Why are there no quick fixes? Rethinking soft skills training

Client Talk
1 hour ago
7 min read

As AI becomes the buzzword in all organisations, there is another buzzword which is rising on the agenda, ‘human skills’. These are seen as increasingly important to navigate and survive what comes next. This, in turn, makes the need for soft skills to transfer even more critical. And this is where firms hit a wall. It is human nature that when we are busy, we don’t want to spend months learning a new skill. We want someone who can give us the answers. This is even more true when it comes to human skills. Changing who we are sounds like hard work. This is a tension that coaches know all too well. Firms come to us wanting results, but not everyone they put forward wants to put in the work. There are just too many competing priorities.

The need for human skills

In a recent study, published in the HBR, the urgent need for developing soft skills was underlined. The author suggests here that these skills are the key to building a workforce “that is resilient, quick to adapt, and prepared to thrive in a constantly evolving environment”. However, they issue a word of caution. For “Developing communication, collaboration and learning agility needs to be done early, with a recognition that social skills, like empathy and critical thinking, develop over years, rather than ‘a few online tutorials’.” In other words, one-and-done training simply won’t deliver results.

McKinsey CEO have written something similar. “As AI accelerates, companies are entering what we call the brain economy, one where cognitive, social, and emotional capabilities become the primary sources of value as machines take on more rote work”.

They point to research which indicates that companies that deliberately strengthen these capabilities can achieve higher productivity, better decisions, and greater adaptability.

Soft skills are soft no longer – they are increasingly becoming the key to success.

More than just training

People are busy. Despite AI promising us ‘unlimited capacity’ as it frees us up from the mundane, the truth is that many of us have yet to see this happen! Firms want training that delivers results, instantly. Many training providers are happy to oblige. They deliver a fun day, they get good feedback (everyone enjoyed themselves), and by the time the firm realises that the results they wanted haven’t happened, the company is long gone.

In a recent study that examined the soft skills transfer problem, the evidence was clear: soft skills training often doesn’t yield the desired behaviour changes at work (Hamzah, Marchinko et al, 2024). The authors argued that to create change, soft skills need to be viewed through a behavioural science lens. It’s an approach that resonates with our own thinking, particularly in how we work with clients, taking a coaching-first slant.

Embedding coaching principles in soft skills training

At the heart of many different models of coaching is the belief that the answers lie within the client. This stems from Carl Rogers and self-actualisation – the innate human drive that we have within us to fulfil our own potential and strive for personal growth.

Coaching also recognises the importance of the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura). Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their capacity to execute behaviours necessary to produce specific performance outcomes. High self-efficacy promotes confidence. Low self-efficacy can lead to avoidance of tasks. It therefore plays an important role in transferring soft skills from the classroom into the real world.

Research shows that self‑efficacy interacts with capability, motivation and personality factors to determine whether soft‑skills training “sticks”. To incorporate self‑efficacy into soft‑skills programmes, training must move beyond imparting knowledge to deliberately strengthening the learner’s belief that they can apply the skill. This means designing opportunities for safe practice, scaffolding early success, surfacing and addressing performance blockers, and using coaching approaches that help individuals recognise and leverage their existing strengths. By embedding action, reflection and experimentation, trainers create the psychological conditions under which self‑efficacy grows, turning soft‑skills learning into sustainable behavioural change.

How do you do this? At Client Talk, we provide challenges designed to build self-efficacy and encourage learners to practice. We also incorporate exercises where learners can reflect together to strengthen the conditions for growth.

What happens when people are made to change (but don’t want to)?

One of the biggest hurdles to making soft skills training stick is that often learners haven’t asked to change. When we talk about helping people change, it usually means asking them to shift something about how they behave or show up. That’s rarely easy. Soft skills behaviours “require practice and repetition in various contexts”, but they often face resistance from employees to learn (Marin-Zapata et al, 2021).

Again, some insight can be found in coaching. One coaching approach that comes from a therapeutic intervention is Motivational Interviewing (MI). At the heart of this particular approach is this simple premise: instead of telling people what to do, you help them uncover their own reasons for wanting to change.

MI is basically a way of having conversations that strengthen someone’s motivation in a supportive, respectful way. It’s built around things like partnership, genuine acceptance, compassion, and drawing out the other person’s ideas rather than pushing your own. The aim is to create a relationship where someone feels safe enough to explore what they really want and choose their own direction.

When motivation to change is low, MI helps by focusing on the “gap” between where someone is now and where they say they want to be. If they’re totally comfortable as they are, of course, they won’t feel much drive to do things differently. Practitioners use simple but powerful tools to help people hear their own reasons for making a shift.

And when someone pushes back or shows resistance? Instead of seeing it as a problem, MI treats it as a natural part of the process. Often, it’s actually a sign that someone is beginning to think seriously about change.

A model for soft skills training

The COMPASS model is an integrated behavioural‑science framework designed to explain what enables soft‑skills training to transfer into behaviour change at work. It combines elements from Bandura’s Self‑Efficacy theory, with two other frameworks (Michie et al’s COM‑B model and Baldwin & Ford’s training transfer framework) to provide a complete picture of what helps people apply new interpersonal skills in real contexts.

COMPASS shows that soft‑skills training only “sticks” when capability, motivation, environment, and confidence (self‑efficacy) are all aligned, and when training is designed to create opportunities for action, reflection, and reinforcement.

COMPASS highlights that successful transfer depends on three interacting pillars:

Trainee Characteristics (Capability + Motivation + Personality)
This includes a person’s underlying skill level, their motivation to change, and personality factors that influence behaviour. Self‑efficacy (Bandura) plays a crucial role here: individuals with higher belief in their capabilities are more likely to apply new soft skills.
Work Environment (Opportunity + External Factors)
The organisational context (including support, time, resources, and culture) shapes whether people can use new behaviours. COMPASS also recognises that macro‑factors (e.g. policies or external pressures) may make transfer easier or harder.
Training Design & Delivery (Methods that Build Confidence + Practice)
The model emphasises the need for training that integrates reflection, real‑world practice, feedback, and scaffolded success. Designed in this way, learning journeys support self‑efficacy growth and make transfer more likely.

How long will this all take?

Behavioural change isn't quick. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell snake oil. And that is part of the problem. For too long, there has been a disconnect between the buyers of soft skills training, who have asked for quick solutions, and the sellers of the same, who have said it can be done. Many of these have drawn from technical training models and overlooked the behavioural science that sits behind change.

Initial Competence (20 Hours): Josh Kaufman suggests that in order to acquire a new skill, 20 hours of focused practice is needed. This isn’t about cramming those 20 hours into a handful of days. Kaufmann recommends chunking the practice down and focusing on quantity over quality (it is more important to practice than to be perfect).

Specialised Development (6 Months): Developing advanced proficiency takes time. Habits form after around 2 months, but this can vary and be a lot longer. For many skills, learners require at least six months of consistent, real-world application.

Long-Term Mastery (Years): Because soft skills are deeply tied to behavioural habits, fully mastering them often takes years of consistent, conscious effort and feedback.

Top three recommendations for embedding soft skills

1. Treat Soft Skills Development as a Long-Term Behaviour Change Process

Soft skills don’t transfer from a single workshop. These behaviours require practice, repetition, reflection, and real‑world application to truly “stick.” One‑and‑done training simply cannot deliver meaningful change, because human behaviour changes slowly and needs reinforcement.

2. Build Self‑Efficacy as Part of Any Learning Experience

People change when they believe they can. Soft skills transfer improves dramatically when training builds confidence through:

safe practice spaces
coaching‑style reflection
surfacing and removing blockers

3. Create Conditions That Support Change

Motivation matters. When people haven’t chosen to change, they resist. Approaches like Motivational Interviewing increase engagement far more effectively than telling people what to do. Organisations need to consider environment, culture, and individual readiness when designing interventions.