Interview questions for written communication: 14 questions and a fair writing exercise
On this page
- Written communication, defined as something you can observe
- Ten behavioral questions, with red flags and probes
- Four situational questions
- A short, job-related writing exercise
- What strong and weak answers sound like
- A 1–4 anchored rating scale for written communication
- Common interviewer mistakes with written communication
- Questions people ask
Interview questions for written communication have a built-in limitation: you are asking someone to talk about writing. A candidate can describe a beautifully structured report and still write a confusing email. So this page pairs fourteen questions, ten behavioral and four situational, with a short writing exercise that gives you direct evidence. Each question comes with what a strong answer contains, red flags and a follow-up probe, followed by sample answers, a 1–4 anchored scale, the fairness caution that applies to any scored test, and the mistakes that turn a writing score into a grammar score.
Most scorecards fold writing into communication skills, where the evidence is mostly spoken. That page covers explaining clearly in conversation. Active listening covers the receiving side. This page covers writing that has to stand on its own: the reader cannot interrupt, so purpose, structure and brevity do the work a conversation would.
Written communication, defined as something you can observe
Definition: written communication is producing text that the intended reader can understand and act on without needing to ask what you meant: leading with the point, structuring for how the reader will use it, choosing the right length and tone for the audience, and checking for accuracy. Listen and look for four behaviors:
- Point first. Stating the conclusion, request or decision early, not at the end of a narrative.
- Reader-shaped structure. Headings, short paragraphs, lists or a table chosen for how this reader will scan and use it.
- Audience fit. Adjusting detail, vocabulary and tone for an executive, a customer, a technical peer or the public.
- Revision. Cutting, checking facts and rereading as the reader before sending.
Ten behavioral questions, with red flags and probes
| Question | A strong answer contains | Red flags | Follow-up probe |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Tell me about a piece of writing that got the result you wanted. What made it work? | The reader, the action they needed, and specific choices about structure or length. | Talks about how long it was or how polished it sounded, not what the reader did. | "What did you cut from the first draft?" |
| 2. Describe a time something you wrote was misunderstood. | What the reader took from it, why, and what they changed in how they write. | Blames the reader for not reading carefully. | "How would you write that message now?" |
| 3. Tell me about writing the same information for two very different audiences. | Concrete differences in what they led with, the detail they kept and the vocabulary. | Sent the same text to both, or only changed the greeting. | "What did the senior version leave out?" |
| 4. Describe the longest document you have written. How did you make it usable? | A summary up front, navigation, and a test with a real reader. | Length treated as a sign of quality. | "Who read it, and what did they do with it?" |
| 5. Tell me about an email or message you rewrote before sending, or wish you had. | What they noticed on rereading, such as tone, ambiguity or a buried request, and what they changed. | Never rereads; or the example is only about typos. | "What made you stop before sending?" |
| 6. Describe a time you had to put bad news or a refusal in writing. | Clear about the decision, brief about the reason, and specific about next steps. | Buried the news, or was so blunt it caused avoidable damage. | "How did the reader respond?" |
| 7. Tell me about documentation or instructions you wrote that someone else used without you. | How they tested it, and evidence that others followed it successfully. | Wrote it once and never checked whether anyone could use it. | "What question did people still ask after reading it?" |
| 8. Describe how you edit someone else's writing. | Focuses on purpose and structure first, explains changes, preserves the author's voice. | Rewrites everything in their own style, or only fixes commas. | "What is the first thing you look for?" |
| 9. Tell me about a time you had to write something quickly that mattered. | How they prioritized the point and accuracy under time pressure. | Sent something rushed with errors and treated speed as the excuse. | "What did you check before sending?" |
| 10. Describe a time you chose not to write something and talked instead, or the reverse. | A reasoned choice of medium based on the content and the relationship. | Writes everything, including messages that needed a conversation. | "How do you decide?" |
Four situational questions
-
"Your director asks for a one-paragraph update on a project that is two weeks late. What goes in the paragraph, and in what order?"
Probes: What do you leave out? What do you ask for, if anything? -
"A customer emails an angry, rambling complaint with three separate issues. How do you structure your reply?"
Probes: Which issue goes first? How long should the reply be? -
"You need to explain a policy change to 200 people who will mostly read only the subject line and first sentence. What do you write?"
Probes: What is the subject line? What goes after the first sentence? -
"A colleague asks you to review their proposal. It is accurate, but the request is on page four. What feedback do you give?"
Probes: How do you phrase it? What else do you look at?
A short, job-related writing exercise
Questions tell you how a candidate thinks about writing. A short exercise shows you how they write. Keep it small and close to the job:
- Base it on a real task from the role. A status update for a recruiter, a customer reply for a support role, a one-page summary for an analyst. Avoid general essays.
- Keep it short. Twenty to thirty minutes during or just after the interview is usually enough to see structure and audience fit.
- Give everyone the same prompt, materials, time and tool policy. State whether spell checkers and AI writing tools are allowed.
- Score against a rubric written in advance that matches the four behaviors above, with each criterion tied to something the job requires.
- Score blind if you can, with the candidate's name removed, and have two people score independently.
The guide to evaluating a take-home assignment covers rubrics, scoring and feedback for longer exercises.
Job-relatedness and adverse impact
Not legal advice. This is a general summary of US federal material as of October 2026, and state and local rules can add requirements. Confirm your own process with HR or employment counsel.
A scored writing exercise used to decide who moves forward is a selection procedure, the same as any test. Under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR 1607.3(A), using a selection procedure that has an adverse impact on members of any race, sex or ethnic group is considered discriminatory unless the procedure has been validated under the Guidelines or the Guidelines' alternative provisions are met. Separately, Title VII at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k) makes an employer liable for a practice that causes a disparate impact if the employer cannot show it is job related for the position and consistent with business necessity. Part 1607 was still in the eCFR as of October 2026, although the EEOC has listed its rescission at the final rule stage of the federal regulatory agenda (RIN 3046-AB43). The statute does not depend on the Guidelines. In practice: tie each rubric criterion to a real task, apply the exercise the same way to everyone, keep the scores, and check pass rates by group. The four-fifths rule explainer shows how to run that check.
What strong and weak answers sound like
Illustrative answers to situational question 11, written to show the difference in structure.
Weak: "I'd start by giving some background on the project and what we set out to do, then go through the issues we ran into with the vendor and the testing, and then explain the new timeline at the end so they have the full context."
This is chronological, so the director reaches the new date and any request last. It also commits to a lot of background in a single paragraph.
Strong: "First sentence: the new date and how confident we are in it. Second: the one main cause, in a clause, not the full history. Third: what we are doing to protect the new date. Last: whether I need anything from her, and if not, say so, so she knows no action is needed. I'd leave out the vendor back-and-forth and offer it if she wants it."
The strong answer leads with what the reader needs, compresses the cause, makes the request or the absence of one explicit, and decides deliberately what to leave out.
A 1–4 anchored rating scale for written communication
| Score | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 1 — No evidence | Writing is unclear about its purpose; key points are buried or missing. Cannot describe adapting writing to a reader. Exercise needs a second read to find the point. |
| 2 — Limited | Writing is accurate and readable but follows the writer's chronology, not the reader's needs. Little adaptation between audiences. |
| 3 — Solid | Leads with the point, structures for how the reader will use the text, adapts length and tone to the audience, and revises before sending. |
| 4 — Strong | Everything at 3, plus writes documents others use independently, edits others' work to sharpen purpose, and chooses deliberately between writing and talking. |
Common interviewer mistakes with written communication
- Scoring grammar as the whole skill. A few typos in a timed exercise matter less than a buried request. Score what the job needs.
- Rewarding a sophisticated style. Long words and long sentences can hide unclear thinking. Plain, short and correct usually serves the reader better.
- Using the resume as the sample. Resumes are often edited by others or written to a template. Use your own exercise.
- Changing the exercise between candidates. Different prompts or time limits make scores incomparable and undermine any claim that the exercise is consistent and job-related.
- Writing "good writer" in the notes. Write the behavior: "led with new date and confidence; one-clause cause; explicit 'no action needed' line."
Questions people ask
How is written communication different from communication skills in general?
General communication questions usually focus on speaking: explaining clearly, adapting to an audience in conversation, presenting. Writing has different demands: the reader cannot interrupt to ask what you meant, the text has to stand on its own, and structure does more of the work. Some strong speakers write poorly and the reverse, so for writing-heavy roles score it separately.
Should I use the candidate's cover letter or emails as a writing sample?
Treat them as weak evidence. You do not know how much help the candidate had or how long it took, and not every candidate sends one. A short exercise with the same prompt, time limit and rubric for every candidate gives you comparable evidence.
What about candidates who use AI writing tools?
Decide your policy before the exercise and state it in the instructions: either tools are allowed, as they may be on the job, or the exercise is done without them in a supervised setting. Then score against the rubric either way. An unstated policy leads to inconsistent scoring and unfair comparisons.
Is a writing test legally risky?
Any scored exercise used to decide who moves forward is a selection procedure. Under the Uniform Guidelines at 29 CFR 1607.3, a procedure with adverse impact on a race, sex or ethnic group is treated as discriminatory unless validated, and Title VII requires a practice with disparate impact to be job related and consistent with business necessity. Keep the exercise tied to real tasks, apply it consistently and monitor pass rates. This is general information as of October 2026, not legal advice.