Education organizations routinely say they want innovation, stronger student outcomes, international growth, better technology, and closer relationships with families. Yet many still hire teachers, business development agents, and executives using job descriptions designed for a simpler education system—emphasizing credentials and previous titles rather than evidence that candidates can succeed in the organization education is becoming.

The international workforce data makes this mismatch increasingly urgent. The world needs approximately 44 million additional primary and secondary teachers by 2030, while global primary-teacher attrition almost doubled—from 4.6% in 2015 to more than 9% in 2022 (UNESCO & International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030, 2024). Across the education systems participating in TALIS 2024, 17% of lower-secondary teachers who were not approaching retirement nevertheless intended to leave teaching within five years (OECD, 2025).

Across countries, education systems are straining under shortages, inadequate pay, fragmented employment, and unsustainable workloads—hurting educators, students, families, schools, and employers alike. The answer is not simply to recruit more teachers, but to develop a new kind of educator: well-supported, adaptable, digitally capable, culturally aware, and focused on the whole student. Without this shift, education will continue losing both its people and its ability to serve learners.

At the same time, the capabilities required across the workforce are changing. The World Economic Forum estimates that 39% of workers’ existing skills will change or become outdated by 2030, while 63% of employers already identify skills gaps as a major barrier to transformation (World Economic Forum, 2025). The challenge for education organizations is therefore not simply to fill existing positions. It is to redefine what teachers, salespeople, and executives must now do.

The job-description trap

Most education job descriptions make the same mistake: they focus on credentials and previous titles rather than evidence of future performance.

Teacher job descriptions emphasize degrees, certifications, subject knowledge, and years in the classroom.

Sales job descriptions emphasize previous revenue, industry contacts, and the size of the candidate’s former territory.

Executive job descriptions emphasize senior titles, institutional reputation, budgets, and the number of employees previously managed.

These qualifications are not irrelevant. Certain positions require formal credentials, particularly where accreditation, safeguarding, or national regulations are involved. But credentials alone do not demonstrate that someone can perform effectively in a changing organization.

Research in personnel selection shows that structured interviews, job-knowledge assessments, simulations, and work-sample exercises provide more useful evidence of future performance than relying primarily on résumés or unstructured conversations. A major reanalysis of selection research identified structured interviews as one of the strongest available predictors of job performance (Sackett et al., 2022). Structured interviews also improve consistency by asking candidates comparable, job-related questions and scoring responses against predefined criteria (Levashina et al., 2014).

Education organizations should therefore use credentials to confirm eligibility—not as a substitute for evaluating capability.

‍

The three roles education commonly misunderstands

Teachers are not simply content deliverers.

A teacher’s job is no longer to present curriculum and grade assignments. The real work is helping different students learn, remain engaged, build confidence, develop independence, and connect academic content to their future.

Relationships are part of that work. A meta-analysis of 99 studies found that the quality of teacher–student relationships was significantly associated with student engagement and academic achievement, with especially meaningful relationships between relational quality and engagement (Roorda et al., 2011).

Teachers must also know how to use evidence to adapt instruction. A 2024 meta-analysis covering 118 studies and 258 effect sizes found that formative assessment positively affected K–12 academic achievement (Yao et al., 2024). This supports hiring teachers who can interpret student work, provide useful feedback, identify learning gaps, and modify instruction—not simply deliver a predetermined lesson.

Technology adds another dimension. According to the OECD, 37% of lower-secondary teachers reported using AI in their work in 2024. At the same time, 72% believed AI could harm academic integrity by enabling students to present AI-generated work as their own. The OECD concludes that generative AI can support learning when guided by clear pedagogy but may improve short-term task performance without producing genuine learning when used without instructional purpose (OECD, 2026).

Hudson Global Scholars and similar organizations should not hire teachers merely because they are comfortable with technology. They should hire teachers who understand when and how technology improves learning—and when it interferes.

Organizations should also hire teachers for their capacity to develop. A meta-analysis of 60 causal studies found that teacher coaching produced positive average effects on both instructional practice and student achievement. However, the effects became harder to maintain when programs scaled (Kraft et al., 2018).

Education organizations should not search only for supposedly “finished” teachers. They should identify reflective teachers who respond to feedback and then provide sustained coaching, observation, collaboration, and professional learning.

A strong teacher candidate should demonstrate:

• Subject and curriculum knowledge
• Clear and engaging communication
• Formative assessment and feedback skills
• Ability to adapt instruction to different learners
• Capacity to build relationships with students
• Responsible use of AI and educational technology
• Effective online or blended teaching
• Constructive communication with parents
• Responsiveness to coaching and feedback
• Commitment to continuous professional learning

‍

Business Development Agents are not simply enrollment generators.

Education sales is a high-trust activity. Schools and families are not buying an ordinary product. They are making decisions that can affect a student’s academic progress, finances, university options, and future.

The salesperson’s job is therefore not simply to close a contract. It is to diagnose needs, determine program fit, explain academic pathways honestly, establish realistic expectations, and help create a partnership that continues to work after the agreement is signed.

Research on adaptive and customer-oriented selling supports this consultative approach. A meta-analysis found that adaptive selling—changing the approach based on the customer, context, and information received—was positively associated with sales performance (Franke & Park, 2006). Relationship-marketing research also identifies trust and commitment as central to durable cooperation between organizations (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

These studies are not specific to international education, but their implications are highly relevant. A salesperson who enrolls an unsuitable student, exaggerates university outcomes, or promises services that operations cannot deliver may achieve a short-term sale while creating long-term academic, reputational, financial, and retention problems.

Education salespeople should therefore be evaluated not only on revenue, but also on:

• Quality and suitability of enrollments
• Accuracy of academic and product explanations
• Partner and family trust
• Successful transition from sale to onboarding
• First-year student retention
• School-partner renewal
• Responsible management of expectations
• Collaboration with academic and operational teams
• Accuracy of sales forecasting
• Long-term value created for students and partners

The best education salesperson is not necessarily the person who promises the most. It is the person whose promises the organization can successfully keep.

‍

Executives are not simply P&L managers.

An education executive’s job is not simply to manage budgets, attend meetings, and oversee departments. It is to connect academic quality, student experience, technology, operations, finance, people, compliance, and growth into one coherent system.

A systematic synthesis of 219 studies found that effective leaders influence student achievement, attendance, school climate, teacher satisfaction, and teacher retention. The research identified four recurring leadership practices: focusing on instruction, developing a productive climate, promoting collaboration and professional learning, and managing people and resources effectively (Grissom et al., 2021).

An executive should not be considered successful merely because a new product launched, a technology platform was purchased, or an enrollment target was reached. The initiative must also be:

• Academically credible
• Operationally deliverable
• Understandable to families and partners
• Supported by teachers and advisors
• Measurable through meaningful data
• Financially sustainable
• Compliant with applicable requirements
• Capable of scaling without reducing quality

An education executive must grow the organization without separating commercial success from academic responsibility.

‍

The four non-negotiables

The strongest teachers, business development agents, and executives share four essential characteristics.

1. Demonstrated mastery of the real work

Candidates should be able to show that they can perform the work, not merely describe having done it.

For teachers, this means demonstrating subject knowledge, explaining difficult ideas clearly, interpreting student evidence, adapting instruction, and engaging students in an online or blended environment.

For business development agents, it means conducting a genuine discovery conversation, identifying program fit, translating complex academic information into clear language, and building a practical partner-development plan.

For executives, it means turning an ambiguous strategic challenge into priorities, responsibilities, processes, timelines, measurable outcomes all within touch of reality in different markets

This is the logic behind work-sample assessment: candidates should complete tasks that resemble the work they will actually perform. Selection research supports combining these practical assessments with structured interviews and job-knowledge measures rather than relying on résumé prestige or some short series around interviewer instinct (Sackett et al., 2022; Levashina et al., 2014).

The first serious hiring question should be:

What have you personally built, improved, taught, sold, or changed, and what evidence shows that it worked?

2. Understanding of the complete education ecosystem

Education does not operate through isolated departments. Every decision can affect students, parents, teachers, advisors, school partners, universities, regulators, and internal operations.

A teacher should recognize that an unresolved parent concern may affect student motivation and retention.

A business development agents should understand that an attractive promise made during enrollment may create an impossible delivery expectation for teachers and operations.

An executive should understand that growth without true academic quality, operational capacity, or student support is not sustainable growth.

This becomes even more important in international education. The same program may be understood differently in Greece, Spain, Poland, Turkey, the Middle East, Asia, or Latin America. Research on cultural intelligence has linked it to intercultural judgment, adaptation, and task performance in culturally diverse settings (Ang et al., 2007). Cultural intelligence therefore is to be treated as a job capability, not a vague personality trait. Candidates should demonstrate how they would adapt communication and implementation across different students, families, schools, and markets without compromising academic or brand standards.

3. Systems thinking and follow-through

Modern education needs people who can build relationships, clarify ownership, coordinate across departments, and follow work through to completion.

For teachers, systems thinking may mean identifying patterns across attendance, assignment quality, assessment results, student behavior, and family communication, and intervening before the student it at risk of failing.

For business development agents, it means understanding the complete journey from lead generation and school presentations through contracting, family information sessions, enrollment, onboarding, academic planning, and retention.

For executives, it means ensuring that strategy, staffing, technology, finance, training, and performance measures support the same priorities.

The leadership evidence shows that organizational, instructional, and people-management practices reinforce one another rather than operating independently (Grissom et al., 2021). The wrong candidates generate activity. The right candidates create systems that repeatedly produce results.

4. Creativity, adaptability, and human judgment

Education is entering a period in which many established playbooks no longer provide adequate answers. AI, international mobility, flexible study schedules, online learning, university-recognition questions, and changing family expectations all require team members who can operate constructively under uncertainty.

Research on adaptive performance identifies creative problem-solving, learning new technologies and procedures, handling uncertain situations, interpersonal adaptability, and cultural adaptability as distinct workplace capabilities (Pulakos et al., 2000). The World Economic Forum similarly identifies creative thinking, resilience, flexibility, technological literacy, and lifelong learning among the skills growing in importance across the labor market (World Economic Forum, 2025).

The strongest candidates can take an unclear problem, ask better questions, test a practical solution, examine the results, and improve the approach even if the have to built the tools for it on their own. They also know that not every innovation is valuable. Not every new technology improves learning, not every sales opportunity is strategically appropriate, and not every established practice deserves to continue.

Creativity in education is not embellishment or just designing a nice poster. It is disciplined invention guided by purpose, evidence, and human judgment.

Search inside the organization before looking outside.

Organizations should deliberately search for internal talent before assuming that the right person must come from outside. Internal candidates possess tacit knowledge that an external résumé cannot immediately provide. They understand the students, partners, systems, culture, history, and informal relationships that often determine whether change succeeds.

Evidence from a large U.S. financial-services organization found that external hires initially received lower performance evaluations, experienced higher exit rates, and were paid approximately 18% more than employees promoted internally into comparable roles. However, because this evidence comes from one company and one industry, it should not be treated as proof that internal candidates are always superior (Bidwell, 2011).

The practical lesson is more balanced: organizations should evaluate internal and external candidates through the same evidence-based process. They should not allow the prestige of an external résumé to outweigh demonstrated internal impact.

The strongest internal candidate may be:

• The teacher who created a better student-engagement process
• The business development officer who continues helping schools after contracts are signed
• The advisor who connects information across departments
• The manager colleagues naturally approach when a complicated problem needs solving.
• The team member already using AI and data to improve work without weakening human relationships.

The most useful question is not, “Who looks most impressive on paper?” It is, “Who has already demonstrated the ability to make the organization and the people around them better?”

‍

A better hiring process

Every selection process should begin with a clear definition of the outcomes the position must produce. Candidates should then complete the same structured interview and a role-relevant work sample scored against predefined criteria.

Teacher assessment

Ask the candidate to:

• Deliver a 15–20-minute lesson to a mixed-ability student group.
• Interpret sample assessment and engagement data.
• Explain how they would adjust the next lesson.
• Demonstrate the use of AI or educational technology to create a lesson plan
• Conduct a simulated conversation with a concerned parent.
• Explain how they would support an academically capable but disengaged student.
• Respond to constructive feedback and revise part of the lesson.

Business Development Agents assessment

Ask the candidate to:

• Conduct a simulated school-partner discovery meeting.
• Determine whether the organizations program is genuinely suitable.
• Explain an academic pathway to a non-technical parent.
• Respond to an unrealistic request without damaging the relationship.
• Produce a 90-day partner launch and enrollment plan.
• Explain when they would recommend walking away from a sale.
• Identify what must happen operationally after the contract is signed.

Executive assessment

Ask the candidate to:

• Analyze a cross-functional problem involving enrollment, academic quality, technology, and operations.
• Identify root causes, not just visible symptoms.
• Present a 12-month implementation roadmap.
• Define ownership and performance indicators.
• Explain the plan to technical and non-technical stakeholders.
• Identify the principal risks, trade-offs, and unintended consequences.
• Explain what they would stop doing to create capacity for the new priority.

Interviewers should score candidates independently before discussing them. References should then be asked behavior-based questions:

• What changed because this person was there?
• How did the candidate respond when implementation became difficult?
• Did colleagues trust the candidate?
• Did the candidate improve the people and systems around them?
• Would you choose to work with this person again?
• What type of support or management did the candidate require?

This approach reflects evidence that structured, job-related selection methods are more consistent and more predictive than informal interviews based on chemistry or intuition (Levashina et al., 2014; Sackett et al., 2022).

Hiring cannot be separated from retention.

A sophisticated hiring process will still fail if the organization creates conditions in which capable people cannot perform sustainably.

UNESCO reports that only half of countries pay primary teachers as much as professionals with comparable qualifications. In Europe and North America, seven out of ten countries pay primary teachers less. Across income levels, many teachers take additional employment to support themselves and their families (UNESCO & International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030, 2024).

This does not only affect whether teachers remain in the profession. It can also affect students. In Latin America, nearly 20% of lower-secondary teachers work in more than one school. Research from Rio de Janeiro found that additional school jobs were associated with lower student achievement, with larger effects among economically disadvantaged students (Elacqua & Marotta, 2020).

Evidence from Indonesia adds an important qualification. A substantial salary increase reduced financial stress and the incidence of teachers holding outside jobs, but salary increases alone did not improve student test scores (de Ree et al., 2018). Fair compensation is therefore necessary, but it must be combined with effective leadership, manageable workloads, professional development, useful feedback, and accountability for student learning.

Teachers need employment conditions that allow teaching to remain their primary professional commitment. They need enough time to prepare, provide feedback, communicate with families, mentor students, participate in coaching, and recover.

Salespeople need responsible targets, accurate products to represent, reliable operational support, and incentives that reward retention and partnership quality—not only immediate revenue.

Executives need clear mandates, decision-making authority, transparent performance expectations, and accountability for both commercial and educational outcomes.

Organizations cannot recruit their way out of a work-design problem. Hiring the right person is only the beginning. The organization must then create the conditions for that person to do the right work well.

Hire for what the organization is becoming.

Forward-looking education organizations are not simply schools, curriculum providers, technology companies, or sales organizations. They increasingly operate at the intersection of all four.

That means teachers must be educators, mentors, communicators, diagnosticians, and responsible technology users.

Business Development Agents must be trusted advisors, problem-solvers, relationship builders, and responsible representatives of the academic program.

Executives must be strategists, operators, system builders, change leaders, and guardians of educational quality.

Hiring people primarily because they previously held the same title will reproduce the organization of the past. Hiring people who understand the mission, see the complete system, demonstrate practical capability, and bring others with them will create the organization education now requires.

The final hiring screen remains remarkably simple:

Show us what you built. Explain why it mattered. Demonstrate what changed because you were there.

Most candidates can answer one of these questions. The people worth hiring can answer all three.

‍

References

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x

Bidwell, M. (2011). Paying more to get less: The effects of external hiring versus internal mobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3), 369–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839211433562

de Ree, J., Muralidharan, K., Pradhan, M., & Rogers, H. (2018). Double for nothing? Experimental evidence on an unconditional teacher salary increase in Indonesia. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(2), 993–1039. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx040

Elacqua, G., & Marotta, L. (2020). Is working one job better than many? Assessing the impact of multiple school jobs on teacher performance in Rio de Janeiro. Economics of Education Review, 78, Article 102015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102015

Franke, G. R., & Park, J.-E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customer orientation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 693–702. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.693

Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation. https://doi.org/10.59656/EL-SB1065.001

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268

Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Results from TALIS 2024: The state of teaching. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2026). OECD digital education outlook 2026: Exploring effective uses of generative AI in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/062a7394-en

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612

Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793

Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994

UNESCO & International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030. (2024). Global report on teachers: Addressing teacher shortages and transforming the profession. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388832

World Economic Forum. (2025). The future of jobs report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/

Yao, Y., Amos, M., Snider, K., & Brown, T. (2024). The impact of formative assessment on K–12 learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 29(7–8), 452–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2024.2363831

‍