Friday, May 15, 2015

Statement Analysis: Employees Gaming The System


               More than 4 out of 10 employees planned to steal before they were hired.  This is about deceptive employees, not honest hard working employees who have been wronged.

There are simple techniques in Statement Analysis which are useful in obtaining some rather sad leaked information.  Recently, I analyzed a statement that showed this very thing.

It showed some serious personal issues, which was sad to read, but as I continued through the lengthy answers, a motive began to emerge and it was not to the benefit of the company.

In a job application, we ask legally sound open-ended questions, prior to the interview, and analyze them.  This allows us to only interview honest people who have a motivation to work to:

1.  Provide financially
2.  Obtain emotional satisfaction from a job well done.

This is a solid one-two punch for employers in gaining good, loyal employees.

What we do not want is someone who fulfills the United States Department of Justice' statistics that indicate this:

The average employer who puts an ad in a newspaper in order to hire 10 employees, will find that, on average:  4 of them will steal.  But it goes further and reveals something that, psychologically, makes sense.

People that steal lack self control, among other things.  They do not want to wait and patiently save.  They want it now.  The statistic bears this out:

4 of the 10 who steal reveal this fact:

When they were being hired, they had already considered how they would steal fro the company.

the stitches went on to fulfill the psychological profile of a thief as impatient:

That they are likely to make their first attempt at theft within the first two weeks of employment.

Violent theft was often immediately profiled as "repeat offender" with the claim that the violent did not "suddenly graduate to homicide" but had been violent, little by little.

While I agree with this as a norm, the past 15 years has shown a dramatic shift in violence with:

a.  increase in violence
b.  increase in intensity
c.  increase in female violence

In our process, we not only screen for deception and theft, but violence.  Let's, however, continue to view theft first, and then violence in the interview process.

The statistics will dramatically change given two factors:

1.  The addition  of elements to the definition of theft to include:

 Those who not only steal product or money, but those who seek to gain money that their hands did not earn by means of:

a.  Fraudulent claim of injury
b.  Fraudulent claim of sexual harassment
c.  Fraudulent claim of sexual assault (where the harassment includes any allegation of touching)
d.  Fraudulent claim of hostile work environment
e.  Fraudulent claim of discrimination
e.  Fraudulent claim of causing substance abuse relapse
f.  Fraudulent claim of revenge (whistle blower)
g.  Fraudulent claims of neglect ("my employer failed to warn me..." or "my employer failed to protect me...")

and so on.

In fact, in the last 6 years, we have seen a dramatic increase in claims of discrimination and increase in "hostile work environment" that are becoming more and more creative in description.

As "hate crime", that is, a "thought or emotion crime" takes root in America, not only must freedom of speech be eradicated or severely limited, but insurance costs skyrocket for employers while employees who wish to "game the system" find ever increasing ways of doing so, under the auspices of being "offended", made to feel "unsafe", or being "discriminated against" due to colorful bizarre and deceptive reasons.

some recents:

A company failed to protect someone against a belligerent co-worker.  The subsequent interviews revealed the new hire did not like taking orders.  Suggestions were okay, but not orders.  She alleged "stalking behavior" which turned out to be the supervisor asking her mailing address to mail her final check.

A company failed to protect someone against the danger in "ice bucket challenge" events.  This employee got a nice private settlement...she did not like getting wet from peripheral water.  She was not in the "challenge" but standing nearby.

A company failed to properly signal wet floor after mopping even though the mopping was done by the employee, herself.

A company "discriminated against me by not hiring me because I am  a single mother on welfare."  What she left out of this statement is that:

a  She only agreed to work x hours per week, to protect her welfare benefits
b.  Showed up at the interviewed dressed in a very sexualized manner and attempted to flirt with the male interviewer who ignored her behavior.
c.  Said she could not lift anything over 15 pounds, even though she had no such order from her doctor.

What she was doing was this:

She not only sabotaged the interview process so that she could keep her welfare benefits, (the government program mandated that she apply for work) she deliberately told the HR interviewer a bunch of "hot potatoes" including sexuality.  Why did she do this?

She went into the interview with the intention of filing suit against the company. 

Behind each thief like this, is an attorney who tells her, "This is your right!" and persuades the deceptive gamer to push forward.

A company failed to protect me against a person known to be sexually aggressive and was constantly "hitting on me" and the company "refused to believe me."  The subsequent interviews?  The accused was gay and not interested in her.  She randomly chose him because he was assigned to work with her during orientation.  Oops.

A company denied me my right to a certified therapeutic animal companion.  (This one was another "deliberately fail the interview" process).  She even admitted that people "may be" allergic to her cat, but said, "most people like that are lying.  They don't have allergies; they just hate cats."

In one case, a young woman had filed suit , received a high settlement, went into "retirement" for a few years  until the money ran out, but then her husband "fell" on his job, got another big settlement and when that money ran out, approached me for "help" against yet another business.

I had her write out a statement about what happened, saw the deception, and declined assistance.

Another person "fell" at a local  store.  She intimated that no employees assisted her because of her race.

Then it happened again.

Then it happened yet again...and again.

Each company cut a generous check after she signed nondisclosure agreements, as well as agreeing to no further legal action (worded "just so") and agreed to shop elsewhere.  4 local companies and not one of them challenged her assertion as they did not want racial protests to hinder sales.

She wasn't even an employee, but still brought in quite a bit of money.

Yesterday, a protestor bragged to the news of the $45,000 she received after claiming she was frightened by police at a protest.

When you add in the various (and often colorful) ways in which employees steal from their employers, the statistic of 4 of 10 no longer applies.

Federal judges and those who wish to be appointed, have recognized the nation's attitude towards employers as very negative.

"You didn't build that" said President Obama, deriding the successful business owners, in an institutionalized form of envy.  The frequent talk of "the rich don't pay their fair share" and even the calling to task of the Words of Christ show a disparagement of success and this is our national attitude.

Employers are "the man" and the recent pledge of NYC Mayor DiBlasio shows how popular it has become.  Obama was raised with a nanny.  Hilary Clinton regularly tears down the rich while she accumulates wealth in incredible ways.  Mitt Romney ran for president as a "man of the people" while being vastly more wealthy than most, with an apologetic tone for being rich.

Riches are being portrayed as "evil" or "bad", even by the rich politicians.  Instead of lauding success and hard work, in France, the rich are vilified as if they have done something inherently wrong.  Barbra Streisdant lectured US presidents for failure in protecting natural resources and was humiliated when the press showed her beautifully green lawn, snubbing the California drought restrictions simply because she can afford the fines.

I'm amused when someone gets paid a lot of money to pretend to be someone else, and then, if the movie sells, the pretender is recognized as a national expert, whether it be Sean Penn, sinking in his boat because of all the heavy camera equipment "rescuing black children" that "Bush let down", or the latest United Nations "expert" on human rights, ecology, or any such thing.  It makes for good reading, but little sense.

Most Americans would not have jobs if it had not been for those who took risks to build companies, even if despised by everyone up to the president of the United States:  they built up from nothing, or if they inherited the company, they had to navigate it through recessions, lays offs, over seas competition and ever increasing taxes.

Somehow, the hard working and successful are vilified while those who find clever ways not to work are the heroes.

It's "us versus them" in business.

Employers who take great risks, put up their own personal money into the business, and even name a business using their family name, are all aware of this trend and are actively avoiding courts and settling before their reputations are smeared.

This penchant to settle first is because of the anti-wealth political atmosphere that demonizes the successful and hard working among us.

Given this strange political climate (fostered by politicians of all parties), the employer also recognizes that everyone is offended by everything and they do not need negative publicity, particularly publicity that will mean protests outside their door, disrupting business and smearing their business and or family name.

They settle.

They settle a lot.

This is the first element that changes the statistic to 4 out of 10 to something considerably higher.

That the intention was there before the job does not come at a surprise to businesses who have been trained in Statement Analysis.

The second impact on this statistic is the screening process.

Companies who have their Human Resources trained in both Statement Analysis, and the subsequent Analytical Interviewing are able to identify these "four" of ten who, prior to their first day of work, thought how they might gain money their own hands have not earned.

The screening process reduces losses due to theft, inappropriate unemployment, and the myriad of ways in which thieves game the system means:

Their intentions are revealed in the Interview process, with most of them never even getting an interview.

Companies trained in Statement Analysis have a Questionnaire given to every applicant which lets each potential employee tell the company anything they want the company to know about themselves.

It is legally sound.

It is non-offensive.

It is something that employees like to do, since all of us like to talk about ourselves.

It is a tool that says, plainly:

"Interview me! I am an honest person who wants to earn a living and find emotional satisfaction from a job well done and I am someone you will want to promote over time!"


"Avoid me.  Don't even interview me.  I am a liar.  I put myself before everyone else in life.  If given the opportunity, I will use my intellect to get money from you.  I don't like working and never have.  I have issues that you haven't even read about in the DSM.  I will harm you, your business, your name, your employees, because I will do whatever it takes to do what I want. My self esteem is so high, that I deserve better.  Better than what?  You figure that out.  I deserve better and will have it.  I will lie, cheat, steal and disrupt as long as it brings me satisfaction, financially, emotionally, any and every way.  I will masquerade it at first, but I will prevail."

Statistically the change is remarkable.

A very high percentage of small businesses that go bankrupt cite theft as the cause, but it is not alone:

rising insurance costs, unemployment costs, and taxes are all referenced as well.

I cannot do anything about the taxes, other than demand Babs pay her $100 fine, but unemployment?

Those who implement Statement Analysis and Analytical Interviewing find a stead drop in unemployment costs.

This is simply because they hire better people who want to work.  Those who trouble their employers find ways to get themselves fired so they can claim unemployment benefits against them.  The best defense is a good offense:

Hire only those who are truthful in their applications, and,


Tell the truth and document well.

"Analytical Writing" is the last leg of the system.  We teach companies to, literally, analyze their own statements, including internal reports, claims, annual statements, employee handbooks, etc, which once done, will generally reduce the writing by up to 50%, and greatly increase the strength of communication.

Tell the truth and document.

When we train a company, we back them in the unemployment claims, including hearings.  When one has unjustly claimed benefits, we oppose them.  We win our hearings (100%) because of truth and clear presentation of the facts.  We win all suits (100%)  either through dismissal or decision because:

Companies that treasure truth do so because leadership is truthful.  They make mistakes and own them, and if an employee is legitimately wronged, they are cared for properly.

Because they prize the truth so highly, they project this on downward.  This is the same as companies that are run by liars.  They do not trust anyone because they, themselves, are not trustworthy.


If someone, for example, has been by-passed for promotion due to race, it is not just a civil rights violation to an honest employer, it is contrary to best business practice.  The best employees make the most profit.

Statement Analysis gets to the truth and I have only a few examples of where businesses willfully ignored what the analysis showed.  That there are but a few is a good thing.

In each case where an applicant was flagged for deception, but hired anyway, the 'trouble' showed itself within a month.

One applicant was deceptive, but hired due to being a relative of a close friend.  He brought terrible and illegal risk to the company and was terminated.  In the unemployment hearing, he was ruled ineligible due to his negligence of the company's material interests.  He was hired by another company, but kept in contact with his former employer, insisting he had "learned his lesson."

He was hired back.

With a week or so, he was terminated for both theft and illegal drug use on premise.

Another's application showed clear agenda.  This is something that is leaked out when a person talks about himself.

In his first week, he raised "ethical issues" and expressed "real doubt" about the company.  When the company told him he was out of bounds, he threatened to sue, even using the term, "whistle-blower" against them. When they contacted me, I did not recognize the name at first, but when I reviewed the report, I reminded them that he had indicated that he should not have even been interviewed due to deception.

I also said that if they look a little closer into his background, he has a criminal history.

The company said, "not so!  We ran the background check."

I gave them specific questions to ask him.  He was a liar and his pride would not allow him to lie about his deceptive responses.

He admitted that he had a "few entanglements" with the law, and later bragged to a co worker how much money he made selling drugs.  Only convictions show up on the criminal background checks and federal regulations make it so employers (the bad guys) cannot ask potential employees a host of questions, relevant to the job, because it would be "discriminatory" to learn, for example, if someone had been arrested for domestic violence, or drug sales.

It's ironic that federal government positions, however, are able to ask all the questions employers are not allowed to.

We do not ask, "Have you ever sexually assaulted someone?" because we are not permitted.  We can, however, say, "What would you like us to know about yourself?" and listen very carefully.  When a topic is freely introduced, the topic is now on the table for discussion.

Still another:

an applicant revealed himself, linguistically,  to be a man of violence.  This is the conclusion of the analysis:  he has a violent history and he will report to violence should he be challenged.

This was 'overruled' because someone in upper management was dating him and he "could not have been gentler" even with the manager's children.

Jump ahead a few short years:

The company is now engaged in a 7 figure litigation over a near fatal assault.

I had done a short screening (less than 2 hours) for the company and learned of his violence (against women mostly) that confirmed the analysis.  It was extreme.

The statistic that 4 out of 10 employees hired not only will steal, but planned to, one way or another, is likely on the low side.

The costs are of severe impact to businesses, including reputations, insurance premiums and payouts.

America has plenty of people left who want to work, want to provide for their families, and want to feel good about their work at the end of the day.

Companies can dramatically change these statistics in the Screening Process.

Everyone lies.

Truthful people own this, and they own their mistakes, and they learn from them.

Liars live by them.

Someone does not suddenly decide to deceptively file a suit against a company for $250,000 of emotional damages, after being an honest and good worker for years.  The stat of "2 weeks" refers to shrinkage, but gaming the system takes more time, but as you likely have learned by experience:

liars are generally not patient people.

A thief is generally not a patient person.

These are people who want "instant gratification" and do not like slow savings, or building up slowly career goals.  As children, they were not taught self-restraint and a need for truth.

In the interview process, a woman once told a story of being 13 and wanting jewelry so badly that she resorted to stealing a babysitter's necklace.   She was at an age of becoming a woman and without jewelry she did not feel like a woman.  She obsessed over that necklace until she finally gave in and took it.

She was caught and strongly disciplined by her parents.

30 plus years later she fondly recalls the lesson of that terrible day and said how grateful she was that her parents did not let her get away with it.  "Who knows where one successful theft would have led me?"

Statistically speaking...

It might have led to more.

See for more information on training and contact us for our latest brochure:

                 "Statement Analysis Training for Human Resource Professionals"  

We offer both seminars in person, along with at home Statement Analysis training course.

HR professionals should be trained to screen out problem bringers, and HR professionals should be trained in conducting all internal assessments and investigations for their company, even when police have been notified.  Their written  reports, when done accurately with analysis applied, are a great defense against fraudulent claims.


Child Advocate said...

Bill Cosby gave an interview. He was asked what he would say to children about the allegations against him. He gave a rambling, nonsensical answer, but never said he didn't do rape the women accusing him.

trustmeigetit said...

Peter said “I'm amused when someone gets paid a lot of money to pretend to be someone else”

Totally agree…..

To be paid millions to simple play a part. There is no justification.

It’s not because they bring in a lot of money at the end of the day. What brings in the money is the costs that trickle down to the consumer.

Movie tickets could cost less
The candy, popcorn and soda could cost less

I mean, it’s like $5 for a soda…..

And then that can even take you back further…. Like the companies that sell the products and where they spend their money.

Perfect example….

Pepsi (or was it Coke) paid Britney Spears $100 million for a commercial a few years back… Now, on top of this making no sense…. Neither Coke or Pepsi needs to advertise. I don’t think there is a household that is not familar with those products. Sure there are some tribes in Africa that may not know these products, but they do not know who Britney Spears is and they were not watching the Teen Choice Awards. They don’t even have tv.

So the money is simply wasted. $100 million. For what?

Many people argue and call actors “artists” but they are not. They are playing a part. It is a job. We all have jobs.

The only jobs to me that should pay more are those that are dangerous (cops, fireman) and those that are saving lives (EMT, doctors, nurses)

Outside of that, playing a part in a movie does not warrant $10 million dollars.

And don’t even get me started on these egotistical people… I mean how many awards shows do you need? You are not saving lives. I personally think it’s a joke that we live in a world where playing a part makes you more important than even those that save lives.

Now the awards…..To “play a part”
The Academy Awards (a.k.a. “The Oscars”)
The Golden Globe Awards
The S.A.G. Awards
The Emmy Awards
The People’s Choice Awards
Hollywood Film Awards
MTV Movie Awards
Academy of Cinema and Television Arts Awards
Critics' Choice Movie Awards (a.k.a. the Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards)
Teen Choice Awards
Kid’s Choice Awards
People’s Choice Awards (because Teens and Kids don’t count apparently)
Independent Spirit Awards
American Film Institute Awards
Various Critics’ Association Film Awards (19 separate U.S. cities or states listed)
Film Festival Awards (five in the U.S. counting Sundance, plus don’t forget Cannes)