INTERVIEWING
It’s All about Context: Part 4 T
by David E. Zulawski, CFI, CFE and Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP
he non-confrontational monologue delivered by the investigator has an evolving context between the guilty party and the investigator. The context changes significantly from sharing the opening biographical information to the discussion of how investigations are conducted. As the guilty subject listens to the investigator’s monologue, he or she is incrementally moved through reducing resistance to making an admission. This is all done in a collaborative non-confrontational way that allows the subject to preserve their self-image even in light of their participation in criminal acts. The key in the introductory statement is developing a context where the individual can come to their own conclusion about whether or not their guilt is known. In addition, if the same words are said to an innocent person these words have no effect because they have done nothing wrong. Essentially, the context provided by the first three parts of the introductory statement creates a collaborative environment where the guilty can come to their own conclusion whether or not their dishonesty has been discovered. In allowing the guilty party to come to their own conclusion, it prevents them from seeing the investigator as an opponent and someone to be challenged. This sets the stage for the next part of the non-confrontational interview where the investigator shows understanding for the subject’s plight and offers reasons and excuses that reframe the seriousness of the incident and preserve the subject’s self-image.
© 2015 Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc.
In essence, the human creature is a herd animal following the group when there is uncertainty. We watch the same movies. We dress in the same fashions. We go to the same restaurants. Effectively, we follow the crowd. The presentation of showing understanding to the subject reinforces the feeling that the interviewer is not an opponent but simply trying to understand the reasons why something has happened.
The presentation of showing understanding to the subject reinforces the feeling that the interviewer is not an opponent but simply trying to understand the reasons why something has happened.
Showing Understanding
The opening of showing understanding involves a presentation of a number of basic rationalizations by the interviewer that fit the background of the subject and plausibly could have been the reason the individual made the decision to commit a crime. These very basic rationalizations allow the interviewer to open the subject’s mind to the world of possible justifications for his or her actions and to test their applicability. The context at this point is a subject looking for direction that can be taken of one’s own free will without being told what to do. Certainly, the subject is also still suspicious of the interviewer’s motives and is carefully evaluating everything that is said. The choice of the first rationalization provides a continuation of the rapport building while offering the subject a way to potentially shield their self-image. The subject, recognizing that he or she has been caught, is now looking for a way to salvage an untenable situation. If he were to confess prior to the showing-understanding portion, he must admit that he was involved in the incident and is a bad person. The process of showing understanding provides
As the interviewer enters the showing-understanding portion of the non-confrontational interview, there is another shift in the context of the conversation. In most cases the subject has come to the conclusion that he or she been caught but has not been forced to take a position that must be protected. As the interviewer moves into showing understanding, the subject is generally uncertain what to do and is evaluating what the interviewer is saying. There is also likely some confusion as the subject searches for a way out of the situation. The interviewer uses stories as a metaphor, which helps the subject formulate a direction and potential strategy to handle the situation. The stories used by the interviewer involve social proof establishing how others handle certain difficult situations. While most people like to think of themselves as independent free spirits paving their own road, it is actually quite the opposite. When most people are uncertain as to what they should do in a situation, they actually seek validation of their decision in the acts of others. How are other people handling a difficult situation?
12
NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2015
Zulawski and Sturman are executives in the investigative and training firm of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates (w-z.com). Zulawski is a senior partner, and Sturman is president. Sturman is also a member of ASIS International’s Retail Loss Prevention Council. They can be reached at 800-222-7789 or via email at dzulawski@w-z.com and ssturman@w-z.com.
continued on page 14
|
LOSSPREVENTIONMEDIA.COM
