by Pamela Meyer
*
Someone who steals from his employer, for instance, might tell himself any one of the following stories:
“I’m an honest person, but the economy is in terrible shape and I have to do what ever I can to provide for my family.”
“I had no choice—my wife is sick and can’t work, and my first obligation is to my family.”
“I had to do something to prove this company has terrible controls.”
“It’s not really stealing, because I always intended to give the money back. I’m a good person.”
“Of course I took a kickback. Everyone else does—you’re out in the cold if you don’t.”
Rationalizations can be so reliably predicted that criminal interrogators have theme books—“bibles” of sorts that inventory all the known typical reasons a criminal might give for his particular crime. Interrogators prepare for an interview by reviewing five or more excuses a deceptive person might give for that particular crime. You need to do the same. Make a list of all the rationalizations you can think of that someone might tell himself to justify his deceit or to distort the real motive behind his actions.
Be sure to take into consideration the subject’s “blame pattern”—the ways he typically places blame for wrongful actions. Understanding blame patterns is critical to the process of fine-tuning your story preparation. Does he tend to blame himself or others? Is he likely to blame a victim (“She was asking for it”) or does he see himself as the victim (“I was set up”)? How a subject absorbs or rejects blame will shape the way you try to help him tell his story.
Propose Stories. When you watch an interrogation scene on shows like Law & Order, a hard-nosed interrogator generally stands over a flinching suspect and bombards him with a nonstop barrage of loud, aggressive questions designed to intimidate him into making a confession. This is the stuff of TV drama, not real life. Were you witnessing a real-life interrogation, you’d see two people sitting in chairs about four and a half feet apart, talking quietly. The interrogator would not present himself as an antagonist; instead, he would begin with a quiet monologue and offer up a series of possible reasons why the suspect might have committed the act of deception. The feeling in the room might even be one of collaboration: “We’re working together to figure this out.”
That’s how your interview should go. You want to elicit cooperation, not bludgeon your subject. You want to reinforce an existing rationalization, not plant new ideas in his head. What opening is most likely to elicit a response?
*
WHAT GUILT SOUNDS LIKE
Guarded: “Did I call the reporter? What do you mean?”
Vague: A liar will be unlikely to speculate about how something was done: “Uh—I don’t really know how they could pass those documents on and not get caught.”
Overly polite, calm, or intellectual: “My goodness, what a nightmare; and the merger’s just around the corner, too. How can I help?”
Reluctant to offer additional information: “I told you everything I know—what more do you want?”
Dismissive: “Well, I’m sure no one is going to believe everything they read in that column. The deal can surely go on.”
Weak: “Why are you asking me?” “How could you think I could do something like that?” or “Honestly, you’ve got to believe me!”
Brief: Honest subjects aren’t afraid to talk, whereas guilty ones will try to keep their answers as short as possible. If they ramble, it’s only to offer useless, inappropriate detail.
Illogical: Liars will often tell you a different truth than the one you’re asking about. So if you were to ask someone, “Where did you eat this afternoon?” and she replied, “I never leave the office during the day,” you should take note. Her reply may be true, but it didn’t answer the question. Your next question: “Why not?”
Linear: A liar’s story will often be told in strictly chronological order, and he’ll have a hard time backtracking if asked to pick up in a random spot of the story.
*
If the deception revolves around some form of theft, you might say, “Now, I’ve seen this before, John, where the boss is wealthy and the people working for him are really underpaid. It’s just not fair.” Or, if you know that the suspect tends to blame himself, you might suggest a story in the third person—to take the focus off of him—and express a bit of sympathy: “This reminds me of a woman who was in a similar situation a few years ago…”
Watch your listener closely. You’re checking for a few key reactions. At any time, does your subject start to pay more attention, nod his head, get emotional—or, conversely, purse his lips as if he’s withholding emotion? If not, try another tack: “There are times when a man has to stand up for himself, don’t you think? We can’t let people walk all over us.”
Trained investigators will gently suggest story after story, for as long as twenty or thirty minutes, until they hit on the right one. Truthful subjects will reject every story, no matter how plausible you make each suggestion sound. If you are nonjudgmental and compassionate, however, many guilty people will jump at the chance to commiserate with someone who understands what drove them to do something they probably never thought themselves capable of doing. Remember that most liars want to tell you the truth. Make it as easy as possible for them.
*
BASIC STEP #2 REVIEW: ASK OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
List evidence and missing information.
List who, what, when, and where questions, and the possible replies, ahead of time.
Profile your subject’s blame patterns, personal and professional needs.
Check your evidence for bias.
Develop rapport.
Elicit an observable response.
Propose multiple stories.
*
Step #3: Study the Clusters
You already know that you need to take note of everything you see and hear when listening to someone reply to your open-ended questions. Within a few minutes, you’ll probably start to notice clusters of facial, behavioral, and verbal clues. Individually, they mean nothing. Together, they will give you a good idea of your subject’s state of mind.
Maybe you note that as you try to understand why Carl didn’t follow through on an important lead—“I know it’s been really busy around here; it must be hard to keep up with all the phone calls that need to be made”—he bends his head forward before snapping it back and breathes in deeply through his nose; he presses his lips together until they’re a thin line; he cracks his knuckles. You’ve seen these behaviors before, but all in one sitting? Why is Carl uncomfortable? Again, this is where your baselining skills, empathy, and intuition must come into play.
Sometimes the biggest clue that someone is being deceptive resides in clusters of behaviors that are not typically displayed concurrently. As we’ve noted, people intent on deception will pay meticulous attention to what they say—but unless they’ve had a chance to rehearse their story before, their bodies will unconsciously betray them. Generally, getting the words right in a lie requires so much mental energy that none is left for the liar to plan out his mannerisms as well.
If you were to ask, “So how many years of college did you actually complete?” your companion might reply “Four” but hold up only three fingers. He’ll usually notice his mistake and correct it, maybe with an accompanying grin and a “Whoops!” Now, this could be an honest mistake. Then again, it’s been established that when there’s incongruity between verbal and nonverbal behavior, the nonverbal behavior is generally the more accurate.1
Here’s a summary of the clusters to keep an eye out for:
Nonverbal Clusters
Grooming gestures
Hand wringing
Inward-curled feet
Stiff upper body, inappropriate stillness
Pursed lips or biting of the lips
Slumped or self-protective posture
Moving objects around the table or floor
Post-interview relief expre
ssion
Excessive sweating, breathing, finger tapping
Shift in blink rate
Shrugs, clenched fists, winks, palms turned up out of sync with dialogue
Fake smile
Closed eyes
Verbal Clusters
Qualifying statements: “As far as I know…” “To tell you the truth…”
Repeating your question verbatim
Non-spontaneous response time
Weak and apologetic tone of voice
Dodging the question (For example: “I already told HR that.”) Inappropriate detail
Short, clipped answers
Religious references (“I swear on the Bible.”)
Objections to irrelevant specifics (“No—I had the chicken, not the steak.”)
Whining about the interview itself: “How much longer will this take?”
Uncooperative or dismissive attitude
More emphasis on persuading you than on the facts
*
BASIC STEP #3 REVIEW: STUDY THE CLUSTERS
Look for groups of suspicious verbal and nonverbal deceptive behaviors, especially ones that don’t usually go together.
*
Step #4: Intuit the Gaps
There are several types of gaps to watch for if you suspect that someone is deceiving you.
Statement gaps reveal an incongruity between what someone says he was doing and what the facts tell you. If Jake says he spent Monday through Wednesday in San Francisco entertaining clients, it’s not unreasonable to wonder why he doesn’t have a single credit card expense on record for Tuesday. That’s one kind of incongruity. Or perhaps there’s a mismatch between the story Jake tells you and the one you hear from his partner, Julia.
Logical gaps in how a course of events might have unfolded are often right under your nose. Richard says he didn’t make the transfer when you told him to because he was waiting for approval from Bill—yet he has never needed Bill’s approval before.
Behavior gaps often call upon the use of your baselining skills in full force. If your partner goes on and on about working until two in the morning—when he always used to joke about how he was the only lawyer alive who needed a full eight hours of sleep to function—that’s a behavior gap. It might strengthen your suspicion that he’s overbilling clients.
Emotion gaps are sometimes the hardest gaps to detect, but they are also the most crucial. Imagine yourself negotiating a partnership with someone who tells you repeatedly how excited he is to do business with you. Suddenly he flashes an asymmetrical sneer—the facial expression for contempt. What should you do? Well, for one thing, consider walking out the door and not coming back. The deal won’t happen, and if it does, you are on the road to an unhappy arrangement.
Don’t Ignore Your Gut. Sometimes, as in a statement gap, there’s a clear disconnect between what you hear and what you know to be true. Many times, though, the only thing you’ll have to go on is instinct.
You can’t say exactly why, but something was odd about the way your merging partner’s lawyer replied to your playful, “Good morning! Are we ready to do a deal that’s going to make us all rich?” Nothing you can pin down, but you have a gut feeling things are off…That’s okay. Trust your instinct. Gut reactions are powerful! If you think there’s something wrong with the picture, there’s probably a reason for your suspicion.
Almost anyone who has been severely duped will think back to a moment when he was too embarrassed, angry, or concerned with being polite to pick up on a moment that seemed askew. “I should have paid more attention and asked more questions,” the victim now realizes. Something she heard or saw just didn’t fit with what she knew to be true. And she should have followed up on it.
*
BASIC STEP #4 REVIEW—INTUIT THE GAPS
If something doesn’t add up, take a closer look at the difference between what you know to be true and what someone is telling you or indicating to be true. Specifically look for:
Statement gaps
Logic gaps
Behavior gaps
Emotion gaps
*
The fifth BASIC step helps ensure that you never again ignore your instinct.
Step #5: Confirm
Confirming is not about getting to a definitive “Gotcha!” moment. You may never know the whole truth about the incident you’re investigating. But if you have gotten to Step 5 and you have a strong hunch that your subject is deceiving you, you can ask a number of confirming questions that will allow you to test your hunches. These questions will also take your investigation one step farther in establishing an innocent subject’s honesty.
Ask the Same Fact-Seeking Question Repeatedly, But Always in Different Ways. If you’re almost certain that Jake took a day off during the conference to enjoy San Francisco instead of bringing in new business leads, you could ask, “What did Julia think about what you guys accomplished on Tuesday?” You might then follow up with, “I know how brutal that conference schedule can be. Tell me about the seminars that were offered on Tuesday.”
Ask, “How Do You Feel?” Directly. If you’re conducting a formal investigation, ask your subject how she feels about being investigated. An honest person, wrongly accused, will be angry and will tell you so. A deceptive person may exhibit a complex set of mixed emotions and may even break down or express guilt.
Ask, “What Should Happen to the Person Who Is Found Guilty?” Ask what your subject thinks should happen to whoever did commit the act under investigation. A guilty person may recommend lenient punishment or say, “I don’t know,” while a truthful person will usually recommend appropriate punishment in a cooperative tone of voice.
Ask, “Who Do You Think Did It?” A guilty person will either not name names at all or attempt to broaden the investigation. “It could have been anyone in Accounting” “A lot of people were in the conference room that afternoon.” A truthful person, on the other hand, is likely to cooperate by naming possible suspects.
Ask Your Subject to Recall Details of His Story Backwards. “And where were you before that meeting on Fourth Street?” A guilty person will have a hard time recalling the details in reverse order. He’s likely to offer up previously withheld facts or even confess after stumbling around his own story long enough.
Ask, “What Do You Think Might Have Motivated Someone to Do This?” When asked to speculate about a third person, a guilty subject will often offer up her own “story” for why that person did it. She may even evade the question altogether. A truthful person is more likely to engage in cooperative speculation with you.
Ask Questions That Make It Clear That You Are in Possession of Facts Your Subject Hasn’t Given You. “When you and Graydon stayed late that night…” A truthful person will correct you: “I was there alone.” A liar won’t dare.
Ask, “How Do You Think This Investigation Will Come Out?” A truthful person will be much more positive than a deceitful person, who’s very likely to say, “I hope it will clear me…. It should.”
Ask Questions That Minimize the Significance of the Incident. “We’ve seen bud gets with shortfalls much higher than this in most departments, but we still need to understand what this one is about.” Subjects who infer lenient punishment from minimization will share additional information with you.
Ask Questions with Dual Outcomes, Both of Which Suggest Deception. “Did you have no choice but to close the deal by sweetening it with a little cash for their lawyer? Or was it the exaggerated market research data that got them to close so quickly?”
*
BASIC STEP #5 REVIEW: CONFIRM
Once you think you are being deceived, ask as many questions as it takes for you to be certain you are right. Analyze any suspicious clusters of verbal indicators of deception you hear in your suspect’s replies.
*
A Few Warnings
Avoid Getting Stuck in a Denial Mode if You Really Think Someone You Are Confronting Is Guilty. The more a subject digs in his hee
ls, denies, and protests, “I didn’t do it!” or “That’s not what happened,” the farther he will be from leveling with you and the harder it will be to get him to offer any further information. Do what ever you can to redirect the conversation if this happens, even if it means interrupting or talking over the subject—“I hear you, but now give me just a minute”—and then continue with your own explanation of what you think happened. Redirect the discussion and erode the subject’s insistence on his innocence.
Don’t Overpower Your Subject with a Barrage of Aggressive Questions. When you’re frustrated or eager to speed things up, it can be tempting to start asking loaded questions to try to shock a confession out of someone. But that’s a TV tactic, and it probably won’t work outside a detective show.
Even During Step 5, “Confirm,” Accept That You May Be Wrong. Don’t “decide” someone is guilty. Wrongful condemnation borders on unethical. Remember to look and listen. You will always learn something new if you listen hard enough and ask the right questions.
BASIC training is a tool that can change the way you communicate with everyone around you, whether you’re seeking a confession, information, or simply getting to know someone better. The insight it provides into the ways people deviate from the truth, and the many ways they justify their lies, can transform your hiring decisions, purchasing choices, and ability to negotiate with edge.
II
BUILDING TRUST
SEVEN
LIESPOTTING FOR HIGH STAKES
High-stakes negotiations inspire high-stakes deception.
Caitlyn Heffernon, the CEO of a Boston-based enterprise software company, couldn’t believe her good fortune. After spending eight hard years building her company, she had finally closed the deal of a lifetime: an outright sale to a former competitor, in cash, for millions. With the deal set to close the following Wednesday, Caitlyn spent the weekend celebrating with her family and excitedly making plans for the future.
On Monday night, Caitlyn got a call from her attorney. The lawyer for the other side wasn’t responding to e-mails or calls. Caitlyn called the acquiring CEO and sent him an e-mail asking if they could talk, but got no response. Nor did she hear back on Tuesday morning, or Tuesday afternoon. The other side had gone cold. Wednesday and Thursday passed. On Friday, the acquiring company publicly announced that it had acquired another competitor in an all-stock deal, for a significantly higher price than Caitlyn had extracted.