Do you interview people and then poll them on whether they would have given different answers via different method?
Why would a five minute phone call with an HR generalist produce any different results than me driving 45 minutes to go ask her in-person?
I work for Peraton and we had town hall meeting last Thursday and they said we will be returning to the field shortly. It sounded like it wouldnât be exactly the same as pre-Covid but pretty close.
Maybe there are other factors that go into play than just âphoneâ vs. âin personâ. Maybe itâs the person youâre speaking to. Maybe itâs the demeanor of the investigator. Iâve been doing this long enough to know the difference between the two and I can truthfully say Iâve hardly noticed a difference between what individuals provide via phone vs. via in person. Phone is convenient for sure and given the nature of the job (ânational securityâ), in person would obviously be preferable by some, if not many, however, obtaining a record via fax/ phone or conducting Source interviews via phone is hardly an issue.
There are good things about working from home which are obvious. The good thing about the field is not getting all the crap cases from the whole state when my area is typically easy T3 young peiple going to the military. Plus if subjects or sources are no longer in the area you can get rid of casesâŚi miss that a lot.
I miss scheduling out extensions so much, I feel like Iâm just constantly adding items and the case never ends.
Weâre asking each Subject and Source the exact same line of questioning. Do you really believe interviewing a Subject/Source in person vs over the phone produces a better quality result or different answers?
Yes I truly do believe it makes a difference to conduct in person interviews especially when it comes to issues. Sources are much more inclined to share information in person and be more transparent than over the phone. Iâve had numerous sources advise me of this as I work many other non DCSA contracts that allow and/or require in person work.
People have actually advised me how much more professional it is to come in person and ask them the questions vs. if I were to call them. They also advise me that they are much more inclined to share details and issues about someone in person vs. someone that they donât know is a legitimate investigator over the phone.
And I havenât even mentioned being able to read body language in person, reacting to their mannerisms in person, and hesitancy to answer a question in person which I cannot see over the phone.
Next, letâs discuss records which is even a bigger concern to receive this information by fax/telephone. You really believe someone is really going to provide you all of details from an employment personnel file by fax/phone? You think they will go through the entire record and view and report to you potential discrepanct employments or developed employments that may have resulted in the Subjectâs termination? Have you ever actually reviewed an actual physical personnel file and gleamed things from the resume or previous employment applications questionnaires that reveal drug use, DUIâs, termination from jobs, etc.?? There is no way that these things are going to be provided by a record provider by phone/fax. They wonât take the time to review and donât know what they are looking for.
If the federal government really wants thoroughness and quality, the government should primarily go back to in person interview and in person record reviews especially when it comes to issues. Iâve given very valid explanations as an experienced investigator as to why in person work should never be replaced solely by telephone as it decreases greatly the quality of the work we do.
I was once told itâs all about quality of the investigation in this profession by many people in senior management and agency directors but I am surprised so many of my fellow Investigators would rather sit behind a phone and conduct Jerry Lewis telethons and then act like there is no difference in quality. Absurd!
I have specifically asked people after interviewing them what they prefer even during COVID and most people advise me they prefer an in person interview as it is more professional and they feel more inclined to share information with someone they can actually see creds and the whites of their eyes.
You need to go back and re-read my arguments since the beginning of the thread and see why Iâve advocated for in person interviews. If you can dispute those arguments, I am all ears. Otherwise Iâll chalk this experience on this thread with the commenters as Investigators that are doing a less than thorough job in regards to these investigations and are unfamiliar with what it takes to produce a high quality investigative product that the agencies actually are paying the Vendors to produce.
My concern right now is how the company that I work for is going to âroll outâ the return to the field. I am predicting that it will be âFire, Aim, ReadyââŚand a cluster for those of us trying to hit the numbers. There is no way that DCSA is going to âinvalidateâ the work of the past 2+ years that was done remotely, so there will still be the push to do remote work. If these companies had been smart and not cheap, we all would have been VTC capable with DODSAFE accounts for documents. It is all about the Benjamins to the vendors.
We have had extremely opposite experiences. I am a very good and thorough investigator and the method of contact has not changed anything. In fact, Iâve been developing more issues than ever. People will spill anything when they have the perceived anonymity of the phone.
No one is claiming fieldwork should be cancelled forever. But if Iâm trying to track down a manager who worked with my subject for seven months at McDonaldâs four years ago and barely remembers him? Should I drive 45 minutes to reserve a conference room at a library and hope and pray he actually shows up to the scheduled appointment? Or should I do a quick 10 minute phone chat? At some point, common sense has to prevail.
My experience has been the same as yours.
There are always exceptions and we should have some leeway to conduct some interviews by phone to obtain interviews with people we would not otherwise obtain if we didnât do the interview by phone. I am not advocating an abolishment of telephone interviews. I am advocating for the abolishment of telephonic interviews to resolve issues, conduct Subject Interviews, and review employment files.
Let me ask you a legitimate question about the McDonalds supervisor interviewâŚ.letâs say there were employment issues up to and including reprimands and a termination from McDonalds. Are you going to get the same information from a rushed ten minute telephone interview from the supervisor or would it be more prudent to do an interview in person and address the issues and concerns with ample time for discussion?
Pushing standard and routine telephone interviews will on many occasions (not all) provide rushed and less than thorough investigations.
Iâve never rushed an interview in any method. I call people all the time who are skeptical to participate because âI wonât be much help. I barely remember him/herâ. Iâm not going to get any extra info from those people simply by seeing them in person.
Those examples you have provided could be considered the exceptions that provide no further information than an in person interview.
Youâre the one who said it.
Sources that Investigators interview on Cases under the DCSA Contract (and the former OPM Contract) for all of the Contract Companies are definitely contacted through various methods by both the Contract Companies and the Government under âQuality Controlâ and âQuality Assuranceâ Programs.
Sources you interview are certainly contacted after you complete your part of the Investigation and they are asked what information they provided to each Investigator, the method the interview was conducted, whether the Source preferred an in-person or telephonic interview, and whether they left out or intentionally did not disclose information or details about the Subject of Investigation.
If anyone has worked in this Industry for awhileâŚthey would know that this has been a requirement for a very long time in Industry as it has always been embedded in the âService Agreement Contractsâ between each Company and with DCSA and in prior years with OPM.
The overwhelming majority of Sources preferred in-person interviews for clear reasons.
Not every source/subject is contacted for quality checks. There is no disputing the fact that the US government has saved millions of dollars since COVID by not having to pay gas/mileage to investigators/contractors for in person interviews. Itâs definitely a good thing in that respect. There will probably never be any way to measure phone versus in person quality. I can say with certainty I am able to interview many more sources on each case by phone than I would ever get âin personâ when that was required. Sources who would never agree to an in person meeting are now more than happy to give phone time for an interview. I think just being able to leave a message requesting a phone interview makes sources more likely to call back and agree.
I have been in this business for a couple decades on both sides and many positions. I am very knowledgeable of the reinterview letters and integrity investiations.
When did the contractor or federal reinterview survey forms make the significant change to include asking the Source if they prefer being interviewed in person or not?
The question is how they were interviewed, not their preference.
My point was telephone would be appropriate if there are no known issues of a supervisor that knew the Subject for 7 months about 4 years ago at McDonalds and when you call the supervisor, the individual is not interested in an in person interview so you do the telephone interview to get what information you can.
I am not advocating for no flexibility in conducting interviews. Telephone interviews will always play a role after this method has had the doors completely blown off and opened completely for the use of telephone the last couple of years. My point is for issue related cases and subject interviews, we should consider in person interviews only.