role in the likelihood of your subject cooperating and providing the truth.
You are used to gathering data from a plethora of reports, but what about human intelligence gathering?
A wise man in Ireland pushed a tea cup in front of another man one day, handle pointing directly towards the other man.
Effective communication often relies on the importance of word selection, and this would be true during an investigative interview as well.
We often hear the question, “what about props?” The only thing you should carry with you into an interview room is your case file.
The Participatory Approach is designed for investigations with circumstantial evidence or when your subject might have an excuse, explanation or some type of alibi that may or may not be true.
Have you ever considered the importance of withholding evidence during your investigative interview?
A fact-finding interview is extremely important for any investigation.
When trying to obtain the truth from a dishonest employee or a suspect involved in another type of criminal investigation, we will typically see five types of lies that can be told.
Documenting what is said and occurs during an interview is extremely important. You may need to take notes during the interview and ensure you can substantiate what was said and refer back to your notes when writing reports. Balancing the conversation and note taking can be a difficult task.
There are several reasons why you, as an interviewer, may want to back out of the interview process.
Have you ever reflected on your own interview approach and style and examined specific areas of improvement?
Have you ever considered the most likely strategies dishonest people employ during the interview process?
Have you ever asked yourself that question, or had someone ask you? Let’s be honest, typically telling the truth after doing something wrong is considered a bad idea. But as we all know, people do it quite regularly.
Preparation is essential to any investigative interview and due diligence is key.
During the truth seeking interview, you will often find yourself developing information beyond the scope of the initial investigation...
When interviewing a candidate for a job, you can utilise the same Non-Confrontational principles of the WZ Method to the pre-employment interview. For example, let’s look at how you could utilise the assumptive question in the candidate interview.
Emotions can run high during an interview with an employee about an integrity issue in the workplace.
There are many seasoned investigators who prefer to leave their subject sitting alone in the interview room prior to the interview...
Your subject can offer a verbalised denial in one of two ways; emphatic or with explanation.
One aspect of the interview process that we must remember to avoid is arguing with your subject.
The selection of the correct rationalisation can sometimes be the hardest part of your interview strategy - rapport building can help to overcome that problem.
The rationalisation is used to show understanding to your subject and promote cooperation during the interview...
There may be several interruptions and requests coming from your subject during the investigative interview...
It’s safe to say that your subject knows more about what they did than you do; because they are the one that did it ...
Psychology suggests that when an individual says something out loud, they are more likely to defend it. For this reason, the change of perspective becomes an important element to truth verification during the subject interview.
Submission during the admission gathering interview is an indication that your subject is in a position to co-operate with the process ....
Using the all-knowing silent look has been considered a great way to get an admission.
There are several reasons why you, as an interviewer, may want to back out of the interview process...
Have you ever considered the most likely strategies dishonest people employ during the interview process? Research shows that once dishonest people realise they are going to be, or are currently being interviewed regarding an incident, they have one of three plans of action.
Have you ever reflected on your own interview approach and style and examined specific areas of improvement?
Have you ever asked yourself that question, or had someone ask you?
Preparation is essential to any investigative interview and due diligence is key. But have you ever conducted a SWOT analysis as part of your preparation?
Leaving your subject alone prior to the interview?
No matter how the interviewer chooses to obtain an admission from a suspect, there will be four distinct phases to the admission interview process.
Over the last few years of teaching non-confrontational interview techniques to investigations professionals in the U.K. and Europe, we have observed some consistent dos and don’ts during the employee interview process.
Laurence King is regarded by many in the retail sector as the founding father of modern LP. During a career spanning almost fifty years, he has become renowned as champion of cultural and behavioural change and coined the phrase—“If you don’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”
