An unclear answer doesn't make a question go away. It turns it into something slower and more expensive: a written complaint, a second press enquiry, a follow-up from a committee, or an escalation to someone more senior. For civil servants, answering clearly the first time, often with no time to prepare, saves real work further down the line.
Where does the cost of an unclear answer land?
Nobody puts "caseworker couldn't explain the decision on the phone" on a risk register. But follow the trail behind enough complaints, escalations and awkward media enquiries and you'll often find a spoken question that wasn't answered clearly when it was first asked.
The cost turns up in other people's workloads. A complaints team handles a case that a clearer call might have closed. A press office drafts a holding line because the first response left gaps. A committee clerk writes to request the clarification that could have been given in the room.
The question also tends to move upwards, to someone with more responsibility and less time than the person who took the original call.
Does it affect trust as well as time?
Yes. A vague answer changes what happens next. The member of the public calls again, the journalist asks for clarification, the committee presses harder, and each exchange starts with a little less confidence than the last.
Across hundreds of calls, consultations, parliamentary questions and interviews, those small moments add up. People start to feel they have to ask twice to get a straight answer, even when the work behind it is sound.
What does a clearer answer look like in practice?
- A constituent calls about a delayed decision. A vague "it's being processed" prompts a call to their MP that afternoon. A structured answer (what happened, where it stands, what happens next) gives them a clear picture and closes the call.
- A spokesperson gives a heavily qualified answer to a journalist and the key point gets lost. A short, direct response keeps the story on the substance.
- A select committee member asks a follow-up because the first answer missed the point. A first answer that addresses it squarely reduces the need for repeat questions.
None of these are dramatic failures. They're ordinary moments under pressure, which is exactly why they're worth getting right.
Can thinking on your feet be learned?
It's often treated as a trait people either have or don't. In practice it's a skill: listen, organise your thinking quickly, and give a clear answer without a prepared script.
Think on Your Feet® gives civil servants a toolkit of 10 techniques for structuring a response in seconds, adapting it to whoever is asking, whether that's a member of the public, a journalist, a committee or a stakeholder, and staying clear when the follow-ups come. Delegates practise on scenarios from their own roles.
"Very well structured, clear. Gave practical advice and techniques that can actually come in useful (gave a good toolkit)." Emily-Jane, Public research funding body
Will clearer answers stop complaints altogether?
No. Some questions need investigation, and some issues will always need escalating. What clear first answers prevent is the avoidable follow-up: the extra call, the unnecessary letter, the second enquiry. In a high-scrutiny environment, that's part of doing the job well.
Civil Service teams can book Think on Your Feet® through Government Campus.