Mr. Jayne discusses interviewing in the context of sexual harassment. For our purposes that context is not unlike our involvement with incident management. Both are issues that public policy has placed in its cross hairs. There are large expectations associated with the prevention of both. There is also great pressure on organizations to investigate alleged violations.

In an attempt to defeat deceit however, this article is itself deceptive. The author writes in a very straightforward and clear style. He clearly wants to accomplish an important task: help the reader understand how to conduct an interview that will make it difficult for someone to lie. He exudes a large amount of professionalism as he moves from one issue to another, writing as someone who has experience with and understanding of the subject. Yet in the end, his advice is not as convincing as his style.

The author's initial error appears in the second paragraph where he writes:

...After documenting the victim's complaint, interviewing strategies can be employed to obtain a truthful account from the alleged perpetrator..

Apparently the author has determined from the beginning that the most likely source of deceit will be the "alleged perpetrator," as opposed to the "victim," not the "alleged victim." In fact, in the very next paragraph he identifies five goals the interviewer sets for him or herself when interviewing the accused. One of those goals is to, "(c)aution the employee about any retaliation against the victim."

To be fair, the author never suggests that every "alleged perpetrator" is necessarily guilty; however, he has created a framework that dismisses any focus on possible deception by the accuser. In our world we would not start with the presumption that either are lying. We would simply "slice the bologna" with any incident witness, placing the same pressure on everyone to answer questions in an organized and detailed manner.

Mr. Jayne makes some important points regarding issues such as "commitment to denial," which are consistent with the methodology we might use when beginning an incident interview. In other words, we wouldn't begin an interview with an accused person by asking, "Did you hit Frank?" Putting an accused person who is guilty in the position of answering that question first is more likely to result in a denial, making it more difficult for the person to tell the truth at a later point in the interview.

Jayne also is quite interesting when he talks about "affirmative responses." In this case he values, as would we, many details about what happened in those moments leading up to the possible incident as the incident itself. But in this section, as in most other sections, he treats the interview as interrogation, attempting to lead the witness using closed ended questions (e.g., "Did you suggest to your secretary that the two of you should get together after work?") rather than simply asking what happened.

One area I found interesting but weak was the author's analysis of the usefulness of "provoking questions." Provoking questions are questions that will produce distinctive responses when answered by those who are guilty. He gives many examples, such as:

"When Mary says that you put your hand on her thigh, is she lying?" A truthful employee has no difficulty accusing another person of lying. Therefore, a typical truthful response to this question would be an immediate and emphatic yes.

It is psychologically difficult for a deceptive employee to accuse another person of lying when, in fact, the employee knows that the other person is telling the truth. Because of this, typical defensive responses to this question are evasive, weak, and hesitant.

Jayne not only fails to provide any research to support this assertion, it seems counter intuitive. It appears quite likely that someone who is sufficiently brash to handle another person's thigh without permission is equally likely to call that person a "liar" if confronted with that allegation.

Regardless of my criticisms, I found this article intriguing and interesting. It helped me to clarify my own understanding of interviews (not interrogations) in the context of the investigative process.