Skills Marketplaces and the Shift from Credentials to Verified Capabilities: Reimagining Workforce Development in the Digital Economy

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
1 hour ago
23 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Traditional credentials—degrees, certifications, and job titles—are losing their predictive validity as sole indicators of workplace capability. Skills marketplaces are emerging as intermediary platforms that enable granular, competency-based matching between talent and opportunity, prioritizing demonstrated ability over institutional gatekeeping. This article synthesizes evidence from organizational psychology, labor economics, and human capital development to examine the organizational and individual consequences of credential inflation, signal degradation, and access inequality. It outlines evidence-based organizational responses including competency-based assessment infrastructure, transparent skill taxonomies, and equitable validation pathways. The transition from static credentials to dynamic capability verification represents not merely a technological shift but a fundamental renegotiation of the psychological contract between employers, workers, and educational institutions. Organizations adopting capability-centered approaches demonstrate improved talent identification, deployment efficiency, and workforce diversity while navigating complex challenges in assessment validity, privacy protection, and equitable access.

The professional credential has served as currency in labor markets for over a century, functioning as a signal of competence, commitment, and cultural fit. Yet evidence suggests this currency is experiencing significant devaluation. Degree inflation—the phenomenon where jobs once requiring high school diplomas now demand bachelor's degrees without corresponding increases in skill requirements—has accelerated across industrialized economies. College enrollment rates have increased substantially over recent decades, yet labor market returns to education have become more variable, suggesting credentials alone provide diminishing differentiation (Autor, 2014).

Simultaneously, technological acceleration has shortened the half-life of technical skills in many domains. The knowledge required for effective performance in technology-intensive roles evolves continuously, rendering point-in-time credentials increasingly poor predictors of current capability (Deming & Kahn, 2018). Organizations face a practical dilemma: traditional screening mechanisms may systematically exclude capable individuals while admitting credentialed candidates whose skills are outdated or misaligned with actual job requirements.

Skills marketplaces—both internal platforms enabling talent mobility within organizations and external platforms mediating between independent workers and opportunities—represent a structural response to this credentialing crisis. These platforms operationalize a fundamentally different talent philosophy: capabilities verified through demonstration, assessment, and work product matter more than institutional affiliations or historical achievements. This article examines the drivers of this transition, its organizational and individual consequences, and evidence-based approaches to building capability-centered talent systems that balance efficiency, validity, and equity.

The Shifting Landscape of Work and Credentialing

Defining Skills Marketplaces and Capability Verification in Contemporary Labor Markets

Skills marketplaces function as intermediary platforms—digital or organizational—that match talent to opportunity based on granular, continuously updated skill profiles rather than static credentials. Internal talent marketplaces operate within enterprise boundaries, enabling employees to signal interests, capabilities, and availability for projects, gigs, or permanent roles. External marketplaces mediate transactions between independent workers and client organizations, ranging from generalist platforms to specialized exchanges in technical, creative, or professional domains.

Capability verification encompasses mechanisms for demonstrating and validating competence through multiple channels: work samples, project-based assessments, peer endorsements, microcredentials tied to specific competencies, and inference from demonstrated work history. Unlike traditional credentials that certify completion of an educational program at a point in time, capability verification offers evidence that someone can perform specific tasks at a defined proficiency level in current contexts (Bills, 2003).

The theoretical foundation draws from signaling theory in labor economics. Spence (1973) conceptualized education as a costly signal that separates high-ability from low-ability workers. However, as credential attainment has become more widespread and less costly relative to income, signals have become noisier and less informative. Capability verification attempts to address this signal degradation by tying credentials more directly to observable performance rather than relying on correlations between institutional completion and unobserved ability.

State of Practice: Credential Inflation and Evolving Skill Demands

Several converging forces accelerate the shift toward capability-based talent systems. Educational credential inflation has proceeded dramatically since the 1970s. Jobs that previously required high school completion increasingly demand college degrees without corresponding changes in the underlying knowledge, skills, or abilities required for effective performance (Collins, 1979). This inflation reflects partly genuine skill upgrading as technology complements educated workers, but also credentialism—the use of educational requirements as gatekeeping mechanisms unrelated to job content (Brown, 2001).

Credential inflation creates inefficiencies in labor market matching. Workers invest in costly education to acquire signals rather than solely for skill development. Employers use credentials as screening devices but may miss qualified candidates who lack formal credentials despite possessing relevant capabilities. The college wage premium—the earnings advantage of bachelor's degree holders over high school graduates—has widened considerably since 1980, but this premium varies substantially across fields and institutions, suggesting credentials alone provide incomplete information about worker quality (Autor, 2014).

Simultaneously, skill obsolescence has accelerated in technology-intensive occupations. Deming and Kahn (2018) analyzed skill requirements in job postings and found that demand for specific technical skills exhibits boom-and-bust cycles as technologies emerge and mature. Workers whose credentials certified competence in now-obsolete technologies face devalued signals despite potentially having acquired new relevant skills through practice and informal learning.

The growth of contingent and alternative work arrangements further complicates traditional credentialing. Workers who move between organizations, work on project bases, or combine multiple part-time engagements accumulate capabilities across contexts that may not map neatly onto traditional credentials tied to single employers or educational institutions (Kalleberg, 2000). These workers require portable, granular signals of capability that travel across organizational boundaries.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Credential-Centric Systems

Organizational Performance and Hiring Efficiency Impacts

Overreliance on traditional credentials as primary screening mechanisms creates several quantifiable inefficiencies. First, credential-based screening may systematically exclude qualified candidates, reducing the effective talent pool. When job requirements specify educational credentials that exceed the actual knowledge and skills needed for satisfactory performance, organizations pay a wage premium for overqualified workers while excluding capable individuals who could perform effectively at lower cost (Vedder et al., 2013).

Second, credential requirements increase search costs and time-to-fill. When labor markets are tight and credential requirements are rigid, unfilled positions remain open longer as recruiters search for candidates meeting specified criteria rather than evaluating broader pools based on demonstrated capabilities. These extended vacancies carry direct costs in lost productivity and opportunity costs from delayed projects or forgone business.

Third, the validity of credentials as predictors of job performance varies considerably across roles and contexts. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) conducted comprehensive meta-analyses of selection methods and found that general mental ability tests and work sample tests predicted job performance substantially better than educational level. Their analysis suggested that educational credentials, while positively correlated with performance, offered lower predictive validity than direct assessment of relevant capabilities. For many roles, especially those where on-the-job learning is substantial, hiring based on learning ability and demonstrated work samples outperforms hiring based on historical credentials.

Credential fixation also constrains organizational agility by limiting internal mobility. When internal talent systems categorize employees primarily by their entry credentials and job titles rather than their current capabilities, organizations struggle to redeploy talent quickly in response to shifting strategic priorities. This rigidity is particularly costly in dynamic environments where competitive advantage depends on rapid capability reconfiguration.

Individual Career Outcomes and Labor Market Inequality

For individuals, credential gaps create profound inequities in access to opportunity. Capable workers without degrees face systematic exclusion from positions they could perform effectively, perpetuating socioeconomic stratification across generations. The credential premium—wage differential between degree holders and non-holders—has widened substantially since 1980, but this widening reflects partly credentialism rather than purely skill-based differences (Autor, 2014).

Educational attainment correlates strongly with family socioeconomic background, meaning credential-centric hiring amplifies existing inequalities. First-generation college students, students from lower-income families, and underrepresented minorities face structural barriers to credential acquisition including financial constraints, information asymmetries about educational pathways and returns, and differential access to high-quality K-12 preparation (Bowen et al., 2009). When credentials serve as gatekeepers independent of actual capability, these structural disadvantages in credential access translate directly into labor market disadvantage.

Workers who acquire capabilities through non-traditional pathways—self-study, on-the-job learning, military service, or community-based training—struggle to have these competencies recognized in systems designed around institutional certification. This particularly disadvantages workers whose life circumstances (caregiving responsibilities, financial necessity, geographic constraints) preclude traditional full-time educational enrollment but who nonetheless develop relevant capabilities through practice.

Career interruptions, more common among women due to caregiving responsibilities, create additional penalties in credential-centric systems. Workers returning after breaks may possess current, relevant skills but face skepticism from screeners focused on credential recency or employment continuity rather than demonstrated capability. This contributes to persistent gender wage gaps and occupational segregation (Goldin, 2014).

The psychological consequences manifest as diminished sense of agency and reduced professional identity. When validation comes solely from institutional gatekeepers external to the work itself, individuals experience less ownership over their professional development and fewer pathways to demonstrate growth outside formal educational re-enrollment.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Competency-Based Assessment and Validated Selection Methods

Organizations seeking to reduce credential dependence while maintaining hiring quality invest in assessment infrastructure that directly evaluates job-relevant capabilities. Work sample tests, where candidates complete tasks representative of actual job responsibilities under standardized conditions, demonstrate higher predictive validity for job performance than educational credentials or unstructured interviews (Roth et al., 2005).

Schmidt and Hunter's (1998) meta-analytic findings indicated that work sample tests achieved validity coefficients around .54 for predicting job performance, compared to .10 for years of education and .38 for unstructured interviews. Structured interviews using behavioral or situational questions, assessed against defined scoring rubrics, achieved validities around .51. These direct capability assessments substantially outperform credential screening in predicting who will succeed in roles.

Critically, well-designed work sample tests also demonstrate lower adverse impact—differential selection rates across demographic groups—compared to some cognitive ability tests, potentially improving both validity and diversity outcomes simultaneously (Roth et al., 2008). When assessments focus on performing actual job tasks rather than proxies, they reduce the correlation between test performance and factors unrelated to job success, including socioeconomic background captured in credentials.

Effective assessment design principles include:

Content validity through job analysis: Systematic decomposition of roles into critical tasks and knowledge requirements, ensuring assessments measure capabilities actually needed rather than proxies or conveniences
Standardization and structured evaluation: Consistent administration and scoring using defined rubrics, reducing evaluator subjectivity and improving reliability across candidates
Multiple assessment methods: Combining work samples, cognitive ability measures, and structured interviews to capture different performance dimensions, improving overall validity
Transparency and feedback: Clear communication about what is being assessed and why, with feedback enabling unsuccessful candidates to understand gaps and pursue development
Continuous validation: Periodic analysis of assessment scores against subsequent job performance to ensure tools maintain predictive validity as roles evolve

Implementation challenges include development costs, as creating valid work samples requires substantial upfront investment in job analysis and assessment construction. Organizations must also train assessors in standardized administration and scoring to maintain reliability. For high-volume roles, these costs can be amortized across many hires, but for specialized positions, simplified assessments may be necessary.

Some technology firms have implemented coding challenges and technical assessments as core screening mechanisms, evaluating candidates on their ability to solve programming problems relevant to the work rather than focusing on where they studied. Academic research on these practices remains limited, but the underlying principle—direct assessment of job-relevant skills—aligns with industrial-organizational psychology best practices for selection validity.

Transparent Skill Taxonomies and Competency Frameworks

Capability-based talent systems require shared vocabulary for describing skills and competencies. Without common taxonomies, labor markets fragment into incompatible local definitions, preventing efficient matching between workers' capabilities and organizational needs. Organizations developing sophisticated skills-based approaches invest in competency frameworks that define relevant capabilities, proficiency levels, and relationships among skills.

Competency modeling approaches vary in granularity and scope. Broad competency frameworks identify relatively stable behavioral capabilities (e.g., analytical thinking, collaboration, communication) applicable across many roles. Technical skill taxonomies enumerate specific domain knowledge and tool proficiencies relevant to particular occupations or industries. Effective frameworks balance breadth—covering the full range of relevant capabilities—with precision—defining competencies narrowly enough to be meaningful (Schippmann et al., 2000).

The ONET database, developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, provides a comprehensive occupational taxonomy including skills, abilities, knowledge areas, and work activities across hundreds of occupations. While developed for labor market information rather than enterprise talent management, ONET illustrates the scale and complexity of systematic skill classification (Peterson et al., 2001).

Considerations for organizational skill taxonomy development:

Hierarchical structure with multiple abstraction levels: High-level competency categories decompose into more specific skills, enabling both strategic workforce planning (broad capabilities) and precise matching (specific proficiencies)
Proficiency level definitions: Clear criteria distinguishing novice, intermediate, advanced, and expert performance, making skill claims comparable across individuals
Dynamic updating processes: Regular revision as new technologies, methodologies, or work practices emerge, ensuring taxonomies reflect current rather than historical skill landscapes
Worker and manager input: Involving practitioners in defining and validating competencies increases accuracy and acceptance compared to top-down frameworks developed by external consultants
Integration with development pathways: Explicit connections between current proficiency, target proficiency for specific opportunities, and learning resources enabling skill building

Challenges include maintaining consistency as taxonomies scale. When thousands of employees self-assess across hundreds of skills, interpretation variance creates noise. Some individuals may overestimate capabilities (social desirability bias), while others underestimate (imposter phenomenon). Validation mechanisms—manager endorsement, peer confirmation, or objective assessment—help calibrate self-reports but add administrative burden.

Microcredentials, Badges, and Modular Learning Pathways

Microcredentials—certifications tied to narrow, verifiable competencies rather than comprehensive degree programs—enable more granular and continuous capability signaling. Digital badges represent verified achievements in specific skill areas, with metadata describing what was assessed, evidence provided, and issuing authority (Hickey et al., 2014).

The theoretical advantage of microcredentials lies in improved signal precision. Rather than a bachelor's degree indicating broad general competence across many domains, microcredentials could signal specific capabilities relevant to particular roles. This granularity potentially improves matching efficiency, as employers identify candidates with exact needed skills rather than inferring capabilities from broad credentials.

Stackability—the ability to combine multiple microcredentials into recognized expertise levels or comprehensive certifications—provides flexible pathways accessible to working adults who cannot disenroll from employment for full-time study. Learners can acquire capabilities incrementally, signaling progress before completing full programs and adjusting learning directions in response to evolving interests or market demands.

However, microcredentials face significant adoption challenges. For microcredentials to function as effective signals, employers must recognize them as valid capability indicators, requiring either widespread standardization or sufficient reputation of issuing institutions (Brown et al., 2021). In a fragmented landscape with thousands of potential badge issuers, employers struggle to evaluate credential quality, potentially defaulting to familiar traditional credentials despite their limitations.

Quality assurance mechanisms are essential but difficult to scale. Third-party accreditation of microcredential programs, standardized assessment rigor, and transparent disclosure of what was evaluated all contribute to signal integrity. Yet establishing these quality systems requires coordination across educational providers, employers, and potentially regulatory bodies—collective action challenges that have historically proven difficult to resolve.

Research on microcredential labor market value remains limited and shows mixed results. Some studies find that credentials from well-known platforms or in high-demand technical areas correlate with employment outcomes, particularly for learners without traditional degrees. However, many microcredentials show little measurable wage impact, suggesting employers may not yet weight them heavily in hiring decisions (Credly, 2019; though this source is practitioner-oriented and of lower confidence).

Design principles for effective microcredentials:

Competency-specific assessment: Certifications verify demonstrated performance of defined tasks, not merely content exposure or course completion
Industry co-design and recognition: Employer involvement in defining competencies and committing to recognize credentials, ensuring market relevance
Transparent evidence and assessment criteria: Clear articulation of what was assessed, at what proficiency level, and what performance constituted passing
Portable digital format with metadata: Machine-readable credentials containing issuer, date, evidence, and assessment information, enabling automated verification
Pathways to recognized credentials: Explicit articulation of how microcredentials stack toward industry-recognized certifications or degree programs, providing context for employers unfamiliar with specific badges

Community colleges and continuing education programs increasingly offer modular, competency-based learning in technical fields including information technology, healthcare support, and advanced manufacturing. While rigorous evaluation of these initiatives remains limited, the underlying logic—enabling workers to acquire and signal capabilities incrementally rather than through all-or-nothing degree programs—addresses real barriers to capability development for working adults.

Internal Talent Marketplaces and Skills-Based Mobility

Internal labor markets within organizations increasingly adopt marketplace mechanisms enabling skills-based matching between employees and opportunities. Rather than centralized workforce planning and manager-controlled assignments, these platforms surface openings—projects, temporary assignments, permanent transfers—and enable employees to express interest based on skill fit and developmental goals.

Economic theory suggests that internal labor markets can be more efficient than external markets because firms possess better information about worker quality through observed performance (Gibbons & Waldman, 1999). However, this informational advantage depends on capabilities being visible across organizational silos. In large, complex organizations, talent often remains hidden as managers in one unit lack knowledge of capabilities residing elsewhere.

Internal talent marketplaces aim to solve this information problem by creating visibility into distributed capabilities. When employees maintain skill profiles and openings are described in competency terms, algorithmic matching can identify fit that would otherwise remain undiscovered. This improved matching efficiency can reduce external hiring costs, improve capability utilization, and accelerate internal mobility.

From a worker perspective, internal marketplaces potentially increase agency and career development opportunities. Rather than advancement depending solely on advocacy from a current manager or awareness of openings through informal networks, employees can actively search for and pursue opportunities aligning with their capabilities and interests. This transparency may improve perceptions of organizational justice and career support, positively influencing retention.

However, internal marketplace success requires careful governance design. Managers must be incentivized to share talent rather than hoard high performers. Clear policies about how employees can explore opportunities without signaling dissatisfaction or risking retaliation are essential for psychological safety. The balance between manager authority to approve employee moves and employee autonomy to pursue opportunities influences whether marketplaces create genuine empowerment or simply add administrative overhead to existing political processes.

Implementation considerations for internal talent marketplaces:

Dual incentive alignment: Reward managers who develop and share talent, not just those who retain employees, and create employee incentives to develop portable skills valuable across the enterprise
Multiple engagement types: Support short-term project contributions (e.g., 10-20% time allocation) alongside permanent transfers, enabling exploration without full commitment
Algorithmic recommendation with human decision rights: Technology surfaces opportunities based on skill match, but final decisions involve human judgment about fit, development value, and operational impact
Integration with performance and development systems: Skills demonstrated through marketplace participation feed into performance evaluation; identified skill gaps connect to development resources
Cultural change management: Address fears that employee mobility signals disloyalty or that managers lose status when team members transition, framing internal movement as organizational strength

Research specifically evaluating internal talent marketplace platforms remains sparse in peer-reviewed academic literature, as many implementations are recent and proprietary. The theoretical foundations draw from personnel economics, organizational behavior research on procedural justice and psychological contracts, and labor market matching theory, but rigorous empirical evaluation of specific platform designs represents an important gap.

Equitable Access and Removing Credential Barriers

Capability-focused systems create opportunity only if verification mechanisms are genuinely accessible to populations historically excluded by traditional credentialing. Organizations committed to equity proactively design multiple pathways for demonstrating competence, recognizing that different populations face different barriers.

Research consistently demonstrates that educational attainment correlates with family socioeconomic status, geographic location, and demographic characteristics. First-generation college students, lower-income individuals, rural residents, and some racial and ethnic minorities face structural barriers to traditional credential acquisition (Bowen et al., 2009). If capability verification simply substitutes new gatekeeping mechanisms (expensive assessment programs, platforms requiring high-speed internet and devices, tacit knowledge about how to navigate verification processes), equity outcomes may not improve despite rhetoric about meritocracy.

Effective equity-oriented design involves several principles. First, capability assessments should minimize construct-irrelevant variance—factors that influence assessment performance but don't relate to job capability. For example, timed assessments may disadvantage individuals with learning differences unless time limits directly relate to job requirements. Assessment formats requiring expensive software or assuming high digital literacy may exclude capable individuals with limited technology access.

Second, organizations can implement prior learning assessment—formal evaluation of capabilities acquired through work experience, military service, community contributions, or self-directed learning. Academic research on prior learning assessment in higher education shows it can accelerate degree completion and reduce costs for adult learners while maintaining learning outcomes comparable to traditional pathways (Klein-Collins, 2010). Extending this approach to employment settings could recognize capabilities regardless of acquisition context.

Third, organizations might develop structured return-to-work or entry pathway programs for populations facing systematic exclusion. Rather than requiring candidates to possess full capability sets before entry, these programs provide paid on-the-job skill building combined with assessment and support. This shifts capability development costs from individuals to employers, reducing financial barriers while enabling organizations to shape skill development to their specific needs.

Equity-enhancing strategies:

Multiple assessment modalities: Offer work samples, portfolios, interviews, and practical demonstrations rather than single assessment formats, accommodating different strengths and circumstances
Transparent criteria and preparation resources: Clearly communicate what will be assessed and provide study guides, practice materials, or preparation workshops, reducing advantages from insider knowledge
Financial accessibility: Minimize or eliminate assessment fees, provide equipment or facilities for assessments, and consider paid assessment opportunities where candidates perform actual work
Proactive outreach to underrepresented populations: Active recruitment from community colleges, workforce development organizations, and community-based programs serving diverse populations
Bias monitoring in algorithmic systems: Regular audit of assessment tools and matching algorithms for adverse impact, with human review processes to catch and correct systematic disadvantages

The research evidence on these approaches varies. Prior learning assessment has been studied in educational contexts with generally positive findings, but evaluation of employment-based applications remains limited. Apprenticeship programs combining work and learning show positive outcomes in certain industries and national contexts, but effectiveness depends heavily on design quality and employer commitment (Lerman, 2014).

A fundamental challenge is that truly equitable access requires investment—in assessment development, candidate support, outreach, and monitoring—that organizations may resist if alternatives (credential screening) are cheaper despite their inequities. The business case for equity depends partly on competitive labor markets where inclusive practices expand talent pools, and partly on organizational values and stakeholder pressure around social responsibility.

Building Long-Term Organizational Capability

Skills Intelligence as Strategic Workforce Planning Foundation

Mature capability-based organizations treat skills data as strategic assets, developing systematic infrastructure for capturing, analyzing, and acting on skills intelligence. This extends beyond individual assessment to enterprise-wide visibility into capability supply, demand, gaps, and evolution trajectories.

Strategic workforce planning traditionally focuses on headcount—projected staffing needs by role, location, and time horizon based on business plans. Skills-based workforce planning shifts focus to capabilities—what competencies the organization needs in what quantities and proficiencies to execute strategy, how those requirements will evolve, where capability gaps exist, and what combination of development, acquisition, and redeployment will close gaps most effectively (Cappelli, 2009).

This capability orientation requires integrated data systems combining skill assessments, project assignments, learning activities, and external labor market intelligence into unified analytical frameworks. Advanced organizations apply workforce analytics to identify leading indicators of skill gaps—correlations between strategic initiatives, technology investments, or market shifts and emerging capability requirements—enabling proactive development rather than reactive scrambling when shortages become acute.

External environmental scanning complements internal analysis. Monitoring competitor capability buildups, technology evolution, regulatory changes, and labor market trends helps anticipate skill demand shifts. In rapidly evolving domains, the skills organizations need in two years may not yet be well-defined, requiring scenario planning and flexible development strategies rather than precise specifications.

Elements of mature skills intelligence systems:

Integrated data architecture: Unified skill profiles drawing from self-assessment, manager validation, project history, learning completion, assessment results, and performance data
Predictive analytics for capability planning: Models forecasting skill demand under different strategic scenarios, identifying critical shortage risks, and optimizing development investments
Real-time visibility into capability supply: Searchable skills inventories enabling rapid identification of expertise for emerging opportunities or crisis response
Continuous updating mechanisms: Regular skill profile refreshes, automated inference from work activities, and lightweight assessment integrated into workflow rather than requiring dedicated events
Privacy governance and worker trust: Clear policies limiting algorithmic decision-making, human review of consequential choices, and transparency about how skills data influences opportunities

Governance challenges intensify as skills intelligence becomes more sophisticated. Workers must trust that skill transparency creates opportunity rather than vulnerability—that revealing development needs won't trigger negative consequences. This requires explicit policies, cultural norms, and leadership modeling that frame continuous learning as expected and supported rather than as remediation of deficiency.

The risk of surveillance and intensified performance pressure is real. Skills tracking systems can become tools for monitoring and control rather than development and opportunity. Research on algorithmic management in platform-mediated work documents how quantification of worker performance can increase stress, reduce autonomy, and exacerbate power imbalances (Kellogg et al., 2020). Thoughtful implementation requires balancing efficiency gains from better information against autonomy, dignity, and sustainable work intensification.

Continuous Learning Systems and Skill Currency

In domains where capabilities evolve rapidly, point-in-time credentials become obsolete quickly. Continuous learning systems integrate skill assessment, development, and verification into ongoing cycles rather than discrete educational episodes. This mirrors recertification requirements in licensed professions like medicine or accounting but extends the concept more broadly.

The psychological research on expertise development emphasizes that skill mastery requires deliberate practice—effortful activity designed to improve performance, with feedback enabling adjustment (Ericsson, 2008). Translating this to workplace capability development suggests that effective learning systems provide opportunities for deliberate practice integrated with work, not just passive content consumption separated from application.

Technology platforms can enable several mechanisms supporting continuous capability development. Adaptive learning systems adjust content difficulty and sequence based on demonstrated proficiency, improving efficiency compared to one-size-fits-all curricula. Microlearning—short, focused sessions on specific skills or concepts—enables learning integrated into workflow rather than requiring dedicated time blocks. Social learning features facilitate peer knowledge exchange and collaborative problem-solving, which research suggests drives deeper understanding than individual study (Bandura, 1977).

However, the effectiveness of technology-enabled learning depends on instructional design quality, not merely platform sophistication. Research comparing online and in-person learning finds that well-designed online instruction achieves learning outcomes comparable to classroom instruction, but poorly designed online courses underperform (Means et al., 2013). The risk is that organizations invest in learning platforms without corresponding investment in content quality, learner support, and integration with actual work application.

Principles for effective continuous learning systems:

Learning in the flow of work: Integrated with daily activities rather than requiring separate time and location, reducing barriers to participation
Personalized pathways based on current proficiency: Adaptive systems that start where learners are rather than forcing all to begin at identical starting points
Application opportunities and feedback: Practice applying new capabilities to authentic problems with guidance on performance, enabling skill consolidation
Social learning and community: Peer interaction, mentorship, and collaborative problem-solving that provide motivation and diverse perspectives
Explicit connection to opportunities: Transparent pathways showing how skill development enables access to valued projects, roles, or advancement

The challenge of learning transfer—applying formally learned skills to actual work contexts—remains significant. Workers may demonstrate competence in training settings yet struggle to apply learning when faced with messy, complex real-world situations. Effective systems therefore include structured application opportunities, coaching, and gradual increase in task complexity to bridge from controlled learning to authentic performance.

Responsibility for continuous learning represents contested terrain in the renegotiated psychological contract. Organizations may emphasize worker responsibility for maintaining skill currency, framing it as necessary for employability in dynamic markets. Workers may resist bearing full responsibility for adaptation to employer-driven technology changes or skill requirement shifts. Sustainable models likely involve shared responsibility—organizations provide learning access, time, and support; workers invest effort and take ownership of development direction.

Building Inclusive Capability Ecosystems Beyond Organizational Boundaries

The evolution from credentials to capabilities requires expanding conceptions of talent beyond traditional employment relationships. Organizations increasingly engage workers through diverse arrangements—full-time employment, contract roles, project-based engagements, alumni networks, and learning communities—creating extended capability ecosystems rather than bounded employee populations.

This ecosystem orientation recognizes that capability development happens across multiple contexts. Workers build skills through formal employment, independent projects, community contributions, online collaboration, and personal exploration. Rigid boundaries that recognize only capabilities demonstrated within a single organizational context underutilize societal human capital and limit individual agency.

From an organizational perspective, ecosystem approaches enable access to specialized capabilities needed temporarily without permanent hiring overhead. From worker perspectives, ecosystems provide multiple pathways to deploy capabilities, reducing dependence on single employers and enabling portfolio careers combining diverse engagements.

However, ecosystem models raise important questions about who bears risks and costs. Platform-mediated work can shift risks from organizations to workers—income volatility, absence of benefits, lack of skill development investment—while preserving organizational control over task definition and performance evaluation (Kellogg et al., 2020). The capability verification imperative intensifies for workers without traditional employment relationships, as they must continuously signal competence without organizational affiliation lending credibility.

Equitable ecosystems require careful design around several dimensions. First, capability verification must be portable across organizational contexts, meaning skills demonstrated in one setting are recognized elsewhere. This increases worker bargaining power relative to scenarios where capabilities are validated only within proprietary internal systems. Second, development opportunities cannot depend entirely on employment status. Workers between engagements or in precarious arrangements need access to skill building to avoid capability depreciation.

Third, social protections and benefits may need to be reimagined for ecosystem models. When individuals combine multiple part-time engagements rather than single full-time employment, health insurance, retirement savings, unemployment insurance, and paid leave structures designed around traditional employment become inaccessible or inadequate. Policy innovations—portable benefits, pro-rated employer contributions across multiple engagements, individual training accounts—have been proposed but implementation remains limited (Abraham et al., 2017).

Characteristics of inclusive capability ecosystems:

Portable, verified capability credentials: Skills validated by credible third parties rather than single employers, enabling recognition across organizational contexts
Open learning and development access: Skill-building resources available to workers regardless of current employment status or organizational affiliation
Equitable platform governance: Worker voice in rules governing marketplace platforms, transparency in algorithmic matching and evaluation, and contestability of consequential decisions
Fair compensation and risk-sharing: Pricing mechanisms that reflect capability value, with reasonable allocation of demand volatility costs between workers and organizations
Social protection adaptation: Benefits and protections that travel with workers across engagements rather than depending on single employer relationships

Academic research on platform labor markets, the gig economy, and contingent work arrangements documents significant challenges around power asymmetries, income precarity, and benefit access (Kalleberg, 2009). The capability verification transition alone does not resolve these structural issues. Indeed, without thoughtful governance, capability-based systems could intensify precarity by creating continuous pressure to demonstrate current competence while providing inadequate support for capability maintenance.

The path toward genuinely inclusive ecosystems likely requires regulatory innovation alongside organizational practice change. Questions about worker classification, portable benefits, and platform accountability increasingly receive policy attention, though implementation varies widely across jurisdictions. Organizations operating in this space must navigate evolving regulatory landscapes while making design choices about whether to push toward worker-protective models or exploit regulatory ambiguities.

Conclusion

The evolution from traditional credentials to verified capabilities represents a structural shift in how talent and opportunity connect, driven by credential inflation, rapid skill obsolescence, and growing recognition of access inequities in traditional systems. Organizations are developing competency-based assessment infrastructure, transparent skill taxonomies, continuous learning systems, and internal talent marketplaces that prioritize demonstrated ability over institutional credentials.

Evidence from organizational psychology and labor economics suggests these approaches can improve hiring validity, talent deployment efficiency, and workforce diversity when implemented thoughtfully. Work sample tests and structured assessments predict job performance better than educational credentials. Skills-based internal mobility can improve utilization and retention. Removing unnecessary credential requirements expands access to capable individuals historically excluded.

Yet realizing this potential requires substantial investment in assessment quality, data infrastructure, privacy governance, and cultural change. Organizations must resist simply substituting new gatekeeping mechanisms for old ones while addressing fundamental questions about who bears costs and risks in more fluid talent systems. The transition challenges existing psychological contracts, requiring renegotiation around shared responsibility for capability development, transparent pathways between skills and opportunities, and equitable access to verification mechanisms.

For practitioners, this means questioning inherited assumptions about credentials as reliable performance signals, investing in validation of selection methods, making skill requirements and development pathways transparent, and designing systems with equity as a central consideration rather than an afterthought. It means treating capability verification as an ongoing organizational process rather than a point-in-time hiring decision, and recognizing that genuine skills-based systems require support for continuous development not just continuous assessment.

The organizations that navigate this transition thoughtfully will access broader talent pools, deploy capabilities more effectively, and build workforces resilient to technological and market disruption. Those that adopt capability rhetoric while maintaining exclusionary practices or shifting risks entirely to workers will face legitimacy challenges, regulatory pressure, and difficulty attracting talent in competitive markets. The difference lies in whether capability verification serves as a tool for genuine talent optimization and expanded opportunity, or merely as a new mechanism for intensified control and risk externalization disguised in meritocratic language.

References

Abraham, K., Haltiwanger, J., Sandusky, K., & Spletzer, J. (2017). Measuring the gig economy: Current knowledge and open issues. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 24950.
Autor, D. H. (2014). Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the "other 99 percent." Science, 344(6186), 843-851.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bills, D. B. (2003). Credentials, signals, and screens: Explaining the relationship between schooling and job assignment. Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 441-449.
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America's public universities. Princeton University Press.
Brown, D. K. (2001). The social sources of educational credentialism: Status cultures, labor markets, and organizations. Sociology of Education, 74, 19-34.
Brown, M., Kurzweil, M., Pritchett, W., & Skelly, A. (2021). The market for digital credentials: Demand signals and emerging trends. ITHAKA S+R.
Cappelli, P. (2009). Talent on demand: Managing talent in an age of uncertainty. Harvard Business Press.
Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. Academic Press.
Deming, D. J., & Kahn, L. B. (2018). Skill requirements across firms and labor markets: Evidence from job postings for professionals. Journal of Labor Economics, 36(S1), S337-S369.
Ericsson, K. A. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15(11), 988-994.
Gibbons, R., & Waldman, M. (1999). A theory of wage and promotion dynamics inside firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1321-1358.
Goldin, C. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review, 104(4), 1091-1119.
Hickey, D. T., Otto, N., Itow, R., Schenke, K., Tran, C., & Chow, C. (2014). Badges design principles documentation project: Interim report. Center for Research on Learning and Technology, Indiana University.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341-365.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1-22.
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410.
Klein-Collins, R. (2010). Fueling the race to postsecondary success: A 48-institution study of prior learning assessment and adult student outcomes. Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.
Lerman, R. I. (2014). Apprenticeship in the United States. ILR Review, 67(3_suppl), 650-668.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.
Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., Fleishman, E. A., Levin, K. Y., ... & Dye, D. M. (2001). Understanding work using the Occupational Information Network (O* NET): Implications for practice and research. Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 451-492.
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & McFarland, L. A. (2005). A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: Updating and integrating some classic literature. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 1009-1037.
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., McFarland, L. A., & Buster, M. (2008). Work sample tests in personnel selection: A meta‐analysis of Black–White differences in overall and exercise scores. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 637-661.
Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., ... & Sanchez, J. I. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 703-740.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374.
Vedder, R., Denhart, C., & Robe, J. (2013). Why are recent college graduates underemployed? University enrollments and labor-market realities. Center for College Affordability and Productivity.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Skills Marketplaces and the Shift from Credentials to Verified Capabilities: Reimagining Workforce Development in the Digital Economy. Human Capital Leadership Review, 28(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.28.1.6