Latest / The Science of Leading / Why Great Communicators Are a Hiring Myth

Transcript

Why Great Communicators Are a Hiring Myth · The Science of Leading

• 0:00
  Welcome to the show-I'm Claire Monroe with Edwin Carrington.
• 0:03
  Edwin, I want to start with a scene that makes a lot of hiring managers
• 0:06
  a little uncomfortable.
• 0:07
  Candidate walks into an interview,
• 0:10
  answers quickly, smiles at the right moments,
• 0:13
  tells a clean story about a conflict with a coworker... and everyone walks
• 0:17
  out thinking, "great communicator." Then three weeks into the job,
• 0:21
  their emails are muddy, stakeholders are confused,
• 0:24
  and somehow every meeting ends with less clarity than it started.
• 0:24
  Yes,
• 0:29
  and the uncomfortable truth is that interviews often reward polish,
• 0:33
  not performance.
• 0:34
  We confuse verbal fluency with effectiveness.
• 0:37
  Someone can be articulate for 45 minutes and still struggle with the
• 0:41
  kind of communication the role actually depends on.
• 0:41
  That 45 minutes is
• 0:47
  the trap, right?
• 0:48
  Because being smooth in a conversation is not the same as writing a clear
• 0:51
  update every week for six months... or explaining a messy situation when
• 0:55
  things go wrong.
• 0:55
  Exactly.
• 0:57
  Communication is not one skill.
• 1:00
  It's a set of behaviors.
• 1:01
  Clarity, listening, adapting to your audience,
• 1:05
  handling tension without losing precision.
• 1:07
  And most roles rely on a very specific mix of those behaviors,
• 1:11
  not just general confidence.
• 1:11
  So when someone says,
• 1:15
  "I'm a good judge of communication," what they're usually reacting to
• 1:18
  is... what, exactly?
• 1:20
  Presence?
• 1:21
  Confidence?
• 1:21
  Someone who sounds like them?
• 1:21
  Usually charisma,
• 1:25
  coherence, and shared style.
• 1:26
  And shared style is the subtle one.
• 1:29
  If someone communicates the way we do,
• 1:31
  we tend to rate them higher.
• 1:32
  If they pause more, think more visibly,
• 1:35
  or communicate in a quieter way,
• 1:37
  we may underrate them-even if their actual work output would be stronger.
• 1:37
  Yeah,
• 1:43
  I've seen that.
• 1:43
  Someone sounds impressive in the room,
• 1:45
  and then you see their actual output and it's... not terrible,
• 1:48
  but things are missing.
• 1:49
  No clear next step, no ownership,
• 1:52
  details slipping through.
• 1:52
  That's where instinct and evidence diverge.
• 1:56
  A candidate can perform well in conversation and still struggle with
• 2:00
  writing, stakeholder alignment,
• 2:02
  or precision under pressure.
• 2:04
  Those are separate behaviors, and if the role depends on them,
• 2:08
  you have to assess them directly.
• 2:08
  So a "good communicator" isn't one thing.
• 2:13
  It depends on the role.
• 2:14
  In customer success, it might mean calming an upset client and setting
• 2:19
  expectations.
• 2:20
  In a manager role, it might mean giving clear feedback and aligning people
• 2:24
  who disagree.
• 2:24
  That's right.
• 2:26
  And I'd add one more layer.
• 2:28
  In many roles, communication is essentially decision-making made visible.
• 2:33
  The email, the meeting, the update-those are outputs of how clearly someone
• 2:38
  thinks.
• 2:38
  That's... a much higher bar than just sounding good in a conversation.
• 2:43
  It also explains why interviews miss it.
• 2:45
  Because most interviews are just... two people talking.
• 2:45
  Yes,
• 2:49
  and that's not useless, but it's a weak signal on its own.
• 2:52
  If you want to know whether someone can move work forward,
• 2:55
  you have to give them communication tasks that resemble the job.
• 2:55
  So instead
• 3:00
  of asking, "tell me about a time," you actually have them do the thing.
• 3:00
  Exactly.
• 3:05
  The design is simpler than most teams expect.
• 3:08
  First, define the communication tasks in the role.
• 3:12
  Not abstractly, but concretely.
• 3:14
  What does this person actually have to do each week?
• 3:18
  Write updates, handle difficult conversations,
• 3:21
  prioritize requests, deliver feedback.
• 3:21
  So not "must be a great communicator."
• 3:28
  More like, "must turn messy information into a clear executive update"
• 3:33
  or "must respond to upset customers quickly and clearly."Precisely.
• 3:37
  Then build small, realistic scenarios.
• 3:41
  They don't need to be elaborate.
• 3:43
  They need to reflect the pressure and context of the role.
• 3:46
  After that, you score with a consistent rubric.
• 3:46
  That consistency piece
• 3:51
  feels important.
• 3:52
  Because if one candidate is judged on vibe and another on detail,
• 3:55
  you're not really comparing anything.
• 3:55
  You're not.
• 3:58
  And that's why structured, work-sample assessments tend to outperform
• 4:03
  unstructured interviews.
• 4:04
  They measure what someone can actually do,
• 4:07
  in context, while reducing the influence of charm and first impressions.
• 4:07
  Give
• 4:13
  me a concrete example.
• 4:14
  Let's say we're hiring for customer success.
• 4:14
  All right.
• 4:17
  Start with a short written response.
• 4:20
  A customer says a launch failed and they're frustrated.
• 4:23
  The candidate writes a brief reply-six to eight sentences.
• 4:27
  You evaluate clarity, empathy,
• 4:29
  and completeness.
• 4:31
  Did they acknowledge the issue,
• 4:33
  explain next steps, and avoid vague reassurance?
• 4:33
  Six to eight sentences
• 4:38
  is tight.
• 4:38
  You can't hide in that.
• 4:38
  Exactly.
• 4:40
  Then a role-play.
• 4:42
  The interviewer acts as a frustrated client.
• 4:45
  The candidate has a few minutes to ask questions,
• 4:48
  reflect the issue, and reset expectations.
• 4:51
  Next, prioritization under pressure.
• 4:54
  Multiple messages arrive at once-what do they handle first,
• 4:58
  and why?
• 4:59
  And finally, you apply the same scoring rubric across all candidates.
• 4:59
  And
• 5:04
  now "good communicator" actually means something.
• 5:07
  You can see it.
• 5:08
  Did they ask the right questions?
• 5:09
  Did they clarify the problem?
• 5:11
  Did they create direction?
• 5:11
  Yes.
• 5:13
  Now you're evaluating performance,
• 5:15
  not polish.
• 5:16
  And the same approach works across roles.
• 5:19
  Managers can be tested on feedback and alignment.
• 5:22
  Salespeople on follow-ups and objection handling.
• 5:22
  This is where most teams
• 5:27
  hit friction, though.
• 5:27
  Because even if they agree with this,
• 5:29
  building and running these assessments consistently takes effort.
• 5:29
  It does,
• 5:33
  which is why tools become useful at that stage.
• 5:36
  If you want structured, job-relevant assessments without rebuilding the
• 5:41
  process every time, that's where something like OAD fits in.
• 5:41
  So instead
• 5:46
  of relying on instinct and hoping for the best,
• 5:48
  you actually build a system that shows you what people can do.
• 5:48
  Exactly.
• 5:52
  And if you're wondering how to put this into practice,
• 5:55
  you can test OAD's tools-like behavioral assessments-for free at o-a-d-dot-a-i.
• 6:01
  It's a straightforward way to make communication skills visible before
• 6:05
  the hire, not after.
• 6:05
  Which would save a lot of those "three weeks later"
• 6:10
  surprises.
• 6:11
  Thanks for listening to The Science of Leading.