How to Assess Soft Skills in Candidates: The Proven, Research-Backed Method
How to assess soft skills with reliable, science-backed methods proven to improve hiring accuracy and efficiency.
QUICK NAVIGATION
TL;DR: Most companies waste months building competency frameworks, then assess them incorrectly using interviews. Competency assessments measure behavioural traits that actually predict performance—resilience, work ethic, strategic thinking—which interviews simply can't capture. Use them early in your hiring process for better quality of hire and reduced bias.
THE PROBLEM
The competency crisis hitting UK hiring teams
Here's a scenario that plays out in boardrooms across the UK every month: You've spent three months and £15,000 developing a comprehensive competency framework. You've identified the exact behaviours that drive success in your organisation—resilience, strategic thinking, work ethic, integrity.
Then hiring time comes, and you... conduct interviews.
The reality: Research shows that 87% of competency-based hiring relies solely on interviews, yet interviews measure only one thing effectively—charisma.
The result? Your carefully crafted competency framework becomes expensive wallpaper while the most charming candidates sail through your selection process, regardless of whether they possess the competencies you actually need.
Think about your last few hires. How many times have you thought "they interviewed brilliantly" only to discover months later they lacked the resilience for your fast-paced environment or the attention to detail your role demanded?
This isn't a failure of your competency framework. It's a measurement problem. And it's costing UK businesses an estimated £4.2 billion annually in poor hiring decisions.
THE SOLUTION
What competency assessments actually are (and why they work)
Competency assessments are purpose-built tools that measure the behavioural traits your competency framework identifies as critical for success. Unlike interviews, they're designed to cut through social skills and measure what actually matters for job performance.
What They Measure
Behavioural competencies like resilience, work ethic, strategic thinking, integrity, and organisational skills—the traits that actually predict performance.
How They Work
Using psychometrically validated questions that reveal natural behavioural tendencies, scored against your specific organisational needs.
Here's the key difference: While interviews ask candidates to describe their competencies (easily faked by charismatic candidates), competency assessments measure them through validated psychological instruments.
One of our clients, a London-based financial services firm, was struggling with graduate hires who looked perfect on paper but couldn't handle the pressure. After implementing competency assessments measuring resilience and stress tolerance, their 18-month retention rate improved from 67% to 89%.
The bottom line: Competency assessments measure the invisible traits that drive performance—the ones interviews simply can't access.
THE SCIENCEThe charisma override: Charming candidates dominate regardless of actual competency levels Intrapersonal blindness: Resilience, work ethic, and integrity exist within people—they can't be performed in a 45-minute conversation The rehearsal effect: Competency-based interview questions are easily researched and practised Interviewer bias: Unconscious preferences for candidates who "feel right" override competency evidence
The interview illusion: Why your current approach fails
**Let's be brutally honest about interviews:** They're social skills tests disguised as competency measures. And the research proves it.
Meta-analysis of 85 studies involving 100,000+ interviews found: Interviews predict job performance at just 0.38 correlation—barely better than flipping a coin for most competencies.
Why interviews fail at measuring competencies:
Ask yourself: Can you reliably identify resilience, attention to detail, or strategic thinking ability in a 45-minute conversation? The answer reveals why 73% of hiring managers admit their interview-based competency assessments are "somewhat" or "largely" inaccurate.
| Interpersonal competencies | Intrapersonal competencies |
|---|---|
| Communication skills | Resilience under pressure |
| Leadership presence | Work ethic and persistance |
| Influencing ability | Attention to details |
| Relationship building | Strategic thinking |
Result: Most competency frameworks are 60-80% intrapersonal—meaning interviews can only assess a fraction of what you're actually trying to measure.
THE METHODOLOGY
The science-backed approach that actually works
Here's how Test Partnership's clients are solving the competency measurement problem:
Map competencies to measurable traits
We work with you to identify which specific psychological traits underpin your competency framework. For example, "adaptability" might comprise cognitive flexibility, stress tolerance, and openness to change.
Use validated assessment tools
Deploy psychometrically robust instruments that measure these traits with 0.85+ reliability—far higher than interview-based assessments.
Implement early in your process
Use competency assessments for initial screening to filter for genuine competency fit, then use interviews for final cultural and role-specific evaluation.
Validate against your outcomes
Track which traits predict success in your specific context—performance ratings, retention, engagement scores—to continuously refine your approach.
Research insight: Combined assessment processes (competency assessments + interviews) achieve 0.65+ correlation with job performance—a 71% improvement over interviews alone.
Ready to measure what matters?
See how our competency assessments work in practice. Book a 15-minute demo to explore assessments tailored to your competency framework.
Book a DemoIMPLEMENTATIONUsing generic assessments: Off-the-shelf tools rarely align with your specific competency framework Replacing interviews entirely: Use competency assessments to complement, not replace, interviews Ignoring validation data: Track outcomes to continuously improve your assessment accuracy Poor candidate communication: Explain why you're using assessments to maintain candidate experience
Your step-by-step implementation strategy
Getting competency assessment right is about strategic implementation. Here's your roadmap:
Phase 1: Foundation
Audit your competency framework: Identify which competencies are inter- vs intrapersonal
Map to measurable traits: Link each competency to specific psychological constructs
Choose validated tools: Select assessments with proven reliability for your target traits
Phase 2: Integration
Pilot with one role: Test your approach on a single, high-volume position
Train your team: Ensure hiring managers understand competency vs interview data
Collect outcome data: Track performance, retention, and engagement for validation
Pro tip: Start with your highest-turnover or most critical roles. The impact will be immediately visible and help build buy-in for broader implementation.
The bottom line: Successful competency assessment implementation requires a systematic approach that connects your organisational needs to validated psychological measurement.
NEXT STEPS
Taking action: Your competency assessment roadmap
**If you're still relying on interviews to measure competencies, you're making hiring decisions with incomplete data.** Here's how to change that:
Immediate actions you can take today
Audit your current approach: For each competency in your framework, ask "Can this be reliably observed in a 45-minute interview?" If not, you need assessment support.
Calculate your cost of mis-hire: Multiply your average salary by 1.5x (conservative estimate of replacement cost). This is what poor competency measurement is costing you per bad hire.
Review your recent hires: How many showed the competencies you needed vs. interviewed well? This gap reveals your current measurement accuracy.
Your competency framework represents a significant investment in understanding what drives success in your organisation. Don't waste that investment by measuring those competencies incorrectly.
