The Communication Gap: When being right isn't enough

You can be the most technically rigorous person in the room and still lose the room. That's the communication gap: the difference between being right and being heard. This article explores the six ways it shows up in actuarial practice, and what it takes to close it.

The session, The Communication Gap: When Being Right Isn't Enough, ran across Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide and online with some participants from Asia — and the conversation that followed was one of the most honest we've had so far in this Career Insights series.

The panel brought together Jess Chen, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at Australian Super; Iain Bulcraig, Chief Risk Officer (CRO) at SCOR; and Fiona MacGillivray, Executive General Manager (EGM) Marketing & Communications at the Actuaries Institute, moderated by Sophia Songberg, Manager at Scyne Advisory.

Why do actuaries have a reputation for poor communication?

Before diving into the six gaps, it's worth asking why the stereotype exists at all.

"We are trained to be focused on numbers, modelling and analysis," said Iain Bulcraig. "These are great skills, but there's no point in doing this if you can't communicate the information clearly and efficiently."

Sophia Songberg put it simply: "We're known for being detail-oriented and highly technical. Sometimes it can be hard to step back, see the bigger picture and focus on the story."

Both panellists agreed the fix is learnable. The good news, as Iain noted, is that actuaries can usually turn their hands to anything — so why not stand out as a communicative actuary?

What is the communication gap?

The communication gap is not about dumbing things down or sacrificing precision for accessibility. It is about something more fundamental: the gap between what the presenter values and what the audience needs.

We identified six versions of it that come up again and again in actuarial contexts.

The expertise trap: Knowing so much that you can't work out what to leave out. Completeness feels like professionalism. To the audience, it registers as noise.

The journey versus the destination: The instinct to build up to a conclusion — to show your working, to demonstrate the rigour behind the answer — feels responsible. To a CFO at eight in the morning, it feels slow. Leading with the answer and supporting it with reasoning is a discipline that runs counter to how most actuaries are trained to present their work.

Accuracy without impact: A finding that is technically correct but so heavily caveated that no one knows what to do with it is not a useful finding. Being right and being useful are not the same thing.

Audience blindness: Delivering the same brief regardless of who is in the room. A CFO, a CRO, and an EGM of Communications all need different things from the same set of facts. The data doesn't change. The frame does.

The assumed context problem: When you live with a dataset every day, it is easy to forget that your audience doesn't. Starting in the middle of the story — with the complication rather than the situation — loses people before you've made your point.

Emotion-free delivery: Technically flawless presentation with no signal of urgency or significance leaves the audience under-briefed on the stakes. Tone carries meaning. A flat delivery of a serious finding is still a gap, even when the content is sound.

The through-line across all six is the same. The presenter is optimising for themselves — for their rigour, their process, their comfort — rather than for the audience.

What the exercise revealed

In the session, participants were given a scenario: a slow-moving East Coast low, record rainfall, major flooding across southeast Queensland and northern New South Wales. As portfolio actuaries at a mid-sized composite insurer, they had to brief three different executives — a CFO, a CRO, and an EGM Marketing and Communications — on the same incomplete picture, with quarterly results due in two weeks.

Same facts. Three different rooms. Three different challenges.

What lands well is leading with what you know, framing what you don't as something being actively managed and making a specific ask — not waiting to be prompted. Understanding that the job in that room isn't to present findings. It is to enable a decision.

What technical people tend to struggle with is leading with too much methodology and not enough implication; hedging so carefully that the message disappears; or giving a thorough brief without telling the executive what they actually need from them.

That last one — the missing ask — is perhaps the most common communication gap of all. A brief that ends without a specific request puts the entire burden of next steps on the audience. It's the actuarial equivalent of handing over a report and walking out of the room.

How do you answer a question you haven't prepared for?

Even the best-prepared communicator will face the unexpected. The panellists had clear, complementary approaches.

"Don't be afraid to say you don't know," Iain noted. "Check, and come back with an answer. That's a sign of maturity — and it gives you credibility in future interactions."

Sophia took a similar approach: "I try to think through the problem and my response for 30 seconds or so. If it's going to take longer than that, I'll usually ask whether I can get back to them. There's no shame in doing that."

How do you become a better communicator?

The session closed with the question most participants came for: where do you actually start?

That practice doesn't have to mean presenting to large audiences, though it helps. Speaking up in team meetings, requesting one-on-ones with senior actuaries, and expanding your network outside work all count. As Iain put it: every conversation is a learning opportunity, particularly if you can ask yourself afterwards — how did that go? What would I do differently?

Sophia's approach is similarly practical. "Practice makes perfect. Sometimes I even practise presenting to myself in the mirror."

Why this matters now

The age of AI is not reducing the demand for actuarial judgment. If anything, it is amplifying it. As automation handles more of the calculation, what remains — and what becomes more valuable — is the ability to interpret, to advise and to communicate under uncertainty with authority and clarity.

The profession's credibility has always rested on technical excellence. But influence — the ability to shape decisions, to be in the room when it matters, to have your analysis drive action — requires something more. It requires closing the gap between being right and being heard.

What's next in the Career Series

The conversation continues with two upcoming sessions.

On 16 July, Actuaries Without Borders: Your Path to a Global Career brings together actuaries who have made the move overseas to share what they learned and what they wish they'd known earlier. Free for members. Register here.

On 23 July, Executive Presence asks a harder question: you're good at what you do — but do the right people know it? Available in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide and online. Free for members. Register here.