Lacking qualifications and salary expectations were identified by 48% of respondents as a “big issue,” while 38% and 37% respectively said it was still a “small issue,” leaving it only to a few respondents to say their organizations don’t face any issues in this regard.
The asmag “Manpower Survey” brought to light many findings that we think are astonishing, foremost among them this one: Industry professionals say finding candidates with “the right qualifications” and matching “salary expectations” are
equally the main hinderances to filling vacant positions. Both factors were identified by 48% of respondents as a “big issue,” while 38% and 37% respectively said it was still a “small issue,” leaving it only to a few respondents to say their organizations don’t face any issues in this regard.
(Find more numbers and impressions from the “Manpower Survey” in this
companion piece, as well as the full results
here.)
Does that mean applicants—even those invited for job interviews—often lack skills while at the same time expect wages that don’t match what employers can pay considering their skillsets? A double mismatch, so to speak? This is indeed the impression shared by a large number of respondents, who expressed to us things like, “staff want the money but don’t want to work,” or, “the new generation [is] not interested in working with their hands.”
Others seemed to share the same impression, but had more sympathetic interpretations, such as:
“The main underlying issue is the mismatch between what younger generations expect from work and what many industries currently offer. Today’s workforce values flexibility, meaningful work, and continuous development opportunities, but many industries still rely on traditional structures that feel outdated.”
- A Vietnamese security service provider
The respondent cited above, as well as many others, highlight issues that are bigger than the security industry. It is therefore warranted to look at some of them and gouge their impact on the sector:
One of the most significant (yet at the time underestimated) supply shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic was the
talent supply shock. “Work-from-home” entered the conversation, and many industries that couldn’t offer this convenience—among them certainly large parts of the security sector—have been struggling to attract talent ever since.
At the same time, many blue and white-collar professionals experienced layoffs, furloughs and/or weeks and months in which the challenges of their jobs increased dramatically, putting them at risk of burning out. Some decided that the trade-off between their working hours and compensation was no longer viable, leaving whatever industry they were working in to pursue something they’re more passionate about instead. Those who were just entering the workforce experienced conditions that generations before them had never seen, shaping their expectations going forward.
There are no reliable numbers, however, that show a massive effect on labor-intensive industries, from which people suddenly retired en-masse to pursue less-demanding occupations or passion projects. After all, economics, not hopes and dreams, is the main driver in the job market—and most people have to work to make a living. No kinds of jobs suddenly emerged during or after the pandemic where work is easy and pay is good.
Verdict: The much coveted ‘great pandemic alignment’ is not a major factor in itself. While the pandemic marks the moment when the ‘manpower issue’ became more prevalent, other, coinciding factors and trends play a larger role.
It’s universal, common knowledge (and an emotionally loaded talking point) that a strong cohort of hardworking “Baby Boomers” is approaching retirement age, while Gen Z people entering the job market are fewer, and have a different view on work, with some respondents in our survey alluding to Gen Z’s alleged unwillingness to work.
If we look at some actual numbers, however, we see a complex picture that’s quite varied across different geographies.
Let’s say the typical person retiring in 2026 is 65 years old and was thus born in 1961. Globally, there were about 100 million births in 1961 and about 135 million in 2005, which should be about the year of birth of the average entry-level job applicant in 2026. With, in theory, 35% more potential applicants than retirees, there’s no overall, overwhelming “silver tsunami”—with everyone retiring and nobody joining the industry. However, there are notable effects that hit some geographies hard.
This is particularly true in some Western countries. In the UK, for example, 940,000 people were born in 1961, while only 730,000 were born in 2005 (down 23%). Even though immigration softens the impact, with a significant share of applicants for jobs in 2026 born outside the country, there are certainly UK companies where a lot of seasoned staff is retiring and HR is struggling to fill positioned at the other end.
Verdict: The ‘Silver Tsunami’ is real, but sheer numbers are not the main factor overall.
Cybersecurity wasn’t yet a big thing in security 15 years ago, AI agents weren’t just two years ago. And yet, professionals within the industry, or youngsters just joining, need to handle both matters not just on a hear-say, but a professional level. The skills gap is in reality a gap in the speed at which technologies evolve and the evolution of skills is trailing behind. An even greater rift is emerging when we look at the speed at which professional training programs are reacting while the true needs of the industry are running ahead ever faster.
For starters, hardly anywhere in the world is there a university course built to convey the skills of a security systems integrator. All those skills are being taught somewhere, but they aren’t conclusively integrated in a degree. While similar issues are true for many professions, another issue is that the skill level needed to excel in a company that integrates and installs security systems often lie somewhere between those taught in university and in trade schools.
One respondent in our survey, a security consultant from a country with a famed apprenticeship system—Germany—put it succinctly: “Vocational training and engineering degrees are too far apart, there’s nothing in between.”
The country making the biggest strides in creating a professional education system that caters to the real needs of the security industry is probably Singapore. In the city state, three stakeholders—the Security Solutions Association of Singapore, SkillsFuture Singapore and the Singapore Police Force’s Centre for Protective Security—recently launched and initiative to create pathways toward four different job profiles in security, from high-level systems integration to technician.
Crucially the initiative—named Security Technologist Track—seeks to bridge the gap between vocational training and engineering degrees, and enable those who started off as technicians to climb the career (and skills) ladder later on, ensuring they won’t find themselves pigeonholed into lower-rung jobs.
Verdict: Education initiatives are the industry’s biggest hope. Creativity is key here; companies are setting up their own programs or do so in collaboration with other stakeholders.
“Inflation,” and “cost factors” were cited by survey respondents over 15 times, most commonly in the context of why companies are struggling economically. The “inflation” argument might be most convincing, however, when seen as a motivating factor in why people do or do not join the industry in the first place—or leave it behind.
This is how one respondent put it:
“The salaries in the industry cannot keep up with inflation. Talented youngsters who wish to have a good life (for example buying a house for the family they're planning to have) simply don't apply for security jobs because they know they won't make enough money as an integrator.”
- a Singapore-based security consultant
The argument matches those made by others, such as that security jobs are competing with “real tech jobs,” i.e. jobs in sectors that promise a better future, but also the alure of quick money, for example as a social media influencer (cited eight times) or a gig economy job. While TikTok stardom might be an unrealistic aspiration for most young people, there’s probably a reasonable argument for gig jobs:
At a time when the economy is changing fast, putting jobs at risk but also opening up new opportunities, young people value flexibility because they hope it will allow them to jump at the next best opportunity. Put into simple words, this means: If installing security cameras pays the same as delivering food, the latter at least comes with no strings attached and they can quit at a moment’s notice.
Verdict: Economic hardship will remain a factor. Even if it doesn’t solve the issue immediately, it is key to put oneself into the shoe of others. All those involved, from companies to their employees and jobseekers, are feeling the same economic pinch.
Security infrastructures are often seen as reactive systems. At best they are never needed, as they add no value to organizations or society as a whole. This is obviously not true, and companies across the industry are eager to point that out when, for example, explaining how their video security solution can optimize processes or create business intelligence.
Even when they’re just focused on a particular product or solution, companies are thereby also trying to create a different narrative around the industry. The image many outside the industry have in mind—that in some dank room somebody is trying to stay awake while watching multiple security camera streams simultaneously—is quite persistent, though. The same goes for the connection between video security and undue surveillance breaching people’s right to privacy.
In short, security has an image and branding problem, which doesn’t help when companies seek to attract young talent. Many associate security integration with drilling holes for security cameras and changing defective door locks—tasks with little alure that, to be honest, are jobs within security that somebody has to do.
Would a stronger emphasis on “AI”, “cloud”, “critical infrastructure” and all the other buzzwords help? It remains to be seen, but at a time when every industry is talking about AI, the credibility of companies that overpromise tends to be on the line, too.
Verdict: The prestige deficit of security is nothing new, but in times of crises in the job market across many industries, it weighs security down more than other sectors.
The elephant in the room in every discussion about the future of work is AI. In security specifically, the question is whether new AI workflows will automate work in a way that less human labor is needed across all processes (which would ease the “manpower issue,” but also costing many people their jobs), or whether security systems will become ever more valuable for organizations as their AI can generate all kinds of data and business insights, leading to a boom in the sector, maybe even creating more jobs (and exacerbating the “manpower issue.”
Some survey respondents alluded to this, for example a Vietnamese integrator who said: “Nowadays AI can replace some [roles in the] industry. Manpower is [no longer] so critical.”
What will happen remains to be seen, and the great, underlying question about the future of work cannot be answered here.
One thing, however, is certain: Every young person joining the workforce these days will ask themselves whether their job profile will prevail or be replaced by AI. In this regard, AI, and the whole narrative around it, can create insecurity among young talent and make it harder for them to commit to a job in security, or any other stable job that requires learning hard skills.
Verdict: AI will not replace all jobs. It is reasonable, however, to ask the question whether job profiles will prevail or change dramatically. That jobseekers are hesitant seems to be natural.
What to do?
Some factors loom large in the discussion, but talking about them less might actually be more helpful. This is true whenever discussions come down to blaming the other side, or the older or younger generation.
Other factors are valid beyond security and changing something about them is beyond the sector’s ability.
The most important factor over which the sector has some influence is education and training. The most recent cohort of applicants may lack some skills needed, but this is, in part at least, just a consequence of the requirements of the job evolving faster than ever.
Companies need to take matters into their own hands by creating permanent structures to bridge the gap or to reorganize their workflows so that the skills mismatch weighs on them as little as possible.
i-PRO,
Amthal Group Companies and
ZBeta can serve as examples for how it is done.
Stakeholders need to know that they’re not alone in this—and they need to act on it by getting involved in industry initiatives beyond their own factory gate, such as UK-based
Skills for Security, that focus on upskilling for the benefit of the sector as a whole.
They also need to be outspoken about the issue. They need to communicate it clearly toward policymakers and thus build pressure to reform educational institutions whose practices are rooted in what the industry used to be, but no longer is.
Solving the “manpower issue” is an all-hands-on-deck challenge. Each and everyone needs to get involved—and ensure the others get their hands in as well.