Should we record the interview?

To record or not record? That's the controversial question many of my colleagues are asking about interviewing. It's the subject of a well-intended and spirited debate. But I think that recording interviews is a concept whose time has come. 

For better or worse, we as a society have reached a point when it's not necessary for the defense to prove that something improper was performed during an interview. Now, often the defense has only to raise the specter of the possibility that inappropriate steps were taken within the "communication event." That inappropriate behavior can range from the complaint that there were two interviewers and only one interviewee so the subject felt intimidated, to the allegation that the admission was coerced. Consequently, we have to be prepared to defend the interview itself in a growing number of cases. What better way to prepare for that possible need to show that the questions asked and the information presented were all within the gold standard of acceptable procedures than to be ready to present the interview itself as its own defense?

I understand the concerns of many: "It will give away our techniques or strategies; some approaches don't look or sound good on tape; it will give the defense something to go after, etc." But interview techniques and strategies are like plays in professional football - everyone pretty much has access to the same game plans and plays. It isn't so much who has the most plays as who can best execute the plays that they all have. Secondly, during the interview - recorded or not - I'm not going to do or say anything that I'm not ready for all to see or hear. My tenets include not doing anything that would cause someone to make an admission to something that they haven't done or taking away the "voluntariness" of the admission. Lastly, any good defense is going to target something therefore I'd rather take away their option for going after the specter of "what's behind the curtain?" with the implication that the interviewer acted inappropriately.

I believe that in time, in this visual "I want to see it" society, the recorded interview will do for fraud investigations what videotaping the drunk driver in the booking room has done for convictions for driving under the influence.

Because recording the interview is currently becoming more prevalent in the public sector, I'm going to limit my comments in this column to its application within the private sector.

CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING A RECORDING PROTOCOL
First, the organization must have an overall policy and procedure in place on conducting interviews. Conducting an interview without established organizational guidelines is akin to flying a plane at night with no radar. The interviewer has to know what he or she might and might not do during the interview. The directing criteria on recording an interview now needs to be folded into the existing policy. Bottom line for me - if you don't have a written, established, distributed, and understood policy don't even be thinking about recording the interview as an initiative on your own.

Second, everyone who's going to be involved has to have input into the development of the recording policy - HR, management, legal, those who'll conduct the interviews as well as those who'll be responsible for moving charges forward or the administering of some adverse action resulting from the interview. All participants who develop policy have to work through the salient issues and concerns, reach agreement, and literally sign off on the policy. Look at related policies from other organizations and talk to those who developed or are utilizing them. Find out what they like about the policies, the problem areas, what they didn't anticipate, etc.

When developing the policy, don't overlook such aspects as articulating, following, and verifying the documentation that's related to the storage and security of the recordings.

Thirdly, now is the time to practice. The interviewer needs to become comfortable with a recording device as part of the interview process. Conduct practice interviews that will give the interviewers the opportunity to see and/or hear themselves. Find the best locations for the recording devices to ensure that they're operating efficiently and aren't a barrier to the communication process. Recordings need to become "no big deal" to the interviewer to develop that same mindset within the interviewee.

(Feedback request: Let me know what you think about recording interviews - pro and con.)

INTERVIEWER REMORSE
When I conduct the interviewing course for auditors, many of the participants say that they feel badly about the eventual negative consequences to the guilty subjects who share incriminating information. The interviewers say they somehow feel personally responsible to some degree. I can certainly understand their position. When many of these people went into auditing years ago they never anticipated the increased emphasis and consequences of interviews connected to audits.

I wish I had a "silver bullet" answer that I could give to them that would make the angst go away but I don't. I have a solution but it's not necessarily an easy one.
As an interviewer, you have to be able to have empathy not sympathy. Sympathy means that you're hurting along with them. Sympathy isn't going to make things better for them and will only make it worse for you. Over time, accumulated sympathy results in stress and will have an adverse effect on your mental and emotional well-being. Sympathy makes you emotionally involved in the interview process. Rather than being an agent of change, you've been changed.

But empathy allows you to understand that the consequences for the individual are adverse but that they aren't adverse for you. Empathy allows you to continue to function effectively as an interviewer while maintaining the fact that you're dealing with another human being.

The other part of the solution that will help is to take a course that's specific to the audit-related interview process. Aside from learning the art and mechanics of the interview process, just being with a group of others who have the same concerns can help you respond more effectively in the future.

You have to find the bubble that allows a healthy balance of being both an objective professional and being a caring person. It's not an easy process but it must be accomplished.

RESOURCE SITE
To help you stay current on the processes of interviewing and detecting deception visit www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/leb.htm, the FBI's publication site. A good start would be the October 1997 issue of the Law Enforcement Bulletin containing the article, "Conducting Successful Interrogations."

CALL FOR STATEMENTS AND NARRATIVES
We're in the preliminary stages of developing a discourse analysis course for auditors. (Discourse analysis is the close and systematic study of the basic linking components of spoken or written communication to determine: process, occurrence, descriptions, individuals involved, evaluation, relationships, reasons for specific word selections, truthfulness, and deception.) If you have any narratives or transcripts from old or adjudicated cases, I would certainly appreciate a copy. We'll change all related names or organizations. You can mail copies to me at: Don Rabon, P.O Box 600, Edneyville, NC 28727-0600, or send them as e-mail attachments to dwrabon@msn.com. Thanks for any submissions.

Until next time, keep asking.

Don Rabon is the deputy director of the Western Campus of the North Carolina Justice Academy in the North Carolina Department of Justice and a longtime member of the ACFE faculty.