02/15/2026
2025 and 2026 Hiring Is Broken A Field Report From the Security Market
I’m going to say the quiet part out loud.
The hiring market in 2025 and now into 2026 isn’t tight.
It isn’t competitive.
It’s dysfunctional.
And if you’re a leader wondering why roles stay open, or a candidate wondering why your résumé feels invisible, you’re looking at the same system from two different angles.
This is a practical field report based on what we’ve seen across cybersecurity and security adjacent technical roles. Pre sales, architecture, consulting, engineering leadership, GRC, platform security, and services delivery. No gossip. No names. Just patterns and what actually fixes them.
What we studied and why it matters 🔎
Over the last 12 to 18 months, we tracked recurring hiring outcomes across security roles and security adjacent roles.
Strong candidates screened out early without real technical review
Requisitions reopened multiple times with the same shortage narrative
Interview loops getting longer while offer quality shrinks
Employers claiming urgency while moving at a pace that guarantees attrition
Candidates ghosted after solid interviews or asked to do unpaid labor disguised as assessments
The mismatch is not about talent not existing.
It’s about how hiring is being executed.
The 13 failure patterns we keep seeing
1. Hiring is run like compliance not mission
Hiring teams optimize for risk reduction instead of outcomes. That creates paralysis. Extra steps, extra stakeholders, and decision avoidance.
Impact. Roles sit open while teams burn out.
2. Job descriptions describe three jobs not one
One posting tries to combine principal architect, hands on engineer, incident responder, cloud platform owner, pre sales executive, and program manager under one title.
Impact. The best candidates self select out, and everyone else gets rejected for not being a unicorn.
3. ATS filtering deletes qualified people
We have watched strong operators fail the first gate because their résumé did not match the exact phrasing someone expected. Security is full of transferable skill. The ATS does not understand transferable skill.
Impact. Hiring teams never even see their strongest options.
4. Recruiters are asked to qualify technical roles without technical context
This is structural. Many recruiters are sharp and hardworking. But they are asked to evaluate roles that require domain judgment.
Impact. Early elimination of candidates you actually want to meet.
5. Future talent gets screened into roles of yesterday
We have seen this repeatedly.
A recruiter reviews the job description, finds a candidate, and then tries to hold that person to the job description like it is a courtroom transcript. They fail to see recent skills and demonstrated experience because they are qualifying for yesterday’s glory.
AI security is moving fast. Cloud security is moving fast. Identity and data security are evolving. The talent has evolved too.
This is how cutting edge AI and security talent gets screened as not a fit because they do not look like the past, even though they are exactly what the future requires.
Impact. Tomorrow’s builders are filtered out because they do not match last decade’s checklist.
6. Four rounds is the norm and the unofficial fifth is where deals die
In this market, the interview loop is usually four rounds. That part is survivable.
The problem is what keeps happening after that.
A repeated fourth round shows up as an unofficial fifth because the internal team is not aligned. Some integrators have interviewers who do not even know what the hiring manager is trying to solve. So instead of evaluating the candidate, the meeting turns into confusion management.
Impact. Momentum collapses and the candidate has to re qualify themselves for a role they already proved.
7. The candidate should not have to educate the interview panel
We have seen interviews where the candidate had to step in and clarify the mission because the interviewers could not articulate it.
In one case, the interviewee basically had to tell the team what the hiring manager wanted. The request was simple. The manager wanted a US based operator who could help grow the Aerospace and Defense arm. The interview panel did not frame it that way. The candidate did.
That is a breakdown in internal alignment. It is also a credibility issue. If the team cannot describe the objective during hiring, it will not execute the objective after hiring.
Impact. Strong candidates disengage because they can see the org is not coordinated.
8. Lateness and distraction is not minor it is a culture preview ⏱️
When interviewers show up late, distracted, or clearly pulled in five directions, candidates are not offended. They are informed.
We have witnessed 10 to 22 minute late arrivals explained away by internal fires. That might be true. But it also reveals what the environment feels like day to day. Constant urgency, constant interruption, and no protected time for priorities.
If you cannot treat hiring conversations with focus, do not be surprised when the best people assume the role will be chaos.
Impact. Top talent quietly exits the process.
9. Urgency without speed is theater
We need someone yesterday but the process takes weeks. When companies move slowly, what they are really saying is this role is not mission critical.
Impact. Strong candidates accept other offers, and you hire whoever is still available.
10. Compensation is lagging while expectations rise
Hiring leaders want senior outcomes while offering mid packages. Then they act surprised when they get mid level candidates.
Impact. A revolving door of under leveled hires, followed by the claim that there is no talent.
11. Some employers are asking age questions
Not a good thing to do.
We have seen employers fishing for age in conversation. It is a bad look and it is a legal and ethical landmine. Hiring teams should not be doing this, period.
Impact. You lose candidates instantly and you invite risk you do not need.
12. Fear of missing out is driving swipe left hiring
There is a real FOMO dynamic happening.
Recruiters and hiring teams keep swiping left like dating. Maybe the next résumé will be more perfect. Maybe the next candidate will check one more box. So they stall, delay, and keep interviewing.
Meanwhile the best candidates are not waiting. They are making moves.
Impact. Teams chase an imaginary perfect while real talent walks away.
13. Credential logic is breaking down in plain sight 🤯
Here’s one that should be impossible, yet we’ve seen it.
Pre sales engineers with three Palo Alto pre sales certifications, former Diamond Partner status, and CISSP are still getting passed over, including by the vendor ecosystem itself.
How does that look for what makes sense.
If that profile is not qualified, then the market is not screening for competence. It’s screening for something else. And whatever that something else is, it is costing teams time, revenue, and ex*****on.
It doesn’t get any crazier than that folks.
Impact. The signal system is broken, so outcomes suffer.
What candidates are experiencing and why it’s rational
Candidates are not being dramatic when they say I feel like I’m interviewing with a machine.
They are required to tailor résumés to pass software instead of humans
They get asked to do case studies that resemble free consulting
They run into interviewers who are not aligned on what the role even is
They receive rejection messages that do not match interview feedback
They often get no response at all
That experience trains good candidates to do one thing. Stop trusting the process and optimize for speed.
What actually fixes it ✅
For employers
If you want to attract and close strong security talent in 2026
Define the role as one job with one primary outcome
Insert technical screening early 15 to 30 minutes with a real reviewer
Cap the loop at four rounds and remove the repeated fourth
Pay for the level you want
Move fast with conviction speed signals seriousness
Train recruiters on modern skill translation so future talent is not screened into yesterday
For candidates
If you are operating in this market
Optimize your résumé for ATS and humans mirror language without lying
Control the narrative early state outcomes and impact in the first two minutes
Ask blunt process questions how many rounds who decides what is success in 90 days
Refuse unpaid labor when it crosses the line
Treat chronic lateness and disengaged interviews as data not noise
The truth nobody wants to say
The talent shortage story is often a cover. Not always, but often.
What we are seeing is a process shortage.
Shortage of speed
Shortage of clarity
Shortage of decision making
Shortage of compensation alignment
Shortage of technical evaluation early enough to matter
Shortage of modern context when qualifying next gen skill sets
Companies that fix these are hiring. Companies that don’t are posting the same roles all year.
Why we are paying attention
As security practitioners, we live in the space between business risk and technical reality. When hiring breaks, security breaks. Organizations remain understaffed, or they fill roles with mismatched skill levels, and everyone pays for it later.
If you are a leader trying to build a real security function, or you are a candidate navigating this mess, these patterns are not in your head.
They are systemic.
And they are fixable.
Question for hiring leaders in 2026 💬
What is the single biggest issue you are seeing right now. Speed, process, compensation, or role clarity.
Drop it in the comments. We are compiling a follow on report with solutions companies are actually implementing, not theory.
