The Myth of “Unmeasurable” Soft Skills and How Organizations Can Fix It
In a recent poll we conducted on LinkedIn, we asked a straightforward question: what is the most common myth about soft skills. The leading response was familiar and revealing. Many professionals still believe soft skills cannot be measured. That myth persists because it sounds reasonable. Soft skills feel contextual, human, and nuanced, and many leaders have seen simplistic rating scales create more noise than insight. The conclusion, however, is wrong. The real problem comes from how organizations define, observe, and use the information.
Soft skills do not resist measurement. They resist vague language. When an organization says it wants “better communication” or “more adaptability,” it has not defined a target. Without a target, any attempt at measurement becomes guesswork. People end up scoring personality, confidence, or similarity to the rater rather than capability. The resulting data looks subjective because it is subjective. That pattern teaches leaders the wrong lesson: “we tried, and it did not work.”
Measurement begins with precision, and precision begins with distinguishing traits from behaviors. Traits describe what someone seems like. Behaviors describe what someone does. Soft skills live in behaviors, especially under pressure. Judgment becomes visible in trade-offs. Perspective-taking becomes visible in how someone interprets disagreement. Resilience becomes visible in how someone recovers after a setback and re-engages. Tolerance for ambiguity becomes visible in whether someone demands certainty prematurely or can move forward while information remains incomplete. None of these require mind reading. They require clarity about what to look for.
Organizations can move from myth to method by making three shifts.
1. First, define skills in the language of decisions and interactions rather than labels. Replace “strong communicator” with a small set of observable behaviors anchored to real work, such as: explains reasoning in a way others can use, checks understanding across stakeholders, adapts message to context without losing the core point, and addresses tension directly rather than letting it leak into side conversations. The aim is not an exhaustive list. The aim is a shared picture of competence that a team can recognize consistently.
2. Second, focus development on a small set of micro behaviors tied to soft skills and track growth. Soft-skill scores establish a baseline, but growth comes from learning the specific actions that influence those scores. For example, curiosity strengthens when people pause to ask clarifying questions rather than assume intent. Perspective-taking improves when people test alternative interpretations before responding. Tolerance for ambiguity grows when people continue working without forcing certainty too soon. myGiide links scores to micro challenges for growth, allowing individuals. Progress becomes visible when scores change alongside more deliberate behavior.
3. Third, separate measurement for growth from measurement for judgment. If assessment feels like a verdict, people manage impressions rather than build skills. If assessment feels like information, people engage. This distinction changes everything. Managers can use skill data to coach, not to label. Teams can use it to coordinate, not to rank. Individuals can use it to identify the situations where they want stronger capability.
The LinkedIn poll result points to a clear opportunity. Organizations that retire the “unmeasurable” myth gain leverage. They can set standards, coach consistently, and develop the capabilities that keep performance stable when conditions change. Organizations that cling to the myth remain stuck with vague expectations, uneven feedback, and preventable friction. Soft skills never become less important. They become more expensive when ignored.