A Typology of Interviewer Styles

Tell me about yourself

My favorite part of my role as [redacted] is qualitative research. Interviews and focus groups give me liscence I’d never normally have to ask more than moderately-invasive questions, press on people to be clearer with me, and hound them (charmingly) until I get answers. I’m not the best at interviewing, but I’m not the worst at it either, and am often pressed into duty coaching others. Here is a typology of interview techniques I have encountered:

The Cop. Desires facts and disbelieves in anyone’s ability to recount their own motivations with any precision. This leads to a lot of interrogation room tricks aiming to snuff out where’s, when’s, what-times’s, and what the subject was doing just before the consumer behavior or desire they recount, in hopes of poking a hole in the story, dislodging a recollection, or highlighting glaring contradictions.

The Wimp. Afraid of confrontation or, indeed, the ordeal of being known and seen by strange individuals. They may also have had dominance asserted on them early in the conversation, which is rarely recoverable. There is hemming, hawing, mush-mouth, imprecisions, long pauses, shufflings. The subject often becomes a “brick wall” difficult to extract from further.

The Negotiator. Skeptical of any version of events regardless of source or accuracy, yet seemingly unaware of their own going-in hypotheses to an extent that clouds their ability to listen. Hellbent on extracting specific versions of events and will steamroll, lead, redirect, and otherwise hound until this version is not outright rejected.

The Contender. Shoulder-chipped and with a goal in mind, whether it’s a hypothesis or the urgency born of a blanket dislike of interviewing. Frequently devolves into arguments with the subject on what the subject actually did or said, despite having been told in at least two to four different ways. 98% of the time ruins an interview, though I have seen some subjects bloom under being told they are liars.

The Stunter. Keen for the subject to know where precisely they are in the pecking order, and that it is lower than the interviewer. Oblivious to the off-putting tones, vowel shifts, tics, and other verbal and vocal signals they shed with every sentence, and their chilling effect on any kind of rapport. Indirectly seeks reinforcement of their own superiority in each line of questioning to the extent that it becomes difficult to hear preference or innate desire. Will often let the subject ramble with a smug expression before fumbling the redirect.

The Therapist. Earnest in desire yet nearly always steamrolled in practice, by a fatal combination of agreeability and high openness. Capable of extracting incredible disclosures from perfect strangers on topics of astonishing intimacy. Cursed to receive the revelations of others, they are frequently unable to direct which revelations and how they are received. Interviews can devolve in uncomfortable directions.