EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2025 forecast missed. Badly.
In fall 2024, the National Association of Colleges and Employers predicted 7.3% hiring growth for the U.S. Class of 2025. By spring, it was 0.6%. A 91% miss isn't noise; it's a signal that your entry-level hiring assumptions are wrong.
Entry-level hiring didn't slow. It collapsed. 66% of enterprises are cutting entry-level roles due to AI adoption, and unemployment among recent college graduates has hit a 30-year high. AI eliminated the work that used to build mid-level talent: junior data analysis, basic coding, research tasks, entry-level content creation. The career ladder isn't congested—it's missing the first three rungs.
Organizations rushed to adopt what looked like solutions. Skills-based hiring reached 64% adoption and LinkedIn data shows it could expand talent pools by 8.2x for AI roles. Adoption outpaced results. Identifying skills isn't the same as verifying them, and verifying them isn't the same as actually hiring based on them.
The same pattern showed up with AI. By 2025, 80% of organizations integrated AI into HR functions. Deployment accelerated faster than anyone predicted. Most organizations treated AI as a procurement decision, not an organizational redesign trigger. They deployed tools without changing the work. High investment, disappointing returns.
The 2025 Forecast Missed. Badly.
NACE hiring forecast miss
enterprises cutting entry-level roles
grad unemployment level
skills-based hiring adoption
talent pool expansion potential
AI in HR adoption rate
Here's What Broke in 2025
The pipeline problem is structural. AI didn't just reduce entry-level demand temporarily. It eliminated the development pathway from junior to mid-level talent. In 3-5 years, organizations will face a mid-level shortage they're creating right now by not investing in entry-level development.
Skills-based hiring without proof doesn't work. Resume fraud costs U.S. businesses an estimated $600 billion annually. Credential inflation made every signal lose its value. Hiring managers need verification layers—work samples, peer validation, execution history—not just skills taxonomies.
AI alone delivers 10-15% gains. AI plus process redesign delivers 40-50%. The competitive gap in 2026 will be obvious: organizations that bundled AI with workflow redesign will pull away from those that blindly deployed tools.
This brief focuses on the three biggest problems talent leaders face right now: rebuilding entry-level pipelines, adding verification to skills-based hiring, and redesigning processes around AI. Each section includes peer perspective questions and an implementation playbook with week-by-week timelines.
THE ENTRY-LEVEL PIPELINE CRISIS
AI didn't reduce junior hiring—it eliminated the pathway to mid-level talent
HERE'S THE CHALLENGE
Entry-level hiring isn't cyclical. It's structural.
AI automated the work that used to develop mid-level talent. Data analysis, basic coding, research synthesis, content drafting—these weren't just "entry-level jobs." They were the training ground where junior hires learned judgment, context, and execution. Now that work happens in Claude, ChatGPT, or a number of other AI co-pilot tools.
The economic signal is clear. NACE's hiring forecast dropped from 7.3% growth to 0.6%—a 91% forecast error. Tech sector entry-level hiring fell 25%. New graduates now represent just 7% of hires versus a historical baseline of 9%. Unemployment among bachelor's degree holders ages 22-27 hit a 30-year high, and 52% of the Class of 2023 was underemployed one year after graduation.
Here's the compounding problem: organizations shifted from "hire junior, develop them" to "hire experienced, skip the training." That works until 2027-2028, when the mid-level pipeline runs dry because no one invested in 2024-2025 cohorts.
HERE'S THE DATA
| What changed | The evidence | Why it compounds |
|---|---|---|
| Entry-level roles automated | 66% of enterprises reducing entry-level hiring due to AI | Work that trained junior talent no longer requires humans |
| Graduate unemployment at 30-year high | Unemployment for ages 22-27 with bachelor's degrees near all-time peak | Credential advantage eroded |
| Massive underemployment | 52% of Class of 2023 underemployed one year post-graduation | Graduates working below qualification level |
| Hiring forecast collapsed | NACE revised from +7.3% to +0.6% for Class of 2025 | 91% forecast error signals structural shift |
| AI screening perception | 73% of entry-level applicants suspect AI screened them out | Top talent avoiding automated funnels |
The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025 found that 40% of employers expect to reduce workforce where AI can automate tasks, with nearly 50 million U.S. jobs potentially impacted.
HERE'S WHAT YOUR PEERS THINK
- • CHRO: "If we don't hire entry-level for three years, where does our mid-level bench come from in 2028?"
- • CFO: "What's the unit economics of developing internal talent versus paying market rate for scarce mid-level hires?"
- • VP Engineering: "Can we quantify the skill development that used to happen organically in junior roles that AI now does?"
- • Head of Talent Acquisition: "Should we be building apprenticeship programs, or is this just expensive altruism?"
- • Workforce Planning Lead: "How do we model talent pipeline risk when entry-level supply is fundamentally different than 18 months ago?"
- • Head of Learning & Development: "What capabilities can we build internally faster than we can hire externally in this market?"
HERE'S WHAT WE THINK
Organizations that don't invest in entry-level development now will pay surge pricing for mid-level talent in 2027-2028.
The fix isn't "hire more entry-level." It's "create pathways that develop capability when AI handles execution."
WHAT ORGANIZATIONS CAN DO:
- Rebuild the training ground. If AI does the work, create structured programs where junior hires learn judgment, context, and escalation. Apprenticeships, rotations, and shadowing programs aren't perks—they're infrastructure.
- Hire for potential, not polish. Skills-based hiring matters most at entry-level. Focus on learning velocity, problem-solving under constraints, and demonstrating curiosity.
- Measure pipeline health as a strategic metric. Track entry-level hiring rate, time-to-productivity, and internal promotion velocity. If those metrics degrade, your 2028 mid-level problem is already locked in.
SKILLS-BASED HIRING WITHOUT VERIFICATION FAILS
64% adoption, flat results—because identification isn't proof
HERE'S THE CHALLENGE
Skills-based hiring adoption spiked. Nearly two-thirds of employers now use it to identify qualified candidates, and LinkedIn research shows it could expand AI role talent pools by 8.2x globally.
Adoption outpaced outcomes. Organizations rolled out skills taxonomies, assessments, and competency maps. Then hiring managers asked, "How do I know this person can actually do the work?" When the only answer was "trust the assessment," they went back to credentials—the same proxies they've always relied on.
The gap is operational. Skills identification tells you what someone claims. Skills verification tells you what someone can execute.
Three frictions that break skills-based hiring:
- Process inertia. New skill signals exist, but the day-to-day workflow still rewards old habits. Recruiters default to brand-name companies. Hiring managers add "one more round to be safe" instead of trusting the new data.
- Manager accountability. The person signing off owns the outcome. If they don't trust the skills data, they fall back to the safest-looking proxy—brand-name schools, familiar companies, and resumes that look like past hires.
- Verification gap. A skills assessment can show what someone knows. It does not prove they can execute in your environment—with your tools, your pace, and your constraints.
HERE'S THE DATA
| What the research shows | What it means operationally | Where it breaks |
|---|---|---|
| 64% of employers use skills-based hiring | Adoption is mainstream | High adoption, mixed outcomes = process problem |
| Talent pools could expand 8.2x for AI roles | Candidate universe grows dramatically | Without verification = more noise, not signal |
| Resume fraud costs $600B annually | Credential inflation makes claims worthless | AI-generated portfolios scale faster than verification |
| 52% of grads underemployed | Credentials no longer signal capability | Skills-based hiring needs verification to work |
85% of hiring managers report catching lies during screening. Yet fraud persists because detection happens too late, after time is invested.
Organizations that added verification layers (work samples, peer validation, execution evidence) saw conversion improvements of 3-5x. Those that stopped at skills identification saw flat results.
HERE'S WHAT YOUR PEERS THINK
- • VP Talent Acquisition: "If we remove degree requirements, but hiring managers still screen for Ivy League, did anything actually change?"
- • Hiring Manager: "What proof would make me confident enough to say yes in 24 hours instead of adding two more interview rounds?"
- • DEI Leader: "How do we keep skills verification rigorous without recreating bias through subjective 'culture fit' evaluations?"
- • CHRO: "Can we measure the cost difference between hiring on credentials versus hiring on verified skills?"
- • Head of Recruiting Operations: "If 73% of candidates think AI blocked them, how do we build verification that feels fair?"
- • CFO: "What's the ROI on adding verification infrastructure versus continuing to hire the way we always have?"
HERE'S WHAT WE THINK
Skills-based hiring without verification is rebranding, not redesign.
Move from "has the skill" to "can execute the work."
Three operational changes:
- Add a verification layer early. Work samples, peer-reviewed portfolios, trial projects—anything that produces evidence of execution. If it can't be scored consistently by two reviewers, it's not verification.
- Redesign the decision workflow. Don't just bolt on verification. Change how managers make hiring decisions. If the work sample is strong, the question isn't "who else should we meet?"—it's "what's left to de-risk before we say yes?"
- Standardize the rubric. Build scoring rubrics with 4-6 criteria tied to on-the-job performance. Train reviewers. Calibrate regularly.
AI DEPLOYMENT WITHOUT PROCESS REDESIGN DELIVERS 10-15% GAINS
AI in HR ROI: Why Deployment Without Process Redesign Delivers Only 10-15% Gains
HERE'S THE CHALLENGE
By 2025, 80% of organizations integrated AI into HR functions. Deployment accelerated faster than anyone expected. Most organizations weren't piloting AI—they were in production.
ROI lagged. Organizations invested in predictive analytics, AI-powered screening, automated scheduling, and skills inventories. Then they waited for transformation.
AI was treated as a procurement decision, not an organizational redesign trigger.
Here's the pattern: organizations deployed AI tools but didn't change the work around them. Predictive models identified flight risk, but managers waited for exit interviews to act. Skills inventories mapped internal talent, but hiring managers preferred external candidates. AI screened resumes, but recruiters added more interview rounds.
High technology investment, low operational impact.
Surveys show that 85% of organizations face AI ROI challenges, with difficulty isolating AI's impact and a lack of clear metrics. That's a symptom. The disease is deploying AI without changing how work gets done.
HERE'S THE DATA
| What happened | What the data shows | Why it didn't work |
|---|---|---|
| Widespread AI adoption | 80% of organizations integrated AI into HR by 2025 | Deployment speed exceeded organizational readiness |
| Limited process change | Most added AI without redesigning workflows | AI became "another tool" not a decision architecture shift |
| ROI measurement struggles | 85% of C-suite leaders face challenges quantifying GenAI ROI | Measuring AI separately from process change misses the point |
| Workforce reduction expectations | 40% of employers expect to reduce workforce where AI automates | Efficiency gains assumed but unrealized without redesign |
Organizations that deployed AI alongside process redesign saw 40-50% efficiency gains. Those that deployed AI alone saw 10-15% improvements, which is disappointing relative to investment.
The differentiation isn't technical sophistication. It's an operational discipline. Winners asked: "If AI recommends this action, will we take it?" Losers asked: "What AI can we buy?"
HERE'S WHAT YOUR PEERS THINK
- • CHRO: "If our AI identifies internal candidates but managers still hire externally, what did we actually change?"
- • VP HR Technology: "How do we measure AI impact when most managers say 'it's helpful' but outcomes haven't shifted?"
- • CFO: "We spent $2M on predictive analytics. Where's the measurable reduction in turnover or hiring costs?"
- • Head of Talent Acquisition: "If AI screens resumes but we're still doing five interview rounds, where's the efficiency gain?"
- • Organizational Development Lead: "What's the difference between organizations where AI transformed work versus those where it's another dashboard?"
- • Head of People Analytics: "Can we isolate which parts of hiring improved because of AI versus standardized process?"
HERE'S WHAT WE THINK
AI alone is worth 10-15%. AI plus process redesign is worth 40-50%. The gap is discipline, not technology.
Four operational fixes:
- Redesign in parallel, not sequence. Don't deploy AI and "figure out how to use it." Redesign the workflow before you deploy. If AI automates resume screening, what happens to recruiter time? If it doesn't get reallocated, you automated waste.
- Change decision-making, not dashboards. If AI recommends an internal candidate, does the hiring manager interview them? If not, the problem isn't AI—it's manager incentives.
- Build feedback loops that retrain the model and the process. AI gets better when you act on its recommendations and feed back results. That means changing your workflow as you learn.
- Measure real outcomes, not deployment milestones. "We implemented AI screening" is a vanity metric. "Time-to-fill dropped 30%" is a business outcome.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAYBOOK
90-day plan to rebuild pipelines, add verification, and redesign around AI
HERE'S THE CHALLENGE
Most organizations know what's broken. The constraint is execution.
This playbook is built for 90 days. Three operational fixes: rebuilding entry-level pipelines, adding verification to skills-based hiring, and redesigning one process around AI.
HERE'S THE DATA
Organizations that acted in 2025 are seeing differentiation:
- Early movers on entry-level development will have mid-level bench strength in 2027-2028
- Organizations that added verification report 3-5x conversion improvements
- Teams that redesigned processes around AI achieved 40-50% efficiency gains versus 10-15% for AI-only implementations
HERE'S WHAT YOUR PEERS THINK
- • CHRO: "If we commit to this, what is the minimum resource allocation that actually moves the needle?"
- • VP Talent Acquisition: "Which pilot role should we start with to de-risk the broader rollout?"
- • CFO: "What is the payback period on investing in entry-level development versus continuing to hire experienced talent?"
- • Head of People Analytics: "What metrics do we track weekly versus quarterly to know if this is working?"
- • Organizational Change Lead: "How do we get hiring managers to adopt new processes when they're already underwater?"
HERE'S WHAT WE THINK
The competitive gap in 2026 comes from execution speed. These three plays are executable in 90 days.
Play 1: Rebuild the Entry-Level Pipeline (Weeks 1-4)
Week 1: Pick one pilot role
Select based on high cost of mid-level scarcity, clear skill progression, and volume hiring (10+ per year).
Week 2: Design the development pathway
Map skills are developed organically. Create structured programs: rotations (2-3 month cycles), shadowing with mid-level performers, real project ownership with support.
Week 3: Build partnerships
Connect with bootcamps, universities, or training programs. Establish referral agreements or cohort hiring.
Week 4: Launch pilot cohort
Hire 3-5 entry-level candidates. Measure time to first independent project, manager confidence scores (monthly), skill development velocity (quarterly).
Success metric: By Q2 2026, pilot cohort performing at 70% of mid-level productivity.
Play 2: Add Verification to Skills-Based Hiring (Weeks 5-8)
Week 5: Audit current hiring workflow
Map each decision point as "claim-based" or "proof-based." Identify where hiring managers lose confidence.
Week 6: Choose one verification layer
Pick highest-impact: work sample (60-90 minute project scored with rubric), peer validation (structured references on execution), or portfolio review (scored assessment of real output).
Week 7: Build the rubric
Create 4-6 scoring criteria: problem understanding, execution quality, tradeoff recognition, communication clarity, practicality. Train two reviewers. Calibrate on 3-5 samples.
Week 8: Run pilot with 10-15 candidates
Track hiring manager confidence (1-5 scale), time-to-decision, and 90-day performance ratings.
Success metric: Hiring manager confidence increases by 2+ points; time-to-decision decreases by 30%.
Play 3: Redesign One Process Around AI (Weeks 9-12)
Week 9: Pick one AI-enabled workflow
Choose high volume, clear success metric, existing AI deployment. Examples: resume screening, internal mobility matching, attrition prediction.
Week 10: Map current process vs. AI-enabled process
Document current steps, decision points, and handoffs. Define what AI does, where humans add judgment, what must change.
Week 11: Redesign and test
Launch new workflow with one team. AI handles initial work, the manager adds judgment, feedback loop retrains AI, and the process.
Week 12: Measure and standardize
Track efficiency gain (time saved), quality improvement (hire performance), and adoption rate. If results hit 30%+ efficiency gain, scale to three more teams in Q2.
Success metric: 40% efficiency gain in pilot team; 3 additional teams adopt by end of Q2 2026.
BASELINE METRICS TO TRACK
| Metric | Baseline (Now) | Target (Q2 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Entry-level hiring rate | X hires/quarter | 2X hires/quarter |
| Time from entry to mid-level productivity | X months | 0.7X months |
| Hiring manager confidence in skills data | X/5 | X+2/5 |
| Time-to-decision after verification | X days | 0.7X days |
| Process efficiency (AI-enabled workflow) | X hours/week | 0.6X hours/week |
| 90-day new hire performance rating | X/5 | X+1/5 |
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why is entry-level hiring collapsing in 2025 instead of just slowing?
This isn't a cyclical downturn—it's a structural shift. AI automated the entry-level work that historically served as the training ground for mid-level talent. Data analysis, basic coding, research synthesis, and content drafting are now handled by AI tools. Organizations shifted from "hire junior, develop them" to "hire experienced, skip the training." The 91% NACE forecast miss signals that the traditional career development pathway has been fundamentally disrupted, not just temporarily paused.
When will the mid-level talent shortage hit?
The mid-level talent shortage will materialize in 2027-2028. Organizations that stopped investing in entry-level development in 2024-2025 will face a depleted pipeline of experienced talent. Entry-level hires typically require 2-3 years to reach mid-level productivity. Without a consistent influx of junior talent being developed internally, the bench strength for mid-level roles will evaporate just as AI adoption accelerates across industries.
What's the difference between skills identification and skills verification?
Skills identification is the process of cataloging what skills a candidate claims to have—often through self-reported assessments, skills inventories, or resume parsing. Skills verification is the process of proving they can actually deliver with those skills in your context. A skills test shows knowledge; a work sample demonstrates execution. Verification layers like scored rubrics, peer validation, and portfolio review turn claims into proof. Without verification, skills-based hiring is just credential inflation by another name.
How much ROI does AI in HR actually deliver?
AI in HR delivers 10-15% efficiency gains when deployed without process redesign. Organizations that bundle AI deployment with workflow redesign see 40-50% gains. The gap isn't technical sophistication—it's operational discipline. When AI is treated as a procurement decision rather than an organizational redesign trigger, tools get layered onto existing processes without changing decision-making. The winners ask "If AI recommends this action, will we take it?" and redesign workflows around the answer.
What's the minimum viable entry-level development program?
Start with one pilot role with high mid-level scarcity, clear skill progression, and volume hiring (10+ per year). Design a 12-month development pathway with rotations (2-3 month cycles), shadowing with mid-level performers, and real project ownership. Measure time to first independent project, manager confidence scores monthly, and skill development velocity quarterly. A cohort of 3-5 entry-level hires is sufficient to validate the model before scaling.
How do I get hiring managers to trust skills-based data?
Start by moving verification upstream—make proof the entry fee, not the final exam. When hiring managers see verified work samples before the interview, the conversation shifts from "Can you actually do this?" to "Do you want to do this here?" Build rubrics with 4-6 scoring criteria and calibrate two reviewers to score consistently. Track hiring manager confidence on a 1-5 scale; organizations that added verification report 2+ point improvements and 30% reductions in time-to-decision.
Which AI workflow should I redesign first?
Choose a high-volume workflow with a clear success metric and existing AI deployment. Good starting points: resume screening, internal mobility matching, or attrition prediction. Map your current process step-by-step, define what AI does, where humans add judgment, and what must change. Launch with one team, measure efficiency gains, and scale if results hit 30%+ improvement. The goal is 40% efficiency gains in pilot teams with adoption by three additional teams by end of Q2.
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO NEXT
The 2025 entry-level hiring crisis requires action in three areas:
Rebuild Entry-Level Pipelines
Launch a pilot cohort of 3-5 entry-level hires in one role. Create structured development pathways with rotations, shadowing, and real project ownership. Track time-to-productivity and promotion velocity. Organizations that act in 2025 will have mid-level bench strength in 2027-2028.
Add Verification to Skills-Based Hiring
Move proof upstream—make verification the entry fee, not the final exam. Implement one verification layer: work samples with rubrics, peer validation, or portfolio review. Organizations that added verification report 3-5x conversion improvements and 30% faster decisions.
Redesign One Process Around AI
Pick one AI-enabled workflow and redesign around it. Define where AI handles work and where humans add judgment. Build feedback loops that retrain both model and process. Target 40% efficiency gains versus 10-15% for AI-only deployment. Scale successful patterns to three teams by Q2 2026.
The competitive gap in 2026 comes from execution speed. Organizations that implement these three plays in 90 days will pull away from those still debating whether the career ladder is actually broken.
SOURCES
Primary research and data sources:
- NACE hiring forecast and skills-based hiring adoption: Job Outlook 2025 Spring Update
- Entry-level hiring reduction due to AI: IntuitionLabs AI Impact Analysis
- Resume fraud cost analysis: Crosschq $600B Crisis Report
- Gen Z unemployment and underemployment: MyPerfectResume Graduate Crisis Analysis
- LinkedIn skills-based hiring talent pool expansion: Economic Graph Skills-Based Hiring Report
- AI in HR adoption statistics: HireBee 100+ AI Statistics
- GenAI ROI challenges: Dataiku 2025 GenAI Trends
- AI workforce impact projections: World Economic Forum Future of Jobs Analysis
© Badge Worldwide | January 2026
We make capability visible and verifiable.