Is Critical Thinking a Soft Skill?
by Althea Need Kaminske
Recently, an article came across my news feed labeling critical thinking as a non-academic soft-skill that is “increasingly considered important in education.” I don’t know whether or not the author intended it to be provocative, but it was. It popped up in my newsfeed because outraged academics were pointing out that they actively teach critical thinking in their fields (namely in the humanities). Every so often articles like this pop up claiming that critical thinking is a soft skill and is surely not being taught in schools, despite its importance in the workplace and everyday life. I’ve seen a lot of think pieces pitting hard vs soft skills and faulting education, broadly, for not teaching the soft skills. One of the things that stood out to me about these conversations is the use of “hard” and “soft” and the implications that has.
Hard vs. Soft Skills
The article mentioned above was “Hard facts needed on ‘soft skills’” by The Australian and, despite everything that is to follow in my critique of the terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ here, I have to admit this is a clever title. So, what exactly is the difference between hard and soft skills? Most of the definitions I could find came from discussions around skills needed in the workplace (1, 2). Hard skills refer to skills that are measurable and can be trained, while soft skills are less tangible and difficult or impossible to train. So, hard skills generally refer to things like typing speed, proficiency in a foreign language, or skill with a particular software. Or mostly software, depending on which infographic you chose*. Soft skills, on the other hand, refer to things like leadership, time management, personality, and, apparently, critical thinking.
*Here are links to some infographic examples, and a basic summary:
Indeed.com, Hard Skills vs. Soft Skills: “Hard skills are technical knowledge or training that you have gained through any life experience, including in your career or education.
EduPristine, Hard vs Soft Skills: Hard: Skills that can be taught or skills that are easy to quantify. Planning, problem solving, budgeting, scheduling, risk management, time management. Soft: Also known as ‘People Skills’ or Interpersonal Skills’. Communication, leadership, conflict resolution, negotiation, empathy, adaptability.
LinkedIN, The Skills Companies Need Most in 2020: Top 5 Soft Skills: Creativity, persuasion, collaboration, adaptability, emotional intelligence. Top 10 Hard Skills: Blockchain, cloud computing, analytical reasoning, artificial intelligence, UX design, business analysis, affiliate marketing, sales, scientific computing, video production. Soft skills are personal habits and traits that shape how you work, on your own and with others.”
Is Critical Thinking A Soft Skill?
In a previous post I discussed what critical thinking is and whether or not it can be taught. While there are some qualifications to what we mean by critical thinking, the general conclusion is: Yes, we can teach critical thinking. This semester I’m focusing on critical thinking in my cognition class, using the wonderful book “Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking” by Diane Halpern (3). Halpern offers the following definition for critical thinking:
Critical thinking is the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed - the kind of thinking that is involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions, when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task.
Within this framework, there are a number of skills associated with critical thinking: seeking out contradictory evidence, making risk: benefit assessments, recalling relevant information when it is needed, monitoring your own performance and deciding when additional help is needed, demonstrating an advanced ability to read and write complex prose, determine credibility and use this information in formulating and communicating decisions, and more (3). These are all skills that can be taught and assessed, i.e. hard skills.
It is worth noting, however, that these skills will look different in different contexts. For example, while there are some general rules of thumb you can apply to determine credibility, a lot of that depends on understanding the specific norms and practices within a given field. I am good at determining credibility when reading information about psychology, specifically cognitive psychology, but less skilled at determining credibility when reading outside of my own field. When making a decision about what car to buy, for example, I am no more skilled at determining what is a credible source of information than anyone else. I could certainly learn how - and making analogies to processes I already know would be helpful - but critical thinking in one domain does not automatically transfer to another domain.
Critical thinking is, to put it in more direct terms, thinking on purpose. You have to consciously seek out and evaluate information. Critical thinking does not happen automatically. Critical thinking is hard. As with anything challenging, this means there is an aspect of attitude to critical thinking. It takes perseverance, patience, and forgiveness to be a critical thinker. You have to be able to admit you were wrong and to keep looking for information even when you think you have solved the problem. In that respect, attitude and personality fall firmly into the soft skills side of the hard/soft dichotomy.
Hard vs. Soft: Does it Matter?
Some aspects of critical thinking fall firmly into the ‘hard skills’ set, while other aspects fall well within the ‘soft skills’ set. So which is it? Before we rush to neatly label something as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ I want to examine whether those labels are actually useful. Let’s look at the list of soft skills again. Leadership, communication, time management, and personality show up a lot on these lists of soft skills. Personality isn’t necessarily a skill, but it’s complicated, so let’s set that aside for now. The rest: leadership, communication, and time management are all skills that can be trained and can be assessed (4,5). If they can’t, then we all need to think about the number of leadership training seminars that are being run... At least one of the websites that described the difference between hard and soft skills went on to promote training in the soft skills (though they did note that soft skills could be trained, and they offered some fairly specific training seminars that broke down these skills sets into more specific and measurable chunks, a point we’ll return to later).
What about personality? Surely that can’t be trained. People are who they are and some are just easier to get along with, right? Let me introduce you to the state vs trait debate within personality psychology. Personality can be defined as individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving (6). If you think of personality as a trait of an individual, then this definition suggests that we all have characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that remain stable over time. A shy, introverted girl will grow up to be a shy, introverted woman. On the other hand, if you think of personality in terms of states an individual experiences then this definition suggests that we have different sets of patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving. A girl may be shy and introverted in certain contexts, but outgoing and social in other contexts. Those contexts may shift and change over time such that she becomes more outgoing in one area of her life and more shy in another area.
As with most things, the state vs trait debate is nuanced. I don’t think any personality psychologist would claim that personality is entirely state-based or entirely-trait-based. Instead, it’s somewhere in between. You may have general tendencies, but find yourself thinking, feeling, and behaving differently depending on the context. While you may tend to be shy and introverted, you may find yourself developing the skills you need to be outgoing and sociable if your job demands it. To use myself as an example, as a student I used to turn beet-red and mumble whenever I talked in class. I still get easily embarrassed in front of people, just not when I’m teaching or speaking about my area of expertise. Your range of comfort or ability will vary, but it’s not immutable and unchanging. It’s not impossible to learn a new skill over time.
If these soft skills can be trained and measured, what makes them soft skills? I’m not entirely sure. Even if personality is treated as an immutable trait, there is a lot of variability in what makes a certain personality good or bad for a job. Personality traits that are good in one job, may be a hindrance in others. The other “soft skills” - leadership, communication, time-management - are all skills that require experience to develop. While there are commonalities, these will all vary depending on the workplace and workplace culture.
These are also a set of skills that are often studied by social scientists. It therefore takes some level of expertise and knowledge of behavioral research to measure them appropriately. When looking at the research on these types of skills, I pulled largely from research within psychology and economics. You can train and measure ‘soft skills’, it’s just a bit harder than checking for a certification for a software program.
Perhaps most telling, whether or not something is considered a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ skill seems to depend on who is making the list. There appears to be some debate about whether problem solving is a hard or soft skill. The infographic above from indeed lists it as a soft skill, but edupristine lists it as a hard skill. Time management also hops from hard to soft depending on which list you look at.
Final Thoughts
I don’t think it’s useful to label something as a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ skill. While there are certainly differences in how one can acquire, develop, and demonstrate different skills, the labels ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ don’t seem to adequately convey those nuances. Instead, I would argue that labeling something as a ‘soft’ skill glosses over some important information. Skills can be trained and assessed. Understanding what skills an employer is specifically looking for can help job-seekers (and students) understand how to develop that skill. “Communication” is pretty vague. Does this job require the ability to give engaging presentations? To provide effective feedback on team members’ performance? To mitigate disputes and clear up misunderstandings? To explain complex processes to clients in terms they will understand? All of these are communication skills one might need in a specific job, but are very different. If anything, it seems like ‘soft skills’ is shorthand for “a vague sense these things are important, without taking the effort to list out the specifics”.
Critical thinking, then, is both and neither. It can be trained and can be measured, but will rely on domain-specific information and experience (3). We can teach some domain general skills and techniques, like understanding the need for persistence, looking for contradictory evidence, and so on; but the speed and ease with which you can do those things depends on practice.
References
Chaitanya, K. (2018). Soft skills to complement professional students’ technical skills to enhance their employability rate. Language in India, 18 (12), 52-60.
Fan, Wei, & Zhang (2017). Soft skills, hard skills, and the black/white wage gap. Economic Inquiry, 55 (2), 1032-1053. https://doi.10.1111/ecin.12406
Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Psychology Press.
Tafvelin, S. & Stenling, A. (2020). A self-determination theory perspective on transfer of leadership training: The role of leader motivation, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 28(1), 60-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820962504
Ehrlich, R. J., Nosik, M. R., Carr, J. E., & Wine, B. (2020). Teaching employees how to receive feedback: A preliminary Investigation, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 40 (1-2), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1746470
