Blog

One of the biggest mistakes job seekers make happens before they ever submit an application. They find an attractive position, study the job description and begin mentally checking boxes. Seven years of experience? They have five. Advanced Excel? Yes. Salesforce? No. Industry experience? Not exactly. Master's degree preferred? They have a bachelor's. By the time they reach the bottom of the posting, they have convinced themselves they are underqualified and close the browser window. The employer never rejected them because the employer never had the opportunity. The candidate rejected themselves.

That approach misunderstands what many job descriptions actually represent. A posting can combine essential qualifications, preferred credentials, responsibilities inherited from the person who previously held the position and an employer's wish list for an ideal candidate who may not even exist. The smartest question, therefore, is not whether you satisfy every bullet point. It is whether you possess enough of the core capabilities to perform the job successfully and can demonstrate that value convincingly. If the answer is yes, falling short of several listed qualifications should not automatically stop you from applying.

Job Descriptions Are Not Always Checklists

Hiring is gradually shifting away from rigid credentials and toward demonstrable skills. LinkedIn has reported that more than nine in 10 talent acquisition professionals believe accurately assessing candidates' skills is crucial to improving quality of hire, while companies making the greatest use of skills-based searches are 12% more likely to make what LinkedIn defines as a quality hire. The shift is also appearing in job advertisements. In 2023, approximately 26% of paid jobs posted on LinkedIn did not require a degree, compared with 22% in 2020, representing a meaningful increase in employers willing to look beyond traditional educational credentials.

That evolution should change the way candidates read job postings. A requirement for a professional license, security clearance or legally mandated certification may truly be nonnegotiable, but a preference for seven years of experience instead of five is an entirely different matter. The same applies to familiarity with a particular software platform, experience within one specific industry or possession of a preferred graduate degree. Candidates should distinguish qualifications that are essential to performing the work from qualifications that would simply make the employer's ideal candidate more attractive.

Research from the Society for Human Resource Management reinforces the importance of that distinction. SHRM's skills-first hiring research has found that employers increasingly emphasize relevant skills and practical experience when making hiring decisions, while educational background has declined in relative importance. Nearly 58% of workers surveyed by SHRM said they would prefer applying to an organization that emphasizes skills-first hiring. That does not mean education and credentials have stopped mattering. It means employers increasingly recognize that a résumé filled with the right labels does not automatically produce the person most capable of doing the job.

Stop Rejecting Yourself Before an Employer Can Evaluate You

The tendency to self-select out of opportunities can have measurable consequences. LinkedIn's analysis of billions of interactions among job seekers, recruiters and employers found that women were 16% less likely than men to apply for a job after viewing it. Yet when women did apply, they were 16% more likely to be hired than men. For positions representing a step up in seniority, LinkedIn reported that women were 18% more likely to be hired.

Those findings are particularly important because of the frequently repeated claim that men apply for jobs when they meet approximately 60% of the qualifications, while women wait until they meet 100%. That statistic has circulated widely in career discussions for years, but the precise 60% versus 100% figures should not be treated as a universal scientific rule. The larger lesson is better supported: candidates can limit their own opportunities when they interpret every listed qualification as an absolute prerequisite rather than allowing an employer to decide whether their overall experience is competitive.

This matters for every job seeker, regardless of gender. An employer might value your five years of unusually strong experience more than another candidate's eight mediocre years. A hiring manager may decide that your background in an adjacent industry brings a perspective the department needs. A company asking for experience with one software platform may discover that your mastery of three competing platforms demonstrates that you can learn its preferred system quickly. None of those possibilities can materialize when you eliminate yourself before applying.

Transferable Skills Are Becoming More Valuable

The growth of skills-based hiring makes transferable experience increasingly important. LinkedIn's 2025 Skills Signal Report found that workers matched to opportunities according to their skills rather than their previous job titles could qualify for more than three times as many roles. LinkedIn also found that adding 10 skills to a profile was associated with an employment gap approximately one month shorter. In artificial intelligence and other rapidly changing fields, the difference can become even more dramatic. LinkedIn estimated that companies focusing on skills instead of degrees or previous titles could expand their potential AI talent pipelines by 8.2 times globally.

This is especially relevant for professionals trying to change industries, move into management or make a significant career pivot. Careers do not always progress in neat vertical lines. A communications professional may have substantial project-management experience. An entrepreneur may have developed sophisticated capabilities in sales, budgeting, operations, marketing and negotiation without ever holding a corporate title reflecting those skills. Someone working in hospitality may have managed large teams, multimillion-dollar budgets and complex customer relationships that translate directly into another sector. A candidate's previous title tells an employer where that person has been, while transferable skills demonstrate what that person may be capable of doing next.

The key is making the connection obvious. If an employer wants someone capable of managing cross-functional teams, simply writing "strong leadership skills" on a résumé accomplishes little. A stronger application might explain that the candidate led 25 employees across four departments while delivering a major project three weeks ahead of schedule. If a position emphasizes revenue generation, the candidate should quantify sales growth, new accounts or revenue produced. If the employer wants someone capable of reducing costs, the résumé should demonstrate how much money or time the candidate previously saved. When you do not perfectly match the employer's preferred profile, measurable accomplishments become even more important because they provide evidence that your experience can transfer.

Skills-Based Hiring Is Growing, But Credentials Still Matter

Candidates should not interpret the movement toward skills-based hiring as evidence that traditional credentials have disappeared. Research from the Burning Glass Institute and Harvard Business School found a considerable gap between corporate announcements about eliminating degree requirements and companies' actual hiring behavior. Researchers estimated that changes associated with skills-based hiring translated into additional opportunities for approximately 97,000 workers annually out of roughly 77 million hires examined in their analysis, amounting to fewer than one in 700 hires.

That finding provides an important reality check. Employers may publicly embrace skills-first hiring while recruiters and hiring managers continue relying on degrees, previous employers, job titles and years of experience as screening mechanisms. Automated recruiting systems can also make keyword alignment important, particularly when employers receive hundreds or thousands of applications. Candidates therefore should not ignore the language in a job description simply because they believe they can perform the work. Instead, they should translate their genuine experience into terminology the employer is likely to recognize while remaining accurate about their background.

The goal is not to pretend you possess qualifications you do not have. It is to prevent your actual qualifications from being overlooked because they are described differently. If an employer repeatedly uses terms such as "stakeholder management," "business development," "financial analysis" or "cross-functional leadership," and those capabilities genuinely describe your experience, those terms should appear naturally in your résumé. Tailoring is not about manipulating a recruiting system. It is about communicating relevant experience in the vocabulary the employer is using to define the position.

Applying Strategically Is Different From Applying Recklessly

None of this means job seekers should indiscriminately apply for every attractive position. There is a difference between stretching into a role and applying for work you plainly cannot perform. A registered nurse position still requires the appropriate license. A senior engineering role requiring deep technical knowledge cannot be replaced by enthusiasm and a willingness to learn. A CFO position is unlikely to be realistic for someone with no meaningful financial leadership experience simply because that person possesses several transferable management skills.

The more useful approach is to identify the core of the position. Ask what the employer is fundamentally hiring this person to accomplish during the first year. Look for the three or four competencies appearing repeatedly throughout the posting and determine whether your experience provides credible evidence that you can deliver those outcomes. If you can perform most of the essential responsibilities, possess the foundational skills upon which the remaining capabilities can reasonably be learned and can point to previous accomplishments demonstrating comparable ability, you may have a legitimate reason to apply even when several boxes remain unchecked.

This approach becomes particularly important in a labor market where competition can be substantial. The U.S. economy continues to generate millions of job openings and hires, but opportunity does not eliminate competition. Sending hundreds of generic résumés is rarely the best response. A candidate meeting perhaps two-thirds of a position's qualifications who submits a carefully tailored résumé filled with relevant accomplishments can present a stronger case than someone who technically meets nearly every requirement but does little to explain why those credentials matter to the employer.

Read the Posting as a Business Problem

One of the most effective ways to decide whether to apply is to stop reading the job description solely as a list of qualifications and start reading it as evidence of a business problem. Every legitimate position exists because an organization needs something accomplished. The company may need more revenue, stronger customer retention, better operations, faster product development, improved financial controls, more effective marketing or leadership for a growing team. The responsibilities and qualifications in the posting provide clues about that underlying need.

Once you identify the problem, your application should demonstrate how your experience relates to solving it. A marketing professional who increased qualified leads by 35% has something more persuasive than five years of generic "marketing experience." A manager who reduced employee turnover by 20% has evidence relevant to an organization struggling with retention. A salesperson who generated $2 million in new business has a measurable accomplishment that can transcend industry boundaries. Employers hire people to create outcomes, and candidates who can connect their past results to the employer's future needs make it easier for hiring managers to imagine them succeeding in the role.

That is also why candidates should resist apologizing for missing qualifications. A cover letter or résumé should not communicate, "I realize I do not have everything you requested, but I hope you will consider me anyway." The stronger message is that your accomplishments, transferable capabilities and record of learning provide a compelling reason for consideration. Confidence does not require pretending a gap does not exist. It requires demonstrating why the strengths you bring may matter more.

Let the Employer Decide Whether You Are Qualified

The biggest problem with waiting until you meet 100% of a job description is that careers rarely advance through perfect qualification matches. The first management opportunity typically arrives before someone can claim years of management experience. The first executive role comes before a candidate has previously spent years as an executive. The first opportunity in a new industry necessarily comes before someone can claim extensive experience inside that industry. Career growth almost always contains an element of stretch.

Job seekers also lack information that employers possess. You do not know who else applied, which qualifications the hiring manager privately considers indispensable, which requirements were added merely because someone thought they sounded useful or whether the company will discover that its ideal candidate does not exist at the salary it is offering. You cannot know whether your unusual combination of experiences will resonate with someone inside the organization until you give that person an opportunity to evaluate it.

The objective is not to hit an arbitrary percentage before applying. It is to make an intelligent assessment of whether you possess the core capabilities required to succeed and whether you can support that claim with evidence. If you can do the work, understand the employer's problem, demonstrate relevant accomplishments and reasonably learn what you do not yet know, apply.

The employer may still say no. That is part of any job search. But there is an enormous difference between being rejected after presenting your qualifications and disappearing from an opportunity because you decided that one missing software program, two fewer years of experience or an imperfect industry match made you unworthy of consideration. Employers already have people responsible for deciding whom not to hire. Job seekers do not need to do that work for them.

Sources

• Burning Glass Institute & Harvard Business School Project on Managing the Future of Work. (2024). Skills-based hiring: The long road from pronouncements to practice. Burning Glass Institute.

• LinkedIn. (2019). Gender insights report: How women find jobs differently. LinkedIn Talent Solutions.

• LinkedIn. (2021). Why skills-based hiring starts with your job descriptions. LinkedIn Talent Blog.

• LinkedIn. (2025). The future of recruiting 2025. LinkedIn Talent Solutions.

• LinkedIn Economic Graph. (2025). The skills signal report 2025. LinkedIn.

• Phan, J. T. (2022). Apply to a job, even if you don't meet all criteria. Harvard Business Review.

• Society for Human Resource Management. (2025). The skills-first movement: Redefining how organizations hire and grow. SHRM.

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026). Job openings and labor turnover survey. U.S. Department of Labor.

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026). The employment situation. U.S. Department of Labor.