Ling-Yi Tsai is a seasoned HRTech expert with decades of experience navigating the complex intersection of human psychology and organizational change. Having spearheaded the integration of advanced analytics into recruitment and talent management for some of the world’s most forward-thinking companies, she has observed firsthand how communication styles can either bridge or block the path to a successful hire. Her perspective is shaped by the belief that while technology can streamline a process, the fundamental human ability to tell a clear, compelling story remains the most valuable asset in any professional’s toolkit.
In this discussion, we explore the pitfalls of over-relying on corporate jargon, the psychological shift that occurs when a candidate moves from “LinkedIn-speak” to natural storytelling, and the delicate balance required to demonstrate industry expertise without losing clarity. We also examine the real-world impact of linguistic choices on interviewer engagement and the timeless principles of effective communication in a modern, tech-driven workplace.
Candidates often use phrases like “aligning deliverables” or “cross-functional visibility” to sound professional. How do these terms impact the actual connection between an applicant and a hiring panel?
When a candidate leans heavily on these “big words,” they often unintentionally build a wall between themselves and the interviewers. I’ve seen this happen in numerous three-person panel interviews, much like the one described by the operations analyst, where the candidate begins to overthink simple questions because of the pressure to sound sophisticated. Instead of hearing about a real person solving a real problem, the panel hears a series of buzzwords that feel like they were pulled directly from a generic LinkedIn post. This often leads to a noticeable drop in engagement; for instance, an interviewer like Greg might literally stop taking notes the moment the candidate stops being authentic. When you prioritize sounding professional over being clear, you lose the sensory details and the emotional stakes that actually make your experience impressive to a human being.
There is a specific story about an applicant who practiced with his brother to strip away “corporate-speak.” What does this tell us about the difference between sounding intelligent and communicating effectively?
This story highlights a crucial misunderstanding: many people confuse complexity with intelligence, but true expertise is usually reflected in the ability to simplify. During that 15-minute FaceTime practice session, the brother—who works in construction—was able to point out that if a story needs “big words” to sound impressive, it probably isn’t an impressive story to begin with. When the candidate stopped talking about “strategic alignment” and started explaining that one manager wanted a task on Tuesday while another wanted something else, the situation became relatable and clear. Communicating effectively means ensuring the other person understands exactly what happened, whereas “sounding intelligent” often just results in a performance that leaves the audience confused. Simple answers actually breed confidence because you aren’t struggling to remember a script of jargon; you are simply recounting your life.
When a candidate notices an interviewer stop taking notes the moment jargon starts, what is happening on the other side of the desk from an HR perspective?
From an HR perspective, when the pens go down, it’s usually because the interviewer has stopped hearing new information and is now just listening to “noise.” If a candidate for an operations analyst position starts reciting fluff instead of explaining how they handled conflicting priorities, the panel feels the candidate is being evasive or lacks a deep understanding of their own work. It feels like the candidate is hiding behind a mask of professionalisms because they don’t trust that their actual actions are “enough.” In a Zoom environment especially, where body language is limited, that loss of engagement happens quickly. The interviewer is looking for concrete actions—specific steps taken to resolve a crisis—and when those are replaced by abstract terms, the “data” the interviewer needs to justify a hire simply vanishes.
How can a candidate identify the “sweet spot” where they use enough industry terminology to show expertise without burying their achievements in fluff?
Finding that balance is about knowing the “why” behind every word you choose. Industry terminology is perfectly appropriate when you are discussing a specific technical concept or a tool unique to your field, as it demonstrates that you are a practitioner who knows the landscape. However, as some commenters noted, you should still be able to explain that specialized information clearly to someone who might not know the jargon. If you are applying for a senior leadership position, you might be criticized for not being “articulate” if you are too casual, but being articulate means being precise, not being verbose. The goal is to use industry terms as a shorthand for efficiency, not as a decorative layer to make a mundane task seem more grand than it was.
George Orwell famously suggested avoiding long words when short ones do the trick. How does this philosophy apply to the modern job market where technical roles are increasingly complex?
Orwell’s advice is more relevant now than ever because, in our highly technical world, the ability to translate complexity into plain English is a rare and highly sought-after skill. Even in 2026, where we deal with intricate data structures and AI-driven processes, the person who can explain a “deliverable” as a “finished project” is the one who will successfully lead a team. If you can describe a workplace problem in straightforward terms—like managing a deadline shift—you show that you have a firm grip on the reality of the situation rather than just the theory. We often see that candidates who perform better in early rounds are those who speak naturally, and maintaining that clarity as they move toward senior roles is what separates great managers from those who merely occupy a position. Simplicity is a tool of power, not a sign of a lack of sophistication.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
My best advice is to treat every interview like a conversation with a person you respect but who doesn’t work in your specific office. Before your next big meeting, take 10 or 15 minutes to describe your biggest professional win to a friend or family member who isn’t in your industry. If they have to ask you what a word means, or if they look bored, strip that word out and replace it with a plain-English explanation of what you actually did. Remember that the goal of an interview is to be known and understood, not just to be “accepted” based on a vocabulary test. If you focus on the “what happened” rather than the “how it sounds,” your natural confidence will do more to convince a panel of your value than any corporate buzzword ever could.