Implicit Interrogation Tactics

In the workplace, we use formal interrogations as components of investigations to determine whether or to what extent organizational policy has been violated. As we discussed last time, fairness is a goal of formal interrogations. The process is sanctioned by the organization and policies govern how they're conducted. For example, the person being interrogated knows that an interrogation is underway, and the organization might even provide assistance and advice to him or her. "Interview" might be a better term for the process.

But there's another form of workplace interrogation — one for which the term "interview" fits not at all well. I call it implicit interrogation because the person interrogated — whom I've been calling "Reese" (R for Responder) is rarely aware that an interrogation is underway. In implicit interrogations, the person seeking information — whom I've been calling "Alex" (A for Asker) — takes steps to conceal the interrogation, or failing that, to conceal the objective of the interrogation. When an implicit interrogation is well executed, Reese remains ignorant of what information Alex was seeking, and indeed, unaware that an implicit interrogation is happening.

In this The essence of implicit interrogation
is deceptive inquiry into what
a person knows or doesn't knowpart of our exploration of implicit interrogation we describe seven examples of tactics and strategies the interrogator (Alex) can employ to obtain the desired information with a low probability of the respondent (Reese) recognizing that an interrogation has occurred. I'll also use the name Incident to denote the situation that is the subject of the Implicit Interrogation. By a coin flip, I determined that Alex is female and Reese male.

Choice of interrogator

Before the interrogation begins, those who seek the information must choose an interrogator. If Reese has a trusting relationship with someone among the people who want the information, then that trusted person will usually be the designated Alex. Otherwise, someone else Reese trusts will be recruited for the role of Alex.

If Reese notices that someone (Alex) with whom he ordinarily has little contact is suddenly interested in spending time together, and if Reese is aware that he knows something about the Incident, he would do well to approach with caution any conversations with Alex. Such a change in Alex's behavior could be an indicator that an implicit interrogation is underway.

Casual setting

To allay Reese's fears and to prevent him from suspecting that an interrogation is in process, Alex will choose a casual setting for their conversation — one that's familiar to Reese. The setting will be public, but it will be one in which they have "enterprise privacy" — no one from the organization is likely to be able to overhear their conversation. Examples: restaurants, cafes, or perhaps a walk outside on a nice day. Alex will adopt a casual demeanor, or she might even appear to be distracted by the scenery, the menu, or the food or drink.

Disclosing a "confidence"

By disclosing a confidence, Alex hopes to build Reese's trust in Alex. Such disclosure creates a pseudo-conspiracy between Alex and Reese. A naïve Reese will experience this conspiracy as power over Alex, because Reese would then be in a position to report to someone that Alex has disclosed the confidence. Confidences used in this way are rarely of any value. Although they might be secrets unknown to Reese, they're likely well known in the circles in which Alex travels.

Asking for advice

Alex can ask Reese for advice on a topic Reese regards as within his area of expertise. Alex might or might not actually need the requested advice — that isn't the point of the request. The point of the request is flattery. By flattering Reese, Alex hopes to further assuage any uneasiness on Reese's part.

Similarly, Alex can ask Reese to assess a situation or the performance of another person. Being asked for his views about a person or a matter not normally within his span of responsibility can induce in Reese a sense that his opinion matters, which can cause Reese to speculate that Alex respects his views and might be able to help advance Reese's career. Alex's purpose is to flatter Reese and distract him from the extraordinary nature of the interactions taking place in the context of the implicit interrogation.

Masking conversation and questions

At some point in the conversation, to elicit the information she seeks, Alex might need to ask Reese a direct question. To limit the probability that Reese might recognize that question, Alex can include it among other questions, conversation, and banter. For example, if Alex wants to know whether Don attended the afternoon session of the conference call, she might ask about Don only after asking about Cole and before asking about Ellie.

Making intentional misstatements

Maneuvering Reese into volunteering information is another technique for concealing that an implicit interrogation is taking place. One technique for doing this is to make an intentional misstatement, hoping that Reese will correct it. For example, to determine whether Don attended the afternoon session of the conference call, Alex might say, "I heard that Don was out at the client site yesterday and missed the conference call. How did it go without him?"

Changing the subject suddenly

Swift and sudden changes of subject can indicate an attempt to distract from whatever has just been said. Perhaps Alex felt that her previous statement was revealing, or perhaps Reese provided her with a piece of critical information, and she no longer needs to pursue the previous thread. Or perhaps Reese said or did something (or didn't say or didn't do something) that Alex interpreted as revealing that Reese might have grasped that an implicit interrogation is taking place. In any case, Alex probably wants to distract attention from the previous point.

Certainly there are dozens more of these ploys. Whether they work by building trust or by deception, the goal is the same: make Reese comfortable enough to tell what he knows without arousing his suspicions. Implicit interrogation is therefore at or beyond the bounds of ethical behavior. If you find yourself conducting such an exercise, reconsideration might be in order.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:

Wacky Words of Wisdom: VI

Adages, aphorisms, and "words of wisdom" seem valid often enough that we accept them as universal and permanent. Most aren't. Here's Part VI of a collection of widely held beliefs that can be misleading at work.

Effects of Shared Information Bias: I

Shared information bias is the tendency for group discussions to emphasize what everyone already knows. It's widely believed to lead to bad decisions. But it can do much more damage than that.

Contribution Misattribution

In teams, acknowledging people for their contributions is essential for encouraging high performance. Failing to do so can be expensive. Three patterns of contribution misattribution are especially costly: theft, rejection/transmigration, and eliding.

Seven Planning Pitfalls: III

We usually attribute departures from plan to poor execution, or to "poor planning." But one cause of plan ineffectiveness is the way we think when we set about devising plans. Three cognitive biases that can play roles are the so-called Magical Number 7, the Ambiguity Effect, and the Planning Fallacy.

Gaslighting Project Teams

To gaslight people is to convince them to reject their own observations and believe what you want them to believe. Gaslighting corrupts project management as surely as it destroys romantic relationships. Here are some early indicators of gaslighting.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info