Stephen Downes

In this article there are in my opinion two major arguments offered against skills-based hiring, though only one is presented as such. The first: "employers tend not to know which skills are at the heart of their most successful employees in specific roles. Nor do they know how to define or measure the skills that seem important, per the above point. As a result, asking employers to hire based on skills is asking them to select from a bunch of parameters they don't really understand." Quite so. Second, and more implicitly: "so much of hiring continues to be based on who you know - despite the effort of skills-based hiring pushes to make it otherwise. According to estimates, at least 50% and as high as 85% of roles are filled through one's network." AI only makes this more likely, not less. I think these two points combine make a pretty persuasive case, and it leads me to rethink the future potential of AI-enabled skills assessment. Originally published at the Christensen Institute.