A Short History of the "Soft Skill" vs. "Hard Skill" Divide (and Why It's a Farce)

"Soft" and "hard" skills are typically pitted as opposites, but history shows they're not. This cultural categorization captured my curiosity years ago, and when I wrote about how the technical/non-technical divide impacted my identity [1], it went viral. Clearly, I'm not the only person whose life has been impacted by the socialization of being put into a "soft" or "hard" skill box.

So many questions have been rolling around in my brain since I inadvertently opened this particular Pandora's box. How did this divide develop? What invisible forces are at play? Is this divide as deep and stark as we've made it out to be? What are the repercussions of the tech industry hailing "hard skills" and suppressing "soft skills?" And most importantly, what do we need to focus on if we want things to change? It's taken years of tumbling to polish these ideas, and here's a look at what I've learned.?

I'd love to hear your personal stories about this issue, too. Leave a comment, and let's all learn from each other.

The Elitism of Empiricism

The term “hard science" can be traced back to at least 1858 [2], but its use remained relatively obscure until the mid-20th century. In 1951, the United States Army established a behavioral science research and development institute [3] with the goal of creating more efficient and standardized training programs. Part of this initiative included employing behavioral scientists tasked with figuring out ways to measure job performance.

Under this directive, psychologist Paul G. Whitmore focused his research on using systems engineering to develop procedures for what he coined "soft skills," to contrast with the term "hard," which implied concrete and tactical skills. Whitmore worked with the U.S. military to develop regulations for "job related skills involving actions affecting primarily people and paper." These included leadership, administration, communication, and strategic thinking. "In other words," Whitman explained, "those job functions about which we know a great deal are 'hard skills' and those about which we know very little are 'soft skills.'" [4]

Over the next few decades, a significant value judgment began to take root [5], particularly among engineers and physicists. Mathematics, physics, biology, and chemistry were perceived to be more objective and empirical and were therefore considered “hard.” The “soft sciences" included fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, and politics, the results of which were seen to be fuzzy and imprecise. “Hard” became associated with being better, authentic, and true. By contrast, “soft sciences" were treated with derision and dismissed as not real or relevant.

In 1981, the prominent physicist and science communicator Richard Feynman encapsulated this idea when he opined, “Because of the success of science, there is, I think, a kind of a pseudoscience. Social science is an example of a science which is not a science.” [6]

While there were most certainly advocates for holistic approaches to understanding the world, the opinions which called for integration between “hard” and “soft” skills were largely drowned out by more polarizing views. Scientists who focused on empiricism enjoyed a more elite status than those that didn't.

Programming Computers Becomes a Science

Around the same time, computers were finding applications outside of the military. Businesses began purchasing computers, but without working software that solves a specific problem, a computer is essentially an expensive piece of office decor. Without people who can program computers, that pricey piece of furniture just collects dust.

Computers were beginning to do all sorts of interesting things. By the early 1960s, businesses were scrambling to figure out how to create software applications in a manner that didn’t blow the bank. This challenge loomed so large across the industry that it was generally called the “great software crisis.” [7]

People who could program computers were in high demand. In a mad dash to scale the talent pool, colleges and universities began introducing new majors in computing. They wanted a fast and ready-to-implement curriculum to meet the market demand.[8] By the mid-1960s, computer industry leaders standardized pedagogy recommendations and provided a prescriptive course structure that the academic world craved. Graduation requirements leaned exclusively on mathematics, logic, programming languages, and electronics. [9]

The computer industry was just getting its footing. In an effort to establish itself as a distinct field, university programs were highly encouraged to use the term “computer science.” This lent more legitimacy to the nascent field because it could capitalize on the panache of "hard science." In addition, it provided an opportunity to demonstrate that programming a computer was only one aspect of a much larger field.

A preliminary report from 1965 put it this way: “Computer science is concerned with information in much the same sense that physics is concerned with energy; it is devoted to the representation, storage, manipulation, and presentation of information in an environment permitting automatic information systems.” [10]

A few years later, these ideas were brought to the world stage when the NATO Science Committee organized two conferences dedicated to Software Engineering[11]. Prior to this point, the common title for a person who wrote computer software was "programmer." After the NATO conferences, the term "software engineer" rose to prominence.

This conceptual link between computers and “hard science" provided the scaffolding that enabled the software industry to scale. Historical context and rapid development meant that courses aimed at helping computer science graduates communicate effectively, work in teams, and build successful relationships were largely absent.

Rejecting the "Soft" and "Hard" Distinction?

Meanwhile, Whitmore continued to develop the idea of a strong delineation between "soft" and "hard" skills for military training. By 1972, these ideas had gained enough traction that the military organized a “Soft Skills Training Conference” to explore how a systems engineering approach might be used to develop and scale "soft skills" training. After the conference, attendees met in working groups to prepare conclusions and recommendations based on the material presented. [12]

According to the report proceedings, the groups quickly reached a consensus. The official recommendation was that “use of the terms "Soft Skill" and "Hard Skill" be deemphasized or discontinued,” citing several reasons:?

• Working definitions of the terms were “virtually impossible to develop”
• “Hard” and “soft” weren’t necessarily mutually exclusive
• Distinguishing “hard” and “soft” skills was not relevant to the job
• Categorizing skills along “hard” and “soft” distinctions would likely cause confusion and misunderstandings

However, the terminology had already embedded itself into the culture, so the distinction persisted. By the 1980s, government reports began using the terms “technical” and “non-technical” as synonyms for “hard” and “soft” skills, respectively. [13]

Why have these terms stayed with us even to this day? An analysis by Dr. Katheryn Neely of the University of Virginia may provide insight. "The ambiguity is probably an indicator of the enduring appeal of 'soft skills,'" Neely writes, "especially in the context of engineering education: it provides a way to name something important without being overly specific about what is being named." [13]

The Push To Professionalism?

It wasn't until 1991 that the need to integrate "professional skills" was mentioned in regard to developing a university-level computer science curriculum. [14] However, there was little movement to integrate these skills into college curriculum until later in the decade when a movement emerged advocating for professional licensure of software engineers, similar to what existed in related engineering disciplines (chemical, civil, mechanical, electrical, etc.).

In 1998, the Texas Board of Professional Engineers voted unanimously [15] to include software engineering among the disciplines that required a Professional Engineer license. There was resounding opposition from computer industry organizations, such as the Association of Computing and Machinery (ACM), as they believed "it is premature and would not be effective at addressing the problems of software quality and reliability." [16]

Ultimately, the push for legally licensing software engineers fizzled out [17], at least in the United States, due to a lack of interest and poor oversight by the licensing boards. However, it did motivate the two largest computing professional organizations, ACM and IEEE, to invest in more robust certification programs and revised curriculum recommendations that addressed professionalism concerns. Since 1998, the two associations have collaborated to create the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) [18], which "spells out components of the software engineering discipline, promoting a consistent view of software engineering worldwide." Revisions were published in 2002 and 2014. As of the time of this writing, the fourth revision is in its final phases.

Patching the Pedagogy?

By 2008, integrating professional ("soft") skills took on a new sense of urgency [19] when a joint task force between ACM and the IEEE Computer Society reported, “Today there is talk of a crisis, with enrollments having plummeted in many countries, often by as much as 60 – 70% from the peak of 2001.” Students were simply no longer interested in the traditional "hard skill" only curriculum.

”Professional practice" skills were incorporated into curriculum recommendations more explicitly and thoroughly in the following years, largely due to nearly ubiquitous industry demand [20]. For example, the 2014 Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) offers the following: [21]

• Professional Practice "is concerned with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that software engineers must possess to practice software engineering in a professional, responsible, and ethical manner. Because of the widespread applications of software products in social and personal life, the quality of software products can have profound impact on our personal well-being and societal harmony."
• "A software engineer must be able to interact cooperatively and constructively with others to first determine and then meet both needs and expectations."
• "It is vital that a software engineer communicate well, both orally and in reading and writing."

Integration Dissolves the Illusionary Divide?

While early educational and professional standards ignored the importance of "soft skills," there is now a race to remedy the mistakes from the past and correct the imbalance. The belief that "soft skills" are not valuable to software development is an outdated mindset debunked by research and market forces.

The field of computer science is now firmly established, and the skills previously dismissed as “soft” are seen as more critical than ever. There is an emerging emphasis on their integration into courses previously presented only in terms of the “hard science." Some reports have reframed these skills as “baseline,” while others describe them as “professional.” [22] Regardless of the term used, industry consensus is that skills relating to "people and paper" are indeed critical for software development.??

Today, there is evidence that this integrated approach works. In 2022, professors from the University of Toronto published the findings [23] from an integrated approach of ethics in a foundational computer science course, sharing how “students’ interest in ethics and technology, and their confidence in identifying, raising, and discussing ethical issues, increased significantly after completing the modules…even a modest intervention can have a positive impact.”?

This call for integration is emphasized by industry leaders, too. Executives at Google call empathy the “skill of the future.” [24] Adobe describes empathy as “the future of experience” [25] and an “under-utilized differentiator” critical for building digital experiences. Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, mentioned the word “empathy” more than fifty times in his book Hit Refresh [26], stating, “My passion is to put empathy at the center of everything I pursue — from the products we launch, to the new markets we enter, to the employees, customers, and partners we work with.” It also makes a difference to the bottom line. Organizations that successfully integrate and promote professional skills like leadership, communication, and collaboration tend to be more profitable and resilient. [27]

When we fail to understand other people and communicate effectively, we’re putting our projects, products, and people at risk. Building software is an incredibly social activity that requires us to listen, understand, and communicate with others. The next time you're tempted to scoff at empathy as a "soft skill," it's worth remembering that it has always been a critical software skill.?

Does this research resonate? If so, I'd love to hear your story. Leave a comment below to share so we can all learn from each other.

P.S. There are several associated topics that I also wanted to include, such as how the terms "soft" and "hard" skills were starkly and systematically gendered, particularly in mass media. However, the word count was already high enough, so I decided those topics deserve to be presented on their own. Ideas continue to tumble...

References

[1] Goulet, Andrea. “Technical? Non-Technical? Both!” LinkedIn, October 6, 2016. https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/technical-non-technical-both-andrea-goulet/.

[2] Winkworth, Thos., Thomas Tredgold, and Joseph Glynn. “Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol. 6, No. 310.” The Journal of the Society of Arts 6, no. 310 (1858): 697–706. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41323682.

[3] HumRRO. “Our History.” HumRRO. Accessed October 6, 2022. https://www.humrro.org/corpsite/who-we-are/our-history/.

[4] CONARC Staff. “CONARC Soft Skills Training Conference.” Final Proceedings. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Continental Army Command, December 12, 1972. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA099612.

[5] Shapin, Steven. “Hard Science, Soft Science: A Political History of a Disciplinary Array.” History of Science 60, no. 3 (September 2022): 287–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/00732753221094739.

[6] “Richard Feynman: The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.” Video. BBC, 1981. https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pleasure-finding-things-out/.

[7] Ensmenger, Nathan. The Computer Boys Take Over: Computers, Programmers, and the Politics of Technical Expertise. History of Computing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2010.

[8] Dziallas, Sebastian, and Sally Fincher. “ACM Curriculum Reports: A Pedagogic Perspective.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, 81–89. Omaha Nebraska USA: ACM, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787714.

[9] Wegner, Peter. “Undergraduate Programs in Computer Science.” In Proceedings of the Fourth SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, 121–29. SIGCPR ’66. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 1966. https://doi.org/10.1145/1142620.1142633.

[10] Conte, S. D., John W. Hamblen, William B. Kehl, Silvio O. Navarro, Werner C. Rheinboldt, David M. Young, and William F. Atchinson. “An Undergraduate Program in Computer Science; Preliminary Recommendations.” Communications of the ACM 8, no. 9 (September 1, 1965): 543–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/365559.366069.

[11] Naur, Peter, and Brian Randell. “Software Engineering.” Conference. Garmisch, Germany: NATO Science Committee, October 1968.

[12] CONARC Staff. “CONARC Soft Skills Training Conference.” Final Proceedings. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Continental Army Command, December 12, 1972. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA099612.

[13] Neeley, Kathryn. “A Provisional History of the Idea of ‘Soft’ vs. ‘Hard’ Skills in Engineering Education.” In 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings, 36604. Virtual Conference: ASEE Conferences, 2021. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36604.

[14] Dziallas, Sebastian, and Sally Fincher. “ACM Curriculum Reports: A Pedagogic Perspective.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, 81–89. Omaha Nebraska USA: ACM, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787714.

[15] Cupp, J. William. “Reviewing the Professionalization of Software Engineering: Can Small Colleges Remain Viable?” Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 17, no. 1 (October 1, 2001): 132–46.

[16] White, John, and Barbara Simons. “ACM’s Position on the Licensing of Software Engineers.” Communications of the ACM 45, no. 11 (November 2002): 91. https://doi.org/10.1145/581571.581602.

[17] “NCEES Ends Software Engineering PE Exam | National Society of Professional Engineers.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magazine/may-2018/ncees-ends-software-engineering-pe-exam.

[18] “Software Engineering Course (SWEBOK)| IEEE Computer Society.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.computer.org/education/bodies-of-knowledge/software-engineering.

[19] Cassel, Lillian, Alan Clements, Gordon Davies, Mark Guzdial, Renée McCauley, Andrew McGettrick, Bob Sloan, Larry Snyder, Paul Tymann, and Bruce W. Weide. “Computer Science Curriculum 2008: An Interim Revision of CS 2001.” Technical Report. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, November 2008. https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.1145/2593246.

[20] ACM Computing Curricula Task Force, ed. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. ACM, Inc, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1145/2534860.

[21] Bourque, Pierre, and Richard E. (Dick) Fairly, eds. SWEBOK v3.0: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE Computer Society, 2014. https://ieeecs-media.computer.org/media/education/swebok/swebok-v3.pdf.

[22] Task Group on Information Technology Curricula. Information Technology Curricula 2017: Curriculum Guidelines for Baccalaureate Degree Programs in Information Technology. Association for Computing Machinery, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173161.

[23] Horton, Diane, Sheila A. McIlraith, Nina Wang, Maryam Majedi, Emma McClure, and Benjamin Wald. “Embedding Ethics in Computer Science Courses: Does It Work?” In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 481–87. SIGCSE 2022. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499407.

[24] Balinbin, Arjay L. “Empathy Is the Skill of the Future, Google Says.” BusinessWorld Online (blog), February 3, 2021. https://www.bworldonline.com/empathy-is-the-skill-of-the-future-google-says/.

[25] Adobe and Econsultancy. “2021 Digital Trends Experience Index.” Adobe, 2021.https://business.adobe.com/content/dam/dx/us/en/resources/reports/digital-trends-2021-core/digital-trends-2021-full-report-EN.pdf.

[26] Nadella, Satya, Greg Shaw, Jill Tracie Nichols, and Bill Gates. Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone. First edition. New York, NY: Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 2017.

[27] Phillips, Jack, Patti Phillips, and Rebecca Ray. Proving the Value of Soft Skills: Measuring Impact and Calculating ROI. American Society for Training and Development, 2020.