Soften skills important to the employer. Write on Harvard Business review last year, Raffaella Sadun of Harvard Business School and her co-authors analyzed nearly 5,000 job descriptions developed by headhunter Russell Reynolds for various C– suite roles between 2000 and 2017. Their work shows that companies have moved away from emphasizing financial and operational skills towards social skills — the ability to listen, reflect, communicate, and empathize. Other studies have reached similar conclusions about jobs with lower pay scales: being able to work well with people is seen not as a subtle bonus but as an important attribute.
Your browser does not support elements
The problem is, soft skills are difficult to measure. Even worse, conventional processes for recruiting people are often better at capturing other qualities. The initial phase of recruitment focuses on screening candidates based on their experience and hard skills, as these are the easiest criteria to assess remotely. Put the words “team player” on a cover letter or a CV is no evidence except unauthenticity. Smiling a lot for the camera for recorded video messages especially shows that you can smile a lot for the camera. Self-reported empathy questionnaires sometimes seem to test for species-level traits (if you agree that “In emergency situations I feel worried and uncomfortable”, many congratulations: you are human).
The later phases of recruitment, when the candidate and employer meet each other and engage in actual conversation, are more suitable for assessing applicants’ more tender skills. But even so, think about how fundamentally unsocial that situation is. Candidates are expected to talk, not listen; to impress, not empathize. Companies are revered for asking interviewees such clever Fermi questions like “How many piano tuners are there in Guangdong?” or “How many cinnamon swirls does it take to fill the Reichstag?” Structured interview scripts allow like-for-like comparisons but they also suppress room for spontaneity. No wonder Professor Sadun et al argue that the recruitment process needs to be much better at honing social skills.
Research has found several shortcuts for identifying softer skills. Two recent studies of what makes a good team member converge on what can be described as reading the room. They also suggest ways to test for this trait.
Research by Siyu Yu of Rice University and co-authors found that people who could accurately gauge which team member had influence had a magical power they called “status acumen.” Such room readers reduce group conflict and improve team performance. As part of their study, they devised a test, in which participants watched videos of a group performing a task. The participants then rated group members based on how much each appreciated. The person who ranks closest to the team member’s own judgment has the quality of status acuity.
In another study, Ben Weidman and David Deming of Harvard University also found that certain individuals consistently outperformed their group. Such people, they argued, were true team players, capable of making the whole greater than the sum of its parts. These amazing creatures do not stand out from their peers IQ or a personality test. But they did significantly better on the “Mind Reading in the Eyes” test, a standardized assessment in which participants were shown pictures of various facial expressions and then had to choose the word that best described each person’s feelings.
Better tests aren’t the only way to gain more information about social skills. Don’t just ask someone higher up the food chain to ask interview questions: it’s good to see how the applicant relates to various colleagues. Ask people who casually interact with applicants, from the assistant setting up the appointment to the receptionist for the day, what they think of them. Find out what the candidate is really worried about about the job: many studies show that humility is associated with better performance.
Hiring soft skills will introduce new risks. They are more slick than technical skills, which can make it easier for people to fake their way through the process. And there may be more room for interviewer bias to creep in. Finding someone annoying may be a signal that a person lacks social skills. But it could also mean that they’re nervous, you’re short-tempered, or the two of you just aren’t the same. Recruitment is set to change. It won’t get any easier.
Read more from Bartleby, our columnist on management and work:
A brief guide to corporate rituals (May 4)
If enough people think you’re a bad boss, then you (April 23)
What makes a good office profit? (April 20)
Also: How Bartleby’s column got its name
