Why Government Can't Hire the People It Needs (And What Happens Next)

James Purdy
Nov 27, 2025
6 min read

Key Takeaways

Government takes 119 days to fill a job versus 36 in the private sector—that 83-day gap filters out qualified candidates before human review because HR systems can't process experience that doesn't fit predefined credential categories.
Three structural barriers lock governments into degree requirements: civil service laws, union agreements tying pay to credentials, and political risk-aversion that punishes imperfect action more than inaction. The result is a doom loop where talent shortages create service gaps, gaps force automation, automation accelerates brain drain, and costs compound.

After relocating my family from Europe to Alberta, I applied for several AI policy positions. A month later, I hadn't heard a word. Curious, I called a colleague overseas who works in government policy.

"I didn't even get an interview," I said. "What gives?"

He laughed. "Nah bro, don't worry about it. They never saw you."

"What do you mean they never saw me?"

"The system filtered you out right away. Experience like yours doesn't fit in a box, and boxes are all they've got. Not a single pair of eyeballs looked at your file. Guaranteed. And if they ever do, they won't know what they're looking at. Nothing personal. It's just the system."

That conversation crystallized the problem. Private companies have already adapted, moving beyond degrees toward skills and internal training. Governments, however, remain bound to rigid systems that can't recognize the talent they say they need.

Last week I wrote about how corporations are bypassing universities. This week, I'll look at why governments can't do the same and what happens when bureaucracies fall behind the very problems they're supposed to solve.

The 30 Second Article

Government HR systems are caught in structures they cannot escape. Civil service laws tie jobs to degrees, union agreements link pay to credentials, and pension systems reinforce the same path across entire careers. Even where the rules allow flexibility, HR platforms cannot process non-traditional qualifications. And above all, political risk-aversion makes doing nothing safer than trying something new.

These three locks explain why governments struggle to hire the very people they say they need. They are not excuses, they are built into the system. Until they are addressed, even the most qualified candidates will be filtered out before a human ever reviews their application.

Next week, we’ll look at what happens when these barriers collide with accelerating pressure—and why the costs of delay rise every single year governments fail to act.

The Portability Problem

Private sector credentials are increasingly portable across companies. Google Career Certificates, AWS training programs, and IBM SkillsBuild certifications get candidates hired at competitor firms without question. A 2024 survey found 90% of companies report skills-based hires outperform degree-based hires, and these companies now recognize each other's internal credentials as valid qualifications.

But when these same candidates apply to government roles, they get filtered out at intake.

I see the same pattern in schools. Teachers ask, "If I complete AI training on my own time, will it count toward professional development? Will it affect my salary placement?" Unless that course has been pre-approved by the board, the answer is usually "no". The system can't process credentials that don't fit existing categories. Just as government HR systems reject corporate certificates automatically, school districts can't validate AI skills teachers have already built.

This isn't about whether microcredentials are "good enough." It's about whether institutions can evaluate what they can't categorize. Private companies solved this by changing their evaluation systems. Government hasn't. Not because officials don't want to, but because changing evaluation systems requires dismantling infrastructure that's written into law, encoded in collective agreements, and embedded in pension calculations.

The barriers aren't philosophical. They're structural.

The Three Locks (Not Three Excuses)

These barriers are not excuses. They are real obstacles, and the first step to moving past them is understanding how they actually work.

Lock 1: Legal and Structural Integration Civil service laws do not merely suggest degree requirements; they mandate them. In Canada, federal qualification standards link job classifications directly to educational credentials, and provincial systems follow the same approach. Union agreements reinforce this by tying salary placement to years of formal education. That means a first-year teacher with a master’s degree can earn more than a veteran with 15 years of service and proven expertise. Pension systems add another layer, since lifetime benefits are calculated from salaries that are themselves tied to credentials.

Procurement rules push this even further. Government contracts often require specific degrees for personnel. An experienced AI policy consultant without a master’s in public administration may never make it past the initial filter, no matter how strong their track record.

This is not simply a matter of preference. It is built into the legal and financial infrastructure. Changing it requires legislative reform, renegotiating contracts, and even recalculating pension systems.

Lock 2: Administrative Incapacity Even where laws provide some flexibility, the machinery of government cannot easily act on it. The Niskanen Center described hiring systems as “not particularly innovative or flexible,” which leaves agencies relying on self-assessments instead of genuine skills evaluation. Brookings found that the real issue is not a lack of candidate qualifications, but a lack of systems capable of processing the information.

A school board director once told me their HR software only has three dropdown options: Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD. There is no space for “Google AI Essentials Certificate”. Credentials like these are not scored poorly. They are not scored at all. They simply disappear.

Lock 3: Political Risk-Aversion, the Master Lock This final barrier keeps the others in place. Public sector mistakes attract far more scrutiny than private sector ones. A failed skills-based hire at Amazon is a bad hire. A failed skills-based hire in government becomes a scandal, a question period, and a ministerial explanation.

Officials live under pressure where short-term political goals often outweigh long-term workforce planning, as the OECD has noted. The result is a culture that punishes trying and failing more harshly than failing to act at all.

This explains why reforms lag. Twenty-five US states committed to skills-based hiring, but the actual impact was only a 2.5 percent annual reduction in degree requirements. A Harvard Business School study found that 45 percent of organizations claiming to shift to skills-based hiring made no meaningful change. Many eventually reversed course, reinstating degree requirements once political winds shifted.

I see the same dynamic in school boards and ministries. Leaders know they need AI policy, yet the fear of making a mistake prevents them from moving. This is not incompetence. These are capable professionals working in systems that reward caution more than capacity.

Conclusion:

The three locks—structural, administrative, and political—do not just slow governments down. They hold the system in place. And when a system cannot recognize the skills it needs, it cannot hire the people who have them.

This is why qualified candidates are filtered out before any human review. It is why school boards struggle to validate the training their teachers pursue independently. It is why governments that know they must adapt often end up standing still.

Standing still is not neutral. Every year of delay compounds the costs, widens the talent gap, and makes reform more politically expensive.

The people I speak to inside government know this already. They are not blind to the challenge but they are caught in a system that rewards caution over change.

In Part 2, we will look at what happens when structural caution meets accelerating crisis, and how hiring delays cascade into service breakdowns.

About the Author

Ryan James Purdy is an educator, consultant, and author focused on practical AI governance and policy implementation in schools and institutions. He is the creator of the Stop-Gap AI Policy Guide series, which helps organizations build adaptive, bottom-up policies that work in real classrooms and offices without waiting for perfect federal or institutional guidance. His work has been implemented internationally, with recognition from school boards, policymakers, and education leaders.

You can connect with him on LinkedIn here: www.linkedin.com/in/r-james-purdy-768794301