As we saw last time, interviews — non-accusatory question-and-answer sessions — provide a means for investigators to uncover truth even when the person being interviewed is intent on deception. Here are four more techniques for detecting lies.
- Excessive certainty
- To compensate for a feeling that the interviewer might be closing in on Truth, or to hide the deceiver's uncertainty from the interviewer, the deceiver can project an air of certainty. But presenting just the right degree of certainty can be tricky for someone who's spinning a yarn. Sometimes deceivers overshoot.
- Most of us can't be really certain about very much. Some deceivers stand out because they deliver material with conviction beyond what might be considered typical of a truth teller, or typical for that particular deceiver.
- Red herring
- The red herring is a diversion technique intended to turn the interviewer in a direction the deceiver considers safe. For instance, in response to "Just how much over budget do you think you'll be?", a deceiver using a red-herring response might discuss the budget performance of other projects.
- Some red herrings are combined with attacks on rivals or already-established scapegoats. For example, the deceiver can use a red herring to lead the audience to conclusions that harm the audience's rivals. Since most audiences would find such material enticing, this form of red herring can be very effective. A first use of the red herring response is a warning sign; a second use must be dealt with directly.
- Consistency becomes increasingly difficult to achieve for deceivers interviewed multiple times, facing multiple interviewers, over a number of sessions, spread over time.
- One escape remains for deceivers who exhibit inconsistencies. They can claim that inconsistencies are due to "rapid evolution of the situation." That is, they might say that new information has come to light, creating the inconsistency. To defend against this, compress the interview's time scale until it's much shorter than the time scale of changes in the situation. Even better, freeze all activity in the environment under review.
- Halting presentation
- As the interview proceeds, possibly across multiple Consistency becomes increasingly difficult
to achieve for deceivers interviewed
multiple times, facing multiple
interviewers, over a number of
sessions, spread over timesessions and multiple interviewers, lie piles on lie. Some deceivers then begin having difficulty keeping straight in their minds what they told to whom and when. Spinning new lies then becomes more challenging than merely creatively constructing simple tales. It's now necessary to construct tales that are at least somewhat consistent with previous tales.
- When this happens, mental resources are required for both consistent tale construction and fluent speech. Only the most facile liars can marshal these resources. And even for them, extending the interview, swapping out one interviewer for another, and stretching the interview over longer periods, can saturate the deceiver's ability to creatively match new lies with old. The result is an increasingly halting presentation.
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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenLlYhzzWSZYpKuIyKner@ChacBeBXPQvefMvdcYAqoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Ethics at Work:
- Workplace Politics vs. Integrity
- A reader wrote recently of wanting to learn "to effectively participate in office politics without
compromising my integrity." It sometimes seems that those who succeed in workplace politics must
know how to descend to the blackest depths, and still sleep at night. Must we abandon our integrity
to participate in workplace politics?
- When You Aren't Supposed to Say: III
- Most of us have information that's "company confidential," or even more sensitive than that.
Sometimes people who want to know what we know try to suspend our ability to think critically. Here
are some of their techniques.
- Difficult Decisions
- Some decisions are difficult because they trigger us emotionally. They involve conflicts of interest,
yielding to undesirable realities, or possibly pain and suffering for the deciders or for others. How
can we make these emotionally difficult decisions with greater clarity and better outcomes?
- Counterproductive Knowledge Work Behavior
- With the emergence of knowledge-oriented workplaces, counterproductive work behavior is taking on new
forms that are rare or inherently impossible in workplaces where knowledge plays a less central role.
Here are some examples.
- Counterproductive Knowledge Workplace Behavior: II
- In knowledge-oriented workplaces, counterproductive work behavior takes on forms that can be rare or
unseen in other workplaces. Here's Part II of a growing catalog.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming May 29: Newtonian Blind Alleys: II
- Some of our decisions don't turn out well. The nature of our errors does vary, but a common class of errors is due to applying concepts from physics originated by Isaac Newton. One of these is the concept of spectrum. Available here and by RSS on May 29.
- And on June 5: I Could Be Wrong About That
- Before we make joint decisions at work, we usually debate the options. We come together to share views, and then a debate ensues. Some of these debates turn out well, but too many do not. Allowing for the fact that "I could be wrong" improves outcomes. Available here and by RSS on June 5.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenJnqkAASxOulfbczoner@ChacDYetaoWJtXGVFbsSoCanyon.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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.