Interviewing Generation Y

Recently, I was asked to interview two young men in their early twenties who were in a federally funded basic law enforcement training program. The program was geared toward placing educated local law enforcement officers on the street. The two men were suspected of cheating while grading each other’s weekly tests in class. If they were found to be guilty, they would not only be expelled from the course but would have to reimburse educational funds and other costs.

In individual interviews, each expectedly denied cheating. However, eventually both admitted breaking the rules so they wouldn’t fail the course. Neither displayed remorse but lamented that they had been discovered.

After the interview, I said to myself, “Welcome to Generation Y.” I’ve certainly interviewed many who were cold and calculated. However, I had never experienced this particular mind-set of, “Yes, I got caught but I don’t really see how I have done anything wrong” before. It was as if cheating were the norm for them and an accepted form of behavior.

Seventy million strong, Generation Y, also known as the Millennium generation, comprise those persons born from 1980 to about 1990, which places the oldest members of this segment at or near 27. This isn’t a traditional span of years for a generation (for example, the baby boomers were born from 1946 through 1964), but changes in society are accelerating changes in people.

It would be erroneous to paint an entire generation with the same brush. For instance, there are many signs that this group is volunteering in large numbers and might be more spiritually attuned than its previous generation. However as with all generations, there are some general characteristics that might apply.

This is the most pampered and accommodated generation in history. They expect to achieve and to achieve quickly. They will change jobs an average of seven times and change career paths four times. Their attention span is shorter than previous generations.

They are more comfortable in the virtual world and their soft interpersonal skills are lacking. They have grown up in an environment of situational ethics, the abdication of responsibility, and moral ambiguity. For example, their parents’ car radar detection devices communicate the message that “It’s not wrong to do wrong; it’s only wrong to get caught.”

They’ve seen their parent’s jobs outsourced, their companies downsized, and entire industries eliminated at home altogether. Their loyalty to the organizations that employ them is minimal to non-existent. They accept positions with the thought that they will leave after they’ve learned what they need to know to qualify for the next position. They believe their jobs merely exist to provide the financial means for what they want out of life. They expect others to value their opinions and act upon them immediately.

Most will live good lives, be law-abiding citizens, and contribute to society. However, as with all previous generations, a proportional (how much remains to be seen) percentage will be involved in fraud and you’re going to have to interview them. Bottom line – that interviewee is going to be different from what you’ve dealt with in the past and you’ll need to be prepared and adjust. The conduct of the interview itself might be different from those in the past.

This difference will be a result of two factors: their socialization views, and technological knowledge. First, let’s look at socialization. In the past, generally speaking, most individuals who had committed wrongful acts still had a sense of right and wrong. But a generation that has been raised to believe that ethics are defined by the situation and right and wrong is relative to their own interpretations probably isn’t going to have the same sense of guilt or shame that motivated wrongdoers in the past with previous generations to “make things right.”

Consequently, you’ll be able to move Gen Yers toward compliance if you know they could be rationalizing their behavior and want to shift the blame. And they could be persuaded to confess if you present indisputable findings. For example, the young men in the opening case confessed after I showed them that neither man had made a grading error when a correct answer was mistakenly graded as incorrect.

Also, because this generation is more visually oriented, I believe you’re going to have to “show things” to the interviewee – PowerPoints, video clips, computers, animation – to capture the interviewee’s attention and influence behavior.

Gen Yers are now becoming interviewers in greater numbers. They don’t need to adjust their methods much because they’re interviewing “their own.” (Of course, Gen Yers soon will begin interviewing Gen Zers and beyond!) But all other interviewers in the second, third, or fourth quarters of their careers will have to adjust, and do so quickly. As I study the subject, I’ll share my findings and observations. Two excellent reads in this area are both by Eric Chester: “Getting Them to Give a Damn” and “Employing Generation Why.”

Whether you agree or disagree with my observations on this topic, I would love to hear from you.

FROM THE CLASS 

In a recent session of the ACFE’s “Interviewing for Auditors” seminar, a participant said, “Within the context of the audit-related interview, I want to learn more about being in control of the interview.”

In an interview, the amount of power or control you have is in direct relationship to your ability to elicit a response. The competent interviewer wants the ability to have “power to” as opposed to “power over” the interviewee. Having power over someone, known as positional or situational power, results from occupying a position in society; it’s the lowest level of power and bestowed upon you by someone else. Obviously, if someone gave the power to you then someone can take it away.

Additionally, positional power is only as viable as all the societal parties involved agree. For example, there was a time when teachers had positional power in the schools. Students obeyed their directions and responded respectfully (outwardly anyway) to efforts to educate them. Today, teachers are fearful for their physical safety and the threat of suits. Students no longer adhere to the idea of positional power for teachers within the educational environment. Interviewers who depend on their positions, instead of their abilities, for success within interviews are in for a steady diet of disappointment.

“Power to” is the ability within the interview to influence the behavior of the interviewee through communication talents. Another person doesn’t grant you this power and can’t take it away. Wherever you go, it goes with you. It’s the ability to question; to be attuned to verbal, vocal, and nonverbal behavior; and to present the appropriate compliance-gaining theme based upon an astute evaluation of the totality of the situation. Having the “power to” requires individual effort; study; and thorough, self-evaluated experience. Any good interviewer can, through concerted effort, become a consummate interviewer who has the “power to.”

RECOMMENDED READING 

The excellent book, “Anderson on Advocacy” provides principles that you can easily apply to interviewing. The author, Carol Anderson, is a clinical professor of law at Wake Forest University. If your reading time is limited, read Chapter 6 – Direct Examination, and Chapter 10 – Cross Examination. Though these two forms of interviews occur in public forums, the communication and tactical information in these chapters work just as well in any interview.

Remember, that I’m always happy to hear from you, field your questions, and exchange information about our shared fascination with the interview process. 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.   

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners assumes sole copyright of any article published on www.Fraud-Magazine.com or ACFE.com. Permission of the publisher is required before an article can be copied or reproduced.