Soft v Hard v Difficult

In my usual seeking of what kind of fresh, never frozen, utter nonsense is out in the world today, I stumbled upon a new phrase.

Soft Leadership

"There's no room for 'soft leadership' in today's job market."

"We need leaders who are able to say what needs to be said and get the job done."

So... leadership?

The concept of "soft skills" incorporates doing difficult things but, with tact.

Soft

Just for fun, let's assume the phrase "soft skills" doesn't exist. You know, just being whimsical. If something is "soft," it can be fluffy, luxurious, or even moved to a new state of being through consistent, but not vigorous beating (a la butter in a bowl while baking cookies).

In leadership soft can be interpreted as unneccessarily careful. It can also mean making decisions that are in the neighborhood of the actual issue, but not addressing the more contentious issues. It can also mean avoiding any kind of struggle, challenge, or confrontation.

My argument is that "soft leadership" isn't any kind of actual leadership at all.

Hard

Before the concept of "soft skills" was born, the phrase "hard skills" existed, maybe if only moments before. "Hard skills," referred to skills with things that are physically hard to the touch. Not physically difficult. Not mentally difficult (though they might be). Merely working with solids... primarily.

Then we look at someone who is "hard-nosed," and they are demanding, maybe even demeaning. They say what they mean, mean what they say, and don't give a flying rat's fender about who it might upset. They're just speaking the truth, after all. No one should be upset by that, should they?

Being a "hard boss," is actually kind of easy. Don't care about people, and just get the job done. Easy peasy.

Difficult

Things that are difficult are in the Goldilocks space of challenges. Not easy. Not impossible. Difficult. Or, as I like to say, figureoutable.

When assigned a difficult task, a leader with a soft dispostion might take too long, never get the thing done, or do it so passively, that no one is sure if it's been completed competently.

A person with a hard approach to leadership might take a difficult task as a great excuse to bark orders. Yes, it's difficult which is exactly why the hard-approach leader has to spell it out for everyone. That leader is the only one with the skills to get the job done. At least, that's the narrative their brain tells them.

A leader who can accomplish difficult things does so using their team effecevely. This doesn't only mean directing and delegating work. The effective leader reaches out laterally, up, down, and into different areas of the org chart to get things done. They do so with integrity, honesty, and tact.

You know... soft skills.

Soft Leadership

It's not a thing. Here's why: anything that would fit in the definition of "soft leadership" is not actually leadership at all. People who get results AND maintain good morale on their team are demonstrating quality leadership.

Summary

Before we collectively hop on the newest named not-a-thing, let's remember the basics. We need effective leaders to help other people do their best work, typically as a member of a team. There is not a singluar correct way, nor a singular incorrect way. However, any way that leads to poor morale, high turnover, low employee engagement, or minimal performance is the wrong way. Even if the KPI's are met today, with continued poor behavior, there's no way the team will sustain that success in an environment where they feel like they matter only to the degree that they're maximally productive rather than as a whole person.