This time the blog is all about interviews! A very important skill to have and an easy way to understand and be inspired by others. Due to my personal interest and current life-career questions, I wanted to focus on the experience of moving from the corporate world to an NGO and vice versa. For this, I chose two people who had the opportunity to do this and who could share their experiences of transition with me.
During the interviews, I found it fascinating how a change can bring so many benefits, as skills can be transferred and used in areas that sometimes seem so contradictory.
So, how did the interviews happen? I choose two people that went through a transition in the past years and made sure I reached out with enough time and making sure I clearly stated the purpose of my request. Once both accepted, it was time to set up all the details.
The first interview would be conducted over Zoom and the second in person over coffee. One of the people I interviewed, had left the corporate sector to bring her skills to an NGO, the other had done the exact opposite. Both had to adapt their expertise in storytelling and strategic messaging to their organizations. But I will go now into more details about the set up and content of the interviews.
The Interview Questions
I asked each interviewee the same three open-ended questions to guide our discussion:
1. What motivated you to leave corporate work for an NGO role (or the opposite)?
2. How do you use your communication skills in your current role?
3. What challenges have you faced in adjusting to an NGO/corporate environment?
These questions led to interesting insights, some of which were very similar but viewed from two different angles, which enriched my learning. The physical and virtual aspects of the conversation also had a lot to do with the experience, but they did not stop me from getting information that was worth listening to.
Interview 1 – A virtual experience
We got started right away with an opening introduction from both sides and some small talk to make sure we both felt comfortable. Once the ice had broken, I started with the topic questions – at this point quick check-ins, a few head nods and lots of “aha’s” and “I get it” were necessary to show engagement in the conversation. While remote interviews are convenient, non-verbal cues such as eye contact and subtle gestures are limited and this made verbal communication more important than ever. However, Trier-Bieniek (2012), notes that virtual interviews sometimes encourage more honesty as participants can speak from the comfort of their chosen space and this was something very noticeable in my experience. The “safe distance” of the virtual environment, did help both of us to open up about sensitive topics and almost created a nice connection and desire to keep the conversation rolling after the planned time was over.
The conversation was focused and productive, but I had to work harder to keep the interviewer on task by actively nodding and verbally responding to show that I was present. Due to the virtual barrier, it was important to ask clear, specific follow-up questions and give regular verbal acknowledgements to keep the dialog going. Research by Irvine (2012) shows that virtual interviews require more verbal acknowledgements to convey attention as non-verbal cues are limited in this environment. Still, the screen provided a buffer that could help us feel less vulnerable, and my interviewee was willing to share insights about the shift from corporate to non-governmental organizations without hesitation.
Interview 2 – A coffee break in the office
For the second interview, I choose a colleague who I had seen a few times before, but with whom I had not yet built up a relationship. When I emailed her to ask if she would agree to an interview, she seemed pleasantly surprised, which made me feel like we were on the right track. At the arranged appointment, we had a coffee together and chatted.
As Holstein and Gubrium (1995) argue, face-to-face conversations benefit from this “interactive richness” that makes it easier to build a genuine relationship through shared context. And so it was. There was something about the familiar activity of drinking coffee that put us at ease, and this setting encouraged a relaxed, open conversation right from the start. The physical aspect allowed for more spontaneity as each of us paid attention to small non-verbal cues such as a slight tilt or raised eyebrow.
Since we were in the same room during the face-to-face conversation, we were able to respond naturally to each other’s body language, which made clarification easier and faster. For example, if my colleague seemed unsure about a question, I could simply rephrase or adjust my approach based on her expression or posture. This echoes the findings of Trier-Bieniek (2012), who notes that collaborative activities (such as coffee breaks) can create a supportive environment for sharing more detailed, nuanced insights.
I also found it fascinating how important eye contact is and how, even if I would break eye contact for a few seconds, I can feel the conversation slowing down because I might be signaling distraction or lack of interest.
Key Insights from Each Interview Mode
Building Empathy and Comfort: The coffee chat in person created an easy-going atmosphere that helped establish a strong connection early on. In contrast, the Zoom interview required more verbal encouragement and attention to active listening cues to build that same level of rapport. Each setting demanded different tactics to make the interviewee feel comfortable sharing their story. Trier-Bieniek (2012) notes that virtual interviews are increasingly familiar to most people, making them a valuable tool, especially when in-person meetings are not feasible.’
Clarifying and Responding in Real-Time: The in-person setting naturally supported clarity and understanding since non-verbal cues could be picked up instantly. This allowed for a smoother, more unfiltered exchange. In virtual settings, however, questions need to be structured thoughtfully to compensate for limited non-verbal communication (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011).
Talking to both participants highlighted just how different these two interview modes can feel. In-person interviews have an undeniable advantage in fostering natural conversation, while Zoom offers practicality and can sometimes make people feel more at ease discussing personal topics. Adjusting to each mode’s strengths—using verbal affirmations and specific follow-up questions on Zoom, for example—helped keep both conversations flowing.
Understanding the interplay between interview mode and rapport-building strategies is key in communication research. Ultimately, this experience highlighted the importance of flexibility in interviewing, helping me refine techniques that keep the conversation meaningful and insightful, regardless of the setting.
References
- Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. SAGE Publications.
- Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2012). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. *Qualitative Research, 13 (1), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086
- Trier-Bieniek, A. (2012). Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research: A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research, 12 (6), 630-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439005
