You know what’s frustrating? Watching good workers slip through your fingers because they can’t write a resume worth a damn.
The construction industry is staring down 650,000 job openings this year. Nearly one in four workers are over 55. And somehow, we’re still hiring the same way we did twenty years ago—by playing credential roulette with resumes.
It’s not working.
Here’s the thing: the best concrete finisher, the sharpest electrician, the carpenter who can eyeball measurements that others need three tries to get right—they don’t always look good on paper. And we’re missing them because we’re looking at the wrong stuff.
The Resume Trap
Look, I get it. Resumes are easy. They’re familiar. You can sort through them with your morning coffee and feel like you’re making progress.
But think about what a resume actually tells you. Where someone went to school (or didn’t). Job titles that might mean something completely different at another company. Years of experience that could be five years of growth or one year repeated five times.
David Case, President at Advastar Group (they’re construction recruiters, so they’ve seen this play out hundreds of times), puts it this way: “The best concrete finisher I ever hired had no formal training and a sparse resume, but could troubleshoot curing problems better than workers with decades of documented experience. We were missing talented people because we were focused on the wrong metrics.”
Here’s what really gets me: about 70 percent of construction workers learned their trade through apprenticeships, on-the-job training, or just working alongside someone who knew what they were doing. Not in a classroom. Not with a certificate they can frame.
So when we require specific credentials or five years at this type of company doing that exact thing… we’re automatically cutting out most of the people who could actually do the job.
Kind of backwards, right?
What If We Just Asked: Can You Do This?
Skills-based hiring isn’t complicated. It’s just honest.
Instead of asking where someone’s been, you ask what they can do. Can you read blueprints? Can you operate this equipment safely? Can you troubleshoot when things go wrong?
It’s the difference between “Tell me about your previous experience” and “Show me.”
Case saw this firsthand when his company started testing electrician candidates: “We implemented skills assessments for electrician positions and discovered that some candidates with impressive resumes struggled with basic troubleshooting, while others with minimal documentation excelled. Skills-based hiring reveals what resumes hide.”
And honestly? That tracks. We’ve all worked with someone who interviews great but can’t deliver. Or the opposite—someone who’s awkward in meetings but absolutely kills it on site.
How to Actually Do This
Okay, so you’re thinking: “This sounds good, but how do I change everything we do?”
You don’t have to blow it all up. Just… adjust your aim a bit.
Let People Show You What They’ve Got
Stop relying only on interviews. Add something real.
For welders? Have them complete a test weld. For carpenters? Give them a blueprint and some measurements to cut. For plumbers? Walk them through a scenario and see how they think it through.
This isn’t revolutionary. It’s just practical.
And it works—about 85 percent of construction companies that started doing skills assessments saw better hires and less turnover within a year. Yeah, it takes some time upfront to figure out what to test. But you build it once and use it forever.
Rewrite Your Job Posts (They’re Probably Terrible)
Most job descriptions are basically “we need someone who’s already done this exact job for five years at a company like ours.”
That’s… not helpful.
Try this instead: describe what the person will actually do. Not where they’ve been, but what they need to be able to handle.
Don’t say “five years as a plumber.” Say “you’ll install water supply systems, troubleshoot drainage issues, and read hydraulic diagrams.”
Case’s team tried this and immediately noticed something: “We rewrote our job descriptions to focus on what people need to do rather than where they’ve been. Our applicant pool immediately became more diverse and included talented workers we would have overlooked before.”
More diverse isn’t just a nice phrase here. It means veterans who fixed equipment in the military. People who changed careers. Workers who learned from family but never had a “real” job in the field. All capable. All previously invisible.
Why This Actually Matters (Beyond Just Filling Jobs)
I’m not just saying this approach is nicer or more fair or whatever. It’s better for your business.
Companies using skills-based hiring cut their time-to-hire by about 30 percent. When you can watch someone demonstrate competency instead of parsing through resume language, decisions get faster.
But here’s the really interesting part: retention jumps by 40 percent after 18 months.
Think about why that happens. When you hire based on actual skills, there’s no surprise when someone shows up on day one. They can do what you need them to do. They know it. You know it. Everyone’s on the same page.
“The workers we hire through skills-based methods stay longer and perform better because we’ve validated their abilities upfront,” Case told me. “There’s no disconnect between what we thought we hired and what we actually got.”
No bait-and-switch. No “wait, you said you could…” conversations three weeks in.
Yeah, But What About…
Look, I know what you’re thinking. This sounds like a lot of work. What if we get sued? How do we test soft skills?
Fair questions.
The work thing is real—you do need to develop assessments. But it’s front-loaded. Build them once, use them for every candidate. And honestly, many industry groups already have templates. You don’t have to start from scratch.
The legal stuff? Usually less scary than people think. Skills tests that directly relate to the job and get applied the same way to everyone are generally more defensible than subjective resume reviews. You document your criteria, score consistently, and you’re in better shape than “well, I had a good feeling about this person.”
As for soft skills… yeah, they matter. Communication, teamwork, problem-solving under pressure—all crucial.
But you can still assess them through action. Behavioral questions that get specific. Scenario discussions. Trial periods. Just don’t rely on someone telling you they’re “a great communicator” on their resume. Show me what that looks like when a timeline shifts or a client’s unhappy.
Where This Is All Heading
Here’s my take: in five years, hiring based purely on credentials is going to feel as outdated as faxing applications.
The companies that figure this out now? They’re going to have an enormous advantage. While everyone else is fighting over the same shrinking pool of “perfect resume” candidates, you’re going to be pulling from a much bigger pool of people who can actually do the work.
Technology’s making this easier too. Digital assessment platforms. VR simulations for trade skills. Systems that track what people can actually do across projects. It’s all getting more accessible.
Case sees it clearly: “The construction companies that thrive in the coming decade will be those that recognize skills matter more than resumes. We need to find and develop talent wherever it exists, not just where traditional credentials suggest it might be.”
And maybe that’s the real shift here. It’s not just about changing how we hire. It’s about changing what we value.
Capability over credentials. Potential over pedigree. What someone can do right now over where they’ve been.
The workers are out there. They can do the job. They just can’t prove it on a piece of paper.
So stop asking them to.
