A director at a Fortune 500 company told me something last month that’s been sitting with me: “We hire incredibly talented people from top schools. Three months in, half of them look lost. Not incompetent. Lost. Like they showed up to a building with no map, no translator, and everyone expects them to know where they’re going.”

This isn’t a hiring problem or a training problem; it’s an infrastructure problem. We built an education system, and we built a work system, but we never built the translation layer between them. Now we’re surprised when talented people can’t navigate a transition we never actually designed.

The Missing Translation Layer

This is what we tell students: do well in school, get good grades, build your resume, land a job. And what don’t we tell them? That how school works and how work works are fundamentally different operating systems, and nobody’s going to explain how to switch between them.

In school, the game is legible with clear assignments, defined deadlines, and explicit criteria for success. You know what’s expected, you know how you’ll be evaluated, and you know when you’ve succeeded. Then you graduate, and work is nothing like that. Success becomes ambiguous, priorities shift mid-project, and the goals aren’t always clear. And even when they are, the path to achieving them isn’t. You’re expected to figure out not just how to execute, but what’s worth executing in the first place.

The gap between those two systems is massive, and we just drop people into it with a job offer and maybe a week of onboarding. We’re asking people to translate between operating systems without giving them a dictionary, then wondering why they struggle. The translation layer isn’t just missing from student preparation, it’s missing from how companies think about onboarding, from how we design career development, and from the infrastructure entirely.

What the Missing Translation Layer Actually Costs

You can see exactly what happens when translation infrastructure doesn’t exist by listening to how humanities students describe themselves. “Strong analytical skills.” “Excellent written communication.” “Critical thinking ability.” Not wrong, just flat. Here’s what gets lost:

• A philosophy student who spent four years holding contradictory ideas in productive tension doesn’t just have “analytical skills”; they have the cognitive operating system for strategic planning when there’s no clear right answer.
• An English major who traces how metaphors shift meaning across centuries doesn’t just “communicate well”; they recognize patterns across time and context, essential for navigating organizational change.
• A classics major who studied how Roman rhetoric adapted across different audiences doesn’t just “understand persuasion”; they recognize how the same argument needs different framing for different stakeholders, essential for executive communication and coalition building.
• A sociology major who studied how informal networks shape formal outcomes doesn’t just understand “organizational behavior”; they see how power actually flows beneath org charts, exactly what’s needed when official processes don’t explain why decisions really happen.
• An anthropology major who studied how cultural systems shape behavior doesn’t just understand “diversity”; they see how unspoken norms drive organizational dynamics, exactly what’s needed when culture change initiatives keep failing despite good intentions.

But we’ve trained them to reduce sophisticated operating systems into generic skills language because we never built the language or systems to help them articulate what they actually do. The problem isn’t that career services is doing their job poorly, it’s that we’re asking them to solve a translation problem that should have been solved upstream. Work identity, how you naturally process information and create value, should be foundational in humanities education, not something we try to retrofit senior year. Because by then, students have already learned to apologize for how their minds work instead of articulating it as the valuable operating system it is.

This is the translation problem at scale: talented people with sophisticated capabilities they can’t name, entering organizations that can’t recognize what they’re actually hiring. Both sides lose.

Why Current Infrastructure Is Misaligned

The systems we built—education, hiring, career development, organizational structure—were designed for a different economy, one where work was more stable, roles were more defined, and career paths were more predictable. That economy doesn’t exist anymore, but the infrastructure does. We’re running new problems on old architecture, and the misalignment shows up everywhere.

In education: We’re still training students for a world where knowledge accumulation is the primary value, but in most knowledge work, the value isn’t what you know, it’s how you apply what you know to problems that don’t have established solutions. We teach content but don’t teach operating in ambiguity.

In hiring: We’re still selecting for credentials and past experience as proxies for future performance, but credentials tell you someone can succeed in the education system, not how someone will operate in your specific work environment. We’re optimizing for signals that predict the wrong outcomes.

In onboarding: We’re still treating new employees like they need information downloads: here’s the company, here’s your team, here’s your first project, when what they actually need is context for how work operates here: how decisions get made, what “good” looks like, how to navigate when things are unclear. We’re giving them facts when they need frameworks.

In career development: We’re still building ladders when people need lattices, with promotions tied to time and visible achievement. But growth happens through learning, adaptation, and increasing capability, none of which fit neatly into annual review cycles. We’re measuring progression with tools built for a different kind of work.

The infrastructure assumes work is static, roles are fixed, and success is linear, but work is dynamic, roles are fluid, and success is contextual. We keep patching the system with new training programs, better onboarding decks, and more mentorship initiatives without addressing the fundamental misalignment. We’re putting better furniture in a building with a cracked foundation.

What Identity-Based Economies Require

What’s the shift most organizations haven’t made yet? We’re moving from a credential-based economy to an identity-based economy. In a credential-based economy, your value comes from what you’ve proven you can do through degrees, certifications, job titles, and years of experience: you stack credentials to demonstrate competence. In an identity-based economy, your value comes from how you work: how you solve problems, how you navigate ambiguity, how you collaborate, and how you adapt. Your work identity, the consistent way you operate across contexts, becomes more predictive than your resume.

This shift requires completely different infrastructure.

We need systems that help people develop work identity, not just accumulate credentials. That means helping students and early-career professionals understand how they naturally process information, what conditions they need to do their best work, and how to articulate their operating system, not as personality assessments or career aptitude tests, but as ongoing self-knowledge that evolves with experience.

We need hiring processes that evaluate operating system fit, not just qualification match. That means asking how this person works, what environment they need, and how they solve problems, not in a generic sense, but specific to what your organization actually requires. Most companies hire for skills and hope for culture fit when we should be hiring for operating system alignment and training for skills.

We need onboarding that teaches people how work works here, not just what work is here. That means making explicit what’s usually implicit: how decisions get made, what autonomy looks like, how ambiguity gets navigated, what success actually requires. The transition from education to work isn’t just learning new content; it’s learning a new operating system, and onboarding should teach that explicitly.

We need career development that supports identity evolution, not just role progression. That means creating space for people to understand how they’re growing, what capabilities they’re building, and how their work identity is evolving, not just “what’s your next title?” but “how are you expanding what you can do and how you do it?”

We need organizational structures that value contribution over credentials. That means recognizing and rewarding the work people actually do, the problems they solve, the value they create, the way they operate, not just the boxes they check or the time they’ve served. Identity-based economies require systems that see identity-based value.

What This Actually Looks Like

This isn’t theoretical as some organizations are already building this infrastructure, even if they’re not calling it that.

• They’re hiring people based on demonstrated thinking and problem-solving in live scenarios rather than just resume screening.
• They’re onboarding new employees with explicit frameworks for “how we work” alongside “what we do.”
• They’re building development programs that help people articulate and evolve their work identity rather than just climb a predetermined ladder.
• They’re creating evaluation systems that recognize different ways of creating value instead of one standard path to success.
• They’re designing roles with flexibility for different operating systems rather than rigid job descriptions everyone has to fit into.

These aren’t radical experiments, they’re pragmatic responses to the fact that the old infrastructure doesn’t work anymore.

The Real Work

Building infrastructure is slow, unglamorous work that doesn’t make headlines or feel innovative. It’s not sexy to say “we need better translation layers between education and work.” But infrastructure determines what’s possible and bad infrastructure constrains everyone, no matter how talented, while good infrastructure unlocks potential at scale.

Right now, we’re losing enormous amounts of human capability to infrastructural misalignment: talented people who can’t navigate the transition from school to work, organizations that can’t identify or develop the talent they need, individuals who never learn to articulate their work identity because no system ever asked them to.

The solution isn’t better career advice or more training programs or improved mentorship; those are patches. The solution is building the infrastructure we never built: translation layers, alignment mechanisms, systems designed for how work actually operates and how people actually develop. This is the work that matters, not because it’s exciting, but because without it, everything else breaks.

We can keep patching, or we can build what’s missing. The talented people showing up lost three months into good jobs aren’t the problem; the missing infrastructure is. Let’s build it.

—

Ready to understand your work identity so you can develop skills strategically? Get the free guide with 5 Questions Every Student Should Answer Before Graduation