Surprise! It is not always the most qualified candidates who get the job. Instead, it is the person who best communicates credibility, confidence and likability.

One way job seekers undermine their chances of being hired is by using language that undersells their value. I notice this every time I prep clients for interviews. The words we choose have a direct impact on the value others place on our contributions. Eliminating these words and phrases from everyday conversation builds confidence, changes the tone of your interactions with others and improves overall self-esteem. And best of all for those in the job market, it improves your chances of getting hired!

What are these words that are so damaging to your job prospects, chances for promotion and overall career?

Let me begin with the seemingly innocent four-letter word I regularly hear slipped into conversation, “just,” as in “I just audited the books and found a discrepancy.” This suggests minimal effort was required. And yes, I hear this kind of oversimplification from clients every day.

In fact, what you did was, “audited 3 years of financial records and discovered a recurring $979 overpayment that cost the company more than $29,000 in the last 2 ½ years.”

An equally dangerous four-letter word: “only.” This is sometimes substituted for “just” and also serves to minimize one’s contribution. For example, “I only negotiated the service side of the agreement.”

Instead let me suggest, “I negotiated the service agreement reducing overall costs by 17%.”

Sometimes the word “simply” is inserted in place of “just” or “only” with equally damaging results.

During coaching sessions clients will refer to a successful outcome or result by stating, “but it was really nothing, anyone could have done it.” Sure, if you say so.

Don’t undermine your achievements by kicking them to the curb that won’t help you land a well-deserved job. When you tell an interviewer that it was nothing, he will believe you. Frame it as the real challenge that it was so he can better understand that hiring you will be a smart choice on his part.

Another pet peeve is the word “little.” For example, “I worked on a little web problem that prevented customers from quickly completing their transactions.” Really, that was a “little” problem? It sounds to me like this problem was costing the company a sizable amount of money and customer goodwill. Surely that is worth a better description than “little” problem and while you are at it, estimate how much money you saved the company by fixing this recurring irritant and include that in your explanation.

Lastly, I come to a two-letter word that has the potential to derail an interview, the seemingly harmless “we.” A common interview question is, “Tell me about a challenged you faced and how you handled it.” Inevitably, the candidate replies with the royal “we.” Responding with something along the lines of “We worked with the IT department to build touchscreen capability enabling classroom teachers to bring science to life.” This response minimizes your contribution.

While you don’t want to overstate your role, if you did this without significant assistance, a more accurate response is, “I worked with the IT department to build touchscreen capability enabling classroom teachers to bring science to life.” If in fact the solution was a team effort, replace “we” with, “my colleagues and I,” or “my team and I.” When you attach the appropriate value to your contributions so will potential employers.

Mary Jeanne Vincent, career expert and strategist, has a coaching practice in Monterey. She may be reached at 831-657-9151, mjv@careercoachmjv.com or www.careercoachmonterey.com