Communication as a Soft Skill: Why It Can’t Be Measured in a Resume or Interview
In Parker Dewey’s 2026 Student Sentiments Survey, students who'd completed a Micro-Internship or internship said that communication (32%) and teamwork (30%) were the most important skills they built through experiential work, ahead of problem-solving (26%), industry-specific skills (25%), and critical thinking (23%). And according to NACE, communication is both the “most valued and most lacking competency in today’s entry-level hires.”
So “communication” is everyone's top answer and yet nobody's actual strength. This is a problem.
A 2025 EDUCAUSE assessment of more than 700 early-career professionals found that 84% rated themselves able to adapt their communication style to different audiences, and over 80% said they think before they speak and read body language well. On paper, that's a workforce full of strong communicators.
Then the same survey asked about the moments that actually test the skill, and fewer than 7% said they were comfortable navigating a difficult conversation. Only 27% said they had an actual strategy for one, and just 4% said they could run a conflict-resolution process effectively.
Candidates aren't lying when they say they communicate well. They believe it, because most of them have never been in a room where it counted. An interview question about communication style gets you the 84% number, but tells you nearly nothing about the 4%.
Communication means something different in every role
Another issue is that "communication" isn't one definable skill. Depending on what the job actually asks, it takes on different forms. Some examples: an operations analyst needs to flag a scheduling conflict to three departments in a way that doesn't read as finger-pointing. A marketing associate needs to take feedback without getting defensive. A junior engineer needs to explain a technical tradeoff to a non-technical stakeholder in language that makes sense.These are all scenarios that fall under the communication umbrella, and "strong communicator" on a resume doesn’t tell you anything about how someone will actually handle these issues when they arise.
What to look for instead
If self-reported confidence and a scripted interview answer don't tell you much, the signal has to come from somewhere else: how someone behaves when the stakes are real, even in a small way.
A few things worth watching for:
How they handle ambiguity. Do they ask a clarifying question, or guess and hope?
How they write a status update. A short, clear update that flags a risk early says more about someone's communication instincts than a polished cover letter.
How they respond to feedback mid-project. Do they get defensive, go quiet, or actually revise the work? This is the closest thing to watching someone handle a real difficult conversation before you've hired them.
Whether their application shows genuine interest in the specific work, not a generic template answer. A structured, thoughtful application is itself a communication sample.
Unfortunately, this can't be uncovered in the traditional interview format. That's exactly why giving candidates a real opportunity to show how they work results in better hiring outcomes.
See how employers evaluate communication by giving candidates a workplace-based assessment with Parker Dewey.
