For Employers

Employers are currently forced to rely on proxies, like a degree, because they cannot trust self-reported activities on a resume. By adopting this framework, employers move from guessing about potential to verifying capability. Resumes often include inaccurate and self-reported information, offering a narrative that is difficult, if not impossible, to verify at scale. More importantly, they rarely convey the full breadth of a learner’s skills. They may list a job title or a project, but they fail to capture the context of that experience: What was the level of challenge? What was the individual’s true scope of responsibility? What was the measurable impact?   

Traditional transcripts are rarely better. They are a static, historical record of courses completed and grades received, not a dynamic record of capabilities demonstrated. Additionally, transcripts communicate in one direction, resulting in a modicum of value for the employer but often neglecting the learner entirely. In an environment defined by the rise of skills-based hiring and a demand for practical, validated skills over credentials alone, a transcript is a poor signal of readiness. This is especially true for the Durable Skills—critical thinking, collaboration, creative problem-solving, resilience—that employers value most. These skills are not taught in a single course; they are demonstrated and honed through experience.  After all, an experience is a skill applied.

This disconnect leaves employers in a bind. While work-based learning opportunities for high school-age individuals are growing, the valuable skills gained through these experiences are often unrecognized, undervalued, and difficult to validate in ways that employers trust. Because employers cannot trust the claims on a resume or the grades on a transcript to signal true capability, they default to proxies they can measure, such as directly relevant experience, degree pedigree, GPA, or brand-name internships. This practice reinforces existing inequities, systematically overlooking vast pools of talent, including those Skilled Through Alternative Routes (STARS), who possess the requisite skills but lack the traditional (and often arbitrary) credentials.   

However, this framework isn’t just for new hires. It can be used to map internal talent, creating transparent pathways for frontline workers to advance based on verified skills rather than credentials, increasing retention. While this publication only goes up to Level 3 (Apply), the full SFIA framework has four additional levels that are better for leadership and more seasoned employees. It is possible that some student experiences (specifically those that have higher degrees of agency like entrepreneurial experiences and service experiences) will be more accurately described as level 4.

Case Study Validating Durable Skills (Alex & Jordan)

The framework’s first critical application is solving the challenge of assessing “durable skills.” The “Alex and Jordan” scenario, detailed in the Education Design Lab’s research, provides an illustration. In this scenario, two workers in the retail industry—Alex, a Level 1 Customer Service Representative, and Jordan, a Level 3 Chief Customer Officer— are working on building the durable skill “Strengthen Relationships”.   

The framework, however, allows us to see how this same skill manifests in dramatically different ways based on the context of their roles.

This side-by-side comparison gives employers and educators a precise, behavioral way to describe, evaluate, and design experiences at different levels. An employer can now ask a candidate to “describe a time you resolved a minor customer concern” (Level 1) versus “describe a time you cultivated trust with an external partner during a high-level decision” (Level 4).

Consider two candidates claiming the skill “Strengthen Relationships.” The framework reveals the difference in their value:

• Candidate A (Level 1): Resolves minor customer concerns within defined rules (Transactional Complexity).
• Candidate B (Level 3): Cultivates trust with external partners to navigate high-stakes decisions (Political Complexity).

The Evaluation Layer: Transforming the Interview

For employers, the “Evaluation Layer” is about moving from guessing about potential to verifying capability. To fix this, employers must integrate the Common Language of Experience directly into their interview rubrics. By shifting the focus from generic skills to the three anchors (Autonomy, Complexity, and Contribution), interviewers can elicit the rich, verifiable data needed to make high-quality hires.

The most practical application of this layer is re-engineering interview questions to target specific levels of the framework. Instead of asking broad questions like “Do you have collaboration skills?”, hiring managers should ask Level-based questions that probe the scope of the candidate’s responsibility. 

The Old Way: “Tell me about a time you worked on a team.” 

The Problem: This allows for a generic answer where the candidate might have simply been a participant (Level 1) without distinguishing their actual contribution.

The New Way: “Describe a project where your contribution showed the ability to influence others as you strengthened relationships (Level 3 Contribution), where you had to mobilize others to achieve a result.”

The Solution: This forces the candidate to provide evidence of leadership, negotiation, and impact on outcomes.

To implement this, recruiters and hiring managers should be trained to ask follow-up questions specifically designed to uncover the “anchors” of the experience. In addition, AI interview bots and other tools that draw conclusions from resumes and other work documents should be aligned to the following:

• Probing Autonomy: “What was the scope of your decision-making authority? Did you follow established guidelines (Level 1), or did you have to help define the strategy (Level 3)?”
• Probing Complexity: “Tell me about the complexity of that challenge. Was it a routine issue you had seen before (Level 1), or did it involve navigating ambiguity with stakeholders (Level 3)?”
• Probing Contribution: “Who did you have to interact with? Was your contribution limited to immediate peers (Level 1), or did you have to coordinate alignment (Level 3)?”

The Design Layer: Re-Engineering Internships

Internships often don’t reach their full potential because they lack structure on both sides of the equation. Educators aren’t set up for success with regard to knowing what kind of experience to ask for, and employers aren’t set up for success to bring in a blank canvas. Employers can use them to intentionally scaffold experiences:

• Designing a Level 1 Experience: Focus on clear instructions and frequent check-ins. Goal: Build confidence.
• Designing a Level 2 Experience: Shift to “routine supervision.” Allow the intern to handle routine issues independently. Goal: Build problem-solving.
• Designing a Level 3 Experience: Provide “general direction” only. Ask the intern to identify complex issues and strategic solutions. Goal: Build ownership.