Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

Are your customer interviews producing agreement or insight?

Use customer interviews to investigate recent behavior and decisions rather than solicit agreement with your proposed solution. Ask neutral questions, request specific examples, and seek counterexamples. Treat explanations as useful accounts to check against the event rather than direct proof of hidden motives.

Attribution theory concerns how people explain behavior by assigning causes to personal characteristics or circumstances. APA’s 2023 entry, APA Dictionary of Psychology: attribution theory, gives the reference for this distinction. An interview account can describe an action and offer an attribution about it. Keep those apart before turning a customer’s explanation into a claim about why the proposed product will sell.

A private moment that makes the issue visible

Composite scenario, not a client case: You describe an idea at dinner and receive encouraging responses. The next day, a discovery call produces the same approval after you explain how much effort went into it. The notes contain compliments but no account of the last time the customer encountered the problem.

Look at the first question in the discovery call, not the amount of praise in the notes. If you explained the work invested in the idea before asking for an opinion, mark that context. Start the next interview with a recent event the customer can describe without first learning which answer would encourage you.

Use the research within its limits

Nisbett and Wilson’s 1977 review questions whether reports reveal direct access to higher-order mental processes; Nisbett and Wilson (1977): Telling More Than We Can Know. Use that limit to ask about the event and available information, without dismissing the customer’s account. The recent-behavior interview below is a proposed question sequence. It does not establish that memories are complete or that you can recover a hidden motive by asking more confidently.

Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, offers a useful distinction between an account of work and a causal interpretation. Keep the discovery interview within that boundary. The business needs evidence to revise an offer assumption, rather than a psychological explanation of the person who agreed to speak with you.

State the decision before discussing personalities

The research decision is what assumption the interview should test. A positive reaction to a presentation cannot substitute for evidence of the buyer’s actual work and choices.

Choose one offer assumption the conversation could change. For example, ask whether the recent handoff problem involved missing information or a lack of approval authority. State what each answer would imply for the proposed service. If either answer leaves the same sales recommendation untouched, reconsider whether you are conducting discovery or presenting a product.

Write the customer’s reported action before your interpretation of it. They may have waited for an approver and described the delay as frustrating. That account differs from your conclusion that they would buy an automation tool. Ask what alternatives they used and what happened next before connecting the event to a willingness to purchase.

Use the recent-behavior discovery interview

  1. Name the assumption privately. State what could make the offer unsuitable. Choose the evidence that would challenge the preferred explanation. Record the assumption and an account that would make you revise it before the call. Keep that note for the interviewer rather than reading it as a preferred answer. Identify what you need to learn from this participant’s role. Do not imply that one person’s experience will represent the entire buying organization.

  2. Ask for the last example. Invite the customer to describe a recent relevant event. Ask what happened before explaining your solution. Begin with a relevant occasion the person remembers and let them establish the setting. Ask what they were trying to accomplish and where the sequence started. Avoid adding a description of your solution until the account is complete. If no relevant occasion comes to mind, record that limit rather than supplying a scenario for them to endorse.

  3. Follow the decision sequence. Clarify information, alternatives, constraints, and actual action. Distinguish what the customer remembers from your interpretation. Ask who acted, what information they had, and what happened after the choice. Distinguish a remembered detail from a record the participant can inspect. Ask permission before requesting commercially sensitive material. Do not correct their account toward the product’s preferred problem while you are still trying to understand the sequence.

  4. Invite a counterexample. Ask when the problem did not occur or when another option worked. Avoid making disagreement feel impolite. Ask about a similar occasion that worked without the proposed solution. Explore what differed in the work or conditions. Make room for the possibility that the problem is occasional or already manageable. A useful counterexample should be able to narrow the offer’s relevance, rather than become another prompt for selling the same benefit.

  5. Record the implication. Separate confirmed observations, reported explanations, and open questions. Change the hypothesis when the account warrants it. Label the notes as reported event, offered explanation, interviewer inference, or unresolved question. Record the change to the offer assumption separately from a commitment to buy. Ask another reviewer to inspect a consequential inference against the account before it appears in the product brief as an established customer need.

If an interview reveals an immediate safety issue or a matter requiring a protected reporting route, follow the appropriate professional process. Do not keep probing for a more compelling product story. Explain the confidentiality boundary and refer the matter to the authorized owner without turning the interviewer’s commercial role into an investigation mandate.

Put the boundary into words

An interviewer can use this draft opening before presenting the proposed solution or its claimed benefits:

Tell me about the last time this happened. What did you do, what alternatives did you consider, and what happened next? I will explain our idea afterward so it does not shape your account of the event.

Allow the customer to finish the sequence before summarizing it. Repeat the practical constraint you heard and ask what the summary missed. Keep their correction even if it weakens the offer hypothesis. Present the solution afterward, and label that reaction as a different part of the interview rather than blending it into the earlier event account.

Work through a bounded example

Hypothetical application: A founder replaces Would this save you time with a question about the last handoff. The customer describes a different constraint than expected. The team changes the offer hypothesis instead of counting polite interest as demand.

Extend the hypothetical by comparing the founder’s original assumption with the customer’s reported constraint. If approval authority was the issue, examine whether the proposed time-saving feature would affect that authority at all. Record the mismatch as a product decision. Do not preserve the original demand claim by describing every approval problem as an efficiency opportunity.

Choose evidence that can change the decision

Keep an interview record that a second reader can trace to the relevant question and answer. Preserve the question wording, because a summary without it can hide how the response was prompted. Distinguish a direct quote from a paraphrase and an inference. Obtain permission for recordings or later attribution through an appropriate process. When several interviews differ, retain the role and work conditions that may explain the difference. Avoid counting an encouraging phrase as demand when the account contains no related action, constraint, or purchase decision.

Rewrite the question without supplying the conclusion

For a working interview guide, replace a request to agree that a feature would save time with a request to describe the most recent relevant task. Ask what made the task difficult, if anything, and what the person did about it. These are proposed question forms, not validated survey items. Adjust them to the participant’s actual role.

After the account, ask about an occasion when the same work went smoothly. Keep the comparison in the notes even when it suggests the proposed feature is unnecessary. If you later show the product idea, write down that the presentation occurred before the reaction. The team should be able to distinguish evidence about recent behavior from feedback on a new concept without reconstructing the interviewer’s intent afterward.

Check the failure mode before scaling

Do not coach the customer toward the desired problem. Avoid dismissing their account because introspection has limits. Obtain appropriate consent and protect sensitive commercial or personal details.

Agree the purpose of the interview and how the notes will be used. Protect personal information and confidential business details. Ask counsel or a privacy adviser when the planned collection requires that review. Do not treat permission to discuss an operating problem as permission to publish a customer story, attribute a quotation, or circulate an identifiable account beyond its agreed audience.

Review the work, then revise the arrangement

Review whether interviews produced concrete events and changed any assumption. Keep purchase claims separate from an interviewee’s willingness to discuss an idea.

Review a completed interview for leading wording and unsupported interpretation before scheduling more calls. Mark where the interviewer supplied the problem, offered a desired explanation, or praised an answer. Rewrite those questions around the work event. Preserve the earlier notes with their limits instead of silently recoding prompted agreement as an independent finding.

Invite a reviewer to argue that the reported event does not support the product decision you favor. Ask which link in the reasoning is missing and what further evidence could resolve it. If the participant’s counterexample changes the problem, update the brief. A discovery process should have a visible route to a decision not to build the proposed feature.

Ryan and Deci’s 2000 work distinguishes autonomous from controlled motivation; Ryan and Deci (2000): Self-Determination Theory. It does not show that a neutral interview guarantees candid answers. Use the distinction to inspect whether the participant can disagree without losing an unrelated benefit or relationship. Keep their voluntary participation separate from any later commercial commitment.

Connect this decision to the next one

Place the interview within ethical customer persuasion. Use status-quo preference to examine a buyer’s current arrangement without assuming it is irrational. Translate supported findings through benefits-versus-features wording. Apply confirmation-bias review to the team’s interpretation before the interview notes become a product roadmap.

Take one assumption into the next interview and ask for an event that could challenge it. Preserve the customer’s sequence before presenting your idea. Leave with a revised hypothesis or a clearly stated evidence gap, rather than treating a polite response as the purchase behavior the business still needs to investigate.

Sources

Steady at the Top