One of the biggest problems in interviews isn't dishonesty, poor capability or bad intent. It's interpretation.

What one person asks, what they actually mean, what the other person hears, and then what they infer from the answer can often be four completely different things.

As a recruiter, I sit in the middle of this constantly.

A surprisingly large amount of my job after interviews isn't actually "recruitment" in the traditional sense, it's translation. Explaining to employers what candidates meant. Explaining to candidates what employers were actually trying to ask. Clarifying intent. Correcting assumptions. Trying to stop perfectly good opportunities from falling apart because two people interpreted the same conversation differently.

And part of the reason this happens so often is because people communicate very differently.

Some people interview with confidence and structure, others are naturally less articulate. Some people are direct communicators, others are more cautious or conversational. Different personalities, different communication styles and different cultural backgrounds all play a part in how somebody asks or answers a question.

Then you add the realities of construction and property into the mix.

Somebody may have been on-site since 6am and is sitting in an interview late in the evening mentally exhausted after a long day dealing with subcontractors, RFIs, programme pressure and client issues. Somebody else may have been up until midnight trying to hit a tender deadline and is now trying to sound fresh and composed at 8am over coffee and a handshake.

People don't always communicate as clearly or efficiently as they think they do.

And honestly, one of the biggest observations I've made over the years in recruitment is that almost everybody has a slightly biased view of their own capability.

Every employer thinks they're a good employer.

Every manager thinks they interview well.

Every candidate thinks they present themselves strongly.

And no candidate in history has ever sat across the table from me and said:

"To be fair Martin, I'm probably a fairly average operator."

Everyone thinks they're above average.

That absolutely includes communication and interviewing ability.

Now, to be fair, there are some genuinely excellent people in the construction and property industry who interview extremely well, ask thoughtful questions, communicate clearly and consistently make good hiring decisions. But there are also plenty of interviews where assumptions, poor phrasing, rushed questioning or unclear intent create confusion that nobody even realises is happening in the moment.

And the reality is, interviews in construction and property are full of this stuff.

A hiring manager can ask what they think is a simple, harmless question and unknowingly create an answer they later misinterpret. A candidate can ask a perfectly reasonable question and unintentionally create concern or doubt in the mind of the employer.

Nobody technically says anything wrong, yet the interview still drifts sideways.

One recent example really highlighted this.

A candidate interviewed for a Contract Administrator role with a builder-developer. During the interview, the employer asked:

"What would you like to do longer term in your career?"

The candidate answered honestly:

"Eventually I'd like to get some exposure to the development side of the industry."

Pretty harmless answer, right?

Well, not necessarily.

The employer's interpretation of that answer was:

"This person doesn't really want to be a CA. They want to move into development."

The candidate's interpretation of the question was completely different. In his mind, "long term" meant five, ten or even fifteen years down the line. He wasn't saying he wanted to leave the role in twelve months. He wasn't saying he didn't want to be a Contract Administrator. He simply meant that, over the course of a long career, he'd eventually like exposure to development.

Both sides walked away from the interview with completely different understandings of the same answer.

From the employer's perspective, the concern was actually understandable. He wasn't rejecting the candidate because he lacked capability or because he didn't like him personally. Quite the opposite. The concern was retention.

In his mind, he needed somebody who genuinely wanted to settle into a Contract Administrator role for at least the next few years. He interpreted the answer as:

"This person will jump into development as soon as an opportunity appears."

The interesting part was that this wasn't actually the candidate's intention at all.

The candidate has since accepted another CA role elsewhere and remains very focused on developing his commercial construction capability. His comments around development were simply broad, long-term career aspirations rather than an immediate desire to leave construction operations.

And that's exactly where interviews can become dangerous when assumptions replace clarification.

Neither side was dishonest. Neither side was irrational. They simply interpreted the same conversation differently.

That's the problem.

The issue wasn't honesty. It wasn't ambition. It wasn't capability. It was framing.

In this situation, the employer probably would have received a much clearer answer by sequencing the questions differently.

For example:

Now the candidate understands the framework of the conversation. The timeframes are clearly defined. The employer can separate short-term intent from long-term aspiration. There's less room for assumption and far less chance of incorrectly interpreting the answer.

This is where a lot of hiring managers unintentionally get interviews wrong.

Being a strong General Manager, Construction Manager, Project Director or Commercial Manager does not automatically make somebody a strong interviewer. Most people in leadership positions haven't actually been trained to interview properly. They ask reactive questions, vague questions or throwaway questions without fully considering what information they actually want from the answer.

The best hiring managers usually know exactly:

More importantly, they understand the difference between:

That distinction matters enormously.

If you ask a junior CA a commercial question and they don't fully articulate the answer, that may simply reflect where they are in their development. If you ask a seasoned Senior PM the same style of question and the answer lacks structure, clarity or commercial understanding, that becomes a different concern entirely.

Interviewing properly is not just about asking questions. It's about understanding what the answers actually mean relative to the person's level, experience and background.

And another point that often gets overlooked, particularly in construction hiring, is consistency.

If you're interviewing multiple candidates for the same role, you should largely be asking the same core questions to every person.

Otherwise, you're not comparing apples with apples.

It's no different to comparing subcontractor submissions on a project. If every subcontractor prices a different scope, you're not accurately assessing value because everybody is responding to different information.

Recruitment works the same way.

If one candidate is heavily questioned on programme management, another on leadership, another on culture fit and another on technical delivery, eventually the comparison becomes inconsistent. Strong interview processes create comparable data.

That doesn't mean interviews should feel robotic or scripted, but there should absolutely be a structured framework underneath them.

The strongest interviewers usually know:

Candidates, meanwhile, often underestimate how much employers are interpreting intent through wording, tone and sequencing.

Another common example is around progression and promotion.

A candidate may ask:

"How quickly can I get promoted?"

Now, from the candidate's perspective, this can be a completely reasonable question. They may simply be trying to understand:

But what does the employer often hear?

They hear:

"This person already wants the next role before they've even started this one."

Particularly in construction, where businesses desperately need stability in operational roles, employers can become nervous very quickly if they think somebody is already mentally trying to leave the position they're being hired for.

If I'm hiring a Contract Administrator, I need a CA. I need somebody focused on becoming a very good CA first. There's onboarding, systems, relationships, project understanding and process learning involved. Even experienced people need time to bed into a business properly.

So when the very first line of questioning centres around promotion timelines, some employers immediately jump to:

"This person won't stay settled."

Again, the candidate may not mean that at all.

This is where sequencing questions properly becomes incredibly important.

Instead of asking:

"How quickly can I get promoted?"

A candidate could ask:

"What are the expectations of somebody in this role over the first six to twelve months?"

That's a very mature question.

Then:

"How do you measure success in the role?"

Another excellent question because it shows the candidate is focused on performance and contribution.

Only after understanding expectations and performance measures should the candidate then move into:

"If those expectations are consistently met over time, what longer-term opportunities can open up within the business?"

That lands very differently.

Now the employer hears:

The wording matters. The sequencing matters. The interpretation matters.

Construction and property interviews are full of these small communication traps.

Working hours are another classic example.

A candidate asking:

"What time do I have to start?"

can unintentionally sound very different to:

"What does a normal working day typically look like for the team?"

One can sound resistant before the person has even started. The other sounds commercially curious and genuinely interested in understanding the business environment.

And let's be honest, in commercial construction, candidates are completely justified in wanting clarity around hours. The difference between a business where people occasionally stay back to get things done and one where twelve-hour days are treated like a personality trait is significant.

Nobody wants to accidentally sign themselves up for permanent exhaustion and a site office divorce from their family.

But again, framing matters.

Even the tone of a question can change how somebody interprets intent.

Site Managers often face this around Saturday work.

If a candidate immediately asks:

"How often am I working Saturdays?"

some employers may instantly think:

"This person doesn't want to put in the effort."

Yet the candidate may simply be trying to understand what the realistic workload expectations are before making a major career move.

A better way to approach it could be:

"What's the normal expectation around Saturdays across your projects?"

or:

"How does the business typically manage workload and weekend requirements across projects?"

Those questions sound balanced and commercially aware rather than resistant.

Candidates also need to remember something important here. Employers don't interpret questions in isolation. Sometimes your wording unknowingly reminds them of previous employees who created frustration within the business.

Maybe they had somebody previously who constantly watched the clock, pushed back on workload or became disruptive around flexibility expectations. Then the next candidate walks in and phrases a question similarly, even innocently, and suddenly the employer subconsciously connects the two.

That's why candidates need to think beyond just the question itself.

Think about:

Because interviews are not just about gathering information. They're about managing unknowns from both sides.

Candidates are assessing:

Employers are assessing:

The strongest communicators on both sides are usually the people who create clarity rather than assumption.

Good hiring managers structure conversations properly. They define timeframes. They clarify context. They ask layered questions rather than lazy ones.

Good candidates think carefully about how they position their curiosity, ambition and concerns so they don't accidentally create the wrong perception.

Because interviews are not just information exchanges.

They are interpretation exercises.

And in recruitment, some of the best candidates and best opportunities are lost not because people lacked capability, but because somebody misunderstood what the other person actually meant.