Spoken Lies, Verbal Clues…
Uncover workplace lies.
We hear quite a bit about body language and true intent. Often cited research by Albert Mehrabian suggests roughly 55% of communication is non-verbal (see “Silent Messages“).
That in itself is a fascinating subject, but what of that other 45%? And specifically, what about the spoken rather than the written word?
We often assume the guilty party’s words will be aligned with intent – so we may not really listen.
In the rush to understand true intent and subterfuge, we often assume what is said by a guilty party in defensive encounters has little value. And therefore we are primed to largely ignore many statements in fact finding encounters.
Simply stated, people are lying to us and to uncover workplace lies we should discount whatever we hear. Falsehoods are useless except as “gotchas”.
This takes on a new urgency when we are charged with investigating workplace misdeeds. Is that employee telling us the truth or feeding us a line? When money is concerned, the stakes increase.
But what if I told you that those words may in fact aid you in much the same way that unconscious body language cues do? Statements pleading innocence may be the very keys to determine guilt.
I want to cover two examples of this issue that often get less attention than they deserve. The first deals with ‘closeness‘ of wording to the individual speaking. The second with ‘timing‘ of the events involved in a remembered event.
What I like about these flags is their subtle nature, and that is the key to leveraging them.
Closeness & Timing Tell A Story
Often in fraud investigation we focus on very big items. Were OATHS made by the individual in question? Did the suspect refuse to PLACE BLAME? Did the they seek to DISCOUNT the illicit action or JUSTIFY the unattributed fraudulent event?
But these examples below don’t jump out at you. And for that reason they are particularly helpful, because they are far more likely to be encountered, specifically because they are so unremarkable.
Distance & Truth
There is a feature at work here in an interview that I will steal from linguists specializing in marketing analysis. Because advertising is all about manipulation, these folks are very good at understanding human psychology.
When these advertising experts evaluate a test subject’s response to an idea (perhaps a new product or revised messaging), they are looking for that subject’s connection to the idea.
What they want to see is a high connection rate. What they seek to avoid is a subject’s intentional or unintentional distancing from the idea being presented. Distance equals a lack of connection, and a lack of connection means a lack of interest. No interest, no revenue.
Applied in the context of selling an idea, it is called “distancing language“. So, summarized, it is the evaluation of how invested that individual is in the marketing message.
Now let’s turn that idea on its head for a moment. What if what you and I want is to identify distancing for a very different purpose. Our goal is to maximize the opportunity for distancing through careful questioning. We can use these concepts for fraud related activities.
Best Widgets
Consider the distancing concept in language related to a fictitious small cap business called Best Widgets Inc. At this corporation which employs roughly 100 people, a top executive is believed to be stealing from the company.
Best Widgets Inc. is a small, tightly knit company whose founder has a big personality.
This family founded and run operation is very close. And employees feel much like a family. In fact, many of the key positions are held by relatives of the founder.
That founder, Janet, is a big personality at work and closely identified with everything about Best Widgets. She is well liked.
Still, the operation does utilize some professional management. It is one of those professional managers who you believe is running a sales falsification scheme with the dual purpose of padding their numbers and siphoning cash from the business.
Because of the many family employees and nature of the founder, the company culture stresses loyalty. While that can often lead to corporate abuse as employees ‘meet expectations’ whatever the legalities, in this case we can use that fact to our advantage.
Imagine each of the following statements is from a fact finding interview. Both are spoken by the same suspect. Here is the first.
“No one here would steal from Best Widgets. They are like family.”
And here is our alternative response. Again, same question, same suspect.
“I would never steal from Janet or Best Widgets. They have been like family to me.”
Which version would hold more weight with your evaluation of the truthfulness of the suspected respondent?
My gut reaction here is the second one. And I bet it is yours too. Why?
Because it personalizes the oath. The speaker takes personal responsibility for the claim via “I would never” and “like family to me.” Those personalizing aspects make the statement a comparatively more meaningful violation, if it is a lie, compared to the first answer.
So Pronouns Determine Guilt?
Can you hang your hat on this difference and realize your ‘gotcha’ moment? Absolutely not.
However, this is an example of listening carefully for the distancing, or lack thereof, in the speaker’s word selection to gain potential insights. Combined with knowledge about the culture of the business, you can get insights that you might otherwise miss.
Corporate culture impacts employee attitudes, it makes sense it will impact their statements too.
For instance, imagine the same answers in a company with high turnover, a history of extensive layoffs, and a general “every man for himself” culture.
Would the use of “I” and “me” carry the same weight?
Possibly, but quite possibly not. If the general vibe is one of detachment and distancing by all employees, the choice of words may not be as meaningful. You have to know your environment.
While context is EVERYTHING, what is also interesting in our example is by the letter of the law of many fraud interviewing techniques, BOTH denials meet the general threshold for being clear and forthright.
Yet, even so, one stands above the other in sense of connection, distance, or even truthfulness. It is a subjective process, a single possible datapoint.
Past, Present, Future
When evaluating the spoken word, a more secondary but still IMPORTANT framework is the use of verb tense. To uncover these workplace lies, consider that as an individual steps into their lie, they are much more likely to speak in the present tense about these fictionalized events, rather than the past tense.
PAST or PRESENT TENSE VERBS and WHEN a shift occurs can aid in uncovering deception.
As Dr. Paul Clikeman states, “describing past events using the present tense suggests that people are rehearsing the events in their minds.” (“The 10 Tell Tale Signs of Deception”, Fraud Magazine, Vol.27 No.1).
This suggests that an unexpected shift in tense may be leveraged to uncover workplace lies. It can indicate where we have veered into the world of make-believe in a story or alibi.
Ghost Vendors
Consider the example below in a case of a ghost vendor set up by an accounts payable clerk. The fictional company they reference is “XYZ LLC“, and it is designed to have a confusingly similar name to a real vendor, “XYZ Corp“.
This is done to minimize the risk of discovery during cursory audits of authorized vendor lists or payments made. The employee pockets any payments by the company to the ghost vendor.
Below is the suspected employee’s narrative of the bill payment process for a particular invoice that was flagged during an audit. This explanation would occur during the interview phase of an investigation.
- I received an invoice from XYZ in the daily mail.
- I entered XYZ’s invoice into our AP System.
- That system automatically assigned an internal reference number for settlement and journal entry tracking.
- Next, I printed the vendor a check, and since it was more than $5,000, it has to go to the department vice president for signature.
- He signs the check.
- I then mailed the check to XYZ LLC at the address of record.
The shift above is obvious. “He signs the check” should be “He signed the check”.
But of course, the vice president never saw the check because this control might have quickly kicked in when he asked specifics about the non-existent services provided.
Our clerk forged the signature and cashed the check.
This approach sounds nuanced, but it really isn’t that difficult. A careful listener in the interview will pick up on such things almost immediately.
In short, the flow just doesn’t sound right, does it? Read it aloud if you doubt me. Your ears will catch it and once made aware of this trigger, your mind will circle back.
While small and quiet, these examples utilizing DISTANCE and TENSE are something to note during your next investigation. What might be meaningless on an isolated basis and easily missed, could be a breakthrough when considered as a whole with other investigative tools.
The material presented here is opinion not absolute guidance. Investigations are by their very nature complex and unique. Nothing in this article should be categorically relied on for investigative purposes.