Return-Path: <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id LAA28081; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <BD6833292165D31188AC0008C7F4CF0B0107F4@dtaes2.dtae.tec.ga.us> Errors-To: listmgr@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Coleman, Preston" <pcoleman@dtae.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:3071] Re: Soft Skills X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Status: OR Another way to interpret the hard/soft distinction in a workplace context is to contrast hardhat, hardware type skills with softer, management-oriented, communications (software) type skills. Shouldn't the former be taught in seminars, and the latter in ovulars? :-) Preston Coleman, Ph.D. Georgia Dept. of Technical and Adult Education 1800 Century Place, N.E., Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30345-4304 404-679-5234 pcoleman@dtae.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale Cyphert [SMTP:Dale.Cyphert@uni.edu] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 10:10 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:3068] Re: Soft Skills > > The hard/soft distinction has been the traditional one between "hard" > sciences that deal with quantification of empirically derived > data....physics, chemistry and so on....and the "soft" social sciences > that engage the more ambiguous areas of human behavior, psychology, etc. > > The interesting thing has been the consistent attempts on the part of > the "soft" sciences to shed their wimpy image and emulate the "hard" > sciences with quantifiable, statistical research methodologies. That > impulse has been critiqued at length by feminist epistemologists, who > have noted the sexual metaphor in the hard/soft distinction. One poetic > solution (sorry to say I don't remember which writer offers this) is to > replace that with a wet/dry distinction...on the grounds that wet is > good for either gender. :-) > > In any case, my business community is hardly stressing technical content > knowledge over human interaction skills. We've got advisory boards, > employers and an accreditation board all over us to teach more "soft > skills" (their term, actually.) The business press concurs, and I've > seen recent surveys that rate communication and problem solving skills > well above any technical knowledge a prospective employee might possess. > > Your own clients might be facing some special issues, but I certainly > wouldn't call theirs typical of the current attitudes in human resources > or upper management. > > "Heidi A.C. Watson" wrote: > > > > A colleague of mine from another list serv posted this message and I > > thought it would be a good jumping off point for us for some discussion. > > *************************** > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Do you know where the term "soft skills" came from? > > > > I've recently had a number of prospective clients pencil in some dates > > for seminars in either business writing or presentation skills and just > > found out that the 'powers that be' have decided to table these programs > > > > for a while. Although we'll end up conducting the training, other, more > > > > 'attractive' courses have become the main course on their plates. > > > > Programs like these are categorized as 'soft;' why? Have communication > > skills become less fundamental or critical to organizations' ability to > > compete? Just because the skills learned can't be measured exactly, > > does that mean that they don't speak to the measure of a company > > anymore? > > > > These skills are basic--essential for the skills and knowledge acquired > > in other programs to be used effectively. Have they been around for so > > long that they've become passe? They're not as 'sexy' as computer > > skills, product knowledge, sales training, or whatever the program du > > jour is? > > > > Has 'soft' come to mean 'not essential,' because one can only get a > > handle on their essence? I think the term conjures an unfavorable image > > > > of this type of training and I'm curious where the bad rap came from? > > > > For me, these skills are among the hardest to develop because black and > > white solutions for communicating effectively aren't there. Why aren't > > they called "hard skills?" > > ************************** > > > > Responses? > > Heidi > > > > Heidi Watson > > NIFL-WORKPLACE List Co-Moderator > > > > Sr. Research Technologist > > Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy > > College of Education > > The Pennsylvania State University > > 102 Rackley Building > > University Park, PA 16802-3202 > > Phone: 814-863-3777 > > Fax: 814-863-6108 > > E-mail: haw6@psu.edu > > -- > Dale Cyphert, Ph.D. > Business Communication Program Coordinator > __________________________________________ > College of Business Administration > University of Northern Iowa > 1227 W. 27th Street > Cedar Falls, IA 50613 > (319) 273-6150 > dale.cyphert@uni.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 11:01:08 EDT