Soft Skills Training: Real versus Fake

Soft skills. Two words that recur obsessively in training catalogs.

From communication to leadership, from adaptability to emotional intelligence: there is no manager, HR professional, or consultant who does not invoke them as if they were the philosopher’s stone of the workplace.

But here the question arises: how much of this training is real, and how much is instead fake? By “fake,” we mean a kind of theater, a staging that creates the perception of learning, but without any real transformation. Elegant PowerPoints, simulations, role-plays, certificates of attendance. The participants smile, play along, maybe even enjoy themselves. But then? Once back at their desks, everything continues exactly as before.

It’s not cynicism, it’s observation. How many times have we heard sentences like: “Nice course, but once we got back to the office, nothing changed”?

The truth is that often soft skills training serves more to calm consciences than to produce concrete effects. Companies can tick the box “we invested in people,” participants feel they’ve done something for their growth, and the consultants fill their agenda. Everybody wins. Except that the organization remains exactly as it was before.

The problem is not the topics—fundamental, necessary, vital—but the tools. Many training programs are based on perception, impressions, self-evaluations, and group dynamics that are difficult—if not impossible—to measure. And if you can’t measure, how can you really know whether something works or not?

Here lies the great unresolved paradox: companies increasingly want evidence, data, and tangible results, but much of soft skills training continues to move in the ether of impressions.

So let’s ask ourselves, without fear of being uncomfortable: are we really investing in growth, or are we buying a placebo?

And if, instead, we imagined a method specifically designed to avoid this trap? A system built not only to engage participants, but to generate useful and structured data on organizational behavior: team dynamics, decision-making processes, leadership styles, resilience, creativity. Data that other systems cannot produce precisely because of their nature.

Perhaps the future of training lies right here: in the ability to transform soft skills from a “beautiful speech” into measurable, analyzable, and applicable information. In the possibility of finally making what today is often only a declaration of intent real.

---

What Real Studies Say About Traditional Methods

Here are some academic studies that provide concrete evidence of the limitations of traditional soft skills training and team-building approaches:

Some Scientific Evidence

1. Team Training and Team PerformanceSalas, E., et al. (2008), Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis.This study analyzed various team training interventions (93 effect sizes, 2,650 teams) and found moderate but positive relationships between team training and team outcomes (cognitive, affective, process, and performance). However, the results strongly depend on factors such as team member stability and team size.URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19292013/
   

2. Human Factor Skills in Healthcare Teams Through SimulationAbildgren, L., Lebahn-Hadidi, M., Mogensen, C. B., et al. (2022), The effectiveness of improving healthcare teams’ human factor skills using simulation-based training: a systematic review.This meta-analysis included 72 real-world studies from 2004 to 2021 and confirmed that simulation-based training is effective for improving competencies such as leadership, decision-making, coordination, and non-technical skills in healthcare teams. However, many scenarios remain limited: varying measurement approaches and weak evidence of long-term transfer of these skills into everyday practice.URL: https://advancesinsimulation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41077-022-00207-2
   

3. Teamwork and Communication with Interprofessional Simulation EducationSezgin, M. G., et al. (2023), Effectiveness of interprofessional simulation-based education programs to improve teamwork and communication for students in the healthcare profession: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Eight randomized controlled trials with healthcare students (819 participants) show that interprofessional simulation-based education programs significantly improve teamwork and communication. However, the long-term results and context-specific adaptations vary.URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36343420/
   

Commonly Emerging Limitations

• Often based on self-assessments (“how I felt,” “how much I participated”) rather than external observation or measurable behaviors.

• Lack of follow-up: many interventions produce short-term improvements, but there is little evidence that skills persist months later without ongoing reinforcement.

• Protected/artificial context: simulations and offsite activities don’t always reflect the pressures, priorities, and real dynamics of the workplace.

• Generalism: one-size-fits-all formats for every company/team, without calibration to industry, corporate culture, organizational structure, or specific challenges.