For all the conversations happening about the cleared workforce—from talent shortages to hiring delays to retention challenges—there’s one question that rarely gets asked out loud. It’s not because people haven’t thought about it. It’s because the answer has the potential to make nearly everyone in the ecosystem a little uncomfortable.
One that gets surprisingly little open discussion is: Does the security clearance system create an artificial labor shortage that candidates benefit from but employers and recruiters really pay for?
Most conversations focus on “there aren’t enough cleared candidates.” The less-discussed question is whether the market structure itself perpetuates this scarcity.
CONTROVERSIAL NORMS THAT SHOULD CHANGE
Many jobs don’t truly require the clearance level listed. Positions are often posted as TS/SCI with poly when the actual work could be done by someone awaiting adjudication or holding a lower clearance. Companies (or really, the government customer rather) often use clearance requirements as a risk-reduction tool rather than a mission requirement.
Recruiters are incentivized to chase already-cleared talent instead of growing new talent. It’s faster and easier to recruit a cleared engineer from another contractor than convince a customer to sponsor someone new. This creates a circular market where the same people get passed around repeatedly.
The “cleared talent shortage” may partially be a sponsorship shortage. There are often qualified people willing to enter the national security workforce, but few organizations can absorb the cost, time, and uncertainty of sponsorship.
Job hopping becomes rational because clearances become portable economic assets. Once someone holds a high-value clearance, their market value can jump significantly. Contractors then complain about retention while simultaneously participating in poaching.
The clearance itself can become more valuable than the skill. Some hiring managers will choose a mediocre cleared candidate over a stronger uncleared candidate. Few people say this publicly because it’s uncomfortable, but many recruiters have seen it happen.
Why nobody talks about it directly? Government customers don’t want to hear they’re over-classifying work. Contractors don’t want to challenge customer requirements. Recruiters make placements inside the existing system. And candidates with clearances often benefit from the scarcity.
It Helps To Ask Questions
None of this suggests the clearance system exists to create scarcity or that these practices are the result of bad intentions. Many of them evolved for understandable reasons: protecting classified information, reducing program risk, and meeting customer requirements. But it’s worth asking whether some of the norms we’ve come to accept are still serving the workforce—and the mission—as well as they could.
The goal isn’t to point fingers. It’s to encourage a more honest conversation about how we build, grow, and sustain the cleared talent pipeline. If the industry’s biggest challenge is finding enough qualified people, perhaps it’s time to ask not only where the talent is, but whether the system itself could do more to help create it.
THE CLEARED RECRUITING CHRONICLES: YOUR WEEKLY DoD RECRUITING TIPS TO OUT COMPETE THE NEXT NATIONAL SECURITY STAFFER.
