Before we continue our discussion of General Loss Interviewing we need to clarify a paragraph from our last column.
Clarification: Another positive effect of the interview is personal loss prevention awareness training with each associate. The employee individually meets and speaks with the LP investigator opening the lines of communication for future conversations. We have found about 30 percent of employees have knowledge or suspicions of theft activity by other associates so these interviews often help focus investigators on problem individuals.
In our previous column we inadvertently left out an important word, which will significantly change the meaning of the above paragraph. It should have read:
We have found about 30 percent of dishonest employees have knowledge or suspicions of theft activity by other associates…
____________
In our last column we discussed some of the common issues, which must be attended to before actually beginning any interviews. First and foremost was selling management on the usefulness of general loss interviews in high shrinkage stores. Obtaining human resource and management buy-in to the strategy smoothes the way for an effective investigation using general loss interviews. Second is planning for uncovering operational violations contributing to shrinkage that may require retaining or replacement of associates. Finally, the interviews may uncover personnel issues within the location: situations, which may vary from sexual harassment and management abuse to facility problems.
Order of interviews
High shrinkage stores or departments usually suffer from theft, lack of training and/or operational problems. It is often difficult to determine how the breakdown began, but each component played a part in developing the unacceptable shrinkage number.
When the general loss interview is designed to primarily elicit information on operational and management issues the order of the employees will differ from an interview focused on identifying dishonest associates. The greatest source of information in operational interviews usually lies with the longest tenured employees.
By beginning with the longest tenured employees the interviewer is talking with those having a historical perspective of the operation. These associates also are often the most loyal and cooperative since they view their job as a career and have weathered the location’s personnel and organizational changes. They may also be the bitterest employees since they have been frustrated by management failures and organizational indifference to the problems at the location. Looking for a sympathetic ear the interviewer may find them to be a treasure trove as they talk at length about their perception of the flaws they have observed or they are simply angry and looking to vent.
While the some of the information from long tenured employees may be tainted by anger or frustration, it also provides a framework to conduct other interviews. Careful interviewing may identify the functional causes of high shrinkage and track their growth within the store.
The interviewer then moves to the less tenured employees, finally ending with the management team. Although leaving management to the end can cause some problems, having a clear picture of the origins of store operational issues allows a more forthright candid conversation with the managers.
If the primary purpose of the general loss interview is to identify dishonest associates, the order of the interviews is best done differently. Now it best to start interviewing those associates most likely to be involved in theft early on and moving toward those less likely. This is often difficult since investigative information may be non-existent or sketchy at best.
Exception-based reporting systems may give an indication of fraudulent transactions as might the backgrounds of the associates. We use a data sheet which considers high risk categories normally associated with individuals who steal. The more high-risk categories a person is associated with the more likely he is to be involved in counter productive behaviors. The data sheet is an excellent tool to identify dishonest employees for general loss interviewing; however, it is less effective when targeting the person responsible for a single incident. If you want a copy of the data sheet and instructions for it use drop us an email at dzulawski@w-z.com or ssturman@w-z.com.
One of the keys in doing general loss interviewing is to target dishonest employees early in the process since it gives associates the impression investigators must know something to have been able to select those stealing from the general employee population. This belief increases the fear of detection of the guilty and the corresponding leakage of behavior is often more detectable by the interviewer. In addition, these early interviews with dishonest associates may reveal implications directing even more firmly the focus of the investigation.
General Loss Interview
The General Loss Interview begins with the interviewer collecting biographical information from the employee. This allows the interviewer to establish a behavioral norm for the individual as he confirms information about himself and his position. The interviewer uses these answers to determine the person’s tone of voice, speed of delivery, and the associated behavior as the individual uses short and long term memory recall. These behavioral observations form the individual’s norm from which the interviewer looks for deviations indicating a change in stress during the interview.
Next, the interviewer opens a conversation with the associate designed to establish rapport. The amount of conversation is often dependant on the person being spoken with and his general attitude toward the interviewer. The topic used can range from the weather, to an aspect of store operation, to a positive comment about a piece of jewelry the interviewer may find interesting. The length of rapport building should stop well before it would seem the interviewer is prying or trying too hard to be friendly. It is preferable for the interviewer to be judged as neutral or mildly interesting, rather than be viewed with suspicion because of an overly friendly demeanor.
Expressing interest in the employee and drawing him into conversation also serves another purpose. Allowing the associate to talk about himself or his perspective on a topic requires he reciprocate and let the interviewer speak. This provides a plausible reason for the interviewer to begin to talk about himself and his job function in the organization.
The interviewer now launches into his prepared monologue: the introductory statement. This introductory statement reveals who the interviewer is and what he does for the organization. It then goes on to address the types of losses employees cause and how they are investigated by the company. Innocent employees find this discussion interesting, while the guilty reacts entire differently. To the guilty, the discussion has undertones of being caught and results in a rise of apprehension, which raises the individual’s stress level.
With the guilty the deceptive behavior leaks and the careful observer can identify the person’s true status and often his methods of theft. The introductory statement uses the introduction of topics and words to trigger the deceptive individual’s fear of detection. This rarely occurs with the truthful since they have not been stealing from the company and have no fear of discovery.
As the interviewer lists the most common methods of theft he observes the associate for reactions as he says them. Each method is a possible stimulus and the guilty employee will likely respond to those methods he has used to steal from the company. The dishonest employee’s behavioral responses to the methods of theft can be as subtle as micro-expressions or as obvious as huge body shifts, reveal much to the careful observer.
Once the interviewer has identified the person’s deceptive status and probable methods of theft used he describes investigative efforts which, if used, would have uncovered the thefts. These three parts together convince the individual his dishonesty has been discovered while teaching the innocent associate about the professionalism of the loss prevention program. This introductory statement also has a future therapeutic effect of keeping honest people honest because they now know the company proactively investigates shortages. People who might steal are often controllable if they believe if they stole they would be apprehended.
If the person’s behavior indicates he is likely honest, the interviewer uses a non-confrontational behavioral interview to confirm the original observations made during the introductory statement. The behavioral interview consists of a series of questions which elicit verbal and physical behavior from the employee typical of an honest individual. Based on the behavioral interview and the subject’s reactions during the introductory statement the individual is cleared of wrongdoing. In closing the conversation the interviewer may conduct loss prevention awareness training or discuss store operations.
If the associate’s reaction to the introductory statement indicated an increased stress level associated with dishonesty the interviewer offers rationalizations to minimize the seriousness of what was done and to focus the employee’s attention away from the consequences of his actions.
The interviewer selects an assumptive question to ask for an admission from the employee based on his earlier observations in the introductory statement. Often the dishonest associate will react behaviorally to the methods of theft he has been using giving the interviewer an idea of the scope of the dishonest associate’s activity. The assumptive question should relate to the theft of money or merchandise, but not be method specific. This general assumptive question allows the dishonest employee to admit to what he believes the interviewer knows while protecting the interviewer’s lack of information. An example of this type of assumptive question would be, “What is the most amount of money you took in any single day?” If the employee pauses to think the interviewer uses a follow up question, “It wasn’t more than a thousand dollars, was it?” The follow-up question elicits a denial from the associate which is really an admission of guilt. From here the interviewer moves to develop the admission with specific admissions and ultimately a full confession.
If the associate makes an immediate denial to the assumptive question, “I never took anything.”, the interviewer follows with a question about the individual’s knowledge or suspicion of theft at the location. These are questions from the behavioral interview that are used to back out of the conversation with the suspected employee.
General loss interviewing can have a dramatic impact on high shrinkage locations in two ways. First, it removes dishonest associated from the facility and attributes the losses to theft activity. Second, it allows management to show their concern for the current situation while reinforcing loss prevention and operational training. While these types of interviews are not appropriate for every situation they can often be the key to resolving high shrinkage problems.
It is not a good idea to attempt general loss interviews without the buy-in of management. Many company’s have policies that prohibit the interview of dishonest employees without concrete evidence.