10 minute read
INTERVIEWING
The History of Interrogation According to W-Z: The Future
by David E. Zulawski, CFI, CFE and Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP
Zulawski and Sturman are executives in the investigative and training firm of Wicklander-Zulawski & associates (www.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.
© 2011 Wicklander-Zulawski & associates, inc.
We have undoubtedly taken some historical liberties with our discussions in the last two columns about the history of interrogation, so we continue the folly by predicting the future of it as well. With the smudges wiped from our crystal ball, we will gaze forward through the foggy mists of time and divine the future…pet rock…brick phones…gold at $600! Ah, here we go.
Changing Regulations
Interviewing and interrogation will be under attack in the next decade by a host of critics attempting to force changes that fit their agendas. This is a similar pattern to the way the polygraph was attacked in the late 1970s and ‘80s. It began with academics criticizing the validity and scientific basis for the polygraph. They were then joined by unions who strongly opposed the use of the polygraph in an employment environment. The cause was then picked up by partisan politics, which ended up passing The Employee Polygraph Protection Act that largely prohibited pre-employment and periodic polygraph testing by private companies. Although some entities, such as the federal government, police departments, armored car services, and nuclear facilities, were exempt, most of the pre-employment and periodic polygraph testing by companies was prohibited. Even specific issue testing was highly restricted by the Polygraph Protection Act.
It is unlikely the interviewing process will be restricted by the passage of a law through Congress since the private sector is highly organized through its lobbyists in the National Retail Federation, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and others. It is much more likely that any restrictions to employer interviews will come as part of regulations put out by the Department of Labor or other government entities.
For example, the U.S. Department of Education has recently altered guidelines for how colleges and universities should react to sexual assaults on campus. The institutions have now been ordered to consider sexual-assault allegations under the civil standard of evidence, rather than the clear-and-convincing standard now used. This moves the guilty finding to a “preponderance of evidence” required in a civil lawsuit, 51 percent, versus the “clear-and-convincing standard” of 80 percent, or the criminal requirement of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The preponderance of evidence has already resulted in a miscarriage of justice in South Dakota where a young male college student was accused of a sexual assault by a female coed. Using the preponderance-of-evidence reasoning, he was found guilty and banned from campus. During the independent police investigation, the female coed was found to have lied, and the male student was exonerated. However, the university has yet to rescind its finding and reinstate the male student. Effectively, the Department of Education’s change of guidelines has modified the standard of proof, placing the burden on the accused while giving the accuser an unfair advantage.
There are a number of other examples where federal regulations have been changed, modifying business practices in place of a law being passed by Congress. It is likely with the polarized political environment today, we will see more use of regulations to control agendas, rather than the passage of laws. This may result in a Miranda-style statement being required in the private sector.
Changing Interview “Style”
If we look to the United Kingdom in the 1980s, their entire policing philosophy relating to interview and interrogation was changed as a result of several high-profile miscarriages of justice. The academics examining police practices and politicians caused a
revamping of the interview-and-interrogation process, replacing it with what was commonly referred to as PEACE. The acronym PEACE stands for: ■ Planning and preparation ■ Engage and explain ■ Account clarification and challenge ■ Closure ■ Evaluation
Effectively the PEACE model prohibited the current style of interrogation used in the U.S. It prohibited the use of a rationalization and a persuasive argument to obtain a confession. Instead, the approach is much more of a cognitive interview encouraging in-depth and detailed accountings of the person’s alibi or sequence of events.
The change in the United Kingdom’s approach to criminal cases has started to find its way into the Canadian law enforcement model. The Canadian model of interrogation was confrontational, using a direct accusation and rationalization to obtain an admission. The Canadian courts have slowly been undermining this type of interrogation, seeming to swing their model closer to that of the United Kingdom and away from the United States.
Here in the United States we have begun to see a similar push with the advent of DNA. There have been a number of cases across the U.S. where miscarriages of justice incarcerated innocent people. In some of these cases there were instances of false confessions that caused further criticism of the interrogation style being used here in the United States. The critics, it seems, think that interrogation focused on confession is coercive and immoral.
As a result of the trends in the United Kingdom, Canada, and here in the United States, we can undoubtedly expect a push to alter our current interrogation methods. It would not be unexpected for unions to join with the academics and university innocence projects in an attempt to force their will on the current interrogation styles.
Changing Demographics
With the change in population growth indicating that Latinos will be the majority in the United States in the coming years, we should anticipate changes that will relate to language and culture.
Since the early 1970s Generations X and Y, plus the millennials have initiated changes as well, based upon the way they work and think. We have developed the non-confrontational approach to interrogation, which meets the needs of the newer generations to collaborate, rather than simply be instructed how to do a job.
Based on the current need for Hispanic interviewers, we anticipate several things to occur. First, competent Spanish-speaking interviewers will be in high demand across the U.S. As Spanish-speaking interviewers are being trained, there will still be a need to resolve cases that will overwhelm the current supply of bilingual interviewers.
Because of the shortage of Spanish-speaking interviewers, the use of telephone interviewing will increase so organizations can maximize the use of the existing Spanish-speaking assets they have. Having bilingual investigators available at a central point by phone will allow companies to meet their needs in the coming years.
Changing Technology
There may be some organizations that will move from telephone interviewing to using something similar to Skype or audiovisual conferencing to conduct interviews. Although there will be some advantage to being able to observe the employee, we believe that many organizations will continue to use telephone conferencing to avoid having a picture of the interviewer available to the associate. People construct a more favorable appearance based on a voice than they might have if they saw a picture of the person speaking to them. The expanded and continued use of the telephone or similar type of device will be a foundation of future loss prevention strategies.
As exception-based reporting continues to be refined, we also expect employees will be identified earlier in their theft schemes and removed from employment. As a result, the overall admissions made by dishonest employees will likely reduce in the coming years.
There is also a trend among a number of organizations to return to general loss interviewing at high-shrink locations. We think many organizations will begin to develop high-quality interviewing teams who will handle the interviews for store and district personnel. These teams will be the closers for the loss prevention department, taking the initial case development and holding the final conversation with the associate to obtain the admission. This will likely result in a more thorough examination of the associate’s dishonesty, and it will result in better written and audio statements from the employee.
With the current trend in law enforcement to record interviews and interrogations, we expect that this will spill over into the private sector. A number of organizations are currently taking audio statements in place of handwritten confessions, and we expect to see an expansion to the recording of the entire conversation with the associate.
As entire interviews are conducted, it is likely that there will be much more monitoring and measuring of interviewer effectiveness by managers and senior executives. Initially there may be resistance, but as the costs for recording equipment come down, it is likely to become a standard for the industry.
Automated Telephone Interviews
Our speculation could go on and on, but we thought we might talk about an idea we had for telephone interviewing. We are thinking of having the dishonest associate call a number and receive an introductory statement indicating their guilt is known. The employee would then be asked to select from a series of prompts: ■ If your theft activity was the result of peer pressure, press one. ■ If your theft activity was the result of financial pressure, press two. ■ If your theft activity was the result of impulsiveness, press three.
The associate would then be offered a pre-recorded rationalization followed by an assumptive question. The prototype might be only a few years away.
The next decade will be an interesting time with political and technical changes on the horizon.
Many professions require a single, necessary certification process to prove expertise in that particular field. Until recently in the field of loss prevention, we lacked that universally-accepted benchmark certification process.
When I researched the LPC, I was intrigued by the broad array of subjects that were covered. It’s a legitimate, in-depth review of all areas of loss prevention. The coursework was expansive, and areas that I have had little or
“I have a job. Why do I need certification?”
Certification not only prepares you for the future, it helps you when you need it most—in your current job. Certification refreshes and validates your knowledge base while teaching you critical business expertise to round-out your skill set. It not only covers key components of loss prevention, it teaches you solid business skills to prepare you for your next promotion.
“It costs a lot.” Certification is very affordable and can even be paid for in installments. It is one of the best investments you can make for yourself and will pay for itself over again as you advance in your career. “I don’t have the time.” Certification was designed by seasoned professionals who understand the demands on your time. The coursework allows you to work at your own pace and at your convenience. Everyone is busy, but those who are committed to advancement will find the time to invest in learning.
“I’ve never taken an online course.”
The certification coursework is designed with the adult learner in mind. The online courses are built in easy-to-use presentation style enhanced with video illustrations to elevate comprehension and heighten retention. “What if I fail?” Both the LPQ and LPC certifications have been accepted for college credit at highly respected universities, and as such, passing the exam demands commitment and study. However, the coursework includes highly effective study and review tools to fully prepare you for the exam. In the event you fail the exam, you can review the coursework and retest after 30 days.
“Okay, how do I get started?”
It’s easy to get started. Go online to sign up at www.LossPreventionFoundation.org. If you need help or want more information, contact Kelly Durham at Kelly.Durham@LossPreventionFoundation.org or call 866-433-5545.
no experience with were explained in intricate detail.
I was also amazed to see the widespread support and acknowledgement the LPC garnered. From retailers to grocers to vendors, it seems the entire loss prevention universe has been involved.
I fully believe the LPC and LPQ will be the future benchmark for our industry that had simply not existed before. That’s why I felt I needed to be a part of it and why I’m proud to have “LPC” behind my name.
