Formal interrogation in the workplace usually occurs only in connection with investigations of transgressions of some sort — negligence or violations of organizational policy, to cite two examples. The objective of a formal interrogation is a compilation of the facts of the case to inform any decisions with regard to the future status of those who have allegedly transgressed. In a formal interrogation, all parties involved are aware that an interrogation is underway, and the organization might even offer assistance or advice to those being interrogated or those suspected of having transgressed. And to ensure fairness, the information sought in formal interrogations includes both the incriminating and the exculpatory.
Implicit interrogation is something else altogether.
Implicit interrogations differ from formal interrogations in three important respects: objectives, openness, and fairness. In what follows, to avoid using the rather cumbersome terms Interrogator and Interviewee, I'll use the names Alex (for "asker") and Reese (for "responder"), respectively. By a coin flip, I designated Alex as female, and Reese as male.
- In implicit interrogation, Alex has in mind that a transgression has taken place, or might take place. She then undertakes an information-gathering exercise that includes interviews of multiple people, with a goal of confirming her hypothesis. Compared to formal interrogations, implicit interrogations are therefore less likely to uncover exculpatory information, because the interrogators aren't looking for it. Moreover, when interrogators in implicit interrogations do find exculpatory information, they sometimes reject it or cover it over. This filtering might be malicious, but more likely it's the result of a confirmation bias.
- But the goalsImplicit interrogations differ
from formal interrogations in
three important respects:
objectives, openness, and fairness of implicit interrogations might be much broader. Alex might be seeking information related to internal political issues, such as the plans or intentions of political rivals, the structures of political alliances, the leanings or inclinations of influential people, or any information that could defame or debilitate her political rivals. Implicit interrogations that have political goals are rarely commissioned by the organization — political actors undertake them for political purposes. And they want to remain undetected.
- Formal interrogations are open in the sense that the people interrogated are aware that an interrogation is occurring. They know that the interrogation is part of an investigative process that has an architecture defined by organizational policy. Indeed, that policy typically requires that anyone subjected to questioning be informed that an investigation is underway.
- Implicit interrogations aren't open in that sense. In an implicit interrogation, Alex doesn't inform Reese that an investigation is underway. Reese might know from other sources that an investigation — formal or informal — is taking place, but he can't be certain that the questions Alex is asking are related to any investigation. He can't even be certain that Alex has any investigative role at all. To Reese, Alex's questions might appear motivated by innocent curiosity, if Alex is clever enough about how she asks the questions.
- Because the implicit interrogation lacks openness, Alex must take care not to behave in any way that would alert Reese to the true purpose of the questions she asks him. If Reese begins to suspect that an implicit interrogation is taking place, he might become cautious or defensive in his responses, and that might limit Alex's ability to gather the information she seeks. The tactics Alex uses to conceal her true agenda, and the tactics Reese might use in his own defense — are topics for future posts.
- Formal interrogations, and indeed the entire investigations of which they might be components — are designed to uncover truth. To accomplish this, they must be fair to all concerned. An implicit interrogation that's a preliminary to a formal investigation is likely to be fair, because the interrogator expects the results of the interrogation to be reviewed by people who intend to conduct a fair investigation.
- But many implicit interrogations are informal affairs that are designed to cause political trouble for political rivals, or to gather information about someone targeted for termination or career disruption. Those who conduct implicit interrogations of this category aren't interested in fair results. Their interest lies in finding results that they can use to advance a pre-determined agenda.
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? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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 Devious Political Tactics:
- Devious Political Tactics: Divide and Conquer, Part I
- While most leaders try to achieve organizational unity, some do use divisive tactics to maintain control,
or to elevate performance by fostering competition. Understanding the risks of these tactics can motivate
you to find another way.
- Failure Foreordained
- Performance Improvement Plans help supervisors guide their subordinates toward improved performance.
But they can also be used to develop documentation to support termination. How can subordinates tell
whether a PIP is a real opportunity to improve?
- Behavioral Indicators of Political Risk
- Avoiding dangerous political interactions is easier if you know what to look for. Among the indicators
of possible trouble are the behaviors of the people around you.
- 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.
- Narcissistic Behavior at Work: I
- Briefly, when people exhibit narcissistic behavior they're engaging in activity that systematically
places their own interests and welfare ahead of the interests and welfare of anyone or anything else.
It's behavior that threatens the welfare of the organization and everyone employed there.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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 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.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.