Analyze potential whistleblowers with these psychology profiles

Despite emerging technologies in evidence gathering, successful fraud investigations normally require witnesses. Typically, we don’t have the same tools to persuade whistleblowers that we may have with other types of interviewees who might have been involved in crimes. It’s unlikely that a whistleblower has engaged in unethical behavior that authorities can forgive in exchange for cooperation, and laws may prevent monetary compensation. When you make your approach, you may have less than a minute to persuade a potential whistleblower before they slam the door or hang up the phone. Do you appeal to their ideals? Stroke their ego? You might only have one chance to pique their interest, so what argument do you craft? Luckily, science can help.

Donna Youngs, Ph.D., and David Canter, Ph.D., developed a psychological profiling taxonomy, which you could use to tailor interview strategies. (See “An emerging research agenda for investigative interviewing: Hypotheses from the narrative action system,” by Donna Youngs and David Canter, Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, June 2009.) Although they initially designed their Narrative Action System (NAS) with offenders in mind, its underpinnings in general personality theory make it easily adaptable to whistleblowers.

The central premise of NAS is that we’re all the protagonists in our own stories. As we interact with the world, we give off signals that reveal the types of stories we’re creating for ourselves through our behaviors and how we speak. We can better assess witnesses’ protagonist types by researching their backgrounds and listening carefully to their words. We can then develop themes in our questioning that may make them more likely to cooperate. Applying NAS to fraud investigations, I’ve identified four types of whistleblowers: Victims, Avengers, Samaritans and Intellectuals.

Victims

A call center trains one of its customer service representatives to use deceptive and predatory sales tactics. Although the representative disagrees with these measures, they’re afraid to complain. They’re a young parent without a college education and are unlikely to find a similarly paying job elsewhere. They feel victimized by the company and forced to engage in behavior they abhor but without recourse or an exit plan.

Victims, who typically have lower seniority in organizations, disagree with their employers’ actions but have chosen to remain in their positions because they fear they’ll lose their jobs and not be able to find other opportunities.

In interviews, Victims will focus on themselves in their language, including first-person pronouns (I, me), present-tense verbs and expressions of sadness because they’re still processing their experiences (even if they’re no longer in their job roles).

Victims say they feel a lack of control over events. While they don’t agree with some workplace activities, they believe that attempting to make changes is pointless, and they may fear retaliation. Begin your pitch with Victims by recognizing their perceived lack of agency and acknowledge that, while they were upset by what they saw, they are (or were) in no position to act. You build rapport and alleviate their guilt by minimizing their roles in the malfeasances and empathize with their positions.

We can better assess witnesses’ protagonist types by researching their backgrounds and listening carefully to their words.

When you encourage them to recite their personal experiences you allow the whistleblowers some catharsis while minimizing their roles in the investigations. This grants them a sense of safety from things happening far above their pay grades. Avoid emphasizing the importance of the Victims’ information or focusing on how their cooperation is for some greater good. Self-perceived Victims are focused on themselves, and their goals in cooperating are more for their sense of relief and peace than advancing missions.

Avengers

A junior accountant at a software company calls you and explains that they were recently fired and have learned you’re investigating their former employer for engaging in channel stuffing (inflating a company’s revenues or sales immediately prior to a reporting period). They’d reported this same behavior through the company’s integrity mechanisms, but the company quickly retaliated and ultimately terminated them. They’re angry at the company’s behavior and want to help you bring it to light.

Avengers are angry. They feel their employers have mistreated them, possibly in response to speaking out about malfeasance they’ve witnessed or for refusing to compromise their morals. Avengers are likely in low- or medium-seniority positions. They may have either resigned or been terminated for, in their opinions, refusing to go along with improper behavior. Like Victims, their language will be focused on themselves but be dominated by anger rather than sadness. They’re eager to hold people accountable for their actions and may have initiated contact with investigators.

Like Victims, Avengers felt a lack of control over events at the time of the malfeasance. But, unlike the last group, Avengers fight to take control back. They may have filed complaints or spoken to their superiors. Cooperating with investigators is a way to validate they were correct all along and provides another way to gain agency over their situations.

They seek affirmation that they were wronged and want to feel as if their voices matter. Approach Avengers by sharing in their anger, validating it and then focusing those emotions on the investigations’ targets. Emphasize the importance of the witnesses’ information and explain how their assistance will ensure those responsible are held to account. Avengers have no desire to improve their organizations or fix systemic issues; they want to exact revenge for their mistreatment. Avoid appealing to more altruistic themes.

Samaritans

A source within a natural gas company suggests you speak to a senior geologist about serious safety issues. The geologist, previously an Army engineer, has spent the last 15 years at the company in progressively senior roles. Although the source believes in the company, they report that it’s engaging in serious safety violations that continue to put workers at risk. Although they believe the company has treated them well, they feel frustrated that it’s not making changes to ensure its workers are safe.

Samaritans are also mission-oriented, but their primary concerns are outward toward their subordinates, colleagues and their organizations. They may express anger or exasperation at what they perceive as improper behaviors, which offends their morals. Samaritans are likely to be mid- to senior-level executives, may have spent most of their careers in the organization and possibly have prior military or volunteer experience.

They likely raised their concerns through their chains of command but were dismissed. Their language will include more references to their peers, discussions about the importance of fair play and frustration at systemic issues that allowed bad actors to exist.

Samaritans want to see change. They may still believe in the goals of their organizations but recognize that they can’t be realized without change. They believe that people need to be held accountable, but they’re more occupied with structural changes that would prevent repetition of the situations.

You can encourage them to “do the right thing,” particularly if it protects low- and mid-level employees from becoming scapegoats. Rather than asking Samaritans to assign blame to specific individuals, you may start by asking them what processes their organizations should change to prevent recurrence. As they reveal their concerns, you can guide interviews toward the possibility that their organizations will hold bad actors accountable, ensure the truth comes out and protect employees who were just doing the best they could in difficult situations. Interviews shouldn’t be about the Samaritans. Instead start by eliciting their opinions on necessary structural changes, which you can then use as a springboard to inquire about individual bad actors.

Intellectuals

A pharmaceutical company poached a vice president of research from its major competitor to spearhead the development of a new drug. After less than a year, however, the vice president has left the company to open their own consulting business. As you begin to develop rapport, they explain to you that the company’s leadership is incompetent, and the clinical trials are destined to fail. While they have evidence the company is manipulating their data, they’re reticent about getting involved because they’ll see little personal benefit. However, they suggest that they may be willing to act as a consulting expert for a fee.

Intellectuals, like Samaritans, are focused on others. While Samaritans relate to those around them positively, Intellectuals have the opposite view. They watched the bad acts from above the fray and may have attempted to intervene, but they believe their colleagues weren’t smart enough to listen. Intellectuals are likely to be highly experienced, educated and at senior levels of their organizations.

They’re more like hired guns than true believers and may have relatively short tenures. While Avengers may be angry, Intellectuals’ overarching sentiment is contempt. They believe they have all the answers, but nobody is listening. They feel like the signs were all there, but no one (except themselves) were able to connect the dots. Their language will be self-aggrandizing, and they’ll have no problem speaking on behalf of their peers, subordinates and other subject matter experts (e.g., extensive use of “we”).

Intellectuals want to show off their knowledge, so in your interviews take on the role of an attentive student and let them educate you on relevant circumstances, politics and wider industries. Support their egos with gratefulness to encourage them to provide further details.

Intellectuals have little agency over their organizations’ actions and may have insulated themselves to make sure of that. They’re unlikely to be concerned about harm to the reputations of the organizations or their peers. However, they’re concerned about their reputations. You can possibly motivate Intellectuals to cooperate by finding ways that will personally benefit them. For example, you can explain how their association with the company may harm their professional standing, and by cooperating they inoculate themselves from future criticism. If the whistleblower isn’t averse to publicity, you may also emphasize how they’ll be framed as the hero of the story, which could lead to more demand for their expertise in their field.

With this knowledge, you can quickly pivot

These profiles aren’t exhaustive, nor will every whistleblower fall neatly into one of the four groups. But they provide starting points to craft your pitches, and they’ll test your assumptions against whistleblowers’ words and adapt them if you at first don’t persuade them. For example, your background investigation finds that a potential witness was a mid-level manager for three years before their boss terminated them after they repeatedly complained about what they felt was unethical behavior. You may begin an interview under the assumption that the potential witness is an Avenger, but then they seem uncomfortable with the thought of being dragged into the middle of the case. And when they talk about their experiences, they focus on the plight of their team. You then realize they might be a Samaritan and easily shift the theme of the interview to be about them helping you identify institutional reforms. At the same time, think about your experiences, the type of protagonist you might be and how this may influence how you interact with the type of whistleblower sitting across from you.

Whistleblowers are a vital component of many investigations, but you may have to form more complex relationships with them than traditional interviewees to manage them. You won’t have regular incentives to offer them, so you must try to understand their intrinsic motivations. The Narrative Action System provides a map for you to plan your approaches and landmarks you can correct if you find yourself off course. For more information, see the 2009 book, “Investigative psychology: Offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action,” by Canter and Youngs, John Wiley & Sons.

Andrew Thompson, CFE, is a senior investigator at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP. Contact him at athompson.ma@gmail.com.