I keep seeing LinkedIn posts from CTOs saying they don't care about certifications anymore. If the skills vs certifications gap is widening, why are job descriptions still asking for them? Is there a disconnect between what leaders say and what HR departments actually do in the US?
3 answers
You've identified a major paradox in the US corporate world. While a CTO might personally value raw talent and "hacker spirit," the HR infrastructure of a 10,000-person company is built on risk mitigation and standardization. For them, the skills vs certifications debate is settled by the need for a verifiable paper trail. If a project fails, the manager can point to the fact that they hired "certified" professionals. Furthermore, many US tech leaders who say they don't care about certs are often working at high-end firms that can afford the time for 6-stage technical interviews. Most companies don't have that luxury and rely on certs as a shortcut.
Do you think this "disconnect" in the skills vs certifications value varies depending on whether the company is a startup or a legacy Fortune 500 firm?
In my experience, the skills vs certifications talk on social media is mostly branding. In the real world, HR still looks for those keywords on your resume.
Exactly, Cynthia. It's one thing to post about it for engagement, but it's another thing when they are actually filtering 500 resumes for one open position.
Marcus, definitely. Startups in the US are notoriously "skill-heavy" and often view certifications as a sign of being too "corporate." But if you apply to a legacy giant like IBM or a big bank, those certifications are basically part of your identity and are highly respected.