Why A-Rod's Press Conference is Like a Bad Employee Relations Interview...

A-Rod, A-Rod, A-Rod....

Let's face it; A-Rod's performance in his press conference, after it was leaked that he used a performance-enhancing drug, is like an investigative interview you conduct where the interviewee (that's the person you're interviewing and trying to get some truth out of) talks a lot, but says very little. 

We've all been there.  For those of you who haven't had to handle a lot of employee relations issues as part of your HR/Talent role, here's how it works.  You get a report that an employee has committed some type of atrocity in your workplace, but you can't take the report at face value.  You have to confirm (or at least attempt to confirm) what happened, and that usually means talking to the accused, as well as potentially talking to witnesses who might have seen what happened.

It's called the investigative interview.  And it's a big part of every HR Pro's role in a blue collar environment like a manufacturing/processing plant or call center.  You need to do what's required on behalf of the organization, maybe even make a call to terminate.  But before you do, you need to talk to those involved.

So, you sit down with the accused and walk him through your questions.  You combine that with your notes from witnesses, and you decide what's required.  Do you terminate?  Written Warning? Coaching?  Depends on the severity of what you find....

There's just this one little hitch.  The accused refuses to properly disclose what happened.  It can happen in a variety of ways.  Today, we'll talk about the "Mark McGuire" and the "A-Rod":

--Investigation Hitch #1 - "The Mark McGuire" - this investigation decelerator occurs when the accused feels like they can make a positive statement repeatedly and evade accountability.  Something like, "I'm not here to talk about the past, I'd like to talk about the future".  Film below...

--Investigation Hitch #2 - "The A-Rod" - But wait, there's more.  When in doubt, the accused can always say they were influenced by others, didn't really know what they were doing, and failed to understand the actions they were taking.

Honk if you've seen these investigation hitches before... I know I have.  The good news is that just because someone's evading, it doesn't mean you can't take action.  You can - you have to use the data you have to make the best call for your organization, and part of the strategy is likely to tell the accused that if they don't cooperate with you, you're going to make the best call you can with the info you have - including potential termination...

Me?  I'm not here to talk about the past, I'm here to talk about the future.  I'll repeat it every time you ask the question....

Comments

[Victorio]

Great article Kris!

The examples you used are classics in anyone's field which requires investigating unacceptable employee behavior. While cooperating might not save your job, NOT being cooperative will certainly damage your reputation. That's as an important asset to protect, especially in today's job market.