LP Magazine

SEP-OCT 2017

LP magazine publishes articles for loss prevention, asset protection, and retail professionals covering shrinkage, investigations, shoplifting, internal theft, fraud, technology, best practices, and career development.

Issue link: http://digital.lpportal.com/i/874445

Contents of this Issue


Page 11 of 79

by David E. Zulawski, CFI, CFE and Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP Zulawski and Sturman are executives in the investigative and training firm of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates (w-z.com). Zulawski is a senior partner, and Sturman is president. Sturman is also a member of ASIS International's Retail Loss Prevention Council. They can be reached at 800-222-7789 or via email at dzulawski@w-z.com and ssturman@w-z.com. © 2017 Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc. INTERVIEWING continued on page 14 Random Lessons from the Room: Part Tw o T his is the second in a series of articles where we will discuss lessons that we have learned over the years while interviewing tens of thousands of individuals. Profile of the Subject While the word "profile" has some negative connotations, we use it as a generic term to organize our thoughts and make some broad generalizations about individuals whom we are planning to interview. Our goal is to determine in general terms how an individual might act during an interview or upon discovering an investigation of them is underway. We can come to many accurate conclusions of a person by looking at their lifestyle, relationships, interests, or other choices they make in life. Where they choose to live or shop may speak volumes about their self-image and how they evaluate themselves and others. Clearly, examining relationships and how they interact with friends, acquaintances, or strangers can lead to assumptions about loyalty and commitment to others. One important question to always ask about an individual who might be interviewed or become a target in an investigation is how the person reacted if they had ever been questioned or disciplined before. The interviewer could also include a broader question relating to how the individual handles conflict. In general, people have developed a strategy that either works for them or that they return to when faced with conflict or unpleasant situations. If the interviewer can determine with some accuracy what this strategy is, it can then be planned for during the interview. This prediction can often prepare the interviewer for the most likely response a subject may make to an investigatory interview. Anticipate Problems and Plan for Them Once the subject has been profiled to determine their likely response to the interview or investigation, the investigator can then anticipate likely problems and prepare a plan for how to handle them. The investigator now goes through a series of what ifs and thinks about the resources and strategies that will be necessary to counter them. For example, what if the subject decides to get up and walk out of the interview? First, the investigator should consider the evidence available indicating the subject's guilt and whether it is sufficient to terminate the individual's employment or perhaps bring criminal charges. Depending on the company's policy, there may be a requirement that clear evidence of the individual's guilt is available before an interview can take place. In other organizations, circumstantial evidence or even a location's high shrinkage may be enough to initiate an investigative interview. Depending on the organization's policy, it is often useful to partner with a human resource representative or senior manager to determine what admissions from the subject are necessary to terminate the individual's employment. Get a line in the sand on the decision and a commitment to an outcome. This upfront commitment can save much anguish for the decision maker. In addition, human resources can tell the investigator what will happen if the subject simply decides to end the interview and walk out. If the evidence is sufficient that action may result in termination, will HR suspend employment pending the conclusion of the investigation, or should the subject be returned to their work assignment? Clearly understanding the options before the interview allows the investigator to have a plan in place with clear outcomes that do not require improvised decisions or solutions on the spur of the moment. Other possible subject actions to be considered are: ■ What if the subject wants to record the interview? ■ What if the subject wants to have a parent or lawyer present during the interview? Depending on the organization's policy, it is often useful to partner with a human resource representative or senior manager to determine what admissions from the subject are necessary to terminate the individual's employment. 12 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2017 | LOSSPREVENTIONMEDIA.COM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of LP Magazine - SEP-OCT 2017