INTERVIEWING
It’s All about Context: Part 2 I
by David E. Zulawski, CFI, CFE and Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP
n our last column we began the discussion of how context affects the conversation and the questions that can be asked during it. It’s important to understand that context changes as a conversation evolves. What might begin as a discussion about fast-food restaurants evolves into a discussion about the different restaurants and finally focuses on a single restaurant chain. Because the context has evolved into a discussion about a single chain, it might be appropriate to ask the other party, “How many times have you eaten at McDonald’s in the last month?” There is a tacit admission from the second party that he has eaten at McDonald’s even though he has not verbalized it. So asking the question assumptively is clearly appropriate. Lacking a context for the conversation about restaurants, it would be better to ask, “Have you ever eaten at McDonald’s?”
© 2015 Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc.
was unusual, he was at first suspicious and extremely defensive. However, it wouldn’t necessarily be unusual for the individual who is innocent to be somewhat nervous until he discovers the context of the meeting. But in this situation, the individual was concerned that his fraud had been uncovered, and instead of mere nervousness, he exhibited suspicion and defensiveness in his questions and answers. As the interview developed the conversation moved from biographical information to background information relating to his promotions and business-development practices. His overall attitude changed from suspicious and defensive to boastful as he talked about how he had brought about the significant increase in business over the last several years. As the conversation wound its way closer to the topics relating to the fraud, his attitude changed from boastful to fearful with his answers becoming shorter and more evasive as the conversation moved closer to the fraudulent activity. So an interviewer must manage the changes in emotional and psychological mindset of the subject as he progresses through the conversation and its contextual change. The non-confrontational interview we advocate does several things extremely well. First, it provides a context for the conversation relating to the investigation of company matters. Second, it affords the interviewer an opportunity to assess the subject’s behavior during the presentation of a monologue describing what the investigator’s job is. During this monologue the same words are viewed very differently by innocent or deceptive individuals. The innocent person has done nothing wrong and perceives the investigator’s monologue as a simple description of what he does for a living. The innocent person views the conversation with interest, and this is supported by his open posture and non-threatened demeanor. However, the dishonest individual experiences the conversation in an entirely different fashion. For him the conversation is a disquieting and fearful experience as he comes to the realization his dishonesty may have been discovered.
Context is not only about providing the subject matter of the discussion, but also revolves around the individual’s mindset as the conversation evolves. For example, an individual with something to hide will be threatened by a conversation where a truthful person views the topics and questions with nothing more than interest. The Individual’s Mindset
Context is not only about providing the subject matter of the discussion, but also revolves around the individual’s mindset as the conversation evolves. For example, an individual with something to hide will be threatened by a conversation where a truthful person views the topics and questions with nothing more than interest. In a recent case relating to a large fraud, a manager was asked to have a conversation with one of the authors of this column. Since being asked to come to the corporate part of the facility
12
LPM 0715-A.indd 12
JULY - AUGUST 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.
Biographical Information
Although the admission-seeking interview can take many paths, the process almost always begins with confirming biographical information and establishing a behavioral norm for the individual. Confirming the biographical information is essentially a neutral context that is collaborative in nature. The interviewer and the continued on page 14
|
LPPORTAL.COM
7/15/15 1:16 PM
axis_ad
