If you were asked to testify on behalf of your organization, would you be able to confidently speak to the protocols and policies that guide how you conduct investigative interviews? Better yet, does your organization even have the required protocols in place? When were they last updated?
The loss prevention industry is inundated with key performance indicators and measurable data to evaluate the health and performance of its impact on the organization. To facilitate this performance, there are standard operating procedures and policies for almost everything that the loss prevention professional is involved in. These are constantly being updated and reviewed as emerging technology provides us with more data and, in turn, impacts operations. Often overlooked is the necessity to have the same review process impact our investigative interviewing policies and guidelines.
Many organizations have dedicated the necessary training and personnel to focus on the evolving research and legalities surrounding interviews. We have seen that these organizations focus on a few fundamental areas that create a framework and toolkit for their teams to rely on when tasked with this job. Every organization may have its own needs relative to their company culture or requirements under the law, but there are a few key areas that help to create the foundation of a successful interviewing program.
Organizational Consistency
Your organization’s northwest and southeast regions may have different seasonality in the business and probably a unique product mix. However, they should still have the same consistent expectations for how an investigative interview is conducted. One of the most foundational elements in a successful interviewing program is ensuring it is seamless throughout the entire organization. A simple function such as note-taking implemented differently across a company could create obstacles when litigating a case. Why did Joe take copious notes and upload them to the case management system when Sarah transcribed her notes into a written report and destroyed the original? This could create the speculation that there was an intent to conceal something, when maybe it was just inconsistent direction in each market.
There will be variables for unique situations, such as a global organization adapting its protocols to satisfy its local jurisdiction. In most cases, however, the fundamental of organizational policy is to ensure it is followed across the entirety of the organization. Witness selection, room setup, remote interview guidelines, and interview recording are just a few factors that should be considered and implemented across the company. Additionally, the organizational protocol should consider vulnerable interviewees or those needing reasonable accommodation. This may apply to various situational or environmental factors, including things like the interviewee’s age or ability to reasonably understand the conversation’s severity.
Flexibility of Methods
One of the significant changes in the evolution of interviewing research is the necessity to have flexibility in the strategy and approach of the conversation. This does not remove the need for consistency but instead provides an interviewer with available options for the task at hand. As LP investigators are tasked with even more unique case types, they must also be equipped with the knowledge to address them accordingly. Even though each interview is aimed toward gaining actionable information, there may be a different approach to each case.
An example of this need for flexibility is when interviewers are tasked with employee relations or workplace violence investigations. Interviewing a witness, a complainant, or a victim may require additional knowledge and care from the interviewer. Being trauma-informed, implementing elements of the cognitive interview, and understanding the concepts of memory malleability are all relevant to these types of cases. Even in a traditional theft or fraud case, the type and level of evidence may dictate how the interview is initiated. Potential explanations for circumstantial evidence or the lack of intent may be necessary areas to explore in the conversation. Consistency across the organization is key, but interviewers still need to have the ability to adapt to the person and situation in front of them.
Contingency Planning
“What if?” is one of the most prevalent questions in a loss prevention professional’s proactive mindset as they are consistently evaluating for safety concerns and mitigating gaps that could create risk. This same mentality should be applied to investigative interviews, identifying potential factors that could cause a situation to veer from its normal protocol. Although there may not be answers immediately to each of these unknowns, contingency planning can help an investigator feel more confident in the execution of a plan and mitigate risk for the organization.
These “what if” scenarios can range from the expected to the abnormal, but interviewers should be prepared for whatever may come their way. One of the most common disruptors to an otherwise normal interview may be the request from the interviewee to record the conversation or to bring in their preferred witness. Interviewees may also become verbally aggressive or hostile during the conversation, may request an attorney, or may even leave altogether. Another common issue is the interviewee disclosing information about an unrelated issue that may require additional response, such as discrimination or safety concerns. All these types of situations may need to be handled differently based on the organization, the job function, and the nature of the case. At a minimum, however, interviewers should know how to properly respond in the event these anomalies happen.
Evaluation Process
Probably the most enormous gap in consistency across organizations is how they handle the post-interview evaluation process (if there even is one). Evaluating an interview (and the interviewer) can be done in various ways, including real-time, reviewing a recording, or simply assessing a report and supporting notes. These reviews may be conducted by peers, supervisors, human resources, consultants, or even the interviewers themselves. Effective evaluations contain objective feedback to provide the interviewer with actionable, but flexible takeaways to improve in their development.
The substance of an evaluation may be relative to the type and purpose of the review. Consistent evaluations, performed on a routine basis, may be focused on more general feedback. In contrast, pointed reviews based on a complaint or poor performance may be more focused on a specific factor. In either scenario, evaluations should look at multiple factors, including the substance of the interview (information gained), the process (the appropriateness of the methods used), and compliance with organizational policy and ethical guidelines.
Putting It All Together
Loss prevention leaders seeking to create their interviewing toolkit or comprehensive policies should partner with the organization’s human resources and legal and operational leaders. It is important to incorporate the relevant research and ethical and legal guidelines and ensure that any policy is aligned with company values and culture. If the goal is to protect our teams while mitigating risk and driving results, there needs to be a roadmap to follow. A comprehensive interviewing program provides investigators with the training, resources, and confidence to execute these tasks. Even more importantly, it ensures that personnel are going to be treated in a way that is fair, aligned with company values, evidence-based, and consistent across the organization.