Docstoc

The Peace Model of Safety Interviewing

Document Sample
The Peace Model of Safety Interviewing Powered By Docstoc
					the Peace Model
       of
  interviewing
    Page One
Get the Full Story
• Firstly, it’s critically important to interview the
  suspect, even if you already think you have the
  case solved. “If you don’t ask for their version of
  what happened, you didn’t do everything you
  could have possibly done,” he says. If the suspect
  refuses to comply or their counsel rejects the
  request, document that in your report as you can
  then say you’ve exhausted all means.
          Avoiding the 5 WHYS Trap
•   What proof do I have that this cause exists? (Is it concrete? Is it
    measurable?)

•   What proof do I have that this cause could lead to the stated effect? (Am I
    merely asserting causation?)

•   What proof do I have that this cause actually contributed to the problem
    I'm looking at? (Even given that it exists and could lead to this problem,
    how do I know it wasn't actually something else?)

•   Is anything else needed, along with this cause, for the stated effect to
    occur? (Is it self-sufficient? Is something needed to help it along?)

•   Can anything else, besides this cause, lead to the stated effect? (Are there
    alternative explanations that fit better? What other risks are there?)
                True or False
It sometimes seems as though there are as
many interviewing techniques as there are
interviewers. Some organizations proscribe a
forceful interviewing style, akin to interrogation,
while some methods are all about building
rapport and coaxing information out of
interview subjects
    Types of Lies the Hidden Five
• 1. Direct Denial- encountered the least because
  it doesn’t offer an alternative explanation.
• 2. Lie of Omission- leaving out key details.
• 3. Lie of Exaggeration- lie isn’t necessarily made
  up, but the truth is stretched.
• 4. Lie of Fabrication- the whole story is made up
  of lies.
• 5. Lie of Minimization- admits to doing
  something wrong, but that something is usually
  smaller than the larger issue being investigated.
  Why are you moving do you have to
        go to the washroom?
Body Language
• Emotional gestures and contradictions- this is similar to the stories
  where a husband or wife goes missing for days and the partner
  doesn’t seem to be too concerned. If someone is lying, the way the
  react to news is going to be an indicator.
• Watch to see if the timing of gestures and words match- when the
  two don’t match, it usually signals that someone is lying.
• Anchor movements- when someone is lying, they usually have poor
  posture and are slumped over, head hanging.
• Someone who puts their hand over their nose can’t handle to smell
  of their own lies.
• Some people’s natural habits may be the same as indicators that
  signal that someone might be lying. Beware of making this mistake
  through baselining.
You are telling one way or another
Domains for Detecting Deception
• 1. Comfort/ Discomfort- guilty people/ liars often feel
  tension.
• 2. Emphasis- people who are telling the truth
  emphasize their speech with hand movements,
  pointing, etc. Liars don’t think about emphasis, they
  just think about the words to say.
• 3. Synchrony- harmony between the words body
  language. Time and space synchronicity when recalling
  events.
• 4. Perception Management- context is everything.
              Sort of, Could have
Some of the telltale signs of deception he talked about were:
• Weakened assertions, such as ‘to tell you the truth” or “as
  a matter of fact”
• Stalling, using hesitation or phrases such as “let’s see”
• Lack of specificity, using vague identifiers such as
  “someone” or “something”
• Changing pronouns from “I” (as the person doing the
  action) to “me” (as the recipient of action)
• Second-person referencing, such as “you know…”
• Modifying or qualifying statements, such as “little”,
  “usually” or “sort of”
            3 D’s of Deception

They are:
• Deny wrongdoing
• Divert the interviewer to another topic
• Develop a theme
            No Hunches just Facts
Answer all the Questions
Secondly, do your homework. Being diligent, includes
answering the following four questions:
• Is what I’m looking at some sort of fraud, crime or scheme?
• Is this the only explanation for what I’m seeing?
• Is this person responsible for these activities?
• Is this the only person who could have been responsible for
  this?
• “If I can answer these four questions in the affirmative and
  support it with exhibits and evidence, then I’m done. If not,
  I’m not done.” Without these answers, the case may
  remain unresolved, he says, because the risk of making a
  mistake is too great on a hunch.
             P.E.A.C.E. stands for:

•   Preparation and Planning
•   Engage and Explain
•   Account, Clarify and Challenge
•   Closure
•   Evaluation
              Othello’s Error
“If someone perceives that you don’t believe them
or you accuse them of lying, then sometimes their
behavior adapters will be the same as someone
who is being deceptive. So behavior adapters then
become unreliable.”
By giving the subject the impression that you
believe him or her and using a non-confrontational
approach, you can reduce his or her stress level and
be better positioned to read any signs of deception.
        I have a question for you
• What is your response to the allegations?
• If the harasser claims that the allegations are false,
  ask why the complainant might lie.
• Are there any persons who have relevant
  information?
• Are there any notes, physical evidence, or other
  documentation regarding the incident(s)?
• Do you know of any other relevant information?
              non-accusatory
Non-accusatory, information gathering
approach to investigative interviewing, the
PEACE model is considered to be best practice
and is suitable for any type of interviewee, victim,
witness or suspect.
               two big problems
• There are two big problems with using scare tactics in
  investigation interviews. One, you may scare the suspect
  into keeping silent, and two; you may scare the suspect
  into confessing to a crime he or she didn’t commit.
• More importantly, if you’re resorting to scare tactics to
  coax a confession from a suspect, you’ve probably already
  made the biggest mistake you could make in an
  investigation: deciding on the suspect’s guilt before the
  interviews even begin. The use of tactics such as misleading
  the suspect about the consequences of a confession or
  applying strong psychological pressure on a weak suspect
  indicate that you think he or she is guilty.
                Their No comment
• A witness or the subject in an investigation who has a reason to
  withhold information may be uncooperative or even downright
  hostile. The investigator’s job is much more difficult when this is
  the case.
Reasons for Reluctance: An uncooperative interview subject may be:
• Afraid of getting involved
• Angry for being singled out
• Defensive
• Guilty of something
• Reluctant to snitch on friends
• Agitated at being embroiled in an investigation
• Worried about retaliation
            Your No comment
The Power of Silence
• Ask as many open-ended questions as possible,
  questions that begin with tell, explain or describe
• Avoid giving your opinion
• Listen actively
• Don’t interrupt
• Follow the 80-20 talking rule, which means that
  the interviewer talks only 20 per cent of the time
• Is there a place for both styles of interview? Are
  there some situations where a confrontational
  interview is the best way to go? What do you
  think?
              That’s ok well just talk
“As long as they are talking there’s hope. They may be hostile, but as
long as they’re talking. I never raise my voice… if I just talk calmly and
continue, they will ultimately come around.”
Types of Interview
• Be careful to avoid the word “interrogation”, explaining that there
   are two types of interviews: subject and informational.
• The subject interview has three phases:
• The subject admits what he or she did
• The subject confesses the details
• The investigator gets the subject to help to document in writing
   what has been confessed
• Informational interviews are any other interviews with people who
   are not the subject of the investigation.
    Could you just tell me please
• What did you see or hear?
• When did this occur?
• Describe the alleged harasser’s behavior toward
  the complainant and toward others in the
  workplace.
• What did the complainant tell you? When did
  they tell you this?
• Do you know of any other relevant information?
• Are there other persons who have relevant
  information?
“Active listening means watching them
         and paying attention,”
              Using Coercion

• Regardless of the investigator, if persuasion
  does not work, some degree of coercion may
  become necessary. Ideally the company’s
  inappropriate workplace conduct/harassment
  policy states that all employees have an
  obligation to cooperate in workplace
  investigations. (If you do not know that your
  policy has such a statement, go check
  This does not work in the business
                world
Bullying Tactics and False Confessions
  Workplace investigations are like
snowflakes – no two are exactly alike.
As we get to know these types of witnesses, we
find out what strategies tend to work to best
interact with these witness to meet our overall
objectives:

• gathering information
• responding appropriately to our findings
• optimizing future workplace conduct
      The Mechanics of Rapport and
               Baseline
Two effective means for building rapport are:
• mirroring
• developing shared experiences
The essential element needed to build rapport in order to
interrogate someone, collect intelligence, or even to select a
new employee, is the realization that communication lies at
the heart of each of these tasks. Once we understand that we
are essentially just communicating, it is much easier to elicit
an actionable response from those with whom we are
communicating. These two processes, if subtly initiated, can
go a long way in building rapport and, ultimately, getting to
the heart of the matter.
                 The Mirror in Us
There are two critical things that we need to note in using the
mirroring technique. The mirroring technique is not sinister.
There is no magic to it, just a simple and subtle method of
shared rhythm.
• The concept should be employed subtly, and we’d stress
  that overtly copying someone’s behavior and mannerisms
  would not be beneficial in having a good interview.
• Emotive mirroring can be described as identifying with an
  individual’s mental state. Active listening is crucial.
  Accurately applying active listening and general knowledge
  of the emotional state that someone could be in during the
  interview setting allows you to meet their need for active
  communication and open up potential information flow.
It’s just a question no more no less
Constant Assessment and Adjustment
• Rapport building is a constant give and take situation,
  where you must gauge the interviewee’s responses to
  your actions and questions, and then make subtle
  adjustments to build and maintain rapport.
  Establishing this baseline rapport with the interviewee
  allows you to subtly direct the conversation. Armed
  with good rapport, you can elicit truthful answers from
  your interviewee while eliminating the unnecessary
  hurdles of distrust and emotionally charged behavior.
                 never reappears
The best scenario for an employee investigation usually is that
the issue being investigated never reappears after the
investigation is concluded and acted upon.
• If there is no wrongdoing, that has been established and
   documented, and that conclusion is never questioned.
• If there is wrongdoing, it is addressed and does not recur.
• The more effective the investigation, the more likely this
   best case scenario is.
• However, even if the investigation was flawless, the issue
   may return in some fashion, including litigation. If litigation
   is instituted or threatened, it is critical that the employer
   be able to document that it took the proper measures
   every step of the way.
           Think/Work Backwards
• The complaining party later claims the company did not address
  certain complained-of behavior, but the company in fact was not
  aware of that behavior.
• Retaliatory action is taken (or not taken but alleged) by a subject of
  the investigation or other individual during or after the
  investigation.
• The subject of the investigation claims that his or her reputation
  was damaged by the company during the course of the
  investigation.
• The subject of the investigation claims that the company was on a
  “witch hunt” and the outcome of the investigation was a foregone
  conclusion. This can manifest itself in a discrimination lawsuit – for
  example, a male who is a member of a legally protected class
  claims that he was disciplined in a discriminatory fashion and the
  victim of a biased investigation.
      Close the Gap not the mind
To oversimplify somewhat, there are three types of
interviews:
• the complainant(s)
• the accused(s)
• third party witnesses
• It is usually beneficial to document various things
  with each interviewee before the first question is
  asked. Indeed, the 3rd and 4th bullets arguably
  cannot be as effectively addressed after the
  interviews have taken place.
      Soft Approach Can be the Right
                Approach
Our “soft approach” philosophy, as well as how we believed this
approach to be not only the “right thing to do” but also one that, in
our experience, simply yielded better results.
There are certainly some individuals who will provide an admission
when confronted with tactics of intimidation and fear, but do you
really want to be “that” investigator? Whether they show it or not, the
employee is already scared to be in the interview seat. There is no
reason to try to scare or intimidate them further.
Soft Does Not Equal Easy
• Please understand by that by “soft” I am not saying “weak,” nor am
   I saying to go easy on people. Interviews are inherently
   uncomfortable and internal investigations are serious matters and
   should be dealt with accordingly. What I am saying is to treat
   people with dignity and respect at all times and focus on the
   evidence at hand, having a conversation and listening.
     Don’t bring it in here please
“One of the biggest investigation mistakes is the
failure to recognize and secure evidence. Often,
the interviewer fails to bring evidence or
documents to the interview,”
 Never go to mental exercise class
Jumping to Conclusions
Just because this one is last doesn’t mean it’s the least
important. And it’s certainly not the least common.
This is when the investigator makes up his or her mind
about the case beforehand, or too quickly, and then
looks for facts that line up with their theory, thereby
filtering out or ignoring contrary information without
even realizing it.” An interviewer should let the
interviewee answer the question in an open-ended way
and let the facts develop as the investigation proceeds.
                   Going in Cold

• “The biggest mistake investigators make is conducting
   an admission-seeking interview without having the
   requisite experience.” “Inexperienced interviewers
   tend to not follow up on clues given by the admission
   seeker, and they also tend to be less confrontational.”
A skilled interviewer knows how to coax the truth out of
a subject using a variety of techniques, starting from the
first exchange of words. “Inexperienced interviewers fail
to establish a rapport, which allows them to
communicate effectively with the subject.”
                      If you want to fail
1. Not Prepping for the Interview
• Set up the investigation room properly- remove barriers between you and the
  subject and eliminate distractions (put phones on silent, turn computers off, etc.).
• Cover the ground rules with anyone present to witness the interview- keep any
  interview witnesses out of sight and out of mind.
• Know the witness- are they a close friend of the subject?
• Choose the right investigator- consider reporting lines, cultural issues and
  personality type when selecting the interviewer.
• Know who you’re interviewing
• Get the timing right- Make sure the interview is scheduled during a time where
  the employee is scheduled to work.
• Decide on an end goal- Determine what needs to happen for action to be taken.
• Determine what will happen after the interview- Will you need to make prior
  arrangements to arrest on site? Will the subject be placed on investigatory
  suspension or terminated?
  If you want to fail
Failing to Build Rapport
A very important question: why would someone
confess something to someone they don’t like?
Establish rapport by learning as much as you can
about the person. We suggest easing into the
interview by asking the person about themselves,
their job, outside interests and more
             If you want to fail
Failing to Ask the Question
• During the interview, don’t dance around the
  issue under investigation. Statements like “did
  you misappropriate company assets?” are too
  vague and can lead to a number of answers – and
  not necessarily the ones you’re looking for. Avoid
  using pejorative words like stole, embezzled and
  fraudulent, as well as words that remove intent,
  such as borrowed, misplaced and accidentally
 If you want to fail
Failing to Stop Denials
• The single most important action you can take
  during an investigation interview. The more
  times a subject denies something, the harder it
  will be for them to admit it.
• Don’t let it start
• Put your hand up, look away and say something
  along the lines of ”I’ll let you speak in a minute,
  but I have something important I need to say.”
            If you want to fail
Showing Judgment REMEMBER YOUR NOT THE
JUDGE AND JURY
• We can inadvertently give away our feelings
  through our body language. Everything from
  the words we use to the way we hold our
  hands can be a signal of our true feelings. We
  need to be aware of our own actions to
  ensure that they don’t get in the way of
  achieving the end goal of the interview
              They write we - read!
Witness Statements
• Every investigator has experienced the frustration of receiving a
  written witness statement that provides minimal information and is
  of questionable value to uncovering the accident's root cause.
• They say that people learn in different ways and that trainers
  should incorporate a variety of learning styles in their training
  sessions. I realized (it took some time J) that perhaps using a
  different technique in gathering witness information may also work.
• Often initial statements are vague and brief. In fairness, from the
  witnesses' point of view they have little idea about what's of
  interest to the investigator. Leave an appropriate amount of space
  between each question in relation to the amount of detail you
  expect that the answer requires, and tell the witness you've done
  this. No guarantees, but what you have now isn't worth much, so
  you have little to loose in trying.
                 REMEMBER
Just the Facts
• “Sometimes, if people aren’t factual in the
  report itself when they write it, they (include)
  an opinion that wasn’t asked for, and it’s
  more of a judgment… then you’re putting
  everything at risk, because the credibility can
  go south,”
Before you go remember your “C”
C - Closure
• To avoid immediate or future problems with the
  relationship formed between the interviewer and
  interviewee, investigators should ensure that, at
  the end of an interview:
• interviewees are thanked before leaving;
• everyone understands what has happened during
  the interview;
• everyone understands what will happen in the
  future.
                 Questions
• Your digging for facts not dirt and buried
  bones

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:10/3/2013
language:simple
pages:42