I recently had a discussion with a CAE on the differences between assurance engagements and advisory engagements. We spoke at length about the different objectives, methodologies and communications when we are providing assurance versus advice. At the end of the conversation, I pointed out something I have long believed: internal auditors who are lead successful assurance engagements have strong interview skills while those who deliver outstanding advisory engagements are often effective conversationalists.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe effective communication skills for internal auditors demand we be proficient in all aspects of communications. But assurance engagements depend heavily on evidence, and testimonial evidence is often the product of a well crafted and executed interview. Meanwhile successful advisory engagements depend heavily on meeting the client’s needs and understanding the risks and issues they need to resolve. I have always found that I can get to the bottom of a client’s needs through good old-fashioned conversations – not interviews.

Conducting audit interviews and carrying on a conversation may seem like entirely different tasks, but both rely on essential communication skills that enable the flow of information, build rapport, and achieve a desired outcome. I thought it would be helpful to explore the similarities and differences between these two activities, examining how specific skills overlap and where they diverge. While the purpose of an internal audit interview is to gather information and verify conformance to criteria, a casual conversation aims to connect, exchange ideas, and establish relationships. However, both require a similar set of competencies.

Active Listening. In both an audit interview and a conversation, “active listening” is a critical skill. Active listening is the process of fully focusing on what the other person is saying, showing interest, and responding appropriately. It involves not only hearing words but also understanding their meaning and the emotions behind them.

For internal auditors, active listening is crucial because interviewees may provide essential information beyond the initial question. An offhand comment or subtle tone shift may reveal areas for deeper investigation. For example, an employee might reluctantly mention a process that “usually works,” which could signal a potential area for scrutiny.

Similarly, in casual conversations, active listening builds trust and rapport. It allows for better understanding of the other person’s perspective and creates space for empathy and meaningful connection. If you’re not fully engaged, you may miss the context or emotional undertones that are key to effective communication.

Asking the Right Questions. Another skill shared between audit interviews and conversations is the ability to “ask good questions.” However, the types of questions and their purpose often differ.

In an interview, the internal auditor’s questions are generally structured, focused, and designed to gather specific information. We typically use a combination of “closed” and “open-ended” questions to extract details about processes, controls, and compliance. Closed questions help narrow down facts—such as “How often is this report generated?”—while open-ended questions encourage the interviewee to elaborate—such as “Can you walk me through how this process works?” The goal is to gather evidence and obtain clarity on specific issues.

In conversations during advisory engagements, the approach to questioning is more fluid and often aimed at encouraging dialogue rather than seeking precise information. Open-ended questions—like “What do you think about that?” or “How effective do you believe that process is?”—invite the other person to share experiences and opinions, fostering deeper interpersonal connections. However, excessive questioning can make the conversation feel like an interrogation, so balance is essential.

The key to both audit interviews and conversations is to know “when to probe deeper” and when to allow the conversation to flow naturally. Internal auditors need to know when to follow up on vague answers to uncover hidden risks, while in casual conversations, deeper questions can build stronger connections by showing interest in the other person’s thoughts and feelings.

Building Rapport. Whether interviewing or having a conversation, internal auditors need to know how to “build rapport.” Establishing a comfortable, trusting atmosphere is essential for productive communication in either scenario.

In audit interviews, rapport helps to reduce anxiety and defensiveness. Many employees may be wary of us, fearing that their actions may be under scrutiny. An internal auditor who can build rapport by showing empathy, maintaining a calm demeanor, and engaging in small talk before diving into the formal questioning can help put interviewees at ease. This helps us gather more candid, truthful information.

In conversations, rapport is equally important but often more organic. Sharing common experiences, laughing at a joke, or even maintaining good eye contact are ways to build rapport in day-to-day interactions. A comfortable, open atmosphere encourages people to share more freely, leading to richer, more enjoyable conversations.

Maintaining Objectivity vs. Emotional Engagement. Regardless of the service we provide, we must maintain our objectivity. However, objectivity may feel different in an interview versus a conversation. In an assurance engagement, the focus is on collecting factual information that can be compared with criteria. We must remain neutral, without allowing personal opinions, biases, or emotions to influence our judgment. For instance, we must avoid becoming defensive if an interviewee challenges our questions, or overly sympathetic if an interviewee is reluctant to provide information. The ultimate goal of an interview is to gather information that helps assess compliance, risk, or efficiency, not to provide emotional support or advice.

In contrast, a conversation often involves “emotional engagement.” People share personal stories, emotions, and opinions about the business, and both parties are generally expected to respond with empathy and understanding. Unlike in an internal audit interview, it’s appropriate—and even necessary—to let emotions influence how you respond in an advisory engagement conversation. Showing empathy, offering encouragement, and sharing personal feelings all help deepen connections between individuals.

Time Management and Goal Orientation. Another key difference between internal audit interviews and conversations is the “time management” aspect. Internal audit interviews are typically structured and time-sensitive. We often operate from an engagement plan with set timeline to gather the required information, especially if multiple interviews are scheduled in one day. This requires staying on topic, ensuring that key areas are covered, and politely steering the interviewee back on track if they stray off-topic. The internal auditor’s goal orientation is specific: to assess compliance, risks, or performance based on predefined criteria.

In contrast, the conversations we undertake during advisory engagements usually don’t have strict time constraints, and the goals are often undefined or flexible. You might start a conversation without knowing exactly where it will go, and that’s okay. Conversations can meander, shift topics naturally, and end whenever both parties feel satisfied. While time management may not be as critical in a casual setting, it can still be important when one party needs to end the conversation or bring it back to a relevant point.

At first glance, audit interviews and conversations may appear to be entirely different interactions, driven by distinct goals and methods. However, both rely on core communication skills like active listening, effective questioning, and building rapport. Where they differ is in the level of objectivity we need to demonstrate during the interaction, the emotional engagement involved, and the structured nature of assurance engagement interviews compared to the free-flowing nature of casual conversations.

By understanding these similarities and differences, we can improve our interviewing techniques during assurance engagements, while gaining insight into how to steer conversations during advisory engagements more purposefully. Whether you’re gathering internal audit evidence or gathering perspectives to offer advice, mastering these core skills will make you a more effective communicator in any context.