What I Notice in the First 10 Minutes of a Trial Session — And What It Tells Me

People often assume that the first thing I am listening for in a trial session is grammar. They imagine I am mentally making a list of mistakes, noting pronunciation issues or assessing vocabulary range. In reality, that is rarely where my attention goes. Most of the professionals who come to me are already using English every day. They attend meetings, speak with clients, manage teams, present ideas and navigate complex workplace situations. Their challenge is usually not whether they can communicate in English. The challenge is whether their English allows them to communicate with the same level of authority, precision and credibility that they possess in their native language.

One of the first things I notice is whether someone's communication reflects their actual level of expertise. This gap appears surprisingly often. I might be speaking to an engineer with fifteen years of experience, a consultant who advises major organisations, or a founder running a successful business. Within a few minutes it becomes clear that they are highly capable professionals. Their thinking is sophisticated, their judgement is sound and their understanding of their field is deep. Yet when they explain their work in English, some of that expertise disappears. Ideas become less structured. Explanations become longer than they need to be. Important insights are buried inside unnecessary detail. If I met them only through their English, I would form a very different impression of their professional level than if I met them in their native language. This is not because they lack expertise. It is because the language they have available to express that expertise has not yet caught up with the expertise itself.

Another pattern I see regularly is that many professionals begin speaking before they have decided what they want to say. This is particularly common among intelligent and fast-thinking people. They feel pressure to respond quickly, especially in English, and so they start constructing their answer while they are already speaking. The result is that the first part of the answer moves in one direction, the middle moves somewhere else entirely, and by the end they are searching for a conclusion. Often they know exactly what they mean, but they have not given themselves enough time to organise it. What is interesting is that this is rarely a language problem. I have seen people do exactly the same thing in their native language. The difference is that when it happens in English, they usually assume the issue is vocabulary or fluency, when in reality the issue is structure. Some of the strongest communicators I know are not particularly fast speakers. They pause, think, decide on their position and then speak. That small difference changes the way they are perceived.

I also pay close attention to the language people use when describing clients, colleagues and workplace situations. The words someone chooses often reveal whether they are communicating emotionally or professionally. During trial sessions I frequently hear phrases such as "the client was difficult", "they were being needy", "management didn't understand", or "the project was a disaster". Most of the time these descriptions are understandable, and occasionally they are probably accurate. However, they are rarely the language that helps someone sound senior, strategic or commercially aware. The professionals who communicate most effectively have usually learned how to separate their emotional reaction from their professional description of the situation. Instead of describing a client as needy, they might explain that the client requires a high level of involvement throughout the project. Instead of describing a project as chaotic, they might explain that project requirements changed repeatedly during delivery. The facts remain the same, but the language creates a very different impression. In professional environments, particularly in international ones, that distinction matters.

Something else that becomes apparent very quickly is whether a person knows how to persuade or whether they only know how to express an opinion. These are not the same thing. Many people can tell me what they think. Far fewer can explain why another person should agree with them. When I ask a client to justify a recommendation, explain a decision or defend a position, I am listening for their reasoning. Do they simply state their view and hope it will be accepted, or can they build a logical argument? Can they explain consequences, trade-offs and alternatives? Can they guide another person towards a conclusion rather than simply presenting one? In senior roles, this becomes increasingly important because influence is rarely achieved through authority alone. It is achieved through communication. Some of the most successful professionals I work with are not necessarily the most fluent English speakers. They are the ones who have learned how to structure their thinking and communicate it persuasively.

Perhaps the most revealing moment in many trial sessions occurs when we move from conversation into simulation. At the beginning of the session, a client often feels reasonably confident. We chat about their work, their background and their goals. Everything feels comfortable. Then I ask them to imagine they are speaking to a demanding client, presenting a proposal, negotiating a deadline or explaining why a request cannot be accommodated. Suddenly the conversation changes. The confidence that existed a few minutes earlier begins to disappear. This is because professional communication places very different demands on language than casual conversation. The vocabulary is different, the level of precision is different and the consequences are different. Many people discover that they are not actually lacking confidence in English. They are lacking confidence in specific high-stakes situations where the language carries greater responsibility.

What the first ten minutes almost never reveal is a lack of intelligence, ambition or professional capability. More often, they reveal habits. They reveal where expertise is being lost in translation. They reveal where communication could be more structured, more precise or more persuasive. Most importantly, they reveal opportunities.

The professionals who come to me already have the experience, judgement and expertise required to succeed. My role is not to create those qualities. My role is to help ensure that when they communicate in English, other people can see them too.

For those looking to develop their professional communication in English, I work through Darcy Quinn English.

For those navigating bigger questions around direction, confidence, decision-making or professional clarity, I also founded Silk Clarity.

The two businesses serve different purposes. One focuses on how you communicate. The other focuses on how you think. Both are built on the same principle: clarity creates confidence, and confidence changes outcomes.

Originally published on LinkedIn →