Gender Considerations in Investigative Interviews
/
Bright and early on International Women’s Day, the first session of the 2023 ACFE Women’s Summit kicked off with a conversation on gender considerations in investigative interviews. A panel of four professional fraud fighters discussed their experiences as women in the anti-fraud field and shared knowledge of how to combat biases based on gender and perception therein.
The panel consisted of moderator Lloydette Bai-Marrow, the CEO and Founding Partner of Parametric Global Consulting; Elizabeth Sherrod, CFE, the President/CEO of Sherrod Investigative Group, LLC; Weiyi Tan, CFE, LLM, CIPP, a Partner at Clyde & Co Singapore; and Leah Wietholter, CFE, the CEO & Founder of Workman Forensics, LLC. As they began, you got the impression that they could talk at length on this subject, the nuances and variations within, and their experiences as women in the anti-fraud profession.
Bai-Marrow started the conversation with an engaging question about gender preconceptions as an interviewer and how to overcome them. Wietholter stated her struggles with feeling as if she’s “already been beaten” if the interviewee is a man. She must remind herself that she has the skills and knowledge to perform her work and that she knows what she’s talking about. Tan shared how she prepares “a lot” when it comes to performing an investigation. Some members of the virtual audience shared their feedback, recommending things like “play into the preconceptions” or “take advantage of the situation.”
Bai-Marrow asked the panelists whether they pay attention to the way they dress when performing an investigation. As women, we know that the image we present is the one on which we will be judged. Sherrod shared that it had been a higher factor earlier in her career, but she still feels judged and dresses to be taken seriously. The important thing is “to look like I know what I’m talking about.” Tan shared that she dresses “accordingly” to her audience, depending on whether she’s meeting with other lawyers or a tech CEO in jeans and a T-shirt. Virtual attendees agreed, viewing jackets and their outfits as “armor” and using their dress to disarm interviewees.
When discussing how gender can shape an investigation, the consensus among the panelists was determining the goal of the investigation and doing what needs to be done to meet that goal. Regardless of whether there is an imbalance, if you are getting the information you need, keep doing what works. Sherrod shared that, on occasion, when asking interview questions to male perps, he’d turn to and answer her male partner, and she’d note the response and move on. Tan shared situations where a woman appears more comfortable sharing with her than a male colleague, and how she would take the lead in situations like that: “You have to be nimble and react.” The panelists all agreed that there were situations where a woman may be better able to get at and understand the interviewee, and other situations where a male interviewer may have more success. Recognizing this is key to a successful interview.
On the subject of safety, there was consensus across the panel to be vigilant and aware at all times. The women discussed the pitfalls and potential danger of oversharing — or sometimes sharing at all — on social media, which can expose people in the anti-fraud profession, especially during an investigation, to risks and danger they might not face otherwise. They offered insightful tips for anyone, but especially for women:
Pay attention!
Don’t ignore the innate sense you have when something isn’t right.
Recognize situations where you shouldn’t be alone and be mindful of the situation when circumstances put you by yourself.
Maintain open lines of communication with colleagues to protect yourself.
Feedback from the audience was similarly valuable:
Be mindful and trust your instincts.
Staying calm can make all the difference.
Be aware of exits at all times.
Walk with purpose.
While discussing building rapport, Wietholter was passionate in her statement: Be yourself! She went on to say that she needs to be comfortable in her own skin and what she’s wearing, and she builds rapport by being genuine rather than trying to trick or manipulate. Tan had great advice as well, suggesting that interviewers not be afraid of awkward silences — avoiding the temptation to fill the void will allow the interviewee an opportunity to frame their thoughts and respond when they’re ready. This is key to building trust and setting the mood of the interview. Sherrod echoed both thoughts, sharing that she scans for commonalities but focuses on letting them tell their story because people simply want to be heard. Bai-Marrow agreed with allowing the person to tell their story. They know you’re in charge, so you don’t have to show it. Give them space to express emotions when necessary; “your strength can be kindness and empathy.”
Bai-Marrow presented the panelists with a question regarding how they prepare for an effective interview and ensure they avoid stereotyping. Sherrod responded with an anecdote about a personal bias she recognizes in herself and that the key to overcoming them is to acknowledge the biases and know how to deal with them. Don’t let a stereotype rule the interview; recognize your biases and set them aside. Wietholter expanded on a story she previously shared, once assuming an interviewee would be “like talking to my mom,” and how that mentality inhibited her ability to get information. She went on to say it’s important to recognize yourself in the interview, how you could have found yourself in a position to do the same thing and trying to understand the reasoning. Tan said she reminds herself to keep an open mind, allow the interviewee to speak and not assume what the answer or response will be.
When discussing interviews with one or more interviewers, everyone generally agreed that two interviewers is the sweet spot. It allows one person to lead and the other to take notes, while both provide someone to bounce responses and questions off. The risks of more interviewers are the inherent step-back if someone has more experience or seniority, defaulting over strategizing, and too many notetakers creating issues later if the interview is used as evidence. Tan acknowledged that one specific experience of women are times when the other interviewer takes on a “mansplaining” role and constantly talks over, jumps in or answers your questions. These situations are a good example of when to encourage your co-interviewer to take a break in order to give your interviewee a more open opportunity to speak!
The final question came from an audience member just starting in the field. It centered around whether the panelists or any attendees had experienced verbal or physical attacks. The general agreement was that verbal attacks were far too common, but luckily, physical attacks were few and far between. However, everyone, including audience members and virtual attendees who shared their experiences, agreed that you must remain aware of the situation and stay vigilant when conducting interviews — you simply never know when you might strike a nerve and what the response to that strike will be.
