Image: Istock
The new Competence and Conduct Standard
Why soft skills matter just as much as professional qualifications
GOVERNANCE
Tracey McEachran
Associate Consultant, Campbell Tickell
Tracey McEachran
Associate Consultant, Campbell Tickell
Issue 85 | September 2026
The new Competence and Conduct Standard is a huge step forward for technical professionalism in housing, but without equal attention to ‘soft’ people skills, it risks becoming a compliance exercise rather than a catalyst for better experiences for tenants and colleagues.
From regulation to relationships
The Social Housing (Regulation) Act and the Competence and Conduct Standard mark a clear shift in how we define professionalism. For the first time, senior housing executives and managers will be required to hold formal, regulated housing qualifications. That matters.
But tenants and colleagues do not experience a Level 4 or 5 certificate. They experience the conversation on the doorstep, the tone of an email, the quality of a one‑to‑one, how a complaint is handled when they are distressed, and how leaders behave when things go wrong. Those are ‘soft’ skills, which, as many sectors now recognise, are often what most determine our trust in a person or service.
What the standard changes – and what it cannot
The standard does two main things.
First, it sets minimum qualification expectations for senior housing roles. Senior housing managers will need to hold, or be working towards, an Ofqual‑regulated Level 4 housing management qualification. Senior housing executives will need a Level 5 or equivalent. If you are responsible for social housing, you should understand law, tenancy management, building safety, complaints, safeguarding and regulation.
Second, it requires providers to ensure staff have the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours needed to deliver high‑quality services. That language is important. It acknowledges that competence is not just technical; it is also behavioural.
However, the standard is precise about the level of qualification, and much less specific about what skills and behaviours must be developed and how. It does not spell out the human capabilities tenants and colleagues feel every day: listening, holding difficult conversations, leading under pressure, creating psychological safety, communicating with clarity and respect.
That is where soft skills must come in.
“You can have a technically flawless policy and still deliver a deeply unprofessional experience if the human encounter is poor.”
Tenants feel behaviour, not Level 5
When something goes wrong: damp and mould, antisocial behaviour, a serious repair, a complaint that has dragged on for months – tenants rarely ask about qualifications. They notice whether someone listened, took their concerns seriously, explained clearly what happens next, and treated them with respect rather than blame.
Colleagues notice similar things in their leaders. Do I understand what is expected, and why? Can I raise problems without fear? Does my manager back me when I am doing the right thing? Is there space in our one‑to‑one discussions for sense‑making, not just task lists?
On leadership programmes, when people talk about leaders who inspired them, they might mention knowledge, but they almost always highlight behaviour: the leader’s ability to listen, to avoid being judgemental, to remain calm in a crisis. Professionalism is relational as much as it is technical.
You can have a technically flawless policy and still deliver a deeply unprofessional experience if the human encounter is poor. Equally, you can be managing a messy situation and still leave people feeling respected because of how you communicate and behave.
Soft skills as the delivery mechanism
The phrase ‘soft skills’ makes this domain sound optional, yet it is the primary way professional competence shows up in practice.
The areas the new regime is most concerned with – complaints, tenant voice, safety, serious detriment – all depend heavily on soft skills. Complaints handling requires listening, emotional regulation and owning mistakes. Tenant engagement needs trust‑building and a genuine welcome for challenge. Safety and compliance conversations demand plain language, honesty about risk and support through anxiety. Internal assurance depends on whether staff feel safe to raise concerns and whether leaders walk the talk.
Technical knowledge is the ticket to entry; you need it for sound decisions. But soft skills determine whether those decisions are communicated and implemented in ways that uphold dignity and trust.
If the sector responds to the standard by focusing only on housing qualifications, we may create more technically competent managers who still avoid difficult conversations, communicate coldly, mishandle conflict and shut down tenant and colleague voice.
That would be professionalisation on paper, not in culture.
“Technical knowledge is the ticket to entry; you need it for sound decisions. But soft skills determine whether those decisions are communicated and implemented in ways that uphold dignity and trust.”
From qualified to truly professional
The professionalisation agenda in housing is an opportunity, not just an obligation. It allows the sector to say: ‘We take our responsibilities so seriously that we are willing to raise the bar on what it means to be a housing professional.’
The new standard anchors that in technical competence. The next step is to name, with equal clarity, the human side of professionalism: how we communicate, how we listen, how we lead ourselves and others when things are hard.
Ultimately, tenants and colleagues will not remember which level of qualification we held. They will remember how we made them feel, what we did when they were most vulnerable, and whether our behaviour matched the values we claim.
If we connect the regulatory push for competence with a genuine commitment to soft skills, we will not just have more qualified housing managers. We will have more humane, resilient and trustworthy housing organisations, and that is the professionalism this moment really calls for.
