{"id":1825,"date":"2026-07-22T14:27:03","date_gmt":"2026-07-22T12:27:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nb-associes.academy\/?p=1825"},"modified":"2026-07-22T14:27:50","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T12:27:50","slug":"measure-soft-skills","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nb-associes.academy\/en\/2026\/07\/22\/mesurer-les-soft-skills\/","title":{"rendered":"Managing without guessing: 5 ways to measure soft skills to escape decision fatigue."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

You know your team's figures. You don't know what state it's in.<\/strong> It is the silent contradiction that exhausts leaders: possessing remarkably precise dashboards on technical performance, and absolutely nothing on what truly determines it. No one taught you how to measure the soft skills of your teams and it is precisely this that wears you out. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This fatigue doesn't come from the workload. It comes from permanent uncertainty. Having to decide without a clear understanding of the situation, arbitrate without knowing who is holding up and who is crumbling, motivate by guessing what matters to each person. It's a continuous, invisible, and rarely acknowledged cognitive effort.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The double blindness that exhausts managers<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

First blind spot: situational analysis<\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

A leader is constantly reading ambiguous signals. Is a tense meeting a symptom of a fundamental disagreement or of passing fatigue? Is a project that is slowing down down to a problem of competence, resources, or commitment? Without a reliable framework for interpretation, each situation requires a complete reconstruction.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This reconstruction comes at a cost. It demands attention that you don't dedicate to strategy. And it produces decisions about which you are never entirely certain \u2013 which fuels rumination, long after the meeting.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Second blind spot: the actual fitness of employees<\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

You know who delivers. You don't know who is holding back. A high-performing employee can be three weeks away from burnout without any indicators signalling it. Another, seemingly discreet, might have considerable reserves that no one has tapped into.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The addition of these two blind spots creates a complexity that most managers absorb in silence: they compensate with intuition for the lack of information provided by the organisation.<\/strong><\/p>


<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Why high-potential talent goes unnoticed<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

The problem is not the lack of talent. It's the lack of a measuring instrument.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Technical skills can be demonstrated: a degree, a portfolio, a business result. Behavioural skills \u2014 those that determine if someone can unite, withstand pressure, and make decisions under uncertainty \u2014 remain largely invisible in traditional processes.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Direct consequence: we promote technical excellence in the hope that it will transform into managerial excellence. Sometimes this works. Often, we simultaneously lose an excellent expert and install a struggling manager.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

What cannot be measured cannot be managed. And what cannot be managed ends up being guessed.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

First response: making the invisible measurable<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

Emotional intelligence is not intuition, it is data.<\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

This is precisely what psychometric assessments provide. TEIQue<\/strong> (Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire), distributed by Thomas International, was developed by Prof. K. V. Petrides at University College London and is approved by the British Psychological Society.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What the tool allows us to objectify:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n