Interrogation -- A Dirty Word?

Interrogation, as a word, is not a bad word. In my world, that of a former federal law enforcement and counterintelligence agent, including time spent as a CIA Polygraph Examiner, it connotes the art and science of getting someone to tell you something that they may have sworn to their higher power that they would never tell anyone. Certainly, things that could be embarrassing, but also things that could result in the loss of liberty (like jail) or the loss of a job (like getting fired) or the loss of money (like restitution, civil fines, or lawsuits).

I used to openly use the term "interrogation" in sales literature and in conversations with clients and prospective clients. I find myself doing so less and less and less because of what people THINK when they hear the term.

Interrogations, that is, the kind of complex interviews where truthful and accurate confessions of wrong-doing are most often the sought-after reward, especially when conducted in a corporate and business environment, MUST be conducted in a corporate-friendly manner. This may seem like a no-brainer, but there have been many a prospective corporate client who is concerned about what types of "interrogation techniques" would be utilized on their employees.

Interrogation, as a word, now conjures up images of water boarding, bright lights, violence or threats of violence, in-your-face yelling, and psychological warfare. Properly conducted corporate-friendly interrogations are none of these.

So now, those of us who conduct corporate investigations to ferret out employee and vendor malfeasance, must come up with a different way to say "interrogation" so we do not offend the casual observer or give the impression of anything other than a completely professional and above-board interview session on behalf of a corporate client.

I, for one, am GLAD to do so. I do NOT want anyone, not a client, not the subject of such an interview -- NO ONE AT ALL -- to get the wrong impression. In truth, many of the people that I have (I will use the old term here) "interrogated" for a corporate client often returned to work because not all were fired or prosecuted or sued.

So here is the rub. What should we call it, this formerly acceptable word with a bad reputation?

It is a bit wordy, but I now find myself referring to interrogations as [take a deep breath here] "complex, truth-seeking, interviews." Then I go on to explain that there is an art and a science (sound familiar?) to the technique of a specially designed interview that has the intent to make it as easy as possible for someone to provide the accurate and truthful responses that often result in confessions or admissions of wrong-doing.

In a corporate investigation, it is not uncommon to have little or no evidence and to be able to "close" the investigation based upon one or more confessions. So these complex, truth-seeking, interviews become an integral part of the investigation. It is one thing to know how to properly DO it. Apparently, it is also important to know how to SAY it.