Implicit Interrogations

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.

Objectives

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.

Openness

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.

Fairness

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.

Next time, we'll explore the tactics of those who conduct implicit interrogations, to learn how they avoid detection and bias their results.  Next 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.

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 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.

The Perils of Novel Argument

When people use novel or sophisticated arguments to influence others, the people they're trying to influence are sometimes subject to cognitive biases triggered by the nature of the argument. This puts them at a disadvantage relative to the influencer. How does this happen?

Why People Hijack Meetings

When as chair of a meeting, you have difficulty completing a reasonable agenda, you might be the target of a hijacking. Here's Part I of a series exploring meeting hijacking.

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: II

Narcissistic behavior at work threatens the enterprise. People who behave narcissistically systematically place their own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this Part II of the series we consider the narcissistic preoccupation with superiority fantasies.

Career Opportunity or Career Trap: I

When we're presented with an opportunity that seems too good to be true, as the saying goes, it probably is. Although it's easy to decline free vacations, declining career opportunities is another matter. Here's a look at indicators that a career opportunity might be a career trap.

See also Devious Political Tactics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 8: The New Virtual Meeting: Digressions

The bane of meetings everywhere, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, has been digressions. But there are reasons to expect the incidence of digressions in meetings to increase now. What reasons could there be, and what can we do about digressions? Available here and by RSS on April 8.

And on April 15: Incompetence: Traps and Snares

Sometimes people judge as incompetent colleagues who are unprepared to carry out their responsibilities. Some of these "incompetents" are trapped or ensnared in incompetence, unable to acquire the ability to do their jobs. Available here and by RSS on April 15.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.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

Public seminars

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.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.