Hiring Decisions

Communication in Hiring: What We Say and What We Hear

A hiring team and a candidate can hear the same words and picture different jobs. Concrete questions help both sides find out what they mean and whether the role fits.

7 min read

What we say is not always what the other person hears. “Autonomy” can sound like freedom to one person and a warning to another. Before deciding that someone got it wrong, it helps to ask what each person is picturing.

The two Eulis represent the two sides of a hiring conversation: the hiring team and the candidate. Each person interprets what they hear through their own context and experience. Neither interpretation here is irrational.
“Which decisions could I make without approval?”
That question brings the difference into the open. The answer might reveal real freedom, limited support, or a mixture of both. Both people can then check what “autonomy” means in this role.

Meaning takes a conversation

Communication works in both directions: both people interpret, respond and clarify. An answer can change the question, and a question can help someone notice an assumption they had not put into words.

Start with something concrete: “You can choose how to solve a customer problem, but budget changes need approval” tells us more than “You’ll have autonomy”. It also gives the candidate something specific to ask about.
Make room for context: A person who had supportive managers may picture freedom to experiment. Someone previously left without help may wonder who will be available when things go wrong. Neither history tells us what this new job will be like.
Say what you are taking from the answer: “It sounds like I could choose the approach, while we would agree on priorities together. Is that how it works?” Now the hiring team can add detail, and the candidate can explain which kind of support matters to them.
Check the example together: Try a recent decision: who made it, who needed to agree, and what happened when someone needed help? If the team gives conflicting answers, there may be an unresolved responsibility to sort out, not just an unclear sentence.

Clear words help. Concrete examples let both sides check whether they understood the same thing.

Two more conversations worth slowing down

“Senior” needs a shared definition

Hiring team says: “We need someone senior.”
Candidate may hear: “They probably want ten years of experience.”
A question to ask next: “Which decisions would this person need to make independently?” The answer can show whether “senior” refers to years of experience, responsibility, or something else.

“Led” does not explain the scope

Candidate says: “I led the project.”
Hiring team may hear: “They were responsible for the whole project.”
A question to ask next: “Which parts did you lead, and what did others decide?” Leading one workstream and leading the whole project are different contributions. The question makes space to explain either.

What we bring to the conversation

Context and previous experience help us make sense of words. They are not defects to filter out. Trouble starts when we assume our own interpretation is the only reasonable one.

Jargon can conceal a difference. One person uses “strategic” for choosing a direction; another uses it for turning that direction into a plan. Ask for a recent example before agreeing that the role needs it.

“Hands-on” and “fast-paced” need examples too. Will you build things yourself, or do priorities change every Tuesday? Ask what an ordinary week looks like. It may be more revealing than another adjective.

Assumptions can also become unfair judgements. A familiar accent, employer or confident speaking style is not evidence of competence. Stress and nervousness may affect how either person asks, answers or handles a pause.

Time pressure makes it tempting to skip a follow-up. Expectations matter too: one person may expect a short summary while the other is preparing a detailed example. Agree on what the question is asking and leave time to clarify.

What hiring teams can do

Describe real decisions and responsibilities. Explain what the person could decide, where they would need agreement and who would help.
Invite a check without turning it into a test: “I may have been vague about priorities. What would be useful to make more concrete?” Explain your own understanding of the candidate’s answers too.
Separate observation from interpretation. Record what the person described and what evidence is still missing before attaching a label.
Use the same expectations in the job ad, assessment criteria and interview questions. If interviewers describe different jobs, resolve that disagreement within the team.
Give feedback the person can use. Name the requirement and the example you discussed, and explain what you still could not assess.
Do not sell a perfect version of the role. Explain constraints, difficult trade-offs and what support is actually available.

What candidates can do

Give the other person enough detail to understand your contribution, and ask for the detail you need about the role.

Your CV cannot carry all the context. Explain what was happening, what you were responsible for, what others did and what changed.
If you are unsure what a question is asking, check before guessing: “Would it help to hear about how we made the decision, or how I handled the disagreement?”
Use evidence instead of labels such as “strategic” or “team player”. Keep claims within what you can support; distinguish your contribution from the team’s result.
Ask what a vague term means in practice. You do not have to pretend that “strategic ownership” tells you what you would do on Monday.
If nerves made an answer unclear, start again: “Let me put that more clearly. My responsibility was…” You are allowed to repair a sentence.
Ask about priorities, support and the hiring process. What would success look like after six months? Who could help with a difficult decision? What will the next interview cover?

Understanding is not the same as trust

You can understand a promise perfectly and still wonder whether it will be kept. Trust affects how comfortable people feel asking difficult questions or admitting uncertainty.

In The Trusted Advisor, David Maister, Charles H. Green and Robert Galford describe a “Trust Equation”. It is a useful prompt for thinking about your own behaviour in a hiring conversation:

Trustworthiness = (Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy) / Self-Orientation

Credibility: Is what is being said believable and supported by evidence? Explain the role with real examples; explain experience with a contribution you can substantiate.
Reliability: Do people do what they said they would do? Send the promised details, meet agreed deadlines and say early when a commitment has to change.
Intimacy: Does the other person feel safe enough to ask questions, admit uncertainty or speak honestly? Welcome “I don’t know” and respect boundaries; this is not an invitation to demand personal disclosures.
Self-Orientation: Are you listening to what matters to the other person, or waiting for a chance to sell the role or yourself? Both sides can pause a polished pitch to ask an honest question.

Use this as a practical conceptual model, not a scientifically validated mathematical measurement. It is a prompt for reflection, not a score to assign to a candidate or hiring team.

Source: The Trust Equation, Trusted Advisor Associates

Enough clarity to make a decision

The hiring team and candidate may have different priorities. They still need a clear picture of the role and of what working together would involve.

Hiring teams want to understand who can succeed in the role. Candidates want to understand whether the role, team and environment are right for them.

Sometimes a more concrete conversation reveals that the role does not fit. That is useful too. Understanding each other does not require reaching the same decision.

Before another adjective, try an example.