Wicklander - Zulawski and Associates, Inc.

The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.

Articles

Back to Articles


Interviewing Dishonest Employees

Presentation of Evidence

The person who becomes involved in internal theft does so for a variety of reasons, both real and perceived. The thief conceals their actions in the normalcy of his everyday existence to create the mask of innocence. Once the theft behavior begins and the individual is rewarded for their actions, it then forms a pattern for continuation. The decision to steal is a rational process, committed to only after evaluating the risks of discovery versus the rewards. Unfortunately, for the thief, perception of the risks are altered by their successes. The thief's inflated sense of invincibility ultimately leads to his identification because of carelessness or frequency of his acts.

Before any confrontation the interviewer must take into account the thief's previous success at avoiding detection and the impact those successes may have on the interview. Ultimately, the thief will make a rational or emotional decision to confess based on his evaluation of the perceived benefits of doing so and the likelihood of having been discovered. Only rarely do people do things that provide them no benefit and the thief is no different when deciding whether or not to confess. The thief weighs the perceived consequences of a confession; loss of employment, embarrassment, prosecution, restitution, or retribution, against the benefits of confession. These are the hurdles the interviewer must overcome to obtain an admission from the thief. The interviewer must convince the subject that he has been discovered and then minimize the seriousness of the individual's actions. The interviewer must consider the evidence to determine what plausible explanation the thief may offer to explain his action. The evidence, after having been examined for weaknesses, is protected by encouraging the thief to lie in a manner that contradicts the evidence. The thief's own lies block the most plausible explanations and provide their own trap. In most instances the interviewer cannot provide the thief with any tangible benefit which will prompt a confession, but must rely instead on the intangibles of rationalization. However, for these to be affective the interviewer must first convince the suspect that his participation in the theft(s) has been discovered. Convincing a person that his theft behavior has been discovered can be simple or complex depending on the individual.

The first step in establishing credibility with the subject is to evaluate the individual's personality and past behavior. This evaluation often provides the interviewer clues on how the subject will respond when confronted with his dishonesty. Some individuals require direct evidence while others are satisfied with only vague inferences of their guilt.

To some readers this might suggest that direct evidence of this subject's guilt should be presented at the beginning of the interview. In general this is an inadvisable approach. At the onset of the interview, the subject is physically and emotionally strong, often able to withstand even direct evidence indicating his guilt. This early presentation of evidence may even reveal the scope of the investigation to the subject and how the information was discovered. The subject can now make logical deductions about the investigation's discoveries which may limit the need to confess. When a subject believes that his dishonesty or part of it is undiscovered he will deny involvement to protect himself. These denials lead to a more difficult interview because the subject must later admit having lied to the interviewer.

In most cases the interviewer is better off inferring the subject's guilt without being specific about what was learned during the investigation. This lack of specific information forces the subject into guesses about what the interviewer knows, guesses which are often wrong. The subject's assumption about what is known often exceeds the scope of the investigation and undermines his confidence.

Evidence is often critical in expanding the subject's admission. During the development of the admission the subject may invoke the absolute denial. This final denial rejects any possibility of further theft and calls on the interviewer to disprove the subject's statement. The absolute denial, "That's it, that's all I've done. I don't care what you or your investigations say", backs the subject into a corner leaving no escape route. Even weak circumstantial evidence refuting the absolute denial has a tremendous impact on reducing the remaining resistance of the subject. The impact of the evidence increases as the subject physically and emotionally tires during the latter stages of the interview. The individual's resistance to his admission is also significantly reduced because the rationalizations have begun to provide tangible benefits for cooperation. With the hurdles to a confession weakening because of the rationalization, the evidence provides a final wedge to a confession.

Some especially resistant individuals must be completely convinced that they have been caught so the case closure becomes an important component. Selecting a time and place where the subject "has his hand in the cookie jar" goes along way towards removing the barriers to a confession. This requires patience but assures success.

When considering when to present evidence of the subject's guilt, the interviewer should identify the subject's most likely reaction to the interview. The interviewer should also assess the strength of the evidence, consider whether is it direct or circumstantial. Either type of evidence can be made more powerful when the subject has lied and the evidence directly contradicts the individual's statements. The interviewer should also consider whether the presentation of the evidence allows the subject to deduce the scope of the investigation or how the subject was caught. Evidence in any investigation should not be squandered, but used to its greatest effect in reducing the suspect's resistance to a confession.


Back to Articles

® 2007 Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. - 800-222-7789 - info@w-z.com