The WI Blog

Interviewing -- The Correct Definition

2011-08-03T20:28:00.000-07:00

The most spot-on definition would be Conversations.

Really, that is what they are if done properly. We’ve all had to endure interviews for various and sundry reasons in our lives. Sometimes they felt more like an interrogation and others a shallow attempt at “getting to know us.” Either way, we probably left the meeting feeling more than a bit dissatisfied and maybe even cheated. As a professional investigator I believe that the interview is the most important aspect of the entire investigative process. Without that special interchange with subjects, witnesses, etc. what do you really have? Not much. There is no other way to collect the facts, even those with a tinge of embellishment, in order to create an accurate picture of incidents. If the picture is “off” then a solid finding and/or recommendation cannot be made with any assurance. The interviewer has just damaged his/her best tool.

Granted that some people are not quite as skilled at small talk and chit-chat as others. Certain interviewers, while they may be very competent in their jobs, can be intensely focused and often do not realize the benefit of slowing down and taking time to well, actually converse. By their very nature interviews are designed to elicit information - whether it be simple question and answer mode or exploratory style where seemingly irrelevant facts/opinions/observations uncover a treasure trove of information as responses ripple out from the inquiry and expand to include everything but the proverbial kitchen sink.

As with social conversation (one only need refer to Jane Austen) so much is gleaned from what is not said directly or inferred and always at (by today’s standard) a glacial pace. Patience is certainly a virtue in this instance.

Jane Cracraft writes in the May/June 2011 issue of P.I. Magazine that “Conducting a Great Interview” starts with manipulating the physical environment of the gathering. The writer also suggests what to do in controlling not just the pace of the interview but guiding an unfocused witness and calming a suspicious or nervous witness through observation of body language.

Jane and I agree that in today’s world (and I must add especially in the workplace) most persons do not have anyone who truly listens to them or pays attention. Of course, we all pay attention (now, for the wrong reason) when they formalize a complaint and we as investigators and employers MUST listen to them. Not very proactive, is it.

The Short End of the Wishbone

2011-01-27T11:01:00.000-08:00

My dear friend Marge collects stuff—not lots of ridiculous stuff (OK, maybe the pigs)—but silly things that come in handy for entertainment purposes on special occasions such as New Year’s Eve like her collection of chicken wishbones. Mind you, we all had had at least one glass of bubbly under our belts by the time Marge proffered her fowl souvenirs and suggested we make our wishes for the New Year before turning to our closest neighbor in the room and snapping the wishbones. Giggling and goofy though we felt at the moment, we did as Marge instructed. To make sure everyone could join in this frolic, I was assigned to play roving wishbone snapper. You would think that snapping with more people would give more opportunities to end up with the long end of the wishbone. Statistically, I did have more opportunities. Sadly, after three separate “snaps” with three different people, I always ended up with the short end of the wishbone. My sister-in-law, the shrink, suggested that I might want to change my wish for better odds.

Since I have a tendency to bring ideas and concepts I experience anywhere back to the workplace arena, I couldn’t resist considering the lesson of the wishbone. Specifically, I wonder if during performance reviews/evaluations employees and their reviewers/evaluators feel that they are holding onto a wishbone. Both parties have a wish for what they would like to see happen in the future. But at the end of the performance evaluation, is it possible that each of them feels that he or she has ended up with the short end of the wishbone? Should they have changed their wishes? Would it make any difference? Generally, both feel a sense of relief on that the evaluation’s over for another year. Did either or both realize the confrontation was a contest to see who had better “snapping” talent? Did either or both feel the winner?

Worrying about the size of a chicken’s dried-out breast bone after a deft snap between two opposing pinkie fingers (or thumb and forefinger) seem inane. Yet, does the concern that we are in for a period of misfortune or at least less than good fortune haunt us on some primitive level? Was I the only one wondering why the wish I had made seemed so elusive? Ultimately, a lone wishbone appeared and I was allowed one final chance to change my destiny. I did as advised, revising my original wish, and voila! I smilingly held aloft the long end of the wishbone for all to see! My friends cheered as loudly as if this underdog had won some important skirmish with fate. Now, if only I could remember the wish I had made.

SECURITY – TOO MUCH OR NOT ENOUGH?

2010-11-09T22:26:00.000-08:00

As I take my morning walk, I often over hear people talking to their walking partners. What most of them seem to be talking about concerns their work place. Granted, I pick up only snippets of conversation, but it sounds as if most early-morning walkers in my neighborhood are actually multitasking, trying to figure out what’s wrong at work, how to fix it, whether that’s even possible, and, if it’s not, how to deal with it before going crazy and having to take mental stress leave. (I’m willing to bet that in this economy most of them aren’t eager to take such leave for fear of being stigmatized as a thin-skinned weakling).

I have long contended that people prefer a work atmosphere in which they feel safe, respected, and valued and that feeling safe comes first. We want to be certain that our employers are doing everything possible to keep us out of harm’s way. This includes sustaining an atmosphere that allows employees to preserve the good reputations essential for being employable.

How can a workplace interfere with reputation and work history? Let’s say a series of thefts have been discovered at your company in your division or department. Everyone within that division or department is automatically suspect, even you. Quickly ending the resultant atmosphere of anxiety and suspicion that threatens productivity and employee flight is essential. But how? Obtaining valid proof or evidence without disrupting workflow and causing even more damaging gossip and speculation is not so easy. Investigations take time and can be intrusive. What about starting with something as simple as fingerprint analysis? Currently, many occupations and situations require fingerprinting. But what if every job were to require prints on file? How would you feel about being fingerprinted every time you were hired or even applied for a job? I am not alone in thinking that only those with something to hide would probably object. Fingerprint comparisons are not perfect and the determination of a “match” is subjective and can vary with the “evaluator”, as everyone who watches crime dramas knows. But at this time they are the closest thing we have to conclusive ID and can eliminate the innocent as well as “ping” the possibly guilty.

Now I can hear the already overworked HR department staff sobbing ever so quietly that they cannot take on one more duty with ever-diminishing personnel and budget. Out-sourced HR vendors may not even have fingerprinting capability. Well then, how about a neutral third-party professional service that not only carries out the employee printing function but also safely stores the print files?

Reliable fingerprint banking sounds like a futuristic idea. But unfortunately it is already being done haphazardly -- there is no reliable standardized platform for non-criminal fingerprint files within the country, not even among law enforcement agencies. In this concept, the “print bankers” would collect and maintain access to fingerprints, assuring greater security than storage in company’s system. The print banker also keeps current on data governance procedures and can increase vigilance as mandated with no on-site disruption. As electronic files replace paper files and technology becomes simpler to use, the appetite for stored personal information will only continue to grow and will grow rapidly, according to a leading specialist in the security world.

If by now you’re lamenting that suspicion is ubiquitous, it’s hard to trust anyone, and it’s tough to feel safe anywhere, I empathize with you. Concerning anything even remotely deemed security, our technology is advancing at warp speed. So try not to be upset about being fingerprinted for a job. When the time comes that everyone’s DNA is in a database, fingerprints will have become obsolete, supplanted by DNA as a primary identification tool. Let’s just hope that our DNA storage is as secure as a fingerprint banking service.

Everything But the Truth: The Real McCoy in Faked Fact

2010-03-17T09:02:00.000-07:00

Many companies do not screen their executives (employees) at all; resulting in serious compromise of the organization at key managers levels a staggering 20% of executives would not pass an effective due diligence background checks. Issues ranging from no degree earned to bribery, corruption, money laundering, racketeering, kickbacks, and major conflict of interest, even running competing companies abound at the executive (and other) levels. ~Candice Tal, CEO Infortal Worldwide~ August 28, 2009

Entrepreneurism is a fascinating concept. Every fresh idea, good or bad, was probably inspired by a real need, which brings me to introduce William Schmidt. His company, CareerExcuse.com, exists for the sole purpose of creating fake job references for job candidates too fearful of having the truth be told.

Fearful of a bad reference from a former employer? Whisk away that fear with a wave of Mr. Schmidt’s magic wand. The altruistic Mr. Schmidt states that in creating his company he was only responding to the need expressed by Facebook and Twitter contributors for bogus references. Now, one need for bogus references may inspire your sympathy. Who among us has not felt frustrated, desperate, and depressed when we have found ourselves in that Catch-22 position of not being considered for a job opening due to our lack of experience and unable to gain experience because no one would hire us.

After 25 years in the workforce, I thought I’d heard just about everything on how to work one’s way up the hiring eligibility list. In this great country, however, there’s always something new and shocking or at least ethically questionable. I am confident that legal professionals view CareerExcuse as exposing itself to claims of fraud and misrepresentation (can’t we just say he lied?). Perhaps Schmidt has already sought legal advice on how to protect himself with disclaimers. But, really, should even a cleverly worded document protect him from legal action? I am relieved that Schmidt’s high standards require him to refuse offers for jobs in the health care industry. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to know that my physician has passed the medical boards and that his medical license is legit.

What really makes me chuckle is Schmidt’s assertion that, before crafting his encomiums, he reviews criminal backgrounds and histories. I should like to know exactly how he performs these reviews. As any ethical (and licensed) investigator will tell you, published criminal histories are not consistent from county to county, much less from state to state. Even big-time federal law enforcement agencies bemoan the fact that their database information is often incomplete or out of date. Just supposing that Schmidt’s screening is limited to on-line services; his information is far from complete and hardly constitutes due diligence in background evaluation of a prospective candidate. Of course, Schmidt’s search for past criminality would fail to include the crime he is himself abetting. My qualms about Schmidt’s level of service are easily exacerbated by the thought that he faces competitors offering the same service…I’ve been too nervous to check.

Ideally, a bad reference is something that should be discussed with the recruiter, giving the job candidate an opportunity to explain details of that particular work experience. Surprisingly, that discussion may sometimes pique the interest of the interviewer when seeking a special job talent or curiosity about the candidate’s problem-solving style.

Since early childhood, we have been encouraged to telling the truth and generally for good reason. It is far more difficult to remember the details of a fabricated “fact” or story than to recall the truth. Being honest speaks to the basic character of a person. If you lie, what else would you do on that list of the Seven Deadly Sins? OK, so they’re not all deadly, but I like to know I am part of a team with colleagues whose moral standards are not compromised from the get-go. If they outright lied to get the job will they continue a style of prevarication to clients, customers, and co-workers? Can a colleague who lies in one instance ever be trusted?

Am I the only person bothered by this new trend that scoffs at truth?

Lay-Offs and Pay-Backs

2009-11-09T13:38:00.000-08:00

• If you are serving people you don't like to be with and are not getting paid, that is insanity.
• If you are serving people you enjoy being with but are not getting paid, that is give-back.
• If you are serving people you don't like to be with but are getting paid, that is work.
• If you are serving people you enjoy being with and are getting paid, that is fun.
- ¬ Larry Stybel, Stybel Peabody Lincolnshire -

Yes, businesses are still freaking out and sending notices of staff stripping leaving only the tired and angry behind. When it comes time to build the business back up I wonder who will be hired - the untrained and the inexperienced to a great degree. What are the chances that these employees are going to contribute heavily to the productivity level and company profits? While I have only interviewed lay-off causalities in the fields of software sales and banking to date, I believe their perspectives to be very representational across a wide swath of industries.

So let’s take a look at what happens with lay-offs or even just the threat of lay-offs. Every employee of every business other than a sheltered workshop (they have iPhones too) knows that the Economy is ailing and no one is spending money which makes matters worse for the bottom line. Lay-offitis is much like a contagious disease, everyone worrying if they will come down with it next. All levels of management take to acting “funny.” Employees flock to various gossip web sites to find out the latest murmurings. Nobody can actually put their finger on it but something is amiss and the atmosphere has changed. Humbly, I know nothing of chemistry or physics but I sure know when the energy of a place has taken a nosedive or is on high alert. Most humans in the workplace can detect such changes. People may look busy but they thinking: “should I be scared, worried, threatened or stay in deep denial?” This state of high anxiety can go on for weeks before any hint is given to the rank and file, the drones that support the company’s basic structure. Finally, on a Friday afternoon some overpaid executive will drop a bomb about can’t-be-avoided lay-offs and cloak it in a veil of equality with that completely dishonest BS about “we’ll all get through this together.” Possibly, but drone will be on-line applying for a claim and overpaid boss won’t. What rankles the laid-off employee most? The knowledge that those in charge weren’t honest enough to give staff a “heads up” six weeks ago when maybe they could have at least looked around for then job openings or taken that week of vacation still due them from 2008. Meanwhile, overpaid boss is also trying to rationalize his/her own value to the company and board of directors. But, what’s with the big secret? Why can’t employees be advised early of the delicate financial position of their employer? Every company’s website brags about their firm’s commitment to transparency in communications but few will adhere to that notion when the earned bucks are tighter.

Back to Black Friday afternoon…the axe just fell and there is blood but perhaps not too much at this point. Those who aren’t dazedly limping out to their means of transport are gossiping up a storm at the local T.G.I.F. (or the W Hotel for the super-sized talents). There are also some who with a dark heart, decide not to leave with nothing to show for their time under overpaid boss. Hmm, what to take…such panoply of choices…lists – files – documents of all shapes, sizes and confidentiality levels. How about going to the various venting web-sites and entering juicy office gossip or better yet, proprietary information? That’ll show ‘em! Perhaps short-lived and about as smart as shooting oneself in the foot, but pay back can feel good and is so easy to rationalize.

What’s an employer to do? Well, for starters let’s rewind just a bit to 2009 BL (before layoff-itis) and look at the Policies and Procedures. Yes folks, it is the Big P&P of Prevention, that little booklet (it does not have to be a tome) outlining how a business keeps itself safe and its information secure. Everybody received and signed one and as they boarded the corporate ship. Yet, when was the last time anyone even consulted the P&P, monitored its enforcement or amended any changes? Didn’t Marilyn used to do that…or was it Jason? They are both gone now and the memos outlining mandated updates have piled up in her/his old office. Knowing the P&P, evaluating if they are at all relevant and enforcing them in a timely fashion could cut short the evil deeds of some recently laid off employees. The external, unbiased investigator to the rescue!

As a final thought, none the new bare-bones staff had time for an H1N1 flu shot …oh oh.

All's Fair in Job-Hopping

2009-07-20T16:51:00.000-07:00

I am gazing off at nothing in particular, enjoying a morning cup of coffee away from the computer and the files that need attention. Without any effort on my part, another subject of interest piques my curiosity (and ears) thanks to two young women who seat themselves at the next table aligned in a cozy position (too close). I do not turn to get a better look but it’s rather obvious from the tone of their conversation that one party is stressed out and seeking advice from the other party.

Here’s the gist of it:

Young Professional (YP) is about to interview for a job that very day. She is excited about this new job although she is already employed. The prospective employer has requested information from YP… information that she is in a quandary to provide. {Their voices lower for a few moments and I cannot get all of the details without falling out of my chair} As the caffeine kicks in, YP states to soothing listener that she really, really would like this new position but she doesn’t feel good about the confidential and proprietary information the new employer wants. {From here on, I am paraphrasing with latitude}. “There’s a lot of competition out there for jobs and y’know, if I don’t give them what they ask for, gee, someone else will. I don’t feel good about it but if it comes down to me and another applicant, I just might say the hell with it. Besides, I don’t have to tell them everything – how would they know? {heavy sigh} I haven’t decided for sure yet, but if they get pushy about it, well…….it is a fantastic chance!” {laughing} “ I wouldn’t even have to actually steal anything, just a few clicks with the phone (oh, that isn’t stealing? – my mental retort) and I could fluff up my portfolio.”

Ethics and professional standards of conduct aside, I can sympathize with YP, still wondering how she will feel about working for an employer who is basically an extortionist. Maybe this quasi-legitimate business practice is now quite common. If YP does succumb to new employer demands, what damage might she leave in her wake regarding former employer (and the employees who were once her colleagues)? When word gets back to former employer (and it always does) what happens to YP’s reputation? Given the advent of instantaneous communication, YP could become an instant heroine or be reviled as someone with deviant standards…or both. Is it my boomer mentality and me or is something seriously messed up with business practices today? Values are values regardless of generational work habits. Granted, not every candidate out there would even consider wavering on the issue of intellectual theft in exchange for a (seemingly) good job offer. I guess what bothered me more than YP’s consideration of the act was the fact that her friend wasn’t appalled by it and said as much.

Many staffing specialists would probably express ambivalence about YP’s choices:

“…I think YP is walking a very fine tight rope when she is thinking of disclosing [confidential or proprietary] information pertinent to her last position. It will certainly come back to haunt her….” Marion Sayers, Assistant Manager/Staffing Specialist, Palo Alto Staffing Services

For me, integrity isn’t a fashion accessory worn as the season’s styles dictate, or maybe it is now.

That’s me…honest!

2008-12-02T12:35:00.000-08:00

Just gleaned from the latest article regarding not-so-accurate resumes, CareerBuilder.com released results of a recent survey. The survey includes statistics about falsehoods discovered on resumes. Some favorite disputed claims include:

1. Candidate claimed to be a member of the Kennedy family
2. Applicant invented a school that did not exist
3. Job seeker submitted a résumé with someone else's photo inserted into the document
4. Candidate claimed to be a member of Mensa
5. Applicant claimed to have worked for the hiring manager before, but never had
6. Job seeker claimed to be the CEO of a company when he was an hourly employee
7. Candidate listed military experience dating back to before he was born
8. Job seeker included samples of work, which were actually those of the interviewer
9. Candidate claimed to have been a professional baseball player

Let’s be honest, we have all tweaked bits here and there, especially if a photo is involved. But outright deception? These were the most common falsehood told on a résumé:

• 38 percent of those surveyed indicated they had embellished their job responsibilities
• 18 percent admitted to lying about their skill set
• 12 percent indicated they had been dishonest about their start and end dates of employment
• 10 percent confessed to lying about an academic degree
• 7 percent said they had lied about the companies they had worked for
• 5 percent disclosed that they had been untruthful about their job title

Most employers disqualify candidates after discovering the dishonesty, however thirty-six percent still considered the candidate, even if they finally passed on hiring them. Six percent of hiring managers overlooked the "flawed résumé" and hired the applicant anyway.

How here are my favorite, if not surprising stats:

Some industries seemed to be more likely to have experience résumé fabrication. The industry reporting the most deceit is hospitality, with 60 percent of employers reporting they found lies on résumés. The transportation/utilities field and information technology follow close behind with 59 percent and 57 percent of hiring managers respectively. The industry with the fewest liars - government at 45 percent. Who’d a thunk it?!

So, the point I’m trying to make is that despite standard background screening of applicants and their resumes, a lot of junk sneaks under the wire. Depending on the status and power of the job, it may be a small blip on the radar. Nonetheless, why would anyone with half a working brain cell and the least bit of integrity lie, knowing they could be found out and canned after they had settled in?

Hmmm, ’cause they can and maybe it’s easier than telling the truth. HR and recruiters don’t have the time and often the expertise to pick out a prevaricator before they’re hired. I still contend that one of my staff from years back delicately glossed over a blank area of time on her work history. The director with final say also wondered but never questioned her about it. I firmly believe she spent that time in a facility that treated…uh…dysfunctional people. Looking back on the damage she left in her wake, I was correct.