See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263702987

Soft skills assessment: theory development and the research agenda

Article  in  International Journal of Lifelong Education · July 2014

CITATIONS READS

103 20,059

1 author:

Stephen Gibb
University of the West of Scotland
56 PUBLICATIONS   913 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SOFT Skill Assessment and Development View project

Decent Work: The Employers' Perspective View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen Gibb on 02 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soft Skills Assessment; Theory Development and The Research Agenda

ABSTRACT

Soft skills have become a subject of increasing interest in lifelong learning. Soft skills

development is intended to enable and enhance personal development, participation in

learning and success in employment. The assessment of soft skill is therefore widely

practiced, but there is little in the way of a research or evidence base on how well this

assessment is done. Critically reviewing soft skills assessment requires both theory

development and establishing a research agenda. Theory development can draw on a number

of established theories which help to explain how the cognitive, emotional and social

dimensions interact to shape learner behaviour around getting feedback. These include

control theory, goal theory and attribution theory. Theory development following an

assimilative integration approach based on attribution theory, which combines both ‘self-

regulation’ and ‘socially situated’ aspects, is suggested as the most fruitful. Three areas of

research can be associated with this; researching the context, the content and the

consequences of soft skill assessment. The challenges of this research agenda are outlined

and explored. Dealing with these challenges will enable a more robust and critical review of

the assessment of soft skill , and the impact of that on both life chances and employment

opportunities.

Introduction

Soft skills have been a subject of increasing interest in lifelong learning for one major

reason. The possession of soft skills , the “ intra- and inter-personal skills essential for

personal development, social participation and workplace success” ( Kechagias 2011, p 33) is
 2

strongly associated with life and employment success . The assessment of soft skills is an

increasing concern given their inclusion in education and training, and especially in the

provision of systems such as mentoring and specialist programmes and courses to develop

soft skill. Weedon and Tett (2013) suggest that specialist programmes do not necessarily

work well in developing soft skills, and a more coordinated and sustained effort is needed to

develop soft skills, one that includes reward and reinforcement in the real arenas where soft

skills are to be exercised. They conclude that a coordinated and sustained effort is necessary

is also consistent with what scholars on workplace learning (Illeris 2011) argue in general

about lifelong learning and competence development, including soft skills. This paper aims

to contribute to that by exploring and defining a research agenda in the area of soft skills

assessment

The origins of the research agenda should begin with the interest in an operationalisation

of soft skills in a variety of forms. These range from the development and use of generic and

all encompassing constructs, such as emotional intelligence (Goleman 1995), to many

multiple item arrays of soft skill. An example of a multiple item array is seen in Gallivan,

Truex and Kvasny (2004), who define six areas of soft skill; communication skills,

interpersonal skills, leadership skills, organisation skills, self-motivation skills and creativity

skills. There are many instances of these kinds of multiple item arrays available in the

literature (Chamorro-Premuzic Arteche, Bremner, Greven & Furnham 2010; Hurell,

Scholarios, Thompson, 2012).

Different arrays of soft skill may be seen in different contexts, though they all share a

common purpose. That is to structure, enable and enhance three things that are believed to be

closely inter-connected; personal development, participation in learning and success in

employment. There are three groups for whom these inter-connections between development,

2
 Soft Skill Assessment 3

learning and success are often an issue; young people, graduates studying in higher

education, and leaders.

The interest in soft skills and young people is most often focused on those who are not

engaged in education or training. This is a group who experience challenges in becoming

employed, and soft skills are one factor that can be worked on to change that (Andrews &

Higson, 2008). The concern with the soft skills of graduates is that this group may be

developing subject and discipline knowledge but not the capabilities which employers value

and expect (Holt, Sawicki, Sloan 2011). The interest in soft skills as an aspect of effective

leadership reflects a long established and abiding concern that a lack of soft skills in

leadership is implicated in organisational ineffectiveness, dysfunction or failure (Tamkin,

Pearson, Hirsh, Constable 2010). A considerable leadership and management development

industry has evolved in business schools and elsewhere to, among other things, address soft

skills (Dameron & Durand 2013).

There is then a shared interest in soft skill assessment as a factor in effective personal

development across these three large and significant contexts. There is experience in the

practice of soft skills development and assessment in all these areas. The shift to using the

term ‘skills’ would seem to be intended to legitimise the re-focussing of development

activity on ‘soft’ factors in all these areas , and the displacement of traditional concerns with

measuring academic achievement by measuring capability in and for employment (Chieppo

& Gass 2010). A more critical perspective interpret the adoption and promotion of soft skill

as, potentially, a form of control, not a valid re-focussing of development. The measurement

and assessment of soft skill is a way to ensure compliance and exercise social control on the

part of dominant agents and actors in education and employment (Hurrell, Scholarios,

Thompson , 2012 ). ‘Soft skill’ development may be a mechanism for attaining compliance,
 4

and employers and vocational education and training institutions may be, explicitly or

implicitly, adopting ‘soft skills’ as a means to that end.

Whichever interpretation is assumed a concern exists around evaluating the quality and the

adequacy of institutional teaching and learning processes and systems intended to develop

and assess soft skills (Andrade & Cizek 2010; Bennett 2011). This applies across the range

of possible soft skill development and assessment processes and systems , from the use of

individual, personalised mentoring ( Garvey, Stokes, Megginson: 2008) to the delivery of

large scale programmes which are devoted and dedicated to soft skill development and

assessment (Weedon & Tett 2013).

Policy reviews and prescriptions about how soft skills can be developed can confidently

conclude that (CIPD 2010, p30);

‘The most important of the soft skills are best learned with a small amount of highly

focused and relevant formal input, a large amount of real-world experience, practice

inside and outside of one’s comfort zone, and timely, relevant and constructive

feedback from other people in a community of practice, and where the consequences

of what we do can be easily observed and understood’.

However, evidence that this general approach, representing a prescribed ideal approach is

what actually happens is lacking. To explore the reality and adequacy of soft skill

assessment is to engage with concerns that are well established as themes in formative

assessment in general. Formative assessment is ‘concerned with how judgments about the

quality of student responses (performances, pieces, or works) can be used to shape and

improve the student's competence’ (Royce Sadler 1989, p 120). Formative assessment

techniques and methods have been a topic of debate and contest in lifelong learning,

4
 Soft Skill Assessment 5

education and training for some time (Taras 2005). A detailed model of best practice in

formative assessment (see Figure 1), has been proposed. This specifies the factors that may

matter and be applicable to evaluating soft skills assessment practices (Nicol & Macfarlane

Dick 2006). The model has some face validity, but is flawed in embodying unstated and

unexamined theories. For example, ‘self-regulation’ is given as a principle guiding an

effective system of soft skill assessment. This is a not a neutral perspective, it is an

expression of a particular form of theory, control theory. We take the view that more explicit

theory development, while often desirable for a number of reasons, is especially relevant in

situations where the absence of an established and credible evidence base about practice

exists. That is the case with soft skill asessment

Insert Figure 1 Here

The implicit, and therefore unexamined, theories of soft skill assessment can be made

explicit. To begin this our first step was to search for any meta reviews or summaries on soft

skill assessment involved and how it is done. We could not locate any. In the absence of an

established starting point in that form we searched the literature using the key terms ‘soft

skill’, ‘soft skill assessment’, ‘formative assessment’, and ‘feedback’ . The following

databases were searched; the American Psychological Association (APA) ; Arts & Sciences

(JSTOR); Business (JSTOR); ERIC (U.S. Dept. of Education); Emerald Management

eJournals; INFORMS Journals; IngentaConnect; MEDLINE (NLM);Sage Publications

(CrossRef); SciVerse ScienceDirect (Elsevier); Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of

Science); Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science); Wiley (CrossRef); Mintel

Reports.
 6

The literature we found, ranging from social science sources to professional practice

sources is reviewed to identify issues in theory and research agenda.

Theories

The general context here is lifelong learning, and the development of educational and

workplace environments for supporting effective lifelong learning. A good theory of lifelong

learning in general has been characterized as a theory that addresses not only the cognitive

and the emotional dimensions but also the social dimension of learning as well as (Illeris

2011). That is needed to fully map the qualities and abilities of a performer who is required to

perform adequately and flexibly in both familiar/routine and unfamiliar/unusual situations

(Illeris 2003).

There are fundamental concerns with the cognitive and emotional dimensions of learning

in the soft skills assessment context . This is seen most significantly with constructs of

feedback which lack consistency and coherence (Taras & Davies 2013). Feedback is

routinely classified as either positive (favourable) or negative (unfavourable) in relation to a

goal (Geddes & Linnehan 1996). Positive, favourable, feedback is identifying what helps a

person successfully achieve a good performance. Negative, unfavourable, feedback helps

identify what may have interfered with achieving an effective performance, and what might

be done differently. This places feedback as a core concern at the intersection of the soft skill

and the formative assessment literatures. And despite feedback being a concept of

longstanding concern (Herold & Greller, 1977) it seems to be peculiarly complex and

challenging to operationalise. Constructs of Feedback Environment (FE) , Feedback

Orientation (F0) and Feedback Seeking Behaviours (London & Smither 2002) have all been

developed and can be incorporated into the research agenda. Yet the roles and effects of

6
 Soft Skill Assessment 7

feedback in any of these guises cannot be assumed to be all and only good. One meta-

analytic review of feedback concluded that feedback can have no effect, or even a contrary

and perverse effect on performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Rather than improving

performance the effect of assessment and feedback flowing from that may result in

performers lowering standards, or interfere with performance improvement.

In the area of soft skills the existence of a social dimension to learning, social inputs and

social outputs, is inescapably prominent. Soft skill is invariably social, and of significance

insofar as it is the foundation of participation, communication and co-operation associated

with learning and developed skilled performance. Over time and across the many contexts of

learning that a person may experience soft skills are present. As a learner they either

successfully develop and grow sociability and so attain personal integration into significant

communities, or they risk the consequences of not being sufficiently sociable to integrate. A

theory of soft skill and what the assessment of soft skill entails needs to recognize and

capture this social core to soft skill assessment. That it is not only about completing a

programme or training event, it is necessary for integration into communities of learning and

work.

Three theories, according to Kluger and DeNisi, appear to exist and can guide and inform

thinking and study about the cognitive, emotional and social aspects of soft skill ; these are

control theory, goal theory and attribution theory. These are now described and considered in

turn.

Control Theory

The first theory that is seen and can be relevant for researching soft skills assessment is

control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982). Control theory describes and explains behaviour in
 8

terms of systems and control loops (Ramaprasad 1983), and the self-regulation required for

these to operate effectively. Feedback loops are the key to an effective process of self-

regulation. Feedback is defined in this theory as information about the gap between the

reference level and the actual level of a system parameter. That information is used to close

the gap. Assessment , where it is done well, should reveal a gap and prompt corrective

adjustments to reduce the discrepancy. It is expected that feedback will be sought and

welcomed by learners until no gap exists. The key to effective soft skills assessment

consistent with this theory would be to define clearly the system parameters, or in other

words to specify in great detail what soft skills are.

However, specifying soft skills in great detail and providing very detailed feedback on

these to learners may fail to motivate learners to engage with soft skill development, and it

may even discourage them. And should learners if they engage be presented with the

observations of an assessor on their soft skills in the level of detail control theory suggest

would be appropriate, they may then not be able to secure change. With the cognitive and

emotional dimensions responses to the identification of a ‘discrepancy’ in a system

parameter, in a learners behaviour, can vary. Cognitively the recipient of any feedback on

soft skills may lack the capacity or strategies to self-regulate which would help to close any

gap an assessor has observed. Emotionally feedback is neither automatically welcomed or

accepted by the learner. The social dimension is not addressed in control theory, given the

‘self’ regulation approach. Social dimensions can though be included in control theory

informed systems for soft skill assessment. Systems can be designed to be more socially

engaging. This would be a design involving others beyond simply providing data on

discrepancies. These others might help the learner address cognitive sand emotional issues,

and make comparison between a more simple current level and a target level of performance.

They could encourage self-development action plans to guide behavioural change rather than

8
 Soft Skill Assessment 9

depending solely on being an objective, external assessor to guide and motivate. With these

design elements learners may be able to eventually see and think about more complex gaps

and issues in their current and desired behaviours as a whole (Abraham & Michie, 2008).

There is a paradox here though. This is that the re-design of control theory based

approaches to include social dimensions goes against the single greatest message at the heart

of the prescriptive literature on ‘how to give feedback’ (Harris 2006), which is that feedback

should be directed at most tangible and specific levels of behavior. This was an apparent

gain and central feature of the establishment of detailed maps of competence (Winterton

2009) and their adoption in education and workplace training systems. The gain was that

these maps of competence helped to reduce ‘fuzziness’ in the description of performance

requirements and enabled better quantitative measurements of performance. Such a reduction

of fuzziness enabled better assessment, and feedback flowing from that. Socially informed

re-design of control theory informed systems for soft skill assessment the inclusion of a

human dimension to the objective provision of feedback, re-introduce fuzziness. This is

potentially justified, and even necessary, as soft skills cannot be operationalised as

concretely as hard skill. Understanding what ‘good communication’ or ‘teamwork’ means

and looks like will invariably entail considering an inter-related mix of beliefs on the parts

the assessor and the assessed which will be both explicit and implicit l as well as both formal

and unwritten. The nature and meaning of good communication and teamwork will vary over

situations and contexts, and some fuzziness in definition is likely. Nonetheless, as control

theory predicts that ‘fuzziness’ of parameters will constrain the extent to which effective

assessment and feedback is possible , the consequence needs to be appreciated.

The nature and problem of control theory for shaping soft skills assessment in its purest

form is that it assumes a locus of self-regulation. That means learners are expected to be able

to be aware of, to ‘see’ and so evaluate their own soft skill performance. The interplay of
 10

learners and soft skill assessors, and their institutions of education or work, is mainly around

enabling and encouraging that self-regulation. The challenge is, of course, what happens

when the capacity for self-regulation is problematic or in effect absent.

Goal Setting Theory

The second theory that is relevant to understanding the assessment of soft skill is goal setting

theory. Goal setting theory describes and explains the cognitive, emotional and social

dimensions of behavior, including soft skill performances, with reference to goals and their

characteristics (Locke & Latham, 1990; Locke & Latham 2006). Good goals should be

specific, and also be difficult, so that they are stretching but attainable. If these

characteristics of goals are present then feedback can be given relative to their attainment

(McCarthy & Garavan, 2006). The social dimension here is very clear and central, as there

is a recognition that either parties and stakeholders should be involved in goal setting, or be

taken into account (Whitmore 2005). These can range from institutional actors and

stakeholders imposing pre-determined goals on groups of people to individuals themselves

setting their own goals in mentoring or coaching relationships. The general prescription is

that while others may be the source of aspects of the goals an individual may have to engage

with the individual should be involved in setting the goals they will be expected to attain.

This is the opposite to control theory, in effect; as self-regulation needs to be designed into a

system that otherwise neglect or exclude it. The value of this is that where individuals are

involved in setting their own goals, three interacting aspects of motivation can be brought

into in play. First is the instrumental motive, a commitment to achieve the goal or perform

well as there is ownership of it. Second is the internal psychological motive to enhance or

defend one’s sense of self and ego, having made the personal commitment to the goal.

10
 Soft Skill Assessment 11

Thirdly there is the social motive to manage or enhance the impressions that are being formed

by significant others (Ashford, Blatt & Van de Walle 2003).

Goal theory would predict that challenges in soft skill assessment will exist where learners

and assessors are adopting and using goals that do not conform to the ideal type, and are not

well developed. Challenges will also exist where there is imbalance among superficially

good goals that have been developed, associated with superficially good goals that serve to

psychological self-validation rather than self-improvement.

Attribution Theory

The final theory which may be relevant in understanding the challenges of soft skill

assessment is attribution theory (Eberely, Holley, Johnson, Mitchell 2011). Attribution

theory describes and interprets cognitive emotional and social dimensions of behavior with

reference to internal and external attributions of causality. An internal attribution of

causality is an attribution to self. An external attribution of causality is an attribution to

others or the situation. Favourable outcomes and results tend to be internally attributed,

while unfavourable outcomes or results tend to be externally attributed. Consequently

success is normally interpreted in a self-validating way while failure is more usually

attributed to external causes. It is apparent that in contrast with control theory where self

alone is dominant and goal theory where the social context is dominant, in attribution theory

there is a concern with both self and the social. Understanding and managing the attributions

that individuals can make in social settings when receiving positive and negative feedback, or

a mix of positive and negative feedback, is the heart and explanatory focus of attribution

theory.
 12

The default preferences found for typical attributions are an issue. The default preferences

of attribution are for learners to have and reinforce a self-validation mindset (Dweck 2006).

A self-validation mindset is seen and expressed as a desire to constantly and only

‘demonstrate capability’ mindset. The alternative, and more widely espoused mindset is a

‘self-improvement’ orientation. That is seen as a learning mindset, associated with a desire to

get feedback and change.

…Self-validation or self-improvement mindsets, and fluctuations in these, will affect learning

in all kinds of contexts. In the soft skills context their presence and influence can become

very pronounced. The self-improvement orientation is associated with learners who have an

adaptive response pattern to ‘failing’ in the course of soft skill assessment and receiving

negative formative feedback. Self-improvement is seen in learners who persist in efforts to

engage in change, and to behave differently. Self- improvement is associated with learners

who report enjoying the challenge of this. These learners come to view expending effort on

soft skill to be something which is integral to achieving their ultimate goals. Potentially to the

point that such self-improvers become ‘addicted’ to soft skill development; constant self-

improvers engaging in soft skill development to the exclusion and detriment of other kinds of

learning.

In contrast learners with a self-validation orientation are those more liable to withdraw

from difficult or challenging tasks. Self-validators can have negative perceptions about their

abilities, reinforced by ‘failure’ in learning tasks. Self-validators show decreased interest and

disengagement from tasks and activities where they think they will not be capable of

demonstrating capability.

Attribution theory has the power to explain why it is that there are aspects of both self and

the social involved where strategies other than working on behavior change are adopted

when learners are faced with evidence of a poor performance (Jordan & Audia 2012). If self-

12
 Soft Skill Assessment 13

validation prevails then people will continue to explain all in a way that preserves their own

esteem of themselves, to sustain seeing themselves in a good light rather than accept that

something needs to change. Self- validation may lead a learner to adopt strategies such as

revising the definition and standard of a good performance required, and so neutralise rather

than accept perceived shortfall in their performance.

Assimilative Integration

The three theories can be compared (Figure 2) according to conceptions of the learner, the

role of the social context and effectiveness in formative assessment. Where a number of

theories co-exist as they do in this context, then theory development may take a path of

assimilative integration (Wampold 2001). This means that one theory is taken to be dominant

and adopted as the primary explanation, while others are not rejected but may be considered

auxiliary and so also be drawn upon on. We conclude, with the three theories considered

here, that there appears to be a case for attribution theory to be the best foundation for

assimilative integration in the field of formative assessment.

This is because attribution theory seems most powerful, by including both self-regulation

and socially situated aspects, when explaining how engagement with soft skill assessment

might work out. This will be affected by how people calculate the costs of feedback in terms

of self presentation cost and ego cost. Self-presentation costs reflect the potential

embarrassment felt when asking for feedback, as even making a request may reveal

uncertainty and draw attention to performance deficiencies. Ego costs may arise as a person

asking for feedback risks receiving unfavourable feedback that may be interpreted as being

about their core self-identity.

Attribution theory is also seen to be consistent with the findings from one of the few robust

empirical studies in the field (Feys, Anseel & Willie 2011). This showed that learners’ do

make comments about responses to feedback where it is evident that many attribute low

scores and negative feedback to external causes. Others take responsibility for their actions;

acknowledging for example that they ‘didn’t put as much effort in as I should have done’

rather than saying they were having a bad day. These are consistent with attribution theory

and associated concerns that self-enhancement thinking will interfere with formative

assessment supporting learning.

So, attribution theory is the theory most specifically concerned with the cognitive,

emotional and social context and relationships in soft skill assessment. The other theories

have stronger bases in either the cognitive or the emotional, and objective control through

cognitive self-regulation or emotional commitment to certain kinds and types of goal. The

view we take is that the context for soft skill assessment is to be seen as one where an

interaction of simplified, objective, specifications of skill by multiple stakeholders

influencing goals constitutes an environment within which internal and external attributions

are made by assessors and learners as soft skill is addressed. This applies to soft skill

assessment across education and training, and soft skill development in the full range from

groups on special programmes to those using customised and individual methods like

mentoring.

The Research Agenda

Given this position on an assimilative integration of theory around attribution theory there are

the three areas for empirical research to engage with and explore; the contexts of soft skill

14
 Soft Skill Assessment 15

assessment , the content of soft skill assessment , and the consequences of soft skill

assessment. These themes and the topics associated with them are shown in Figure 3.

Insert Figure 3 Here

The context, content and consequence themes capture and incorporate the breadth of

concerns for research. The focus in depth is on creating and improving effective feedback

environments, feedback orientations, and feedback seeking behaviours.

Context

There are several aspects of context that could be better researched and understood to more

robustly evidence and enable a critical review of soft skill assessment methods and practice.

The first is the extent to which the soft skills being dealt with have been well specified,

defined and relate to what a good performance involves. Another is the extent to which the

soft skills being dealt with are explicitly connected with broader educational or

organizational goals. The extent to which learners perceive there to be a good environment

for feedback on their soft skills can vary across contexts. As does the extent to which there

are trained and reliable people to give feedback on soft, people perceived by learners as

credible sources. Finally there is the extent to which the methods (the training/teaching

activities ) for soft skill development and assessment replicate the real conditions in which

learners need to be able to perform.

Where soft skills have been specified to define and embody and clarify what a good

performance involves there will be an established array of soft skills and a differentiation of

what high, intermediate and low performance looks like. If soft skills define and are

explicitly connected with broader educational or organizational goals then all stakeholders
 16

should be aware of these connections and be able to explain how and why soft skill

assessment is an integral part of their whole performance in general roles and overall

effectiveness (Ashford and Cummings, 1983). The presence of trained and reliable sources

to give feedback on soft skills would be indicated by some qualification in formal training

and development in soft skill assessment, though we are not aware of any such qualification

ourselves. Soft skill assessment may be included, inter alia, in the professional development

of teachers and trainers, but even so much formative assessment of soft skill would seem to

be undertaken by non-trainer and non-teachers, in management or in mentoring roles.

Perceptions of the credibility of the people giving feedback on soft skill by learners can be a

critical issue either way. With professional trainers/teachers the risk is that they have little

credibility in the eyes of the group concerned whether those be the young unemployed,

graduates seeking employment or people in leadership roles. Alternatively, if assessment

involves more credible people , defined as people with direct substantial experience of

performance, they may not be able to facilitate assessment and feedback professionally or

effectively.

Finally, in context, the methods used to develop and assess soft skill need to be based in

real situations, or replications of these. Contexts which have the fidelity and complexity of

real work environments for soft skill assessment purposes are not easy or cheap to establish

and sustain. Fidelity is the extent to which the assessment context is close to the real

conditions of work, and complexity is the extent to assessment environment presents a

similar level of complexity to an actual performance environment. A classroom environment

is likely to be low in fidelity and complexity. However, in a managed environment

assessment is easier to organise. With assessing in the workplace the fidelity and complexity

will increase. Yet it is more difficult to set up and manage assessment of soft skill that

follows good practice.

16
 Soft Skill Assessment 17

In most contexts greater feedback frequency and specificity is prescribed, but this may

have some curious and unexpected effects (Goodman, Wood , Chen 2011). Those who

receive more frequent and specific feedback can be seen as a result to engage less on

searching for and using new information during learning. They subsequently have less

engagement with the challenging but useful aspects of working to learn by completing tasks

while lacking feedback. In other words, giving more frequent and specific feedback may

inhibit learning and change rather than enable it.

The construct of Feedback Environment (FE) can be a focus. Institutions and people in

them may have aspirations and policies for their soft skill assessment to embody a positive

FE. On FE, Several factors which have been determined to constitute a positive feedback

environment. That is to be defined as an environment where attributions are managed to

promote self-improvement and avoid self-enhancement (Steelman , Levy & Snell, 2004:

Whitaker, Dahling & Levy, 2007). A good feedback environment is one with easy access to

sources of feedback, high source credibility among feedback providers, clarity and

consistency in formative assessment, perceived justice in the delivery of feedback, both

favourable feedback, and unfavourable feedback being provided.

Source credibility is associated with assessors being trained and capable as providers of

feedback, either in education or in management roles (Hays & Williams 2011). A specialist

facilitator would be expected to have greater soft skill knowledge and assessment experience

than a subject expert. The soft skill specialist could be a more reliable assessor, though their

credibility with learners could be limited. The subject expert would be expected to

understand the context in which soft skills are required and practiced. There could be greater

ecological validity with the subject expert, though their soft skill assessment credibility could

be limited.
 18

Content

Content issues in the assessment of soft skill can be considered in four themes. These are a

positive expectation or Feedback Orientation (FO) among the learner and assessors; the

extent to which soft skill is assessed in a way that is clear and consistent; the extent to which

soft skill assessment is fair, giving equal and objective treatment to all; and the extent to

which here is a good amount of both positive and negative feedback given.

A persons’ FO can be described and measured as an individual’s attitudes to feedback

(Linderbaum & Levy 2010) a form of individual difference. Those with a positive FO are

those most likely to get feedback, and be more attuned to their environment and more apt to

act on feedback. FO can be influenced and changed over the longer term by individual efforts

or environmental change. A four factor, multidimensional, measure of FO as an individual

difference has been developed. The four factors are perceptions of the utility of feedback,

accountability to act on feedback, social awareness and self-efficacy. Utility of feedback is

defined as an individual’s tendency to believe that feedback is useful in achieving goals or

obtaining desired outcomes. Accountability refers to an individual’s tendency to feel a sense

of obligation to react to and follow up on feedback. Social awareness refers to an

individual’s tendency to use feedback so as to be aware of others’ views of them and to be

sensitive to these views. Feedback self-efficacy refers to an individual’s perceived

competence to interpret and respond to feedback appropriately.

FO matters for both the person whose soft skill is being assessed and the assessor. This can

be evidenced in, for example, issues around an assessors willingness to give unfavourable

feedback. One study showed that minority students received less critical feedback on their

written work from evaluators who are externally motivated in part to inhibit their racial

18
 Soft Skill Assessment 19

biases (Croft & Schmader 2012). Raters provided equivalent amounts of positive feedback to

all students, but they provided less unfavorable feedback and gave higher grades to minority

students to an extent that they could be perceived as being motivated to be seen to be grading

without prejudice. Some students could then fail to receive the critical feedback needed to

identify areas for improvement. Whether to protect vulnerable students by rewarding

positive effort rather than penalizing mistakes, or a self-focused concern with avoiding the

appearance of bias, the effect is to limit feedback.

Quality in the formative assessment of soft skill can be associated with systems where

learners and assessors are clear about what is being assessed and what success is like, where

assessors give timely feedback about the quality of learners’ performance and how to make it

better, and that learners are involved in deciding the next steps for further skill development

and who can help with that (Black & William 2009; Fletcher 2008; Kingston & Nash 2011).

Quality of feedback is enabled by clarity and consistency around performance on goals that

are embedded in action plans and targets that are meaningful to the recipient that are

consistent across time, and so are perceived as useful. Organizational justice and perceptions

of fairness in feedback can also be significant (Chory & Kinglsey Westerman 2009).

Fairness is associated with expectations of specific feedback, a focus on external rather than

internal causes for low performance, and avoiding the use of harsh tones. Performance

evaluations fulfilling these expectations are associated with fair assessments, resulting from

fair procedures, communicated in a fair manner. The dimensions associated with fairness are

clarity, constructiveness, cognizance, and consistency.

Favorable and unfavorable feedback can occur relatively independently, though it is usual

for there to be aspect of both on most occasions. Favorable feedback is associated with

praise and as compliments. Unfavorable feedback is associated with dissatisfaction and

criticism. Balance in the provision of these is suggested by attribution theory. The reality, of

either balance or imbalance in the instances and frequency of these, is not well evidenced.

Consequences

A number of inter-linked consequences can be associated with effective soft skill assessment,

around the construct of positive Feedback Seeking Behaviours (FSB). These generally start

with the view that as a result of soft skill assessment learners become more aware of others

views of their behavior. Consequently assessment produces an accountability to act, and so

assessment ought to be followed by managed opportunities to close the gap between current

and desired performance. Where this is done it promotes positive motivation and beliefs

about the value of seeking and getting further feedback. There is a virtuous FSB cycle.

There may also be the opposite, a cycle in which FSB is restricted or extinguished. In areas

of soft skill, in essence relationships, people may hide or mask what they feel and so curtail

FSB. For FSB has benefits, but also costs. Those costs are in the effort and risk to obtain

feedback. FSB can be classed as either low cost or high cost. Low cost FSB includes

indirect monitoring, including gathering of stories and intelligence about what succeeds.

High cost FSB is associated with seeking feedback from direct disclosure of performance

problems or direct inquiry on an issue. Poor performers, those that need feedback the most

for its utilitarian value, may be the most reluctant to seek it because of these costs and the

potential ego damage they may incur. Too often vagueness prevails, and this does not

encourage and reinforce FSB (Nurse 2005).

The FSB which are thought to be helpful and to be encouraged include a positive view of

feedback; a capacity to process feedback mindfully; valuing others’ views; and a sense of

accountability to act once feedback has been provided. Some factors may promote or deter

20
 Soft Skill Assessment 21

FSB. Individuals are instrumentally motivated to obtain valued information but are also

motivated to protect and/or enhance their ego and to manage others' impressions of them

(Ashford, Blatt & Van de Walle, 2003).

Conclusions

Soft skill assessment is an established and increasingly prominent concern in a number of

fields. There is though little evidence that we have good and effective systems and process

for assessing soft skill. Starting with theory and theory development we have suggested that a

research agenda to redress that, and secure evidence, is needed. This led to consideration of

the cognitive, emotional and social dimensions of soft skill assessment, especially receiving

formative assessment and feedback. Then the contexts, content and consequences of soft skill

assessment were considered, focussing on the constructs of feedback environments, feedback

orientation, and feedback seeking behaviours.

Constructs of FE, FO and FSB can form the focus for research, and the attendant needs of

research in soft skills assessment. The first need is to recognize that in the assessment of any

skill there are problems with securing good data, and this is amplified in the context of the

assessment of soft skill (Laker & Powell 2011). In assessing soft skill the ‘need’ can be less

well defined and precise than is usually the case with needs for hard or technical skill. There

can be resistance on the part of learners to appreciating the role and relevance of soft skill in

their performance in a way that does not happen with appreciation of the role and relevance

of hard or technical skill. In the soft skill context the teaching is done in an over-simplified

way, as it is difficult to replicate real conditions in formal learning situations. Finally, soft

skill may be effectively learned in a training environment but then be diminished or eroded in

an operational environment, where continued and ongoing support is needed to embed

changes.
 22

Another need is for the assessment of soft skill in its own right, not overshadowed by

broad themes in topics like employability, graduate employment and leadership. In the

educational context attention is given to general institutional development, curriculum change

and summative assessment. In the workplace context soft skill is one element of human

resource and employee performance management. Even when soft skill is ostensibly

recognized to be a topic the assessment of soft skill is still of less interest than describing

trends in employment and work organizations associated with these soft skills (Grugulis &

Vincent 2009).

A third need is for inter-contextual research, across the various domains and environments

in which assessment of soft skill happens. Domains where soft skill may be assessed include

dedicated soft skill programme or subject based programmes in which soft skills are intended

to be integral part of a learner’s development. Environments can vary too, from the

environment of a classroom or workplace to environments such as outdoors-based

development.

Finally, a critical need is to obtain longitudinal data. Where summative assessment of hard

skills occurs there is a trail of quantitative data; performance measured in subjects, in marks

and grades and qualifications that can be tracked across institutions and over time. No such

data trail exists for the formative assessment of soft skill. Formative assessment of soft skill

is hidden. It is also likely to be qualitative data, and even if data were easily available, it

would be challenging to analyse. For example, alternate forms of assessment are not

commonly used or available in soft skill assessment, so internal consistency cannot be

checked. Standardised test results are not available, nor are there multiple measures across

several tasks available. Soft skill performance is neither easily norm-referenced nor criterion-

referenced.

22
 Soft Skill Assessment 23

These needs are not peculiar or special in the field of soft skill assessment. They occur in

most lifelong learning research, when exploring topics that are multi-faceted in character and

with relationships to broad and more diverse sets of goals (Aspin & Chapman 2000

So, to understanding what that coordinated and sustained effort that Weedon & Tett

suggested is needed means and involves research into the aspects of the learner, the social

process and feedback; to consider the soft skill assessment with diverse people and situations

where learning is as much a situated and social process as it is a psychological and cognitive

process. We suggest three areas; of contexts, content and consequences of soft skill

assessment. It should then be a priority to gather data using survey methods, with a

representative sample of different institutions dealing with the diverse groups involved

(young people, graduates, leaders/managers). Practices, and variations in practices across

different countries can also be considered. It would be useful to develop case studies of the

kinds of assessment systems found in different institutions (schools, universities, workplaces,

social inclusion programmes) and their effectiveness. The capacity to compare and contrast

context, content and consequences across institutions and countries could help stimulate and

structure conversations about the effectiveness and appropriateness of soft skill assessment

methods. The evidence from quantitative survey data and case studies can help inform policy

making. Together that would help shape future investments in systems and processes to

better develop and assess soft skill, and a positive impact through lifelong learning on life

and work chances.

REFERENCES

Abraham,C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in

interventions. Health Psychology, 27, 379-387.

Andrade, H. L., & Cizek, G. J. (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York:

Routledge.

Andrews, J., & Higson, H.(2008). Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’

business: A European study. Higher Education in Europe. 33(4), 411–422.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal

strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32,

370-398.

Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Van de Walle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A

review of research on feedback seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management,

29, 773-799.

Aspin, D., & Chapman, J. (2000). Lifelong learning: concepts and conceptions. International

Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 2-19.

Bennett, R.E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25.

Black , P., & William, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment.

Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21(1), 5-31.

Carblis, P. (2008). Assessing emotional intelligence: a competency framework for the

development of standards for soft skills. Amherst, N.Y: Cambria Press.

24
 Soft Skill Assessment 25

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for

personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92,

111–135.

Chamorro-Premuzic,T. , Arteche,A. , Bremner,A. , Greven,C., & Furnham,A. (2010). Soft

skills in higher education: importance and improvement ratings as a function of individual

differences and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 221–241.

CIPD. (2010). Using the head and heart at work. A business case for soft skills. London:

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Chieppo, C., & Gass, J. (2010) 21st Century Skills Soft at Core, July 9th, Worcester

Telegram & Gazette

Chory, R.M., & Kingsley Westerman, C.Y. (2009) .Feedback and Fairness: The Relationship

Between Negative Performance Feedback and Organizational Justice. Western Journal of

Communication, 73(2), 157–181.

Croft , A., & Schmader , T. (2012) The feedback withholding bias: Minority students do not

receive critical feedback from evaluators concerned about appearing racist. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 48 , 1139–1144.

DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals

be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129–139.

Dameron, S., & Durand, T. (2013). Strategies for Business Schools in a Multi-Polar World,

Education and Training, 55 (4/5), 323-335.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset; How you can fulfil your potential. London: Constable &

Robinson Ltd.

Eberely, M.B., Holley, E.C., Johnson, M.D., & Mitchell,T.R. (2011). Beyond internal and

external; a dyadic theory of relational attributions. Academy of Management Review. 36(4),

731–753.

Feys, M.,Anseel,F., & Wille,B. (2011). Improving Feedback Reports: The Role of Procedural

Information and Information Specificity. Academy of Management Learning & Education,

10(4) 661–681.

Fletcher, C. (2008). Appraisal, feedback and development: Making performance review work.

4th ed. Oxon: Routledge.

Gallivan, M., Truex, D. & Kvasny, L. (2004). An Analysis of the Changing Demand Patterns

for Information Technology Professionals, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information

Systems, 35(3), 64-87.

Garvey, B., Stokes, P., & Megginson, D. (2008). Coaching and Mentoring; Theory and

Practice. London: Sage;

26
 Soft Skill Assessment 27

Geddes, D. & Linnehan, F. (1996). Exploring the dimensionality of positive and negative

performance feedback. Communication Quarterly, 44, 326–344.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Feedback specificity, information

processing, and transfer of training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 115, 253–267.

Grugulis. I., & Vincent, S. (2009). Whose skill is it anyway? 'soft' skills and polarization.

Work Employment Society, 23(4), 597–615.

Hays, J.C., & Williams, R.J. (2011). Testing multiple motives in feedback seeking: The

interaction of instrumentality and self protection motives, Journal of Vocational Behavior 79,

496–504.

Harris, J. (2006). Giving Feedback, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Herold, D., & Greller, M. (1977). Feedback: The definition of a construct. Academy of

Management Journal, 20, 142-147.

Holt, R., Sawicki, S., & Sloan, J. (2010). A theoretical review of skill shortages and skill

needs: Evidence Report 20. Available from:

http://www.ukces.org.uk/assets/bispartners/ukces/docs/publications/evidence-report-20-a-

theoretical-review-of-skill-shortages-and-skill-needs.pdf [Accessed 8th January 2012 ]

Hurrell, S., Scholarios, D., & Thompson, P. 2012. More than a ‘humpty dumpty’ term:

Strengthening the conceptualization of soft skills. Economic and Industrial Democracy,

33(1), 161-182.

Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning,

International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396-406

Illeris, K. (2011) The Fundamentals of Workplace Learning: Understanding How People

Learn in Working Life, London; Routledge .

Jordan, H.A., & Audia, P. G. (2012). Self-enhancement and learning from performance

feedback, Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 211-231.

Kechagias, K. (ed) (2011) Teaching and Assessing Soft Skills, MASS Project report.

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative Assessment: A Meta-Analysis and a Call for

Research, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30,(4), 28–37

Kluger, A,. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: A

Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory.

Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284

Laker, D., R., & Powell, J., P. (2011) .The difference between hard and soft skills and their

relative impact on training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(1), 111-

122.

28
 Soft Skill Assessment 29

Linderbaum, B, A., & Levy, P, E., (2010). The Development and Validation of the Feedback

Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372-1405.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the

longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12,

81-100.

McCarthy, A., & Garavan, T. (2006). Post feedback development perceptions: Applying the

theory of planned behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(3), 245–267.

Nicol, D.J., & Macfarlane Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self regulated learning:

a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2) ,

199–218

Nurse, L. (2005). Performance appraisal, employee development and organizational justice:

exploring the linkages. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(7), 1176–

1194.

Ramaprasad, A. (1983) .On the definition of Feedback, Behavioral Science, 28, 4-13.
 30

Royce Sadler, D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.

Instructional Science, 18,119-144

Steelman, L., Levy, P., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale (FES):

Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Education and Psychological

Measurement, 64: 165-184.

Tamkin, P. (2005). The contribution of skills to business performance. Brighton: Institute for

Employment Studies.

Taras, M. (2005). Assessment; Summative and Formative , Some Theoretical Reflections.

British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478

Taras,M., & Davies, M,S. (2013). Perceptions and realities in the functions and processes of

assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(5), 1-11.

Wampold, B. E. (2001). The Great Psychotherapy Debate. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Weedon, E., & Tett, L. (2013): Plugging a gap? Soft skills courses and learning for work,

International Journal of Lifelong Education, DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2013.773572.

Whitaker, B., Dahling, J.J., & Levy, P. (2007). The Development of a Feedback Environment

and Role Clarity Model of Job Performance, Journal of Management 33(4), 570-591.

Whitmore, J., (2005). Coaching for Performance. London ; Nicolas Brealey.

30
 Soft Skill Assessment 31

Winterton,J. (2009).Competence across Europe: highest common factor or lowest common

denominator?.Journal of European Industrial Training, 33 (8/9), 681 – 700.

View publication stats