The skills shortage nobody’s talking about

Hi Reader,

I spent last Wednesday at the Jobs and Skills Australia roadshow.

(I geek out on employment data. Which makes me such a riot at parties.)

One question kept nagging at me:

If Australia has a skills shortage … why are we so bad at recognising the skills people already have?

Most of you reading this have spent 15, 20 or 30 years building skills. Yet convincing an employer you can use them somewhere else can feel like trying to spend a Myer gift card at Bunnings.

Declined.

Look, Australia has an underutilisation problem mixed in with its productivity problem.

JSA found:

33% of women and 27% of men work in jobs below their skill potential.

That’s a lot of talent sitting on the bench.

Half of all moves into a new occupation happen between the ages of 15 and 24. We’re told to work longer, yet the older we get, the more stuck we become.

Work till 70. Just don’t try anything new after 25.

And 27% of assessed occupations are still in national shortage.

So yes, genuine shortages exist. And yes, some jobs need particular qualifications, licences and technical expertise. I’m not suggesting we hand someone a scalpel because they’re good with the Christmas ham.

But it’s not always that the people aren’t there. Sometimes we just can’t see them.

Here’s what that looks like.

Imagine you’re a retail manager. Twenty years of managing teams, budgets, difficult customers, operational changes and competing priorities. You’ve survived more Boxing Day sales than most generals have survived battles.

You apply for an operations role in another industry.

You see 20 years of leadership, financial management and operations.

The recruiter sees two words:

“Retail Manager.”

Apparently, a budget only counts if you managed it somewhere without a lay-by counter.

Now, you might have gaps. You might need to learn new systems, regulations or processes.

But your experience should still count. That’s what JSA’s skills-first work is about. Job titles and qualifications are a pretty blunt way of working out what someone can actually do.

Here’s the uncomfortable bit:

We do it to ourselves too.

Plenty of experienced professionals describe themselves by their job title. Or they overcomplicate their experience, underbake it, or hand over an eight-page biography … then wonder why nobody gets them.

You’ve probably got more skills than your resume suggests.

But are you proving they’re useful somewhere else?

And yes, employers need to stop leaning so hard on job titles and industry experience. Because even the best resume can’t fix a rigid recruitment process.

Which brings me to AI.

Applicant tracking systems have got smarter. They now understand that “financial modelling” and “financial analysis” are basically cousins. They can find a 2pm Tuesday slot across six calendars. They can even predict which candidates are about to ghost you.

Impressive.

What they don’t do is put their hand up and say:

“This one’s unconventional. But here’s why she’s worth a chat.”

That’s the feature I want. A button that says “Make the case for this candidate.”

Stop ranking. Start spotting potential.

Because Australia doesn’t have a skills problem.

We’re short on people who can see them.

~Lisa

Your Q&A

Computer Says No

Hi Lisa,

I have been asked by companies I’ve applied to recently if I consent (or not) to having my application information run through their AI. I’m hesitant. Do you think it will hurt my chances for an interview if I decline?

Thanks

Carolyn

​
Hi Carolyn,

At least they’re asking.

Plenty of employers will run your resume through AI without so much as a polite wave.

So, will saying no hurt you?

It’s a coin toss.

When you decline, your application is meant to land in a “manual review” pile. That means a human has to read it.

The question is: will they?

Because humans do what humans do. Some will. Some won’t.

Now here’s the flip side. AI screening can be brutal on career changers and anyone with a non-linear background, especially when that employer’s algorithm has been trained on tidy, ladder-climbing careers.

Teacher moving into UX design? The AI can’t join those dots.

Took time off to raise a family? To a machine, that’s a red flag.

Referred by someone on the inside? The AI couldn’t care less.

That’s why I worry less about the tech and more about the humans driving it. Hiring is still a human process. How a recruiter, team or department uses the tool matters far more than the tool itself.

And make no mistake: AI trained on historical hiring data can, and does, repeat the bias of the past.

Yet anti-discrimination law applies to hiring decisions however they’re made. “The algorithm did it” is not a defence, and employers are on the hook for the tools they choose and how they use them.

Nothing stops a recruiter from reading every single application.

It’s their call.

The catch? You’ll never know which ones do.

Humans are biased even without the tech.

My advice?

Control what you can control. Get your resume written well and formatted properly formatted. Then pick up the phone and follow up.

An algorithm can’t screen out a phone call.

Thanks for writing in.

~Lisa

Get in Contact

To ask me a question about resumes or job searching, reply to this email. If it’s a standout question, I might share my thoughts in future newsletters.

Read This: It’s Important

This information is for general purposes and doesn’t consider your individual circumstances. It serves educational goals and isn’t formal career advice. Always seek personalised guidance tailored to your needs.

​​​​