Why Some of Construction’s Best Future Talent May Never Apply
By Sarah Brislen.
Construction’s skills shortage is usually discussed in terms of labour supply, training provision, wages, and an ageing workforce. These are important pressures. CITB’s latest Construction Workforce Outlook estimates that the UK will need around 206,000 additional construction workers between 2026 and 2030.
Yet recruitment numbers alone may not tell the whole story. From a Business Psychology perspective, there is another question worth asking:
Is the way we describe construction careers, and the assumptions attached to them, discouraging some well-suited people before they ever apply?
The Problem With the ‘Academic or Practical’ Divide
Construction is still sometimes positioned as a pathway for young people who are perceived to be less academic. That framing is problematic, not because construction is unsuitable for those pupils, but because it can misrepresent what modern trade roles actually demand.
A plumber interprets technical specifications, calculates gradients, diagnoses faults, and works with increasingly complex product systems. An electrician must understand regulations, testing procedures, and technical documentation. Joiners interpret drawings and work to precise tolerances. Tilers calculate areas, levels, falls, and layouts while adapting to site conditions that rarely match a plan perfectly.
These are practical occupations, but they are also cognitive ones. Literacy, numeracy, spatial reasoning, judgement, communication, and problem-solving are not peripheral skills; they are often central to competent performance.
Career Choice and Identity
Social Cognitive Career Theory suggests that career choices are influenced not only by capability, but by self-efficacy, expected outcomes, and whether people can imagine themselves belonging in a particular field.
This matters because career stereotypes can shape decisions before an individual has had meaningful exposure to the work.
If a young person repeatedly hears that construction is the alternative to an academic pathway, an academically successful pupil may conclude that it is not ‘for people like me’. Equally, someone entering a trade because they have been told it is primarily hands-on work may underestimate the reading, planning, communication, and decision-making the role involves.
Neither response tells us much about the person’s actual potential. Both may reflect an inaccurate picture of the job.
When Expectations Don't Match Reality
This is also relevant to person–job fit: the alignment between an individual’s abilities and the demands of a role. Research has associated stronger fit with more positive work attitudes and outcomes.
Poor fit, however, is not always simply a matter of selecting the ‘wrong person’. It can begin with incomplete or misleading information about the job itself.
If an apprentice expects predominantly physical work but encounters substantial technical learning, documentation, customer communication, and independent problem-solving, the discrepancy may contribute to frustration or disengagement.
At the same time, another potentially strong candidate may never enter the recruitment process because the industry has not communicated that these same cognitive and interpersonal capabilities are valued.
Modern Construction Requires More than Manual Skill
The industry has changed. Regulation, digital systems, product complexity, compliance expectations, and customer requirements have all increased the information that tradespeople must interpret and act upon.
Customers may see a completed bathroom, kitchen, electrical installation, or finished wall. They rarely see the hundreds of judgements behind it: sequencing work, identifying risks, calculating quantities, resolving unexpected site conditions, coordinating with other trades, and deciding when a planned approach needs to change.
Physical capability remains relevant in many roles, but describing construction predominantly in those terms risks making much of its expertise invisible.
Rethinking Recruitment Messages
This has practical implications for employers, educators and training providers. Recruitment should show the reality of construction rather than rely on inherited assumptions about who is ‘suited’ to it.
That means presenting trade careers as routes requiring a combination of practical ability, technical knowledge, problem-solving, communication, and judgement. It also means giving potential entrants realistic opportunities to experience the work before making decisions about training or apprenticeships.
Of course, career perceptions cannot explain construction’s recruitment and retention challenges on their own. Pay, working conditions, training quality, employer capacity, and wider labour-market conditions all matter. But perception is one part of the system that employers and educators can influence directly.
Importantly, this is not an argument that construction should recruit only academically high-achieving young people. Academic attainment is not the same as occupational potential, and many forms of capability are poorly captured by conventional educational measures.
The point is that we should avoid creating a false choice between being ‘academic’ and being ‘practical’. Modern construction often requires both.
Conclusion
Construction’s workforce challenge may be partly a problem of perception as well as supply. If employers and educators describe trade careers too narrowly, some entrants may arrive with unrealistic expectations, while others who could thrive in the industry may never consider applying.
Better recruitment starts with a more accurate account of the work: one that makes visible the technical, cognitive, interpersonal, and practical capabilities modern construction requires. Changing that message will not solve the skills shortage alone, but it may help the industry recognise – and attract – a broader range of talent.
For ABP Members:
Not a member? We invite you to join us at The Association for Business Psychology!
About the Author
Sarah Brislen GMBPsS, MABP, BSc is Director of Strategy within a family-run construction and fitted-interiors business and is completing an MSc in Organisational and Business Psychology at the University of Wolverhampton. Her interests include applying evidence-based psychology to recruitment, retention, workforce development and organisational performance within construction and trade-led SMEs.
References
Construction Industry Training Board (CITB). (2026). Construction Workforce Outlook 2026–2030. Peterborough: CITB.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D. and Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organisation, person-group and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), pp. 281–342.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D. and Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), pp. 79–122.
Saks, A. M. and Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), pp. 395–426.