How to Use Soft Metrics to Develop Your Team's Skills

Most advice on soft metrics focuses on what to measure: employee engagement, communication quality, collaboration. But measurement is not the problem; discussion is. Soft metrics fail when saved for quarterly reviews, and succeed when discussed frequently and informally.

Why Soft Metrics Fail (and How to Fix It)

Whenever I mention that managers should pay attention to soft metrics (qualitative assessments like meeting effectiveness, communication quality, and problem-solving approach) I get a divided reaction. Half of the audience nods. The other half frowns, anticipating uncomfortable conversations and subjective disagreements.

Both are right, depending on how you use these metrics.

If you discuss soft metrics infrequently, say, once a quarter or less, they will cause friction. You and your subordinate will likely differ in your assessment. Worse, if this discussion takes place during a formal performance review, it leads to defensiveness, blame, or frustration.

But if you discuss soft metrics frequently (at least once a month) and in informal settings (say, at the end of a one-on-one on another topic), the conversation becomes open and constructive. The same metric, discussed differently, produces opposite outcomes.

The Superiority of Soft Metrics for Skill Development

Soft metrics are exceptional tools for developing skills and effectiveness. Allow me a basketball example: if a player struggles with scoring, setting a hard metric like “points per game” only helps if their limitation is motivation. If their shooting technique needs improvement, this metric may actually encourage counterproductive behaviors, such as taking poor-quality shots to meet their target.ShareCopy Conversely, a soft metric like “shot selection quality,” discussed frequently after games and practices, addresses the underlying skill gap and leads to sustainable improvement.

How to Set and Evaluate Soft Metrics Effectively

Soft metrics require more definition than hard ones. When you set a hard metric like “$5M in revenue,” the meaning and measurement are clear.

Conversely, when you set soft metrics, you cannot assume that your delegee knows what a good outcome means. For example, what does “running effective meetings” look like?

The key is to give examples of what the good and the bad would look like. What does it look like when meetings are run ineffectively? And what does it look like when they are run effectively?

Even better, I like to use my “bad/good/great” framework, which also includes what great performance would look like.

Finally, avoid the temptation to measure soft metrics using hard outcomes (e.g., measuring meeting effectiveness by project completion rates). While convenient, this approach fails to develop the specific skills that need improvement.