Clear communication isn’t a personality trait — it’s a capability that organisations must build.
In business and personal development circles, we often hear the same phrase: “communication is a soft skill.” It’s usually listed alongside teamwork, leadership, emotional intelligence, and conflict resolution. But the label carries a hidden message — that these are secondary, flexible, or somehow less serious than so-called “hard” skills like coding or accounting.
But that framing is deeply misleading—and in many ways harmful. Labelling communication and relational capabilities as “soft” flattens their complexity, downplays the necessary rigour, can reinforce gendered stereotypes, and encourages superficial development. It’s time to rethink our language and reframe how we value communication as a core competence in life and business.
The Problems with the label “soft skill”
- “Soft” implies weak, optional, or easy
When something is described as “soft,” it carries connotations of being non-essential, less demanding, or soft in the sense of pliable. Yet in practice, communication is anything but soft. Writing, speaking, active listening, negotiating, influencing, coaching, feedback — all of these are high-stakes, high-difficulty skills.
As TASBO (Texas Association of School Business Officials) put it:
“Communication is not a soft skill.”
When we call communication a “soft” skill, we subtly imply it’s optional — something nice to have rather than essential. That mindset ignores the depth, discipline, and practice required to truly master it.
- The ‘soft’ label is imprecise, inconsistent, and unhelpful
“Soft skills” is a catch-all: it bundles together attributes, attitudes, behaviours, and competencies of very different natures. As the National Career Development Association argues:
“‘Soft’ skills may seem like a convenient shorthand, but the term is imprecise, inaccurate, gender-biased, and unprofessional. ncda.org (USA)
Because the label is vague, it encourages superficial treatments: “we’ll do a soft-skills workshop”, rather than diagnosing which of the many dimensions of communication a team or individual actually lacks (listening, framing, narrative, rhetorical structure, empathy, boundary-setting, etc.).
- It can mask power dynamics, bias, and inequality
The term “soft skills” also carries social baggage. Researchers in labour and gender studies note that communication and relational abilities are often undervalued because they’re associated with roles traditionally held by women or minority groups. In other words, the very skills that keep workplaces functioning smoothly have been historically dismissed precisely because of who tends to perform them.
Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild, in The Managed Heart (1983), showed how “emotional labour” — the act of managing feelings and communication to create a desired effect in others — is essential yet systematically undervalued in feminised professions such as care, hospitality, and administration. This pattern persists today: an OECD Skills Outlook (2023) report found that so-called “social and emotional skills” remain less recognised and less financially rewarded than technical competencies, even though they are among the strongest predictors of workplace performance and employability.
In other words, saying “We need soft skills” without further specification can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or allow vague bias to creep in.
- It discourages rigour, measurement, and development
When something is “soft”, we tend to shy away from quantification, measurement, or standardisation. But communication and relational capabilities can and should be studied, measured, and trained. For example, recent educational research proposes multimodal frameworks (integrating gesture, expression, speech) to evaluate “soft skills” with more granularity and transparency.
By contrast, calling all such capabilities “soft” suggests they are resistant to structure, feedback, or improvement — which sabotages serious investment in their development.
Reframing communication & relational skills as core, strategic, or foundational
If “soft skill” is misleading, what do we call these things? And how should we think about them?
Labels matter: “core”, “relational”, “strategic”, “foundational”
Some thought-leaders are already pushing alternatives. In IT leadership circles, one article argues:
“Labelling skills as ‘soft’ undervalues them. To prioritise skills such as communication … we must call them what they are in the digital era: core skills”. The Enterprisers Project
Similarly, writer Dan Pontefract urges we “abandon the outdated and derogatory term ‘soft skills’ and embrace their true essence: professional skills”. Forbes
Another recent article frames what we call “soft skills” as “skills of character”: “what we’ve casually labelled ‘soft skills’ aren’t soft at all; they’re skills of character—fundamental qualities that distinguish standard leaders from truly exceptional ones”. Mills, W. D. (2023, March 16). Let us retire the term “soft skills.” WesMD.
Each alternative emphasises seriousness, foundational status, or moral depth over vagueness.
The relational domain: zooming in on communication, influence, and narrative
Instead of grouping everything together under the label of “soft skills,” it helps to look more closely at what we actually mean. In both business and everyday life, communication and relational ability break down into distinct areas, such as:
- Active listening and inquiry (how to ask questions that reveal hidden assumptions),
- Framing and narrative architecture (how to structure a message so it connects),
- Emotional atunement / empathy (reading, responding to emotional tone),
- Influence, persuasion, and boundary-setting (negotiation, saying no, managing expectations),
- Feedback, conflict, and coaching conversations (demanding conversations, growth dialogues),
- Storytelling and metaphor ((re)framing meaning, shifting mindsets).
When development efforts target these areas, they are more actionable and measurable than just saying “improve soft skills”.
Communication as a strategic investment, not an add-on
When communication is recognised as a core or strategic capability, it becomes a genuine source of competitive advantage — the factor that often distinguishes thriving organisations from those that merely function.
A recent Harvard Business Review article “Soft Skills Matter Now More Than Ever” noted that foundational skills like collaboration, adaptability, and communication were central to how workers adapt to changing conditions in an AI-reshaped world. Harvard Business Review
In other words, communication and relational capacity are not supplemental—they are enablers of agility, creativity, and change.
Implications for leaders, educators & practitioners
- Speak precisely
When coaching, designing training, or diagnosing team dysfunction, resist the temptation to say “we lack soft skills.” Instead, say: “We need better narrative framing in our pitches,” or “Our teams struggle with listening to dissent,” or “We have a weak feedback culture.” The more precise the language, the more effective the intervention.
- Bring rigour to development
Use structured tools such as 360-degree feedback (structured evaluation method where an individual receives performance feedback from multiple perspectives), recorded conversation reviews, or observational analysis to assess how communication actually happens in practice.
Set specific learning goals (e.g. in a quarter, improve one-on-one coaching conversations, or reduce misunderstandings by X%).
Practise intentionally — through role-play, recorded video reviews, and structured reflection sessions — to identify patterns, test new approaches, and build real behavioural change.
Little will change if communication continues to be treated as an amorphous “soft skill.”
- Change the narrative in your organisation
Leaders must stop trivialising communication and relational capabilities as “soft.” They should talk about them as core leadership infrastructure. Reward people who model high relational clarity and hold them up as exemplars and allocate real budget to their development.
- Recognise power, equity, and voice
Reframing these abilities isn’t just about clearer language — it’s also about equity. Recognising communication and relational competence as essential, helps undo long-standing biases that have undervalued them. Organisations should remain alert to how bias can shape judgments about who “communicates well” or where communication is failing.
Reducing business and life communication skills to a vague “soft skill” category is misleading language with real consequences: it invites superficial treatment, underinvestment, bias, and lack of accountability.
Instead, we should reclassify communication and relational capability as core, strategic, relational, or foundational skills—and treat them with the rigour, clarity, and resources they deserve. Leaders and educators who take this seriously can help individuals and organisations move from OK to extraordinary in their capacity to influence, connect, and change.