The Workforce Labels That Keep Us From Seeing Talent: Why We May Be Solving the Wrong Workforce Problem

By: Madison Perry

For decades, workforce conversations have focused on a familiar question:

Where do we find more talent?

Employers report labor shortages. Nonprofits struggle to recruit staff. Communities worry about workforce participation. Policymakers search for ways to strengthen economic mobility.

The assumption underlying these conversations is straightforward: if organizations are struggling to find talent, then talent itself must be scarce.

But what if that assumption is wrong?

What if the problem is not that talent is difficult to find?

What if the problem is that we have become increasingly confident in our ability to predict where talent exists—and increasingly blind to where it actually does?

This is not merely a workforce question. It is a question about how we evaluate human potential.

And the answer may have less to do with skills, education, or labor markets than we would like to believe.

The Stories We Tell Ourselves About People

Human beings are natural pattern-seekers.

We rely on shortcuts to make decisions in a world full of uncertainty. We categorize. We assess. We predict.

Most of the time, these shortcuts are useful.

Sometimes they are profoundly misleading.

When we encounter someone with a history of addiction, a mental health diagnosis, a criminal record, or significant employment gaps, we rarely evaluate that information neutrally. We attach meaning to it.

We tell ourselves a story.

The person in recovery becomes a risk.

The veteran with PTSD becomes unstable.

The individual with a criminal record becomes untrustworthy.

The applicant with Borderline Personality Disorder becomes "difficult."

The candidate who experienced homelessness becomes unreliable.

The label becomes the narrative.

And once the narrative takes hold, it becomes surprisingly difficult to see anything else.

The Difference Between Evidence and Assumption

This matters because many of the labels that trigger concern are also among the most misunderstood.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, more than one in five American adults experiences mental illness in a given year. Millions more live with substance use disorders, trauma-related conditions, or other challenges that affect how they move through the world.

Yet despite how common these experiences are, stigma remains one of the most significant barriers to opportunity.

Research examining employer attitudes consistently finds that applicants who disclose psychiatric disabilities face disadvantages in hiring, even when qualifications are otherwise identical.

The challenge, in other words, is often not the condition itself.

It is the assumption attached to it.

This distinction is important.

A diagnosis may describe a condition.

It does not describe character.

It does not describe work ethic.

It does not describe intelligence.

It does not describe integrity.

And yet we often treat it as though it does.

When Even the Experts Get It Wrong

Perhaps the most revealing evidence comes from within the helping professions themselves.

Research examining attitudes toward Borderline Personality Disorder has repeatedly found that mental health professionals often hold more negative views toward individuals with this diagnosis than toward many other psychiatric conditions.

Patients are frequently described as manipulative, difficult, treatment-resistant, or exhausting.

Think about that for a moment.

The very professionals trained to understand human behavior are not immune to stigma.

This is not a criticism of clinicians.

It is evidence of something larger.

If specialized education does not eliminate bias, then bias is not simply a knowledge problem.

It is a human problem.

We all inherit narratives about who is safe, who is risky, who is capable, and who is not.

The workplace is no exception.

The Veteran, The Person in Recovery, and The Returning Citizen

Consider three individuals.

A veteran returning home after years of military service while managing PTSD.

A person celebrating five years of recovery from substance use disorder.

An individual seeking employment after completing a prison sentence.

Many employers immediately see risk.

Yet each of these individuals may possess qualities organizations desperately need.

The veteran may have spent years leading teams under pressure, making critical decisions with limited information, and functioning in environments where accountability mattered.

The person in recovery may have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, self-awareness, consistency, and commitment to personal growth.

The returning citizen may have spent years confronting the consequences of their actions while developing a determination to rebuild their future.

Research consistently shows that stable employment is one of the strongest predictors of successful reintegration for formerly incarcerated individuals. Employment is not merely an outcome of rehabilitation. For many people, it is part of the rehabilitation process itself.

Yet opportunities are often withheld because of assumptions about future behavior.

The irony is difficult to ignore.

We claim to value resilience, adaptability, accountability, and perseverance.

Then we routinely overlook people who have spent years developing those exact qualities.

The Credibility Gap

The real workforce barrier may not be a skills gap.

It may be a credibility gap.

Some people walk into an interview carrying an assumption of competence.

Others walk in carrying an assumption they must overcome.

One person's challenge becomes evidence of growth.

Another person's challenge becomes evidence of deficiency.

The difference is rarely objective.

It is often cultural.

Sociologists have long observed that credibility is not distributed equally. Certain experiences increase perceived legitimacy. Others reduce it.

The result is that two individuals can possess identical capabilities while being evaluated very differently.

Not because of who they are.

Because of what their history represents in the minds of others.

What We Miss When We Focus on Risk

The modern workforce has become increasingly sophisticated at identifying risk.

Background checks.

Assessment tools.

Predictive analytics.

Screening processes.

Behavioral interviews.

These tools have value.

But they also reveal a blind spot.

Risk assessment and talent identification are not the same thing.

A system optimized to avoid mistakes is not necessarily optimized to discover potential.

In fact, the two goals can sometimes conflict.

The safest candidate is not always the most capable.

The most conventional path is not always the most promising.

The strongest résumé is not always the strongest person.

Yet many workforce systems continue to treat predictability as a proxy for potential.

A Different Way to Think About Talent

What if we asked different questions?

Instead of asking:

"What happened to this person?"

What if we asked:

"What did this person learn?"

Instead of asking:

"What risks does this history present?"

What if we asked:

"What strengths did this history require?"

This shift does not require lowering standards.

It requires expanding our understanding of capability.

It asks us to distinguish between evidence and stereotype.

Between behavior and assumption.

Between a person's past and their future.

Most importantly, it asks us to recognize that human potential is far more complex than the labels we assign to it.

The Workforce We Cannot Afford to Overlook

The future workforce is not hiding.

It is already here.

It includes veterans navigating trauma.

Individuals in recovery rebuilding their lives.

People managing mental health conditions.

Workers with unconventional career paths.

Returning citizens seeking another chance.

Parents re-entering the workforce.

People whose lives do not fit neatly into the categories we find comfortable.

Some will become exceptional employees.

Some will become leaders.

Some will start businesses, lead nonprofits, mentor others, and strengthen their communities.

Many already are.

The question is not whether talent exists within these populations.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it does.

The real question is whether we are willing to challenge the assumptions that prevent us from seeing it.

Because the greatest workforce barrier may not be a lack of talent at all.

It may be our confidence that we already know what talent looks like.