Wicklander - Zulawski and Associates, Inc.

The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.

Articles

Back to Articles


The Peter Berlin Report on Shrinkage Control

David E. Zulawski and Douglas E. Wicklander

Investigating Internal Dishonesty
How to Decide When to Conduct an Interview

Your first question might be: "How do I know when I have sufficient information to conduct an interview?" The answer here is that Common Sense and Company Policy must guide you in answering this question. First, you must have some reasonable basis to believe that a suspect is guilty, for example, based on an excessive pattern of voids, excessive cash shortages, a personal observation or a report from a "mystery shopper". Second, you should try to confirm your suspicions by other means first, such as direct observation, hidden camera or confession of an accomplice. Third, you must consider company policy which may require you to observe one, two or three instances of dishonesty or may permit only an exploratory interview vs. an accusatory one under certain circumstances.

Before moving forward, there are some other primary and secondary considerations you must also take into account.

Primary Considerations

  • Purpose Of The Interview
    The interviewer must decide the purpose of the interview (i.e., obtain a confession to a specific incident, identify the involvement of others, elicit an alibi or simply gain added information regarding the workings of a particular department). Thus, the first primary consideration is to decide if the interview will be accusatory or non-accusatory in nature.
  • Approach To The Interview
    If the interviewer's purpose is to investigate a specific area, the interviewer can be in a non-accusatory mode, allowing the subject to do most of the talking while s(he) directs the interview with open and closed probing questions. On the other hand, in trying to interrogate an individual regarding his/her involvement in a crime or policy violation, the interviewer will usually make accusations of misconduct while dominating the conversation, with the intent of eliciting a statement against the interests of the subject. The interviewer must decide in advance whether s(he) is going to interview or interrogate.
  • Goal Of The Interviewer
    The interviewer must establish a goal of the interview, which is more than simply obtaining "a confession". The interviewer must also identify the elements of the crime and what acts establish the subject's involvement in criminal conduct or a policy violation. An example of establishing goals might be clarified by looking at a discount violation. The subject's discount violation admission must include two elements to establish the violation of the policy. First, an admission by the subject that he or she acted outside company guidelines in using the discount. Second, that the subject knew the policy at the time s(he) committed the act. In kickback cases, where federal mail fraud might be involved, an admission by the suspect of his/her use of the mails in furtherance of the crime is necessary. Without such an admission relating to the use of the mail, a prosecution will be potentially difficult under that statute.
  • End Result Of The Interview
    The interviewer must clearly define the end result desired from the interview (i.e., termination, prosecution, civil action to obtain restitution or disciplinary action only). The interviewer must also consider that the subject may not confess as expected, and what impact this might have on the end result, including how it would impact on any ongoing investigation, other employees in the department and the individual who was the subject of the interview.
  • Practical Questions To Address
    There are other practical questions to address such as:
    • Is the time and expense worth the effort and the risk?
    • Will the interview hamper an ongoing investigation?
    • Is the interview likely to identify the informant whom you may be trying to protect?
    • With multiple suspects, who is the "weak link" in the chain?
    • Where should the interview be conducted, at the employee's work place, the Security office or a neutral setting?
    • Who should do the interview, especially if the subject is a higher ranking management person?
    • Is there sufficient manpower available to gather supportive evidence, including conducting searches, surveillance and recovery of evidence?
    • Should a formal statement be handwritten by the subject or a detailed account of the subject's alibi or admission be taken by a registered court stenographer, which would hold more weight in court?

Secondary Considerations

In deciding when to conduct an interview, the investigator should also take into account "external" considerations, which relate to the company, in addition to the particulars of the interview itself. This might include:

  • Considering the effect of investigating a member of senior management for some impropriety and its possible impact on business operations, vendor confidence, stock prices or company morale.
  • Considering whether top management will support the termination of a key executive, especially if the executive is viewed as essential to the success of the company.
  • Considering whether public law enforcement should be involved in the investigation. With law enforcement involved, the company loss prevention department may then have legal constraints placed upon it by being viewed as an agent of the police.
  • Considering the impact the investigation will have on the public image of the company, should the investigation become public knowledge.
  • Considering whether there is litigation pending which could be influenced by the decision to interview. For example, an age discrimination suit pending against a company might influence the timing of a decision to confront a long tenured employee in a protected age group.
  • Considering the potential for labor problems resulting from the decision to interview. For example, an interview conducted just before a vote to unionize might not be viewed favorably by the employees and could provide the union with additional votes.
  • Considering the guidelines and policies of the Personnel Department in addition to the legal rules of evidence. Circumstantial evidence, for example, may be legally sufficient to conduct an interview but may not be viewed as sufficient by company policy.
  • Considering past practice of the company regarding whether others in the organization have been disciplined for the particular activity before, or whether this instance is an attempt to make an example of a particular individual.
  • Considering whether the company should hire an outsider to conduct the investigation and interview either because the Loss Prevention Department may be involved, the current workload is too great, the company doesn't feel it has the proper expertise or the company may need an outsider to blame should the unexpected occur.

The decision to conduct an interview is complex and requires that the investigator consider not only the investigative goals and objectives but also a host of internal and external considerations in making a decision when to conduct an interview. By considering all these factors in the decision, the investigator will enhance his/her ability to work within the organization and prevent potential legal actions against the company.



Back to Articles

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