Truth Be Told

Week 3 of being “sheltered-in” for those of us in the Chicago area, at least I think it’s been that long – keeping track of what day it is seems to be a struggle recently.  In the past few weeks we have all experienced a lot of change in our daily routines.  Many of you are still at work, but in a different capacity.  Those that are working are operating under high-stress positions and essential businesses that are serving our communities.  There are also several of you still employed, but working remotely and creating a new “work from home” daily routine.  Unfortunately, there are also members of our industry finding themselves furloughed or unemployed during this time of certainty.

Truth be told, we all need a distraction.  Today, I wanted to share some book suggestions that may help you take a step away from the daily press conferences and negative tweets.  Listed below are some of my recent favorites –  Happy Reading!

Communication:

Talking to Strangers – Malcolm Gladwell

Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have all the Facts – Annie Duke

False Confessions:

True Stories of False Confessions – Rob Warden & Steve Drizin

How Police Generate False Confessions – James L. Trainum

Investigations / Interrogation:

A False Report: A True Story of Rape in America – T. Christian Miller & Ken Armstrong

Unjustifiable Means – Mark Fallon

As quarantines, travel restrictions and shelter-in-place guidelines are being communicated across the globe many are facing difficult situations with their physical and mental well-being.  The uncertainty of what comes next only fuels the fear of job security and lack of financial support.  The mandates have forced many in non-essential businesses to face difficult decisions while forced to shut doors, while essential businesses have employees working long hours and in stressful conditions.  Truth be told, in a time of isolation, now is the time we need each other most.  Take the opportunity to connect with your peers and your team remotely, leverage technology and schedule a video chat.  Reach out to those that are restricted to their homes and keep them connected, engaged and supported.  Connect with your mentors, past and present, and discuss how you and your team are coping with the situation.  If you must go out for essential purchases, take the time to thank the cashier and the stock employee that are still working to serve their community.

I’d like to say “thank you” to all of those that are still at work, from our retail partners to healthcare and first-responders.  Thank you for showing up every day and providing a service to the community and to your peers.  We appreciate all you do.  Thank you to everyone who is keeping the industry engaged throughout this time, whether you write an article, comment on social media or share information – the best vaccine for isolation is connection.  Now go wash your hands, stay safe and call somebody!

A strategy often implemented by interviewers is leaving their subject alone for a period of time in the interview room.  This could take place prior to the conversation, at some point throughout, or at the conclusion of the interview.  There are a few variables to consider if this is a strategy that you utilize in your conversations.  First, there should be a plan to provide breaks for the subject if the interview is prolonged in any way.  These breaks are important for both the interviewer and the subject, to regain their focus and alleviate any needs they may have.  However, outside of these “breaks” the interviewer may choose to step out of the room for a period of time as a strategy in the conversation.  This could allow for the interviewer to retrieve additional information, validate details provided by the subject and also permit time for the subject to rationalize their decision.

As these strategies may assist in creating a comfortable atmosphere, there are also risks associated with them.  Truth be told, the concern of workplace violence in this era of active shooters becoming an all-too-common occurrence, is one that should be considered when leaving the room.  During the interview, the subject is processing several pieces of information including the potential consequences associated with their actions as well as the motive behind them.  A disgruntled employee that is about to lose their job or face criminal prosecution creates a risk that should not be disregarded.  Another risk of leaving the subject unattended is their access to a cell-phone.  The ability to communicate with potential accomplices, or record segments of the conversation without consent from the interviewer creates additional risk in compromising the investigation.

Although there are appropriate times to leave the subject alone, interviewers should pro-actively identify the risks and benefits associated with these actions.  Ensuring the subject is comfortable and free to leave at any time, should also be balanced with the concern of safety and wellbeing for all those involved.

The importance of a witness, or note-taker, in an interview is fairly well understood; however the selection of the appropriate witness lends itself to debate.  Common incentives for having a witness in the interview room include note-taking, logistical support and the potentially mitigating some litigation concerns.  Let’s discuss some of the items to consider when identifying the appropriate witness for this setting:

Impartial

Although this should go without saying – our witness needs to be in a position of impartiality.  We need to consider the witnesses relationships with both the subject and the interviewer.  Do they have a close personal relationship with either person?  This could obviously create a bias in their opinion of the event, and even if it doesn’t, this lends itself to scrutiny in a grievance or unemployment hearing afterwards.  The witness should be somebody, who based off their position and personal relationships, can provide an independent statement of what occurred during the conversation without any contaminating factors.

Level of Position

This is an issue that gets discussed often during our training seminars or even when we send an investigator out on a case.  We often see the supervisor of the subject request to be a part of the interview for a variety of reasons.  They may have witnessed the act of wrongdoing or they want to assist in some way during the conversation.  In our experience, the direct supervisor of the interviewee lends itself to more problems than it does solutions.  Based on the subject – supervisor relationship, you may have a situation where the interviewee does not want to disappoint a boss that has supported them throughout their career or; a supervisor may have strong emotions against the subject and interrupt throughout the interview process.  In an ideal setting, a witness should be in a role that is above the subject in the org chart but not their direct supervisor.

Subject Matter Expertise

In my experience, there are several cases where the subject is more knowledgeable about their industry than I will be.  For example, an IT professional, a pharmacist or a buyer all have extensive experience, education and / or discretion that the interviewer may fall short on.  In these cases, having a witness that is a subject matter expert can help mitigate the likelihood of the interviewee creating a false narrative.  Even if the witness remains silent during the conversation, the mere presence of them in the interview room will assist in keeping the subject in check.

These are just three of many things to consider when selecting the appropriate witness.  We should also be looking at their reliability, note-taking skills, gender, etc. when considering the right person.  Selecting the wrong witness may prevent the subject from admitting to wrongful acts, or could increase liability for your organization down the road.

The interviewer has video of an employee stealing $200 from a register, conducts an investigation and schedules an interview.  After a short while the employee ends up confessing to the $200, as well as another $3,000 of merchandise and $500 of cash.   The development of the confession has provided the interviewer with these additional admissions and a proud phone call to the boss.

Truth be told, I’ve had a lot of these cases (both as the interview and as the supervisor getting the phone call afterwards). Generally, at the development phase of the interview, both the subject and the interviewer are mentally drained and exhausted. The interviewer may be conducting an ethical fact-gathering development session, and the subject may be truthful. The other thing to consider is if these additional admissions by the subject are true, or just a way to appease the interviewer and end the conversation.

An essential part of the interview and investigation is to substantiate any admissions that are obtained. No investigation should ever end with “I did it”. Investigators must be able to corroborate or disprove admissions from the subject.

Next time you have an exciting “large” confession – make sure it’s accurate.

The most difficult investigations are those that have limited tangible evidence and rely solely on the perspective of those involved and the interviewers ability to collect information.  Unfortunately, within these fact-gathering interviews there are often contradicting versions of events and biases that amplify those variances.

Truth be told, we are all guilty of allowing our biases to impact the accuracy of our stories.  This past week, I had the opportunity to attend the NFL Pro Bowl in Orlando, FL.  At the conclusion of practice, many of the players make their way around the sidelines to take pictures and sign autographs for fans.  If you want to see adults act a bit crazy, this is the place to be.  For the amount of whining, pushing, shoving and complaining I observed – you’d think I was in line for a picture with Mickey Mouse surrounded by kids.  After the event, I had the chance to eavesdrop on a few conversations hearing things like; “That guy pushed me out of the way”, “I cant believe that dude hit me”, “Those Patriots fans are awful”. Maybe I made that last one up?  Anyway, the learning objective here is to understand that words like “pushed” and “hit” can be interpreted in a variety of ways and the wrong definition can lead to improper disposition of  a case.  As an interviewer it’s important to ask clarifying and echo questions to allow the subject to provide further details.  “Pushed you out of the way, what do you mean by that?”  Interviews should be conducted to allow the subject to tell their perspective of the story, not the other way around.

Kicking off 2020 by attending one of the biggest Retail Tradeshows of the year, hosted in one of my favorite cities – NYC.  There are countless benefits to attending these events including educational opportunities, networking and the awareness of emerging trends in the industry.  The most impactful facet of these tradeshows for me is the ability to cultivate new relationships while building on existing ones.  Second to that, is the incredible amount of technology and use of data in the retail industry that can be influential in the loss prevention industry.  Truth be told, walking through the expo hall at these tradeshows can only aid in your investigative knowledge while simultaneously strengthening your interview skills.  Here are a couple of “fun” goals that interviewers can have while walking an event like NRF:

Talking with Strangers

These events are a great way to practice your elevator speech, perfect your introduction and learn how to manage in and out of a conversation.  With a variety of encounters, including vendors, industry titans and colleagues this is an ideal opportunity to work on your ability of developing rapport.  If you’re walking through the expo hall or a networking event with your face in your phone – what’s the point?  Meet people.

The Sale

Every year I’m intrigued by the innovative technology being leveraged by retailers to improve the customer experience, drive sales and of course – reduce shortage.  Of course, every retailer wishes they had an unlimited budget to invest in all of these tools but that isn’t practical.  If you’re attending a tradeshow, use this chance to visit vendors and watch demonstrations of tech and data products.  Vendors, or “solution providers”, have a difficult job of creating sales opportunities during these events and if  you’re a retailer – you’re the target.  As an interviewer, these are powerful interactions to learn from.  Take note of how the conversation takes place and learn from it: Did they develop rapport first? Were they aware of your objections?  What made you want to stay engaged?

Education can come with real-life experience, take advantage of it.  Hope to see you at NRF, and if I do – I’ll be checking on your progress on the above.

This holiday week is generally one of reflection, as people tend to look back over the year (or the decade) and memorialize the major events in their life.  With the New Year only a couple of days away, before the resolutions kick off I think it’s important to reflect on 2019.  Investigators will recall some of their largest cases, major incidents, new partnerships and the obstacles they have faced along the way.  Many investigators have conducted interviews to supplement these cases, some in the 100’s and others that just started this part of their career.  Often, people attend training seminars, conduct an interview, complete the investigation and then move on to the next.  Truth be told, training should never cease to exist, in fact, it should be continuously challenging you.  Reflecting back on the year should consist of reviewing your cases or reaching out to a peer and review each-others.  Here are some key points to get you started:

Confession Cases

Rarely does a subject voluntarily enter an interview and decide to immediately confess.  If your cases involve admissions, let’s review how it happened.  What strategies were used during the interview itself?  Did the confession contain details only known to the guilty party?  Did the interviewer use any threats or suggestions of leniency in order to obtain the admission?

Post-Admission

Case closed, confession substantiated, file saved.  Take a look at the closed cases and determine what was learned operationally about the business during these investigations.  Did the subject identify a loophole or weakness in procedures?  Were other employees or managers implicated during the interview or investigation?  What have we done with this information?

Case Pending

Some cases remain unresolved, maybe due to a lacking investigation or an interview where no information was obtained.  These are great opportunities to learn from.  What tools or resources can we implement to investigate these cases better?  What happened during the interview that created resistance from the subject?

There are several areas we should look at to critique ourselves and continue to improve our skillsets while impacting the bottom line.  Take a sampling of your cases and see what you can learn from, making 2020 an even better year.  Happy New Year!

‘Tis the season of increased theft, long hours, seasonal employees and a reduced travel budget. The 4th quarter is a combination of peak internal theft combined with all the other obstacles that lay ahead for loss prevention professionals including safety awareness, inventory levels, extended hours and booster activity. The ability of an investigator to close out cases efficiently and timely is paramount during this time of year. Many organizations rely on technology to help accomplish this goal, and truth be told, conducting interviews over the phone can be a game-changer for investigators. Although many people are apprehensive about having a conversation where we can’t “see” the interviewee, there are several advantages that also come along with this venue:

Access to Resources

An investigation should be thorough and complete before making any accusations of an employee, however, sometimes the interviewee may disclose information that was previously unknown to the investigator. Conducing an interview remotely allows the interviewer to have real-time access to evidence, reports or even a list of questions that they need to refer to during the conversation.

Return on Investment

Flying across the country for a low-value investigation may end up costing the organization more in travel expenses and time than the actual loss. Investigators can still conduct thorough interviews using technology and never have to leave their office. This reduces expenses for the organization, increases available time for the investigator to focus on other tasks and also allows for the case to be closed out in a prompt manner. With temporary or seasonal employees, the timeliness of an interview is important to resolve the case.

Environment

Comfort for both the investigator and the interviewee can be accomplished in the non-confrontational phone interview. The investigator can be in their office location with access to resources and minimal distractions. The interviewee may also feel more comfortable sharing information that could cause shame or embarrassment because they are not focused on the interviewer themselves. The subject is able to have more internal conversations, with the ability to hang up at any time. This combination furthers the goal of non-confrontational interviews allowing the subject to make a rational decision to disclose information.

As I’m still recovering from Thanksgiving weekend which included endless amounts of turkey, potatoes and desserts I thought that writing about the importance of “leftovers” would be fitting.  The dramatic event of a Thanksgiving dinner is the highlight of the weekend (and a few football games), but I think most would agree that leftovers from that meal are on another level.  Now this may be a stretch (similar to the pants I prefer to wear on Thanksgiving day), but I think we can compare an investigative interview to this illustrious meal.  The preparation and planning, the stress and drama, the awkward feeling at the end when nobody is sure when to leave – all direct translations.  Truth be told, I think the leftovers of an interview are often underappreciated.  Let’s take a look at what’s still in the fridge after the interview took place:

Substantiation

Many interviews will result in admissions of details or facts that were originally unknown to the interviewer.  A confession should be weighed against any available evidence, and investigators must look to either corroborate or disprove the confession.  For example, if a cashier is known to have stolen $200 from a register but ultimately confesses to $1,000 – the investigator must aim to substantiate that admission.  Where is the money now?  When was the money taken?  Is there additional direct evidence that would support the statement made by the subject?

Implications

Sometimes your next case is identified during your current one.  Subjects will often reveal to the investigator a list of names of other individuals involved in wrongdoing.  There are a variety of reasons this may occur, and sometimes they may be dead-ends but obtaining information during the interview to expand the scope of the case can prove highly impactful in the investigation.

Operational Issues

To truly “fix” the problem, investigators need to learn from the subjects in their interviews.  Understanding how they learned to commit the act and what made them comfortable doing so can be valuable information to operators.  Taking lessons from the interview and reporting back to our business partners is when we will see the greatest impact from these cases.

Next time you finish up your interview, remember to take a peak in the fridge in the days afterwards – sometimes the leftovers are better than the original.

When conducting an investigation, interviewers are focused on obtaining reliable information and additional evidence in effort to find resolution to a case.  In the loss prevention industry, the “victims” of a “crime” may be a company and their profits, a customer, or a fellow employee.  Often during the subsequent interviews, investigators become biased as they intend to represent the victim and rely on the information gathered from their investigation.  Unfortunately, the “evidence” that is obtained can sometimes be wrong, eyewitnesses may be mistaken in their recall of an event and an interviewer may be headed in the wrong direction.  Regardless, if the subject of an interview confesses to these accusations – innocent or guilty – the confession is likely seen as the strongest piece of evidence by the decision makers.  Truth be told, when interviews are done improperly they have devastating consequences.

Over the last week I had the chance to meet several people who have been on the receiving end of these injustices.  At a recent event held by the Center on Wrongful Convictions, I was able to interact with some who have spent decades incarcerated for a crime they did not commit.  The efforts to exonerate these individuals were relentless and inspiring, as recently demonstrated in the case of Rodney Reed – a man who is relying on our criminal justice system to save his life as he awaits on death row.  These cases and stories are important for investigators of all sectors to pay attention to.  The wrongfully convicted are always looking for a voice, somebody to search for the truth and represent justice – the same role the original investigator should play.  Interviewers, remain focused during your investigations on identifying the truth and obtaining reliable information regardless of where that path takes you. We are all one “confession” away from a wrongful termination, wrongful conviction and irreparable harm to an innocent person.

Over the last few weeks we (WZ) have been packing up our office in anticipation of moving to a new location.  I’ve moved more times in my life than I’d like to count as I’m sure many of you in the field have done the same.  The moving process can be stressful, time-consuming and tedious – but it can also be reflective and humbling.  Packing up boxes of folders, files and office supplies may seem like a monotonous task that could be done expeditiously – and it should.  However, I can’t seem to pack an item without reflecting on when I acquired it and the experience that surrounded it.  Before you think I’m crazy, I’m not referring to having an inspirational moment with my stapler or rolodex (yes I still have one).  I’m referencing challenge coins, books, conference badges and mementos that bring me back to an event or a relationship I made while in the field.  There are a lot of professionals that have a wall in their office with certificates they’ve earned or a shelf with awards they’ve been given.  We should be proud of what we accomplished, but truth be told, we should never forget where we were before the walls become so decorated.

As I am packing up the desk, I’m remembering the moment I received my first challenge coin from a US Marshal who attended one of my seminars and the conversation we had during the exchange.  I’m reflecting on the first NRF Protect I had a chance to present at with Dave Zulawski; remembering the anxiety of my first investigation with WZ as I flipped through the case file; inspired by the Amicus Brief we supported on behalf of Brendan Dassey a couple years ago.  More important than remembering those feelings was recalling the people that supported me on this crazy journey.  I challenge the readers out there to do the same (no, you don’t have to pack your office), but take some time to reflect on where you were, where you are and where you plan to be.  Staying humble, mentoring others and remembering the struggles are all part of the process and rewarding ones at that.

A position of leadership comes with an obligation of responsibility and accountability.  These requirements of a leader come in a variety of forms, from the ownership of results (especially the failures) to the difficult task of standing up when everyone else is sitting down.  A true leader, whether it be an organization or a person, has the responsibility of standing strong and often swimming against the current to represent the “right thing to do”.  I had this experience over the last few years, and more specifically in the past weeks, as I was able to represent WZ in seeking the petition for clemency on behalf of Brendan Dassey and his support team.  Recognizing an injustice, and then utilizing your platform to advocate for its correction is the utmost responsibility of a leader.  Truth be told, you don’t have to have a “title” to be a leader – and I challenge all investigators to self-assess their own platform.  In the loss prevention industry, there are countless opportunities to “lead” and be an advocate.  These events can be related to organizing a community event, speaking up for a peer or team member or recognizing biases or discriminatory behavior.  Investigators, whether sitting in a corner suite at the corporate office or just beginning their career have the opportunity, or responsibility, to lead and represent the most basic foundational principle we have – our integrity.

The amount of times an LP/AP professional has to perform as a sales person is greatly underestimated.  I’m not referring to interviewing, although that is sometimes considered in the same framework as a negotiation or sale.  I’m describing the incredible uphill battle of selling a new shrink reduction strategy, the need for additional payroll or technology investment, a persuasive debate with human resources, or most importantly – the value that their role brings to the organization.  Truth be told, any investigator that conducts interviews has the upper hand when it comes to strategic preparation of these “sales”.  Here are some simple translations from the interview room – to the board room.

Anticipate Objections

In the investigative interview we may identify the subject has a fear of termination, or a potential explanation for the evidence.  The interview structure is then built around these explanations to either corrobate them, or mitigate their existence.  When strategizing a sales-pitch, the “interviewer” should anticipate the same.  Understanding the potential fears or obstacles for the opposing party will help us create a way to overcome them.  Anticipate issues such as cost, return on investment, risk and perceived value.

Identify areas of Concern

Observing the behavior of a subject in an interview or a sales approach may help the interviewer identify areas of concern or interest from their subject.  We are not looking for deception, but rather indicators of anxiety, curiosity or resistance that helps the interviewer identify what topics need to be explored further.  For example, when listing the possible benefits of the proposed idea – does the subject smile? Nod their head? Or, do they show signs of disinterest and skepticism?

Show Understanding

Rationalizing assists in subjects overcoming their fears, and disclosing information while saving face.  The concept of showing understanding is built around having a rapport-based conversation where the interviewer is able to empathize and identify the potential fears or motives of the subject.  This same ideology should be applied in a sale or negotiation where the interviewer shows understanding of the potential risks (cost, time, etc.) and instead of ignoring them – offers support to overcome them.

Question Structure

The wrong question often leads to the wrong, or limited answer.  Utilizing the concepts of open-ended questions, expansion questions and echo questions; the interviewer is able to obtain more information and understanding of the subjects needs or concerns.  When closing the sale, there may be application of assumptive or closed-ended questions to reach an actionable goal.

In the spirit of the NFL kicking off this weekend and my coincidental trip to Vegas at the same time, I thought it would be relevant to discuss the clear and obvious bias that fans have when evaluating a players decision-making process or a referee throwing the yellow flag.  No, I’m not talking about the insanity that is Antonio Brown and the inability to fit his large head into a regular sized helmet, but rather the simple fact that we judge people differently based on what jersey they are wearing at the time.  Regardless of the sport, there seems to be breaking news on the daily of an athlete committing some type of ill-advised decision.  Truth be told, for some of these players it’s a good thing that Madden does not have an “Ethics” category in their ratings system.

However, whether its illicit drug use, physical abuse or deflating footballs most people tend to fall victim to a bias that prohibits them from rationally evaluating the situation.  We’ve all been there before, where somebody we respect or “root for” on a weekly basis is alleged to have tipped the scale in an unfavorable direction.  There a variety of biases at play here, including the halo effect which makes it difficult for us to see anything negative when it involves a person or image that we have placed on a pedestal.  If the player is on a rival team and there is suspicion of unethical behavior we immediately join the bandwagon of “I told you so”, but if they were a star player on your team – would you think differently?

How does this translate to loss prevention?  We are often confronted with investigations, or allegations of misconduct and are tasked with thoroughly vetting these claims.  Investigators are not immune to these biases, and often allow them to blind us during the search for the truth.  If the allegation is made against somebody we don’t affiliate ourselves with, or a person that is a low-performer we need to remove our negative opinion before we evaluate the evidence.  Equally as important, when the investigation points to somebody on our team or a person of perceived integrity we need to independently assess the evidence as it relates to the allegation.  If the investigator can’t see past the “jersey” the person is wearing, they shouldn’t be responsible for conducting the investigation.

We can’t eliminate unconscious bias, but we can be aware of its existence and mitigate its impact by slowing down and removing the filters from our perspective.  The next time a rival “player” gets accused of inappropriate behavior – before passing judgement, imagine how you would feel if they were on your team.

Now, more importantly… I need to go finalize my fantasy roster.  #GoBills

Recently, in Lake County, Illinois there was a series of unfortunate events leading to the fatal shooting of a 14-year old.  This case has taken an interesting turn as the application of a “felony murder rule” law, centuries old, has come under rightful scrutiny.  The case, highlighted by the Chicago Tribune, involved a 75 year old man shooting the 14-year old boy as he was believed to be breaking into his vehicle and reportedly armed with something in his hand as he approached the man.  After the shooting, the companions of the 14-year old that were involved in the commission of the original crime have now been charged with this murder.  The felony murder rule allows for prosecutors to charge those responsible for committing a felony with a murder if it takes place as a result of the original felony.

What does this have to do with Loss Prevention professionals?  Well, truth be told, there is often a lot of discretion when it comes to the disposition of a case ranging from theft to policy violations.  The incident in Illinois is an example of the application of a law that could be interpreted differently based off of these circumstances.  In the Loss Prevention industry, specifically in the investigative interview process there is a wide variety of policies and procedures that employees may be held to.  However, the violation of these policies and the subsequential punishment should be a well-thought out process, with the appropriate partners involved.  Some questions to be asked of ourselves during the decision-making process:

• Have there been similar cases within our organization that we can use as precedent for consistency?
• Have we taken the right partners in this decision (legal, HR, audit, etc.)?
• Was there clear intent by the subject to violate the policy, or is this a training issue?
• What is the potential liability if the disposition is challenged?
• Have we taken into consideration any local laws, NLRB rulings, collective bargaining agreements?
• Did they employee have an opportunity to explain their ‘side of the story’?
• Can we ethically, and legally, stand behind the decision if challenged?

The job description of a Loss Prevention professional has grown in size, scope and complexity over the last several years.  A quick glance at any of the major industry trade-shows will give you a good overview of the multiple obstacles that loss prevention faces currently.  Although the traditional role of LP may have changed, the core elements of the investigative interview translate well to these required skillsets.  If you are struggling in your new role, or added responsibility, truth be told – you may have more experience than you think:

• Internal Theft and Fraud:  The methods of taking advantage of the company may have changed in addition to the “old-school” way of stealing, but the need for a non-confrontational interview remains the same for these situations.
• Employee Relations Issues:  Sexual harassment, workplace violence, and discrimination continue to escalate in numbers due to a variety of reasons and the LP professional needs to adapt their interviewing skillsets for complainants, witnesses and the implicated person.
• Organized Retail Crime:  Increased felony thresholds and highly organized crime rings require more than just apprehending an opportunistic shoplifter.  As discussed in earlier Truth be Told tips, the interview of a shoplifter can yield actionable information for these cases.
• Disruptive Guests / Employees:  Keeping our employees and customers safe has always been a priority of the LP professional, but de-escalation and identification of potential threats are of the most urgent concern.  Elements of developing rapport, showing empathy and rationalizing can all be essential tools in this process.
• Sales and Negotiation: We are now seeing the LP division take on more ownership of vendor selection outside of the traditional cameras and fire extinguishers.  With many organizations taking on total loss, LP is working with insurance carriers, data-miners, and high-end video equipment.  Utilizing the skillsets of an interviewer, the negotiation of terms should come naturally to the traditional investigator
• Sitting at the Table:  Every organization has their own unique reporting structure where LP may be fall into finance, audit, legal or even operations.  However, more often we are seeing LP have a platform in the “board room” where their opinions and strategized are considered amongst the leaders of an organization.   Anticipating objections, establishing credibility and managing resistance are all skillsets that should be translated from the interview room to the C-suite.

An important, yet underused phase of an interview is developing information after an initial admission.  Too often, this phase of “development” is either conducted without any structure or not at all.  Development is often associated with large case values, suggesting that a subject was implicated for the theft of $1,000 but the interview resulted in a confession of $10,000.  With these types of confessions, the investigator MUST substantiate the $10,000 to a) ensure it was actually missing, and b) that the subject is actually the guilty party.  However, truth be told, there is a lot more to “development” than just expanded admissions.  Investigators should be asking questions to understand a larger scope, rather than a simple “I did it”.  Here are a few suggestions of what to look for:

• Fix It – Determine from the subject how they learned of the opportunity to commit the theft or fraud.  The subject may have uncovered an operational loophole allowing for the crime to occur.  Gathering information during the interview should inform the investigator on ways to prevent future loss of the same method.
• Networking – An overview of cases from a few years ago revealed that approximately 30% of guilty employees (theft / fraud) had knowledge of other guilty employees.  The odds are more than doubled when looking at the age group of 18-25.  These numbers will continue to grow as social media, text messaging and group chats facilitate communication easier.  Development should contain questions around “who else is involved”, “who knew what was going on”, “who else is taking advantage of the company”?
• Get It Back – Substantiation of details is vital in validating the confession, increases the reliability of the information and gives the organization the opportunity to recover their losses.  If the loss is financial, or direct cash, investigators should determine where and how the money was spent.  If the loss was product, company property or something tangible, investigators should ask about its location or the illegal sale of the product.

These are just a few additions to the normal course “developing an admission”.  Remember, the most important piece is to investigate the initial admission through substantiated details obtained in the confession weighed against other independent forms of evidence.

The importance of credibility can not be underestimated for the loss prevention professional as it will impact their ability to have success in everything from career growth to investigations.  As it relates to interviewing, credibility is not only established within the conversation regarding the investigation but long before that meeting takes place.  A unique challenge for LP or HR investigators is that they may work alongside the subject of their investigation for months or years prior to an investigative interview.  While the investigator may take into account the reputation of the subject and their background, truth be told – the subject is most likely doing the same thing.  A majority of my career was spent in the field, working alongside operational business partners and often having to turn around and conduct interviews of the same.  I’ve learned that you, and your teams reputation starts well before you sit in that interview room with the subject.  Here are some quick takeaways that come to mind:

Don’t Be That “Guy”

Too many times I’ve seen the “professional” at an off-site event, and immediately the term professional seems to lose its bearings.  Our reputations are being built constantly, from presence at “the office” to our interactions at networking events, conferences or parties.  Being professional is not a part-time job.

First (Or Only) Impressions

Many investigators, especially those that cover large geographic regions, may have very minimal interaction with their staff.  This lack of engagement forces the employee to gather an opinion of your credibility and reputation based off a small sample size.  Keep this in mind next time you are visiting that last store on a Friday afternoon, or answering a phone call over the weekend – your chance to make a first impression is quite limited.

Holding Teammates Accountable

Unfortunately, one facet of being a part of a team is also being associated with those that don’t represent them team to a high standard.  Instead of just pointing fingers, or blaming the last person that had your position, support your team by giving them the above advice and elevate the bar as a group.  Credibility in your department is reflective of the whole, don’t settle for anything less than world-class.

One of the most enjoyable moments as instructors at WZ is when we hear from investigators who would like to discuss a case and strategize the conversation before it takes place.  In my experience, most of these requests come from recent attendees of the WZ program who are attempting to apply their newly acquired skillset.  This is not out of the ordinary, as the newest interviewers have yet to encounter the unexpected and are anxious in their anticipation of how the conversation will develop.  The investigators that have been conducting interviews for years, or decades, tend to remember these first few interactions they had; where the level of anxiety seemed to disrupt the whole week leading up to an interview.  While many tenured investigators have gained experience, unfortunately some have lost this sense of awareness related to the weight of the interview and the need to prepare accordingly.  Kudos to the experienced investigators that have reached out recently searching for a sounding board or assist in preparation, however, truth be told, they are in the minority.  We have seen many experienced interviewers instead take the approach of “winging it”, possessing such a level of confidence that strategic preparation is skipped.  Let this be a challenge to all investigators to slow down and take the appropriate time to prepare for your next interview.  Identify alternative explanations for the evidence that exists, understand the potential fears of the subject, recognize any variables that may impact their cooperation, anticipate objections or hurdles and prepare accordingly.  On the surface, this may seem time-consuming but it surely will be more efficient than having to interview the same person multiple times because we did not prepare or accusing an innocent person because we didn’t thoroughly investigate.

Getting back from a conference is always an exhausting Monday, especially after such a great event such as NRF Protect.  One of my favorite parts of these events, outside of the educational sessions, is hearing stories from investigators on some of their recent cases.  Most often, the stories begin with “so I was talking to this guy last week… and he was a (insert expletive here)”.  Listening to the interview strategy used, and the resulting outcome is generally a positive experience for me as I take pride in the success of those that value their trade and skillsets.  However, I’m equally concerned when I listen to these cases as often there is some crucial information missing in the recap.  Truth be told, these stories are omitting some information because either the interviewer doesn’t remember or they don’t understand the importance of some of these details.  For those of you out there that hear these stories, or receive a recap of a case, I challenge you to ask some further questions to uncover the complete story.

• What did you say when the subject became resistant?
• How did you substantiate the confession after the “I did it?”
• Why do you feel the person confessed?
• What promises did you make to the subject?
• Is there anything else you wish you would have asked them?
• What would you have done differently?
• What caused their resistance?

Critique of the interview will not only help in further conversations but may also uncover some strategies or tactics being used that are unethical and could lead to litigation or obtaining false information.  A “pat on the back” should be accompanied with some feedback and critique to ensure it was deserved.

Well, Netflix did it again.  If you haven’t seen it yet, the latest film to drop on the streaming service is When They See Us, a 4-part series that highlights the infamous case of the exonerated “Central Park 5”.  True-crime series have always been a popular genre, but in the recent years many of the most watched documentaries involve cases of wrongful convictions and false confessions.  Making a Murderer was one that captivated viewers globally on this issue followed by others such as The Confession Tapes, Innocent Man and now When They See Us.  As professionals in the investigative world, regardless of case-type, it’s important that we learn lessons from each of these examples.  Truth be told, it’s easy to watch something on TV and forget the reality of what occurred.  The challenge I have for viewers of these films or docuseries is to take the 4-hour binge session and turn it into application.  Whether you’re an interviewer, a decision-maker or a potential juror; understanding the risks and consequences of improper methods and biases are essential in the spirit of justice.  Stay tuned for more to come on this topic because the only way to impact change is to educate others on the need for it.

Unfortunately, some interviewers may do more harm than good when questioning a victim of a crime.  Recently, this clip was released of an RCMP investigator interviewing a 17-year-old victim who had reported a sexual assault.  In the interview, we can hear the investigator asking the question “Were you at all turned on during this at all, even a little bit?” among other inappropriate statements.  Questions like this, and other statements made during the interview only contribute to the reasons that victims don’t feel comfortable reporting these types of crimes.  Showing disbelief in the victim’s story, or placing blame on the victim are often attributed to the style of the interview structure used.  Truth be told, the same issues still exist in the private sector regarding discrimination, workplace violence, and sexual harassment.  Asking a complainant, “well, what did you say to him that caused that behavior?” or “why do you think he acted like that?” could place blame and doubt on the victim.  To avoid these biases, interviewers should focus on concepts of the cognitive interview or other trauma-interviewing based models that focus on open-ended questions, memory enhancement and obtaining as much information as possible.

The type of investigations that loss prevention or asset protection professionals are dealing with in today’s world are ever-changing and more complex.  Everything from data-security breaches, social engineering and traditional theft or fraud seem to be falling into the hands of the investigative teams.  However, one of the most sensitive and high-risk investigations are those associated with employee relations or human resources issues.  These cases require strategic planning, communication and teamwork involving many divisions within an organization; legal, human resources, loss prevention, risk management and operations.  Although many companies have created incredible partnerships across these responsibilities, there are some that still operate in silos with a defined “line-in-the-sand” regarding who is involved in certain investigations.  Truth be told, the most impactful and successful programs I have seen are those that bring in multiple perspectives and experience across disciplines.  It’s never been more apparent and necessary for human resources and loss prevention teams to work together towards a common goal – protecting the most important asset – our people.

Recently, I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside some incredible investigators in both the private and public sectors that have the mission of investigating organized retail crime.  As we all know, rarely can retailers apprehend their way to a great shrink result when focused on the opportunistic shoplifter.  However, with the available technology assisting in these cases combined with the power of a field interview – ORC crime rings are being significantly disrupted.  Many of the best results we have seen when attempting to get information from a shoplifter come from utilizing the concepts of rapport-based, non-confrontational interviewing such as the WZ Method.  A few quick tips to help this process:

1. De-Escalate: The apprehension is the initiation of the interview process which may be confrontational by the nature of the encounter. However, it is important to maintain a non-confrontational approach, developing rapport and showing understanding.
2. Establish Credibility: Utilizing the concept of the WZ Introductory Statement, investigators should give an overview of their role and the scope that investigations often take.  Informing the subject of the resources available to investigators may also increase the likelihood of them revealing details originally unknown to the interviewer.
3. Show Understanding: Be a human first, investigator second. Treat the subject with respect and show empathy to their situation.  Recognize that this approach will allow the subject to feel comfortable revealing additional information.
4. Ask the Right Questions: Focusing on obtaining as much information as possible, investigators should avoid leading, closed-ended questions.  If they are using an ORC questionnaire, ensure the questions are not delivered in a scripted manner.

Truth be told, there are still a number of interrogation tactics across the globe that involve cruel or unusual punishment, methods of torture or more well-known as enhanced interrogation techniques.  Recently, I read Unjustifiable Means, by former NCIS Special Agent Mark Fallon, which provides an inside perspective into the re-birth of ineffective and inhumane interrogation techniques, including torture, that were made well known in the recent decade through the infamous “prisons” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Fallon provides incredible insight into the legal labyrinth that permitted these techniques, as well as the strong opposition to their use.  This is an excellent read for investigators to understand the importance of rapport-based interviewing, cultural differences and the impact of having academic influence on these techniques.  Fallon demonstrates the courage it takes to be an agent of change in this field as he highlights others that did the same.  This one will definitely be residing as a permanent fixture on my bookshelf of resources to further the field of investigative interviewing.