We assess listening skills through paired interviews where candidates ask rather than answer first. Their questions reveal depth of understanding, preparation, and empathy effortlessly. Leaders who listen before speaking signal maturity rare among early-stage professionals. Observation of attentiveness instinctively shows whether dialogue feels transactional or relational. True communicators prioritise connection over presentation within limited conversational windows. This reversal challenges expectations, surfacing personality beyond polished rehearsed narratives instantly. It builds respect by placing focus on mutual curiosity rather than evaluation. Those able to sustain dialogue through inquiry naturally demonstrate collaborative instincts. We hire individuals whose curiosity fuels trust before self-promotion emerges. Listening remains the purest evidence of leadership competence across disciplines universally.
At LAXcar, I have regular exercises with applicants, and since the recruiting takes place with my team of chauffeurs, I often experience a fictional incident where the flight is delayed at the last moment, so the client's schedule is ruined. To maintain and correct the situation, the candidate must speak to the dispatcher, change the plan for the meeting, and calm the client in less than a minute. One candidate impressed me when she proactively called the client to inform them of the new arrival gate and ETA respectfully and calmly, and at the same time, organized a backup vehicle. This act portrayed initiative, empathy, and composure under extreme stress. These micro-moments are always missed in traditional interviews. This real-life test evaluates how people act and conduct themselves amid chaos and in luxury transportation.
With the exception of interpersonal skills, psychometric assessments are substantially better measures of soft skills than interviews. In reality, most soft skills are intrapersonal, not interpersonal. Work ethic, resilience, integrity, these characteristics can't be expressed verbally and thus can't be measured using interviews. Sure, you can ask questions about them, but it's the candidates with interpersonal skills who perform best. That doesn't mean they actually have those soft skills, it just means they can speak convincingly about them, very different skills. Psychometric assessments, however, are designed specifically to measure soft skills without the interference of interpersonal skills and charisma. That's not to say that interviews (and interpersonal skills) aren't important; they are just the wrong tool for the job. Indeed, doing both gives you the best of both worlds, showing what we call "incremental validity" over each other. But ultimately, organizations must decouple having soft skills from being able to convince people that they have soft skills. Once you cease conflating the two, psychometrics become the most viable soft skills assessment tool.
The most accurate representation of an individual's soft skills is through live group problem-solving sessions at the end of the hiring process. A realistic, actual business project scenario with partial information, and changing priorities is presented, and I evaluate how each candidate uses their communication, adaptability and collaboration with other team members. This reveals true behavior when there is some pressure (such as conflict resolution), and who will work effectively in teams and allow other team members to contribute. In this type of situation, I have seen reserved applicants exhibit superior leadership, and very confident applicants show difficulty in listening. In a traditional interview, the interviewer has too much structure and has been prepped for the exact same questions over and over again, so it is hard to determine how the applicant will react when changes are made to the plans. When candidates are required to brainstorm solutions, use creative thinking, and problem solve in a collaborative manner to complete an open ended task, their patterns of empathy, humility and critical thinking are exposed. This allows me to assess who can provide calm and clear direction, which typically defines who will ultimately succeed in the long term in a project based environment.
I will often ask questions like "what do you contribute most as a team member, outside of the actual work you are doing?" This gives them a chance to talk about their soft skills - maybe they are a good leader, or they are really creative, or they're able to step in and help with whatever is needed, or something else. I think this kind of question gives great insight into unique skills they have that they typically don't have listed on their resume.
I believe that conventional interviews are absolutely ineffective in terms of observing the actual performance of a person under the pressure. On my part we have a 30 minute client crisis test. We issue a loan file to the candidates and say, here is the investment loan of 900,000 dollars and the valuation of the loan just found itself 100,000 short the night before the settlement of the loan. They are assigned to call me immediately, and I am the high net worth client who is completely panicked. Frankly speaking, I do not need any other tests than this one does. To me, textbook answers are useless at that time. I observe how they can receive the panic of the client without complicating the situation. I will have to check whether they are able to guard the relationship and at the same time, work out a 3 point recovery plan. It is this single test that separates that 1 in 10 applicants who actually work in chaos, and the 9 who just read off the paper.
The typical working day for most employees will involve unexpected challenges that cause them to think on their feet, so it seems counterintuitive to create an interview environment that's undermined by predictable questions. Traditional interviews take the form of verbal assessments where candidates are tasked with responding to certain areas of concern about their resumes and their capabilities to tackle their daily job roles with transferable skills. While these considerations are important, soft skills may only emerge when candidates are tasked with relying on their instincts. This means that asking more left-field questions can be a good test of their ability to communicate clearly when in unpredictable situations. Asking a question like 'If you were an animal, what would you be?' has become a popular question to look for visible cues for soft skills, but using more miscellaneous questions that aren't intrusive is an effective way to assess soft skills like the ability to communicate within teams.
I like to ask hypothetical questions. They'll vary depending on the persona and what specific role they are interviewing for, but usually they have an angle of trying to gain insight into their soft skills. I might ask how they would handle a particular situation as a team leader, for example, or how they would make use of their unique strengths to handle a certain problem. Hypothetical questions are a great way to get really honest answers from candidates since they can't as easily prepare for them.
What's worked well for us is using team-based interviews. Instead of a one-on-one conversation, we bring candidates into a small group discussion with employees from different departments. It's not about putting anyone on the spot—it's about seeing how they listen, contribute, and respond to different personalities. You can tell right away whether someone is respectful, adaptable, and comfortable collaborating, all soft skills we value highly in our company. This setup reveals things a traditional interview can't. When candidates interact naturally with our team, we see their communication style, empathy, and even how they handle a bit of pressure. Some people light up in group settings because they're team-oriented by nature, while others show they prefer working more independently. Either way, it helps us make better hiring decisions and ensures the person we bring on fits not just the job, but the culture we've worked hard to build.
The best technique I have employed to test soft skills when hiring is by providing the candidates with a chaotic client problem to solve aloud as I intentionally alter the requirements throughout the conversation to make the candidate experience some pressure and introduce a new strategy. I introduce situations when a client requests first-page positioning within two weeks and has significant technical problems, and halfway during their explanation, I introduce new nuances, such as the client halving the budget or disclosing that they require the results before a significant product release, and the candidates will be required to change their communication approach and style on the fly. The method derives the information that standard interviews cannot provide since it demonstrates how a person can think under pressure instead of the ability to memorize narratives of previous achievements. People who present themselves as having an impressive resume often have to freeze or get defensive when the solution that first worked is no longer effective and others will immediately begin asking questions about what is of most interest to the client and change their advice accordingly, and observing that variation tells me more about their ability to solve problems and their level of emotional intelligence than any worded response ever would.
The most successful soft skills assessment I have employed involves real-time teamwork activities which take place without preparation or scripting. I place candidates into mini projects which require feedback handling and unclear situations while allowing things to become slightly disorganized. We tested one candidate by providing him with conflicting directions from two team members to observe his reaction between freezing and seeking clarification. The top candidates remained composed during challenging situations by asking precise questions while they restored project direction through natural team involvement. The way candidates handle unexpected situations and stressful moments remains hidden during standard interview procedures. The high-pressure situation exposes a person's emotional intelligence and their ability to adapt and their ego strength more effectively than any personality assessment.
After 30+ years in logistics and running AFMS with 3,000+ clients, I've learned that the best way to assess soft skills is watching how candidates handle real negotiation scenarios. I put them on a mock call where they need to negotiate carrier rates with someone playing a difficult shipping rep who's throwing curveballs--sudden price increases, service failures, data disputes. You see immediately who can build rapport under pressure versus who crumbles. Traditional interviews miss the thinking process. When I had candidates negotiate a fake UPS contract renewal, one person with an impressive resume immediately went adversarial and burned the relationship in 90 seconds. Another candidate with less experience asked clarifying questions first, found common ground on service issues, then leveraged our shipping volume data to create a win-win. That's exactly how we've saved clients $4.5 billion--through relationship-building, not just number-crunching. The freight industry is all about problem-solving when invoices are wrong, shipments are late, and clients are furious. I also throw candidates a scenario where a major client like Honda just got hit with $50K in incorrect freight charges and is threatening to leave. How they handle that angry client call in real-time tells me everything about their communication skills, empathy, and ability to stay calm. The ones who listen first and problem-solve second are the ones who last in this business.
I've found the most effective method is bringing candidates out to an actual job site mid-interview. We'll stop by a well location or pump install in progress, and I watch how they react to the environment--do they ask questions about the equipment, show curiosity about what the crew is doing, or do they hang back awkwardly? At Crabtree Well & Pump, we've been family-run since 1946, and I need people who genuinely connect with hands-on work, not just those who interview well in an office. What this catches that traditional interviews miss is authentic interest versus rehearsed enthusiasm. I had one candidate who seemed perfect on paper, but when we got to the site, they stayed glued to their phone and complained about mud on their shoes. Another candidate with less experience immediately started asking our driller Todd about the rig's specs and noticed we were working near a geothermal system--that person understood this work requires real curiosity and adaptability. I also involve my kids when appropriate since they're often at job sites learning the business. If a candidate dismisses them or treats them like they're in the way, that tells me everything about patience and teaching ability. The best hires are the ones who naturally explain what they're doing when my kids ask questions--that's the same communication skill they'll need when walking homeowners through their water conditioning options or explaining why their pump failed.
I've spent 40+ years in PR and media building teams for high-stakes campaigns--from crisis management to royal commentary--and the single best assessment I use is observing how someone tells a story about *someone else's* success. I ask candidates to describe a colleague's achievement they admire, not their own. The soft skill goldmine appears immediately. Generous people light up talking about others and give specific credit. Insecure candidates struggle, deflect back to themselves, or offer vague praise. At Andy Warhol's Interview magazine early in my career, I learned that ego management is everything--you need people who can lift a client or brand without making it about them. I also watch how they react when I share something vulnerable or admit I don't know an answer mid-conversation. The best hires I've made--especially for brand development and image counseling--were people who leaned in with curiosity instead of judgment. When you're managing a crisis for a client at 2am, you need someone who problem-solves with you, not someone cataloging your gaps. Traditional interviews reward polished performance. This approach reveals character when the spotlight shifts away from them--which is exactly when I need to trust them most in my business.
I run an IT services company in New Jersey, and I've learned that cybersecurity training reveals more about soft skills than any structured interview question ever could. When I put new hires through phishing simulations before they even start handling real client data, I see exactly how they respond to mistakes--and that tells me everything. Here's what I do: I send fake phishing emails to candidates during their trial period and watch what happens when they click the bad link. The ones who immediately report it, ask questions, and want to understand what they missed? Those are keepers. The ones who try to hide it or make excuses? Red flags everywhere. I had one tech support candidate who fell for three simulations in a row but came to me after each one asking to review what he missed and how to spot it next time. That curiosity and ego-free learning style made him one of my best hires--he now trains our clients' employees. Meanwhile, I've had "perfect" candidates with flawless resumes who got defensive when caught and never admitted fault. The data backs this up too--90% of breaches involve human error, so watching how someone handles being wrong in a safe environment shows me if they'll protect my clients or become my biggest liability. Traditional interviews let people perform; simulations show you who they actually are under pressure.
I've hired over 150 staff across eight campuses, and here's what changed everything for me: I watch how candidates respond to *interruptions* during the interview itself. About halfway through, I have someone knock on the door with an "urgent" question--something minor that I could easily dismiss or address quickly. The soft skills reveal themselves instantly. Do they check their phone while I'm briefly distracted? Do they lean in to help problem-solve even though it's not their conversation? Do they use the pause to collect their thoughts, or do they visibly get annoyed that our time was interrupted? I've passed on technically brilliant candidates who showed zero patience during a 90-second interruption, because ministry is *constant* interruptions. What traditional interviews miss is how people handle the unscripted moments. Someone can rehearse teamwork stories all day, but I need to see how they actually treat the receptionist, how they react when I admit I don't have an answer to their question, or what they do when things don't go according to plan. We've built our discipleship training around "Know, Feel, Do"--and this same principle applies to hiring. I don't just want to know what they *say* they'd do; I need to feel their authentic response and see what they actually do when tested. Since implementing this about eight years ago, we've dramatically reduced turnover in key leadership positions. The people who stay calm, stay curious, and stay kind during disruptions are the same ones still thriving on our team years later.
I run Castle of Chaos haunted attraction and Alcatraz Escape Games in Utah, and I've hired hundreds of actors and game masters over 20+ years. Here's what actually works: I put candidates through a live escape room with planted "difficult customers" (my staff acting as problem guests). Within 15 minutes, I see everything a resume hides. Do they abandon teammates when puzzles get hard? Do they hog all the clues or share information? When our planted "angry customer" starts complaining loudly mid-game, do they freeze, get defensive, or stay calm and redirect? I've watched candidates with perfect customer service scripts completely crumble when someone actually raises their voice. The escape room format is brilliant because there's no "right answer" to memorize. You can't fake patience when you're stuck on a puzzle for 8 minutes with a ticking clock. You can't pretend to communicate well when your team is literally lost without your input. I've hired people with zero experience because they naturally coached struggling teammates, and I've passed on "qualified" candidates who blamed others when their team failed. The data backs it up--our retention rate jumped from 40% to 78% after I started this method three years ago. Traditional interviews told me who could talk about teamwork; escape rooms showed me who actually does it when stressed, confused, and racing against time.
I run multiple nationwide service platforms where I'm hiring remote teams and independent contractors constantly--from roadside rescuers to diesel mechanics to virtual assistants. Traditional interviews are worthless for predicting how someone handles a 2am breakdown call or juggles three customer texts while navigating to a job site. I give people real scenarios during onboarding and watch how they respond. For Road Rescue Network, new rescuers get a simulated dispatch where the "customer" changes their location twice, asks if we take cash, then says their car is actually their brother's. I'm not testing their answers--I'm watching response time, tone, and whether they ask clarifying questions or just guess. The ones who succeed in the field always slow down and confirm details instead of rushing to sound confident. With virtual staff, I assign a messy Airtable cleanup task or ask them to research something vague like "find local mobile welding demand in Ohio." How they structure their work, ask questions, and present findings tells me everything. One assistant I hired turned a basic research task into a formatted report with three actionable insights--she's now managing operations across two brands because that's how her brain works naturally. The difference is I'm not asking "tell me about a time you handled pressure"--I'm creating the pressure and watching what happens. Soft skills only show up under real conditions, not rehearsed answers.
I built Pinnacle Signage by bringing people in from other trades and industries--panel beaters, retail workers, you name it--and training them in-house here in Wagga Wagga. What I've learned is that resumes don't tell you who'll actually solve problems when a customer's job site is missing critical signage at 4pm on a Friday. The method that's worked best for me: I give candidates a real scenario we've faced. Something like "a distributor calls, they need 50 custom signs by Monday but the artwork is wrong and the site manager is unreachable--walk me through what you'd do." I'm not looking for the "right" answer. I'm watching how they think out loud, whether they ask clarifying questions, and if they show ownership or just freeze up. One bloke I hired had zero signage experience but came from hospitality. When I threw him that scenario, he immediately started asking about backup contacts, alternative artwork options, and whether we could do a partial shipment. That's the hustler mentality you can't teach--and he's now one of our best customer service people. Traditional interviews would've screened him out based on his CV alone. What you miss in standard interviews is how people react when there's no script. The manufacturing floor doesn't wait for perfect conditions, and neither do our customers. Putting candidates in messy, real situations shows you who leans in versus who checks out.
I've hired kitchen staff, servers, and managers for over 40 years in restaurants, and here's what I learned at Rudy's Smokehouse: I watch how candidates treat people they think don't matter. Before the formal interview even starts, I have our dishwasher or busser give them a tour of the kitchen while I "finish up something." Then I ask that employee what they noticed. You'd be shocked what comes out. I've had candidates be polite to my face but completely ignore or talk down to our "tour guide." One guy didn't say a single word to our dishwasher during a 10-minute walk-through--instant no-hire. Another woman asked him questions about his favorite menu items and how long he'd worked here. She got the job and is still with us five years later. The follow-up matters too. After our dishwasher gives feedback, I ask candidates during the sit-down: "What did you learn from your tour?" People who actually listened and engaged can tell me specific things. The ones who were just waiting for the "real" interview fumble every time. At Rudy's, if you can't respect everyone on the team--from pit masters to dishwashers--you won't make it, because that's not how we operate.