HR Hiring Trends: Skills, Credentials and Potential

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Thomas E. Poulin
November 17, 2025

Recruiting and retaining a well-qualified workforce is a critical concern for public administrators. To provide effective, efficient and responsive services, employees must be carefully selected for their roles. There is a long-standing debate about whether hiring should focus on their skills developed through experience, formal credentials or their potential. The Society for Human Resource Management has reported that employers practicing skills-based hiring increased from 56% in 2022 to 81% in 2024. While the short-term trend is clear, public administrators should be cognizant of both the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.

Hire for Skills

Many agencies place a premium on demonstrable skills. These skills may be evidenced through prior work experience or demonstrated through a practical skills assessment during the hiring process. Presuming that an existing skill set can be engaged immediately, the intent is to fill vacancies quickly and seamlessly. This can facilitate an accelerated hiring process and increase the likelihood of capturing the immediate value of existing skills. However, this approach eliminates a significant number of potential applicants, especially those right out of school or professional training programs. Though they lack skills, they may be more familiar with the newest trends and technologies in their fields. Additionally, if the focus is on demonstrated experience in a specific position and not related and relevant component tasks and functions, otherwise well-qualified applicants might be excluded from consideration.

Hire for Credentials

Many agencies place a premium on credentials such as professional certifications, licenses or degrees. Applicants with professional certifications or licenses will have demonstrated the capacity to meet or exceed recognized standards in a discipline. However, this may have been limited to a controlled teaching environment and not real-world practice. If certifications or licenses are required by law, they must become requirements in the hiring process. Despite this, agencies must still reflect on whether these credentials are sufficient for new hires or whether experience should also be required. There is the likelihood that newly certified or licensed individuals have broad conceptual knowledge but lack the confidence or fine skills that come with practice. The greater the number of requirements for a position, the smaller the applicant pool. Consequently, agencies would be prudent to differentiate between mandatory and preferred requirements, providing themselves with flexibility in hiring.

Except where licenses or certifications possess a degree requirement, a degree requirement is discretionary. Supporting degree requirements is challenging for lower-level positions, particularly if successful incumbents lack them. The argument for a degree becomes more powerful when applied to higher-level leadership positions. A degree related to the position suggests a stronger conceptual understanding of broad practices in the field and any degree suggests higher-level critical thinking and communication skills. Hiring officers concerned with an applicant’s value for ongoing professional development should look favorably on higher education. A further consideration is that in many circles of the agency, discipline and the community, higher education is considered the norm for many mid- and upper-level positions. This might change based on the rising cost of education and evolving societal values, but for now it is the “rule” and dismissing it might affect agency credibility. The argument against a degree requirement is that it might seem superfluous to the needs of a position. In such instances, a degree might be considered only when all other factors are relatively equal.

Hire for Potential

Some agencies focus on potential rather than skills or credentials. In assessing potential, they often seek those with the “correct” attitude or values. Hiring people for potential, they hold that they can provide the necessary training and experience. This approach is useful in employee development to meet the needs and expectations of a specific agency while also facilitating the agency’s easy integration of new employees into its culture. A potential weakness to this approach is that it might limit an employee’s understanding of their profession beyond the limits of their agency and this limited professional horizon might hinder their ability to predict, plan or implement change. It is difficult to predict potential, so this is a presumptive approach and those selected for their potential may never achieve it.

Conclusions

Ultimately, there is no single “best” approach. Public administrators should be wary of anyone recommending one approach as the most valuable in all instances. The fundamental precepts of human resources argue that all decisions should be based on a comprehensive understanding of job requirements, regardless of the discipline or organizational level. What are the roles and responsibilities of a position? What knowledge, skills, abilities and other factors are necessary to successfully fulfill these roles and responsibilities? What is necessary to provide the requisite knowledge, skills, abilities and other factors? The answers to these questions will lead to an amorphous framework where hiring is based on differing combinations of factors for every position. This will be challenging, time-consuming and can be costly, but no informed person ever said public sector leadership was easy.

Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, SHRM-CP, PSHRA-CP, is a training and development consultant and part-time public administration faculty at Columbia Southern University. He served in local government and non-profits for more than 30 years and has taught public administration and related topics for over 20. He may be reached at [email protected].

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...