Workforce Transitions Aren’t a Straight LineBack

Most people who lose a job, or find themselves underemployed, are not on their way back to
where they started. They’re on their way somewhere else entirely, whether the systems built
around them recognize it or not.

For many, the challenge isn’t simply finding another job. It’s finding work that better aligns with
their strengths, allows them to grow, and creates opportunities for long-term success rather than
another temporary stop.

The Old Model Doesn’t Match Reality

For decades, workforce systems have operated on a simple assumption: help someone find
work like the work they had before. Same industry. Same title, if possible. Same skill set,
applied the same way.

That assumption made sense when industries were stable and career paths were more
predictable. It makes far less sense now. Automation reshapes roles rather than replacing entire
professions. Industries evolve. New occupations emerge. A role someone held for ten years
may simply not exist in the same form anymore.

Yet the default response, across employers, career services, and workforce programs, is still to
look backward. What did this person do? Let’s find something similar to that.

That approach often overlooks people who are underemployed as well. Someone may already
have a job, but if their current role underutilizes their capabilities or offers little opportunity for

growth, simply matching them to another similar position does little to improve their long-term
prospects.

Matching People to Similar Jobs Misses the Point

Matching for similarity feels efficient, but it’s also frequently wrong.

A warehouse worker with strong problem-solving instincts and a talent for coordinating people
under pressure isn’t necessarily best served by another warehouse role. A retail manager who
thrives on structure and process might be a stronger fit for operations or logistics than another
retail floor. The job title is familiar. The fit may not be.

Systems built around credentials and job history default to pattern matching: this person did X,
so we’ll point them toward X-adjacent work.

But similarity isn’t the same as suitability.

The goal shouldn’t be finding the closest match to someone’s past. It should be identifying
where they are most likely to succeed next.

The Real Gap Is Between Skills and Direction

Most people carry transferable skills they don’t fully recognize, and most systems aren’t built to
surface them.

Someone’s ability to de-escalate conflict, manage competing priorities, or learn quickly under
pressure rarely shows up on a resume. Those capabilities show up in how they think,
collaborate, adapt, and solve problems. A customer service representative with exceptional
communication and problem-solving skills, for example, may be well suited for project
coordination or client success roles, even if their previous job title wouldn’t suggest that path.

Without a structured way to understand those patterns, advisors, employers, and individuals
often default to the easiest information available: previous job titles.

This is where many workforce transitions—and cases of underemployment—lose momentum.
People are frequently more capable than their current or previous role suggests, but without
insight into their underlying strengths, preferences, and potential, it’s difficult to identify career
paths where those capabilities can create greater value.

Why This Produces Repeat Underemployment

When transitions are guided by familiarity instead of fit, the result is predictable: people land in
roles that don’t use their strengths, don’t hold their interest, and don’t lead anywhere. They
leave, or they’re let go, and the cycle repeats. Not because they lack ability, but because the
placement never matched who they actually are and how they actually work.

This shows up at scale. Workforce programs measure success by placement rates, not by
whether the placement holds. Employers measure success by filled positions, not by whether
the person hired is positioned to grow into something more.

Short-term metrics reward getting someone into a job, but they say nothing about whether that
job was ever the right one.

Fit Changes the Starting Question

A better starting question isn’t, “What did this person used to do?”

It’s, “What are this person’s strengths? How do they prefer to work? What motivates them? How
do they solve problems? And where are those qualities most likely to succeed?”

Those questions shift the conversation from job history to human potential.

Understanding someone’s behavioral strengths, work preferences, and natural ways of thinking
reveals opportunities that traditional career matching often misses. It uncovers transferable
capabilities that can translate across industries, roles, and career pathways, opening doors that
wouldn’t appear through resume-based matching alone.

So, how can we spot them in time?

A great method is using validated behavioral assessments, which can help us uncover these
transferable strengths. Through them, organizations and individuals gain a clearer
understanding of where someone is most likely to thrive, even in roles or industries they may
never have considered before.

This is where a science-based understanding of fit becomes valuable. By measuring the
behavioral factors that influence performance, engagement, and fulfillment, organizations can

better identify where individuals are most likely to thrive and not just where they’ve worked
before.

Experience still matters. But experience should help explain how someone works, not limit what
they could become.

Long-Term Fit Beats Immediate Placement

Helping someone find a job quickly isn’t the same as helping them build a successful career.
Immediate placement solves today’s problem, but long-term fit creates tomorrow’s opportunities.

When people are matched to roles that align with their strengths, preferences, and potential,
they’re more likely to stay engaged, continue developing, and contribute at a higher level.
Organizations benefit from stronger retention and performance. Individuals gain careers that
grow with them rather than jobs they quickly outgrow.

That’s why the goal shouldn’t simply be placement. It should be lasting success.

Workforce transitions—and journeys out of underemployment—rarely follow a straight line back.
They move forward into new opportunities, new industries, and new possibilities. The
organizations that recognize this will be better equipped to help people discover where they truly
fit, creating outcomes that last well beyond the next job offer.