Hard skills are valued in business, especially those that relate to technical know-how and take years of education and training to accumulate. They're teachable and employers have traditionally hired people because of these skills. They're valued because they help us to track, measure and tick boxes on how the business and our people are performing. A business needs to have a view of what's going on. You can't fix what you don't know. However, are the hard skills enough?
I've asked the question because I don't think so and want to know what you think. I do know that recruiters around the world are looking for other qualities in the people they hire. They want to bring in people who fit culturally and have the right attitude too. Although that makes good sense, what about when the leadership team doesn't have the right attitude? What then? Who holds them to account on their performance? If the company is listed, do the shareholders really care about attitude or just want to know about their return? The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The role of soft skills
Soft skills are designed to complement hard skills. It's not one versus the other. It's appreciating them both in the mix. The soft skills relate to emotional intelligence. In my experience they aren't given enough credit. Too often because they can't be shown on a spreadsheet they're disregarded. However I sense there's a change of thinking in the wind. McDonalds UK is leading a push to champion the soft skills. Only the organisations and leaders that see themselves in business for the long haul seem to be paying attention.
Soft skills can cover everything from listening, communication, responsiveness, confidence, influence, leadership, presentation, initiative, teamwork, time management and organisation.
For over a decade, HR has done their bit to measure 'engagement'. How engaged employees are stems from how connected they are to their leadership team, their colleagues and what they're there to do. However, engendering a feeling of connectedness is up to the leaders. Leaders have to lead whilst managers manage. The distinction is that managers can account for the measurable activities. They can tick boxes on the hard skills. The leaders need to check the boxes on the soft skills by having emotional intelligence themselves and setting the example they want of others.
About emotional intelligence
In the book Primal Leadership, authors Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee, cover why leaders need to use their emotional intelligence to be effective in the workplace. They argue that leaders provide the inspiration people need to come to work and do their best work. The book makes it clear when the leadership team is dysfunctional, their energy flows down through the whole organisation. How the leadership team turns up attitudinally and behaves impacts everyone. Positive energy is contagious just as negative vibes are damaging to relationships.
Bad behaviour in the workplace can't be isolated. It needs to be dealt with via a no tolerance approach. When the leadership team endorses bad behaviour they send a strong message throughout the organisation that this is 'how we do things around here'. The organisation makes a statement on its behaviour through its values. Often the values look great on paper, although have no connection to the reality of how that organisation and its people act.
Incongruence in the organisational values and the leadership team's behaviour makes for an inauthentic brand. Employees and customers recognise this. No need for engagement testing until these elements are in sync. Authentic leaders have high emotional intelligence and more importantly, self awareness. They are open to criticism because they know it makes them a better person and better at what they do.
Emotional intelligence needs to be viewed as an essential leadership trait. If you need to put that in a box and tick it then do that. The soft skills make you a true leader, not less of one.
* this article was first published on LinkedIn, 11 June 2015
