Degrees of Separation: Why the ID Job Market is Failing Its Most Qualified Candidates

The instructional design/learning experience design job market is oversaturated. This, on top of a field already misunderstood and cluttered by the confusion over titles (read my decade-old post about the misperceptions of ID).

There’s a clear disconnect between what hiring teams think instructional designers (IDs) do and how we’re actually trained to do it. 

The following are a few key factors impacting the field and the hiring of IDs. 

• The Legacy of Graduate-Level ID Training

Instructional Design began as a specialization within graduate programs in Education, Educational Technology, and Educational Psychology. Pioneers like Robert Gagné (Florida State University) were situated primarily in graduate schools of education.

For decades, IDs were trained at the master’s or doctoral level. It wasn’t until the 2010s (or so) that bachelor’s degrees in ID even started to appear.

Yet today, many companies frequently post jobs aimed at bachelor’s candidates. Why? Perhaps graduate-level candidates (masters & doctoral-level) are perceived as being “too theoretical,” “too expensive,” or “overqualified.” 

Job descriptions rarely reflect the strategic potential and depth that graduate-trained IDs bring, which leads to frustration or undervaluation of their skillsets.

 

• Misalignment of Expectations

From what I see in many job ads, companies view Instructional Designers primarily as content producers, valued more for their tool fluency (Articulate or Captivate) and speed than for their strategic, learning-experience expertise.

Hiring managers/ID supervisors or leads who aren’t IDs themselves, perhaps misunderstand or underestimate the complexity of the field, treating it as primarily a production role. This leads them to specify bachelor ‘s-level education as sufficient. 

In fact, some trained IDs pursue additional credentials from organizations like ATD to ‘prove’ that they are qualified for corporate jobs, despite already holding advanced ID degrees. 

 

• Dumbing Down of Advanced Degrees

As a result, I’ve come across LinkedIn postings where job seekers shared stories about career coaches advising them to shrink or “tone down” their  profiles so as to become more “marketable” or “approachable.” 

Some even omit their advanced degrees from their resumes or LinkedIn profiles. 

No judgment towards anyone making these choices, but we shouldn’t have to live in a world where we have to make ourselves small to fit in, a world where we cannot be whole. 

What does it say about our industry or our culture when people, especially women with deep expertise, feel they have to shrink themselves to be seen as “approachable” or “hireable”?

 

• The Impact of This Disconnect

This ongoing misunderstanding of what IDs actually do and what they are expected to do undervalues the strategic roles IDs can play. Companies risk hiring practitioners not fully prepared for complex learning strategy, change management, or in-depth analysis of performance problems.

Experienced IDs with graduate training feel undervalued, underpaid, or misunderstood, potentially leading to high turnover or disengagement.

On the other side, employers become frustrated when hired bachelor’s-level IDs can’t fulfill strategic responsibilities or articulate sophisticated learning strategies.

 

• How Can This Disconnect Be Fixed?

1. Clearer Role Definitions.

Let’s be clear about what IDs actually do. What are required ID competencies? 

Many reputable ID/LDT master’s programs incorporate the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI) competencies into their core coursework or curriculum framework. In my graduate ID program, our coursework and practicum led to a final comprehensive exam and portfolio that are assessed against IBSTPI standards.

2. Educating Employers

We need to increase understanding among hiring managers and HR professionals about the scope and depth of skills IDs bring. Strategic roles typically require higher-level academic preparation, practical experience, and systems thinking.

3. Creating Career Pathways

Organizations should develop clear internal advancement pathways: from entry-level, bachelor-prepared designers who focus on content creation, toward strategic or managerial roles demanding higher-order competencies.

4. Higher Ed-Industry Partnerships

Universities and industry should collaborate to ensure undergraduate programs address real-world demands that go beyond tools and tech, such as strategic consulting, data analysis, and learning evaluation.

Until we bridge this disconnect, we’ll keep losing brilliant minds to burnout, disillusionment, or industries that value their full range of capabilities. We need hiring teams who understand that Instructional Design is more than software. It’s systems thinking, learning science, and human transformation.

And we need a culture that stops telling women, and anyone with deep expertise, that they have to shrink to be seen.

Let’s build a field where you don’t have to dim your light just to get in the room.