The Hero of Their Own Story

“Everyone is the hero of their own story.”

You may have heard that phrase before but paid little attention. It seems obvious that someone would tell a story from their own point of view. At first glance, the quote implies that people are self-centered or that they inflate their importance. Odds are, you’ve met the person that manages only to tell stories that make them look good.

In the interview room, however, you are often trying to get information from a subject that might cast them in a negative light or that is meant to corroborate another person’s statement. In these instances, it may be helpful to think of a different definition of a hero.

The Hero’s Journey

Joseph Campbell was a literary professor specializing in comparative mythology. This work led to him releasing The Hero With a Thousand Faces in 1949. Campbell noticed that regardless of where in the world a myth or story came from, the protagonist or “hero” in the vast majority of tales went through similar story beats.

Typically, a heroic journey involves the main character starting in what Campbell called the ordinary world. They then must decide to take definitive action. At first, they will resist until someone or something encourages them to cross the threshold into the unknown. After that, there are obstacles and a final chance to turn back. Ultimately the character must face their final ordeal. The story ends when they return to their ordinary world as a changed person.

In the Interview Room

If you, as the interviewer, consider that your subject is the hero of their own story, it stands to reason that they have also been on a similar journey. Keeping this in mind can help guide you in developing the truthful details of their statements.

What was their ordinary world before the incident you are currently investigating? By taking time further to develop this part of a subject’s or victim’s recollection, you can identify sources of tension and find opportunities to build further rapport and empathy. If you are investigating an internal incident, this can also be a chance to find weaknesses in training or procedures.

Was there an initial promise or call to act that they resisted, and what or who inspired them to overcome that early resistance? Subjects can be reluctant to mention names of friends or colleagues who were also involved in an incident during their interview. However, they may be willing to speak more openly about those who are framed in a more positive light as mentors or inspirations. This can also reveal previous events that were either unknown or thought to be unrelated to the current investigation.

What obstacles did they encounter during their activity, and who were the people they relied on for assistance? As Ben Franklin famously said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” An effective, detailed interview can reveal whether safeguards are currently in place and how they may be rendered ineffective. This can inspire policy changes or spur research into new solutions to prevent similar problems from resurfacing in the future.

How has their ordinary world changed? A mistake that interviewers can often make is only focusing on the singular incident they are investigating and limiting themselves. By remembering to ask questions about the aftermath, the interviewer can find further avenues to develop.

An interviewer serves two very different but equally important purposes. First, they conduct investigations for an organization or stakeholders to gain truthful information that they can use to make decisions, stem losses, and protect people. But they also provide aid to the subject by providing an empathetic ear. Choosing questions that encourage a fuller, more detailed understanding of the subject’s full experience is crucial for both purposes.

So let your interview subject be the hero of their story and see what new avenues it leads you down.