the bonds of rapport. Proficient interviewers learn to use reassuring touch
to exhibit their acceptance of the interviewee and to strengthen interper-
sonal communication. When it seems fitting, your touch can be an integral
part of an interview, signaling a special caring that is inexpressible through
words.
A complicated combination of things occurs when two people touch,
however, so be careful to determine whether it is appropriate to touch a par-
ticular interviewee. Not everyone will allow touching to take place. Hostile
or extremely reluctant interviewees will usually not allow themselves to be
touched—sometimes not even to shake hands. Many interviewees sense
their personal space as an extension of their ego and will go to almost any
length to preserve it. They do not want others to come close to them,
and they certainly do not want to be touched by anyone. This restraint usu-
ally has nothing to do with you personally and probably has nothing to do
with the matter under investigation.
76
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
Positive Silence
The tactic of silence can be a weapon for battle or a marvelous instrument of
the most delicate construction. Improperly used, the interviewer’s silence is
a form of authoritarian punishment. The use of abusive silence is a self-
defeating tactic that often offends the interviewee, builds tension, and dis-
courages cooperation. Unless employed subtly, your silence may be equated
with withdrawal, rejection, disapproval, or an implied threat. Silence shakes
up interviewees when it occurs repeatedly.
When used appropriately, however, without an intentional threat to the
interviewee, silence can strengthen rapport and encourage compliance. You
can use a positive silence to indicate your acceptance of the interviewee or to
signal your control of the interview. Interviewees can sense the mood of the
moment, the implicit meaning of the interviewer’s silence. I support using
silence to keep the pot bubbling but not to antagonize or alienate inter-
viewees. It can be a constructive part of your tactics and need not be a harsh
method.
Keep your questions simple and direct, and wait after asking each ques-
tion, to give the interviewee time to reply. A brief silence or pause after the
interviewee finishes speaking can be used to indicate that more is expected in
response to the question. When you pause between questions, sometimes
interviewees provide further information to fill the silence. A positive silence can produce meaningful and relevant information that might not otherwise
be provided. Research indicates that there is positive correlation between
the amount of silence used by the interviewer and the interviewee’s general
level of spontaneity.3 When I choose to use silence as a tactic, I glance at the interviewee rather than stare. Staring can be oppressive when coupled with
silence; silence alone is enough to bring out meaningful tension in the inter-
viewee. It is sometimes helpful to introduce silence when the interviewee
least expects it.
As useful a tactic as positive silence is, some interviewees can withstand it.
Experienced, composed interviewees handle silence by sitting patiently and
expectantly or by asking questions to distract you from your efforts. Some
interviewees handle silence by returning the interviewer’s stare with a calm,
anticipatory look. Others counter with their own silence in hopes of reveal-
ing the interviewer’s tension or lack of confidence. Interviewees’ skill in
handling silence is a sign of their ability to control distress. Hence, it is ben-eficial to try to gauge an interviewee’s skill in this regard.
3 Gordon, 1969, p. 188; Dexter, 1970, p. 112.
Rapport, Active Listening, and Other Techniques
77
Interviewees who resent authority might have long intervals of silence
before answering your questions. Interviewees who have a poor self-image,
who feel inadequate and helpless, may use silence to express their annoy-
ance, resentment, or anger. They may engage in lengthy pauses, sudden
silences, and an unexplained inability to discuss pertinent details.4 Many interviewees resent being interrupted when speaking. Some can become
so petulant, impatient, or irritable that they refuse to talk at all. Interviewees who realize that silence makes the questioner uncomfortable may intentionally use it to antagonize the interviewer and may decide to stay silent.
Inexperienced interviewers sometimes have a low tolerance for silence
and become distressed by it. For anxious interviewers who lack self-
confidence, a brief period of silence may seem almost endless. However,
the interviewee’s silence is not necessarily a deterrent, and it need not disrupt the interviewer’s strategy. Through training and practice, interviewers can
learn to tolerate quiet in an interview and to use it to maximum advantage.
thwarted, it is vital that you not respond in an aggressive manner. Remem-
ber that this is an interview with someone who probably doesn’t want to talk
to you, so don’t take things, including silence, personally, since it is not a
personal attack. It is equally important that you not suggest responses to your
questions. When I sense that interviewees are trying to use silence to their
advantage, I assume that they are also using other ploys to try to manipulate
me. These formidable competitors need special attention, closer observa-
tion, and more careful assessment. Truthful, straightforward, compliant
interviewees do not employ tactics of strategic silence.
Remember that building rapport is a skill that can be learned by practic-
ing. If proper rapport is established, you should be successful in obtaining the information you are seeking.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. How does the interviewer act as a catalyst during an interview?
2. What is rapport?
3. When should you begin to develop rapport during an interview?
4. What are the advantages of establishing rapport?
5. Are you approving of the crime when you are friendly to the criminal?
6. How might you go about building rapport?
4 Woody and Woody, 1972, p. 163; Drake, 1972, p. 86.
78
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
7. How can you tell if a silent interviewee is truly listening?
8. Why doesn’t the use of sarcasm, ridicule, or cynicism help you gain
cooperation?
9. What is role reversal, and how should it be handled?
10. How should you end an unproductive interview?
11. What is active listening?
12. What does it take to be a “perfect listener”?
13. How can you show that you are paying attention to the interviewee?
14. What are the consequences of inattention during an interview?
15. Why is it important to concentrate during an interview?
16. How can you signal your acceptance of the interviewee?
17. What is detachment, and how can you use it?
18. Why is patience a virtue for interviewers?
19. How can you use body language to signal positive messages?
20. How does eye contact help control the flow of conversation?
&nb
sp; 21. When is it okay to touch an interviewee?
22. How can you use silence in positive ways?
23. How shouldn’t you respond to an interviewee’s silence?
CHAPTER 8
Authority
SECURITY’S PLACE IN THE ORGANIZATION1
The degree and nature of the authority vested in security management and
investigations become matters of the greatest importance when such a func-
tion is fully integrated into the organization. Any evaluation of the scope and
authority required by security investigations to perform effectively must
consider a variety of factors, both formal and informal, that exist in the structure. Here we examine these factors.
Definition of Authority
It is management’s responsibility to establish the level of authority on which
security may operate in order to accomplish its mission. Security must have
authority to deal with the establishment of security systems. It must be able
to conduct inspections of performance in many areas of the company. It
must be in a position to evaluate performance and risk throughout the
company.
All such authority relationships, of course, should be clearly established
by management and made with the assistance and guidance of a professional
consultant. This trend has caused a growth in the number of security con-
sultants, particularly independent consultants who do not have a vested
interest in the outcome of their recommendations.
Determining costs and effectiveness is only the first step. Having done
this, management will then have to face the important question of whether
security can be truly and totally integrated into the organization. If, upon
analysis, it is found that the existing structure would in some way suffer from
the addition of new organizational functions, alternatives to the integrated
proprietary security department must be sought. These alternatives usually
consist only of the application and supervision of physical security measures.
This inevitably results in the fragmentation of protective systems in the var-
ious areas requiring security. However, these alternatives are sometimes
effective, especially in those firms whose overall risk and vulnerability are
low. But as the crime rates continue to climb and as criminal methods of
1 Gion Green, Introduction to Security, 4th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, 1987.
79
80
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
attack and the underground network of distribution continue to become
more sophisticated, anything less than total integration will become increas-
ingly inadequate.
Once management has recognized that existing problems—real or
potential—make the introduction or enlargement of security a necessity
for continued effective operation, it is obliged to exert every effort to create an atmosphere in which security can exert its full efforts to accomplish stated
company objectives. Any equivocation by management at this point can
only serve to weaken or ultimately undermine the security effectiveness that
might be obtained by a clearer statement of total support and directives
resulting in intra-company cooperation with security efforts.
Levels of Authority
Obviously security managers operate at many mixtures of authority levels.
Their functional authority may encompass a relatively limited area, pre-
scribed by broad outlines of basic company policy. In matters of investiga-
tion, they may be limited to a staff function in which they may advise and
recommend or even assist in conducting the investigation but not have
direct control over or even assist in conducting the investigation, and they
would not have direct control or command over the routines of employees.
It is customary for security managers to exercise line authority over pre-
ventive activities of the company. In this situation, they command the
guards, who in turn command the employees in all matters over which secu-
rity managers have jurisdiction. Security managers, of course, have full line
authority over the conduct of their own departments, within which they too
have staff personnel as well as those to whom they have delegated functional
authority.
The Power of Security Personnel
Security personnel are generally limited to the exercise of powers possessed
by every citizen. There is no legal area in which the position of a security
office as such confers greater rights, powers, or privileges than those pos-
sessed by every citizen. A few states—for example, Michigan—confer addi-
tional arrest powers for security personnel after the completion of 135 hours
of training. As a practical matter, if the security officer is uniformed, he will very likely find that in most cases people will comply with his requests. Many
people are not aware of their own rights or of the limitations of powers of a
security officer. Thus a security officer can obtain compliance to directives
Authority
81
that, if not illegal, at least may be beyond his or her power to command. This
acquiescence is usually harmless, but in cases where a security officer has
unwisely taken liberties with his authority, the officer and the officer’s
employer are subject to the penalties of a tort action. The litigation involved
in suing a security officer and his employer for tortious conduct is slow and
expensive, which may make such recourse impossible for the poor and those
unfamiliar with their rights. But the judgments that have been awarded have
had a generally sobering effect on security professionals and have probably
served to reduce the number of such incidents.
Criminal law also regulates security activities. Major crimes such as bat-
tery, manslaughter, kidnapping, and breaking and entering—any one of
which may be confronted in the course of security activities—are substan-
tially deterred by criminal sanctions.
Further limitations may be imposed on the authority of a security force
by licensing laws, administrative regulations, and specific statues directed at
security activities. Operating contracts between employers and security
firms may also specify limits on the activities of the contracted personnel.
Authority and Neutrality in the Investigative Interview
Typically, an authority figure functions as a representative of some organi-
zation or entity. As difficult as it may seem, an investigator is most successful when maintaining a middle ground, balancing on the tightrope of neutrality.
An investigator’s loyalty is to the organization she represents, but it can be
extremely helpful to the success of an inquiry if this connection is obscured
and not too clearly discernible.
AUTHORITY AND POWER
In its simplest form, power is the ability to control, influence, or causes other to do what you want them to do. 2 Power can be expressed negatively or positively. Authority is the vested or conveyed right to exercise power over
others. It is the right to command, to enforce laws, to exact obedience, to
determine, or to judge, and its basis may be legal, traditional, or social. Investigators wield the authority granted them by virtue of their position, and
they function on behalf of a segment of the commu
nity. 3 As with all positions of authority, an organization establishes guidelines that impact
2 Effective Uses of Power and Authority, 1980.
3 Bennis et al., 1973, p. 62.
82
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
investigators’ behavior. Each investigator then functions based on personal
ethics, and no matter which organization investigators represent, they are
personally responsible for how they command, determine avenues of
inquiry, and judge outcomes. Because the misuse of their authority carries
serious potential consequences, investigators have a great responsibility to
exercise their power thoughtfully.
Some investigators wrongly consider power to be a permanent posses-
sion. In fact, legitimate power emanates from the role or position that the
investigator holds. When used positively in an interview, authority pro-
motes confidence and accomplishment, boosting the interviewee’s self-
esteem and encouraging his cooperation.
Liability Concerns for Investigators
Anyone can be sued for anything. However, many investigators who cross
the invisible line may face liability. Here are several situations that might
cause liability concerns:
•
Conducting applicant background checks
•
Not conducting applicant background checks
•
Detaining and interrogating employees
•
Search and seizure in the workplace
•
Undercover and surveillance operations
•
Employee discharge and failure to discharge
•
Disclosing evidence in worker’s compensation and unemployment
hearings
•
Obtaining information illegally
•
Misrepresentation and failure to warn about ex-employees
•
Filing criminal charges
•
Discrimination-based investigations
•
Union and nonunion member investigations
•
False acquisition based on sloppy investigation
•
Misuse of wiretap
•
Abuse of authority
•
Abuse of power
•