Communicating and Influencing: How to Show Clarity, Persuasion and Impact

For many applicants, Communicating and Influencing sounds deceptively simple.

Most people assume it means speaking clearly, being confident, or working well with others. This is why many applications rely on broad statements such as, “I have excellent communication skills” or “I regularly work with stakeholders.”

These statements may be true, but they rarely meet the standard required in a Civil Service behaviour example.

At the centre of this behaviour is purposeful communication. Assessors are not simply asking whether a candidate can talk, write, present, or contribute in meetings. They are asking whether the candidate can adapt their message, understand their audience, influence outcomes, and bring others along.

The misunderstanding behind the behaviour

A common mistake applicants make is treating communication as a soft skill rather than an evidence-based one. They describe what they are like, rather than what they did.

An applicant might write “I communicated with different teams to complete the project successfully”, which sounds positive, but it tells the assessor very little.

Who were the teams? What made the communication difficult? Was there disagreement? Did the applicant need to persuade anyone? What changed? Without this detail, the example remains too general.

The Civil Service is looking for evidence that the candidate can communicate with intention. That means recognising when audiences need different information, when a message needs simplifying, when resistance needs addressing, and when influence matters more than instruction.

What strong candidates demonstrate

A strong example usually shows a candidate navigating complexity.

This might involve explaining a technical issue to a non-specialist audience, persuading senior leaders to support a proposal, managing conflicting views between teams, or adapting communication for service users.

The key is not simply that communication happened, but that the candidate made deliberate choices.

A stronger response might show how the applicant identified stakeholder concerns, tailored their message, used evidence to build credibility, and secured agreement where there had been uncertainty or resistance.

In other words, the behaviour is not about being articulate. It is about being effective.

Where applications fall short

Many candidates weaken their examples by focusing on the existence of communication rather than the impact of it.

They mention meetings, emails, presentations, and briefings, but do not explain what they achieved.

Saying, “I held weekly meetings with stakeholders” describes an activity. Saying, “I introduced weekly meetings after identifying conflicting priorities, then used them to clarify responsibilities and secure agreement” demonstrates judgement, influence, and impact.

The second version tells the assessor what the candidate contributed.

The importance of audience

One strong way to demonstrate this behaviour is to show that communication was adapted.

Civil Service roles often involve working with senior officials, operational teams, external partners, the public, and policy specialists. Each audience may require a different tone, level of detail, and method of engagement.

Strong applicants show they understand this difference.

A question of influence

Influencing does not always mean forcing people to agree. It can mean building trust, presenting evidence, understanding objections, negotiating a compromise, or helping people see the value of a different approach.

Influence is strongest when there is something at stake. If there was disagreement, uncertainty, resistance, or competing priorities, the candidate can show how they shaped the outcome.

What this behaviour is really testing

Ultimately, Communicating and Influencing is testing whether a candidate can move people and decisions forward. It asks whether they can communicate clearly, listen carefully, persuade appropriately, adapt their approach, and understand the perspectives of others.

For applicants, the challenge is not proving they are confident communicators. It is proving that their communication changed something.

In Civil Service recruitment, that difference can decide whether an application progresses or falls short.