ognized components of the progression is vandalism. Vandalism is an expression
of anger; anger resulting from frustration. Instead of focusing on the source of that frustration, e.g., a supervisor, the aggressor attacks the property of the target.
Characteristically, the victim’s property is seen as an extension of him. Unable to yet muster the courage or determination to inflict bodily harm, the aggressor substitutes the property for the person. Having an acute appreciation for this phenomenon today, I approach every instance of workplace vandalism much as I would if it were workplace violence.
Anyone who has ever conducted a sexual harassment or discrimination inves-
tigation also knows that the initial allegations are often just the tip of the iceberg.
Rarely do complainants of any type tell the whole story when they initially come forward. Some do this unintentionally, others do it purposefully. Some victims
will only tell their employer that which they think they need to know in order
for them to stop the undesired behavior or treatment. This is typical in domestic violence cases that spill into the workplace. In other instances, the victim is afraid or untrusting. In yet other instances, the victim may derive some psychological or personal benefit by dribbling out information and evidence. Regardless,
my point is simple; more often than not, workplace investigations are ultimately more complex than they first appear. The employer’s investment is tied directly to that complexity.
Tip: The amount of effort and investment put into a workplace investigation will be proportional to its complexity.
Improving Results ◾ 291
9.2 Establish Milestones and a Budget
Establishing and using milestones and budgets is a fundamental business practice, yet few fact finders do it. Experienced managers and executives will sometimes insist on it.
A contract investigator may even suggest it. Unfortunately, in practice, few ever actual y do it. Establishing milestones and managing a budget takes time. It tends to be tedious and often appears unnecessary. Decision makers want to see people on the ground, they want to see action, and they want to see results. As such, this essential aspect of planning is ignored. Instead of taking a little time to chart one’s course, almost everybody wants to get started. Do yourself a favor and stop. Take the time to commit some milestones to paper. Even if they are only preliminary, take the time to do it. Put some numbers to them and determine the amount of time and money it will take to achieve your goals.
The exercise will surprise you in several interesting ways. First, you will realize that you have actual y crafted a project plan. The project plan serves as a blueprint from which you will work your investigation. If done properly, you will have identified the incremental steps that when sequential y executed will produce a completed investigation. The second thing that will become apparent will be any actions or steps original y overlooked. It wil be hard to complete the exercise without exposing gaps in your process. Col ectively, your project plan, milestones, and budget provide the springboard from which your investigation springs to life. The time, money, and resources to be al ocated to it are now justifiable. The process enables everyone involved to know what is to be expected and the investment anticipated.
The process is no different if an external resource is used. Similarly, the vendor should propose a project plan with corresponding milestones and a budget. A vendor that does not is either naïve or very unsophisticated. The practice leads to misunderstandings and unmet expectations. It frequently leads to wasted time and money. The employer client generally ends up paying more and receiving less. If you have read the preceding chapters, you will easily appreciate this. If you have, you know it will be nearly impossible to achieve one’s objectives without stating them in advance. Without planning, no project plan is possible, no budgets can be established, or is it likely any goals will be attained. It is a recipe for disaster.
Tip: Do not engage vendors that offer investigative services if they do not first offer a project plan, articulate milestones, and propose a budget. To accept anything less is reckless and may be fiscally irresponsible.
9.3 Importance of Measuring Results
The measuring of our investigative results is difficult and frequently impossible.
Few fact finders like to do it, fewer even attempt it. Typically, at the completion
292 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
of one’s investigation, the last thing the fact finder and his team want to do is spend more time critiquing their effort and measuring the return on that effort.
Frequently, the return cannot be immediately measured. In some instances, the
result is more subjective than objective. In other situations, there is no perceived return by measuring the results or evaluating its value to the organization. However, in practice, all investigative efforts should always be measured. Without some form of measurement, analysis, or critical review of the investigative process, neither process improvement nor best practices development is possible. It seems strange to me that we apply these fundamental business practices to every other aspect of our operation and business, but rarely are they applied to the process of investigation.
Furthermore, if the individual responsible for the investigation doesn’t measure the results, someone else almost always will. Be it one’s immediate supervisor when conducting personnel performance reviews, the budget review committee when
deciding the proper allocation of corporate resources, or the criminal justice system, someone will almost always measure the results of our investigative endeavors.
It makes little sense that the professional fact finder allows others to determine their value. To abdicate this important responsibility to others makes little professional sense. To obtain the most from your investigations, measure your results.
9.3.1 First Collect Information
Workplace investigations are fluid and dynamic and the fact finder must be cre-
ative and resourceful. In the final analysis, his effort will be judged. At the very least, some form of cost-benefit analysis will take place. Whether the fact finder, his investigative team, or his employer does it, some form of analysis will likely take place. Anticipating this, the experienced fact finder begins his preparation from the moment he is assigned the investigation. During the preparation and planning phase, the fact finder identifies milestones and benchmarks by which he will measure his results. During the preparation of his proposal, he will have articulated a measurable return on investment (ROI) and justified his strategy. Like the other professionals in his organization, he has taken a business approach to solving his problem.
Process improvement begins with measuring. Keeping accurate records and
measuring one’s results is essential to any process improvement effort. Workplace investigations are no different. Depending upon one’s volume of cases, here are a few things that might be measured:
◾ Incident or investigation type
◾ Number of cases in each category
◾ Number of cases cleared in each category
◾ Incident location
◾ Amount of loss
◾ Number of employees and nonemployees involved
◾ Man-hours invested to resolve each case
Improving Results ◾ 293
◾ Total investment per case
◾ Number of successful prosecutions
◾ Recoveries made per case
◾ ROI per case
Another source of information is the people we interview. A cooperative and
remorseful interview is a perfect candidate to provide useful information and input about process and process failures. Though it is not necessary to know why a transgressor committed an offense in order to discipline him, the answer might go a long way in preventing a reoccurrence. The best way to find out is to ask. Here are a few suggestions you might consider adding to your oral statement checklist:
/> ◾ Why was the offense committed and what was it that motivated the subject
to commit it?
◾ What system or process failures occurred that enabled you to commit the offense?
◾ What could the organization have done to prevent this from occurring?
◾ What incentive might the organization have offered that would have possibly
prevented this event?
◾ Why were you initially hesitant in telling the truth about what you had done?
◾ Why did you choose to be honest during this interview?
◾ Now that this matter is out in the open, what punishment do you think
is appropriate?
◾ How would you suggest this matter be communicated to the rest of the
organization?
◾ What lessons have you learned from this experience?
Now, imagine the possible answers to some of the questions. Were the subject
cooperative and remorseful, not only could the answers be enormously valuable,
but think for a moment of their usefulness in the event the employee disputes the discipline he receives and litigates the matter. Wow.
9.3.2 Analyze the Data
With sufficient data, we are quickly able to conduct some trend analysis. Not only are we able to see trends relative to the type and volume of our cases, we are granted insight into the real damage being done to the organization. In determining an
ROI, we can determine which type of matters cost the organization the most and
which ones deserve more or less resources. The data also will provide insight to where process improvement is possible. If, for example, the data reveal a prevalence of inventory problems, more attention can be focused on the problem. If property crimes are prevalent, yet recoveries are low, new emphasis on these matters can be directed. Over time, the fact finder and his organization can drill into the data and determine the root causes of problems and engineer reliable solutions. With
294 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
confidence, resources can be allocated where they will produce the most benefit.
Remarkably, few organizations do this with any consistency.
The fact finder also needs tools in order to facilitate process improvement. Using a database to collect and manage the data is essential. Among the tools available are those we discussed in several prior chapters. Typically, these services are offered as case management applications in the form of a SaaS (software as a service). These cloud solutions are offered via the Internet. One of the largest and most recognizable is SalesForce. As a CRM (customer relationship management) solution, there is none finer. It requires no software, no maintenance, and is very inexpensive. It is always on and always ready. All one needs to use it is access to the Internet. For investigative case management purposes, my firm, Convercent, offers a state-of-the-art cloud solution as well. Today, approximately 35,000 client locations in 150
countries use our solution. The underlying technology is unlike anything available at any price. It is intuitive, easy to use, and robust. Designed and built for the modern fact finder and those he serves, it is the go-to solution for some of the largest organizations in the world, including our federal government. However, other cloud solutions are available as well. Search them out, ask for a demo, test them, and select one.
9.3.3 Put the Information to Use
Another way to put the information to use is flowcharting. Flowcharting is a process improvement strategy widely used in industry. As the name suggests, it charts a process from a flow standpoint. Similar to an electrical wire diagram, a flowchart outlines a process in the form of a schematic. The chart guides the user through a process in a step-by-step fashion and illustrates pathways through which certain outcomes are possible. Cawood and Corcoran do this spectacularly in their work, Violence Assessment and Intervention: The Practitioner’s Handbook.1 For the purpose of illustrating the proper handling of the incident assessment and resolution process, they provide readers a detailed incident flowchart. Using the tool, threat managers can easily path their way to one of several predetermined outcomes. Because flowcharts can be works-in-progress, they are uniquely suited for dynamic problem management and resolution, and ultimately process improvement. Think of them
as roadmaps. Using a map, one can predetermine a route to most any destination. If one route proves too difficult or time consuming, the user can select another route.
Unlike a map, however, a flowchart can be modified. New pathways can be created to any destination. The user is not limited to those offered by a static map.
As a starting point, flowchart some of your basic investigative and fact-finding processes. Keep each chart to one page. Start with the receipt of the report and work your way toward resolution. Use yes or no options as switches at junctures choices can be made. Use a charting software application like Microsoft Visio® to make the task easier. After use of the chart, modify it where improvement is possible. Over time you will have created a collection of flowcharts any capable fact finder in your
Improving Results ◾ 295
organization can use. The quality of your investigations and theirs will improve.
Moreover, you will have memorialized processes, which will enable the production of predictable results time and again. You will have brought the spirit of process improvement to every investigation you and your organization conduct.
9.4 Alternatives
No analysis of process improvement is complete without asking the basic question: Is the investigation under consideration indeed necessary? Remarkably, few fact finders ponder this question. Professional fact finders, by their very nature, perceive the value they offer by engineering investigative solutions to most problems they are tasked to solve. This is unfortunate and frequently unnecessary. By failing to ask this basic question, the fact finder is easily lured into a possibly expensive no-win situation. Undertaking an investigation when one is not necessary is wasteful and risky. It consumes unnecessary resources and exposes the organization to possible liability. It wastes time and delays an otherwise quick solution. It also does very little for the reputation of the fact finder.
Before undertaking any investigation, the fact finder must ask: Is the inves-
tigation necessary and is there a suitable alternative? At first blush, alternatives may appear scarce. However, upon closer analysis and some basic preinvestigation, investigation alternatives invariably reveal themselves. These alternatives may not be suitable, some may be reckless, and others may be simply irresponsible. Regardless, the fact finder owes it to himself and his customer to ponder them. Here a few of the more common alternatives I have encountered:
◾ Eliminate the suspects through reassignment or termination
◾ Eliminate the temptation by separating duties or physical access
◾ Reduce the possibility of reoccurrence by changing processes
◾ Reduce the exposure by improving methods of early problem detection
◾ Increasing physical security
◾ Increasing electronic security
◾ Increasing employee awareness
◾ Doing nothing and relying on the intervention of some higher power and luck
Depending on the circumstances, each of these may have arguable merit.
Combined in some fashion they, in fact, may constitute a viable alternative to
undertaking an investigation. The fact pattern of the given circumstances, the
employer’s objectives, its past practices and policies, and the law will likely influence which action is appropriate. The fact finder must not avoid these alternatives.
He should honestly consider them and offer them (if appropriate) to his decision makers. In some instances, a simple cost-benefit analysis will be sufficient. If the estimated cost to investigate a cash shortage of $500 is $5,000, the decision to
296 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
pursue an alternative to investigat
ion should be easy. Alternatively, if the allegation is widespread sexual harassment, the decision not to investigate may not even be lawful.
The reader will note that the common theme among the aforementioned alter-
natives is prevention and early detection. This is not only because it is so intuitively obvious, but because there are no other alternatives. Research shows that the incidence and magnitude of workplace conduct is a function of three fundamental elements:
◾ The quality of people the organization hires
◾ The environment in which those people are placed
◾ The quality of supervision managing that environment and those people
When problems at work are examined closer, it is easy to see what is at their
core. Quickly, we see people who should have never been hired. We see those
same individuals placed in environments with inadequate controls, overseen by
untrained and/or incompetent supervisors. If it is the desire of management to
control its workplace and prevent employee crime and misconduct, it should not
procure more locks, gates, and guards. It should look introspectively. It should look at the core of the organization, its people, and its values. It has been my experience and I suspect yours as well, that most of the offenders that we have investigated had no business enjoying the jobs they did, and should have never been hired in the first place. Stopping the problem at the door makes sense. Continuing to contaminate one’s workforce with individuals who intend to hurt them is the definition of irresponsibility. For just a moment consider the last internal investigation you conducted. If the perpetrator, in fact, had not been an employee, would the offense have ever been committed? Would your investigation have been necessary?
It is the responsibility of every employer to foster a safe and productive workplace.
Investigative Interviewing: Psychology, Method and Practice Page 45