Skip to content

C13 · proof of concept

Four question types, four kinds of insight.

An interview is not a neutral container. The kinds of questions on the protocol determine what the engagement is even capable of surfacing — and the four types below produce four different kinds of material. The decision about what to ask is the upstream decision; everything else is execution. Try the sort below, then read what each bin reliably produces.

Interactive sort. Eight interview questions are listed. For each, choose which of four bins it best fits — Biographical, Operational, Relational, or Structural. After all eight are placed, the reveal explains the four bins and which one most reliably produces joint-initiative thinking.

0 of 8 placed

  1. "How did you come into this work?"

  2. "Walk me through what happened last Tuesday."

  3. "Who in this sector do you trust to tell you when you’re wrong?"

  4. "What would you have to stop doing if your largest funder left tomorrow?"

  5. "What’s the moment you remember thinking this work mattered?"

  6. "What’s the smallest part of your job that takes the longest?"

  7. "When was the last time your organization and another in the sector disagreed publicly?"

  8. "What’s the quietest way your sector is failing?"

Most stakeholder-interview protocols are heavy on biographical and operational questions. They produce material that is genuinely useful — the consultant comes away with a thick understanding of how the work runs and who the people are. They do not produce many recommendations a funder can fund.

Adding two or three structural questions to the protocol — questions about dependencies, fault lines, counterfactuals — changes the kind of finding the engagement can produce. This is one of the smaller decisions in the design of a listening exercise, and one of the more determinative.

Source. The four-bin typology adapted from interview-design conventions in qualitative research, particularly Steinar Kvale & Svend Brinkmann, InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (3rd ed., Sage, 2015), and Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed., Sage, 2014). The mapping from question type to insight type is conventional in qualitative-methods training; the further claim that joint-initiative thinking surfaces disproportionately in structural questions is a generalisation from sector-listening practice.