Latest / The Science of Leading / Why Polished Answers Fail Communication Tests

Transcript

Why Polished Answers Fail Communication Tests · The Science of Leading

• 0:00
  Welcome to the show.
• 0:00
  I'm Claire Monroe with Edwin Carrington,
• 0:02
  and Edwin, I want to start with a hiring mistake that feels almost unfair.
• 0:06
  A candidate gives this polished,
• 0:08
  confident answer in an interview-everyone nods,
• 0:11
  it all sounds right-and then three months later that same person is sending
• 0:15
  confusing updates, missing customer signals,
• 0:18
  and somehow turning small issues into bigger ones.
• 0:18
  Yes,
• 0:22
  and the uncomfortable truth is that most communication assessments are
• 0:26
  measuring polish, not performance.
• 0:28
  They reward the person who sounds smooth for twenty minutes,
• 0:31
  not the person who can create clarity when things are messy-when a customer
• 0:36
  is frustrated, a manager needs a decision,
• 0:38
  and the information is incomplete.
• 0:38
  So when teams say,
• 0:42
  "we test communication," what they really mean is... "we liked how this
• 0:46
  person sounded." And that's not the job.
• 0:46
  No,
• 0:50
  it isn't.
• 0:50
  Communication at work is not a talent show.
• 0:53
  The real question is: did the person make the work move?
• 0:57
  Did they explain something accurately,
• 0:59
  listen well enough to catch what was actually being asked,
• 1:02
  adjust their message depending on the audience,
• 1:04
  and reduce confusion instead of adding to it?"Make the work move" is
• 1:09
  the part that lands for me.
• 1:10
  Because that immediately separates style from effectiveness.
• 1:10
  Exactly.
• 1:15
  And once you see that distinction,
• 1:17
  a lot of hiring decisions start to look questionable.
• 1:20
  Some people are articulate, quick,
• 1:22
  even persuasive-and still leave a trail of confusion behind them.
• 1:26
  At the same time, you have quieter candidates who write clear updates,
• 1:30
  ask precise questions, and stabilize situations with very little noise.
• 1:30
  Yeah,
• 1:36
  I've definitely seen that.
• 1:37
  Someone doesn't "perform" well in the interview,
• 1:39
  but once they're in the role, everything around them just... works better.
• 1:43
  Fewer misunderstandings, fewer back-and-forths.
• 1:43
  That's usually because
• 1:47
  they're optimizing for clarity,
• 1:49
  not impression.
• 1:50
  And most interviews are set up to reward the opposite.
• 1:50
  So if a hiring
• 1:55
  team is relying on things like "strong presence" or "executive communication,"
• 2:00
  what are they actually missing?
• 2:00
  They're missing observable behavior.
• 2:03
  That's where better assessment design starts.
• 2:06
  The strongest predictors are job-relevant,
• 2:09
  standardized, and scored with a rubric.
• 2:11
  Job-relevant means the task resembles what the role actually requires.
• 2:16
  Standardized means every candidate gets the same conditions.
• 2:20
  And a rubric means you're scoring what you can see or hear-not how you
• 2:24
  felt about it.
• 2:24
  That standardization piece sounds obvious,
• 2:28
  but I don't think it's happening as much as people assume.
• 2:31
  One candidate gets a relaxed conversation,
• 2:33
  another gets grilled, and then we compare them like it's the same test.
• 2:33
  It
• 2:38
  rarely is.
• 2:39
  Interviews drift constantly.
• 2:41
  Different questions, different tone,
• 2:42
  different expectations.
• 2:44
  And afterward, people say, "I trusted my instincts." But instincts are
• 2:48
  often just preferences with a convincing story attached to them.
• 2:48
  Preferences
• 2:53
  with a convincing story... that's uncomfortably accurate.
• 2:57
  So what does a good rubric actually look for?
• 2:59
  Because I'm guessing it's not "impressive" or "confident."No,
• 3:04
  it's much more concrete.
• 3:05
  For a written task, you might score whether the candidate identified
• 3:09
  the core issue, structured the message logically,
• 3:12
  used accurate information, made the ask clear,
• 3:14
  and adjusted tone appropriately.
• 3:17
  For a live interaction, you might look at whether they clarified before
• 3:20
  answering, responded to what was actually said,
• 3:23
  stayed concise, and offered a useful next step.
• 3:23
  So instead of "I liked
• 3:28
  their energy," you're saying, "they asked clarifying questions," or "they
• 3:32
  summarized the problem accurately."Exactly.
• 3:35
  Behavior over impression.
• 3:37
  Once you define communication in terms of outcomes-clarity,
• 3:42
  accuracy, listening, adaptation-you can actually test it.
• 3:46
  If you define it as charisma, you mostly end up hiring the best performer.
• 3:46
  And
• 3:51
  that's where teams get misled by something that feels very convincing
• 3:54
  in the moment.
• 3:55
  Someone can sound smart, look composed,
• 3:57
  even write well in isolation... and still struggle to communicate when
• 4:01
  things get messy.
• 4:01
  Yes, because the context changes everything.
• 4:05
  The real question is not "can this person communicate well in general,"
• 4:10
  but "can they communicate effectively in this role,
• 4:12
  under these conditions, with these constraints."Alright,
• 4:16
  so if someone listening realizes their process is basically over-rewarding
• 4:19
  polish, where do they actually start fixing this?
• 4:19
  Start with job analysis.
• 4:24
  Before writing any questions, identify the communication moments that
• 4:28
  matter most in the role.
• 4:30
  Not generic statements like "strong communicator," but specific situations.
• 4:35
  Do they need to explain complex information to customers,
• 4:39
  write concise updates for leadership,
• 4:42
  handle conflict between teammates,
• 4:44
  or translate technical detail into plain language?
• 4:44
  That instantly changes
• 4:49
  the kind of test you'd design.
• 4:50
  If the job is explaining complex things,
• 4:53
  you wouldn't ask about communication style-you'd give them something
• 4:56
  complex and see what they do with it.
• 4:56
  Exactly.
• 4:59
  The most effective formats are usually work samples,
• 5:02
  role-plays, scenario-based questions,
• 5:05
  or short written tasks.
• 5:06
  You might ask someone to draft a customer email based on incomplete information,
• 5:11
  or walk through how they'd handle a difficult conversation.
• 5:14
  The key is that it reflects the real work.
• 5:14
  And not a clean version of
• 5:19
  the work.
• 5:19
  Because the real thing is usually... a bit chaotic.
• 5:19
  Yes,
• 5:23
  and that's important.
• 5:24
  A good assessment keeps enough of that messiness to be realistic,
• 5:28
  but stays structured enough to be scored consistently.
• 5:31
  That balance is what makes it predictive.
• 5:31
  So it's not a personality test,
• 5:35
  and it's not a casual conversation.
• 5:37
  It's more like a controlled slice of what the job actually feels like.
• 5:37
  That's
• 5:42
  the right way to think about it.
• 5:43
  You're not testing everything-just the parts that matter most for success.
• 5:43
  And
• 5:48
  then comes scoring, which I'm guessing is where a lot of this breaks down.
• 5:48
  It
• 5:52
  often does.
• 5:53
  A useful rubric needs clear anchors.
• 5:55
  Not just "good" or "bad," but specific criteria.
• 5:59
  For example, strong listening might require identifying the core issue,
• 6:03
  asking a clarifying question, and responding directly to that issue.
• 6:07
  Weak listening might look like answering too quickly,
• 6:10
  missing key details, or sounding polished while missing the point.
• 6:10
  That
• 6:15
  last one-sounding polished while missing the point-that feels like something
• 6:18
  a lot of teams overlook.
• 6:18
  They do,
• 6:21
  which is why multiple raters help.
• 6:23
  When two or three people use the same rubric,
• 6:26
  you reduce the influence of individual preferences-whether that's confidence,
• 6:30
  speaking style, or personality.
• 6:30
  So it's not bureaucracy,
• 6:35
  it's protection against mistaking familiarity for quality.
• 6:35
  Exactly.
• 6:39
  And over time, the real test is whether your assessment actually predicts
• 6:44
  performance.
• 6:44
  Do higher scores lead to clearer communication,
• 6:48
  better customer outcomes, fewer escalations?
• 6:51
  That's how you know it's working.
• 6:51
  Which makes this very practical.
• 6:54
  Better hiring signal, fewer surprises later,
• 6:57
  less time fixing communication problems after the fact.
• 6:57
  Yes.
• 7:01
  Interviews alone are often too thin and too noisy.
• 7:04
  If you want better decisions, you pair them with structured assessments
• 7:08
  that reflect the work.
• 7:09
  And if you're looking for a way to implement that without building everything
• 7:13
  from scratch, OAD helps teams design and run these assessments with more
• 7:17
  consistency and clearer evaluation.
• 7:17
  So if you're listening and thinking,
• 7:22
  "we know our interviews aren't enough,
• 7:24
  but we don't have a better system yet," you can test OAD's tools-like
• 7:28
  behavioral assessments-for free at o-a-d-dot-a-i and start making that
• 7:32
  shift.
• 7:32
  Because the goal isn't to hire the most impressive answer.
• 7:36
  It's to hire the person who creates the most useful understanding once
• 7:40
  the real work begins.
• 7:40
  That's the difference that actually shows up on the
• 7:44
  job.
• 7:44
  Thanks for listening to The Science of Leading.