Today, Sanderson Government & Defence is launching SGD Applied: a distinct way for clients to engage us when they need us to take responsibility for the work itself, not simply provide additional capacity.

For 25 years, we have found and placed cleared specialists into some of the UK’s most sensitive programmes. More than 800 of those professionals are on assignment today. SGD Applied builds on that heritage, combining our clearance pedigree and specialist talent networks with defined delivery ownership.

What is SGD Applied?

Sanderson Government & Defence will continue to find and place the specialist people our clients need. SGD Applied complements that established service by taking on a defined piece of work and accepting accountability for its delivery.

Every engagement is built around agreed outcomes, clear accountability, and measurable impact. Rather than simply supplying resource, SGD Applied works alongside clients to iteratively shape, direct, and assure delivery, ensuring effort remains focused on achieving the outcomes that matter most.

Both models are valuable, but they answer different needs. By separating them clearly, clients can choose the right route from the outset and know exactly where accountability sits.

What can you expect when you engage SGD Applied?

When you engage SGD Applied, you are buying a result rather than a headcount. That means:

• Pricing is linked to a defined outcome, not the number of people assigned.
• Payment is tied to accepted deliverables and achieved milestones, rather than elapsed time.
• Success measures are agreed and documented before work begins, then evidenced throughout delivery.
• Rework time is planned from kick-off instead of being discovered later in the engagement.
• A single accountable owner leads the work, with senior escalation when required.

This approach removes ambiguity. The scope, milestones, evidence and definition of “done” are established before delivery starts.

What are we committing to?

We believe that accountability must be visible in how we work, especially when delivery is under pressure. That’s why we’re committing to three specific behaviours:

• We will identify emerging problems early and raise them in the week they begin.
• When something needs correcting, we will provide a recovery plan with dates before offering an explanation.
• We will own the recovery. Any resulting cost to us remains our responsibility.

These commitments are intentionally specific so that clients and partners can hold us to them.

What SGD Applied won’t be doing

SGD Applied is not a management consultancy, and it is not designed to compete for the large transformation programmes already led by major firms.

It is also not a rebrand of Sanderson Government & Defence. Staffing-led work will continue as it does today, supported by the same teams and relationships.

For the primes and consultancies we work alongside, SGD Applied does not change our commitment to partnership. Where we hold a partner’s exclusivity, we will not pursue delivery work against them unless invited to do so. Our aim is to be the strongest possible delivery partner beneath the prime, bringing specialist capability and clear accountability to the work.

Built with clients and partners

SGD Applied has been shaped over two years, including direct conversations with clients and partners about where established delivery models create uncertainty. Their feedback reinforced a simple principle: if we want to be seen differently, we must demonstrate the difference through the way we work, not simply announce it.

That is why this launch is grounded in explicit expectations, measurable outcomes and commitments that can be tested over time. We will continue listening, learning and addressing gaps as clients and partners experience the model in practice.

Have any further questions?

If you’d like to find out more about SGD Applied, please don’t hesitate to reach out to Sanderson Government & Defence CEO Nick Walrond to find out more.

There’s a moment every hiring manager in defence and security knows well. A role opens up, it’s urgent, and someone says the words: “let’s go to market and see what’s out there.”

That’s usually where the problems start.

Why vacancy-led hiring fails in NS&D

In a sector shaped by shortages, particularly around emerging skillsets, the businesses that wait until a vacancy exists before they start looking are already behind. Clearance requirements shrink an already small talent pool before you’ve even had the chance to think about skills, experience, or cultural fit. Add location constraints on top, and the pool shrinks again.

Some businesses understand this. They keep talent pools warm, they’re willing to flex on requirements when the right person doesn’t tick every box, and they treat hiring as an ongoing relationship with the market rather than a one-off transaction.

Others don’t. They wait for the vacancy, then spend weeks building searches and approaching candidates only to discover the people they need don’t exist in the numbers they hoped, cost more than expected, or aren’t quite right after all. By the time that becomes clear, weeks have gone by. Work is delayed, budget is wasted, and the search starts again from further behind.

What talent-led recruitment looks like in practice

A better approach is simple. Map the market before the vacancy exists.

That means knowing who is cleared, who is good, and what it will take to fill a gap before that gap becomes urgent. It also means knowing where a business may need to flex, whether that is skillset, location, salary, contract route or permanent hire.

Done well, this changes the recruiter’s role. A good recruiter tells a business what is realistic before it commits to a plan that will not work. Keeping relationships warm and growing a genuine network of suitable candidates will always outperform starting a fresh search every time a role opens. It’s the difference between working smart and just working hard.

The real cost of slow, reactive process

Every extra week adds risk. A strong candidate rarely waits quietly while a business arranges a second or third interview. They are speaking to other employers, and those processes will not slow down out of politeness.

Salary works the same way. If pay isn’t benchmarked to where the market actually sits, by the time a business is ready to flex, the market has shifted and good candidates may no longer be available. We’ve seen strong candidates fall out of process, not because they weren’t the right fit, but because someone else simply got there first.

What hiring managers should ask their recruiter

The best recruitment partners already know the market. They know the market, roughly how many people exist with the right skills, locations, and clearances.

A good way to test that, before committing to a search, is to ask a few direct questions:

• Do you already know who’s out there, or are we starting from zero?
• How many of these candidates do you have a genuine, warm relationship with?
• What timeframe is realistic, given clearance and current market conditions?
• Would this hire be easier on a contract basis, or as a permanent role?

The answers tell you fast whether you’re working with a recruiter who’s been paying attention, or one who’s about to start from scratch on your time.

Case study: reasy-pipeline vs cold-start

Two examples show the difference.

Example A. A business approached us to find a highly cleared, technical cyber consultant for an MOD client based in Cambridgeshire. It was a reactive search from the start, and the client had underestimated how tight that specific market was. We found several strong candidates based elsewhere, but well matched on skills and clearance. All were rejected on location alone.

Six months later, the same business urgently needed someone in one of those other locations. The candidates we’d previously shared were exactly the people they now needed. The market had moved on, and none of them were still available. A pipeline that already existed had been left to go cold.

Example B. A company was hiring software engineers in London with a niche skillset. We introduced a candidate who matched several of the requirements. He interviewed, and was rejected.

A few months later, we asked a simple question: is there anyone you look back on and regret not progressing? The candidate they had rejected was a strong cultural fit, genuinely interested in the business, and, luckily, still on the market. A quick conversation brought him back into the process. This time, the business chose to flex on the exact skillset and invest in upskilling instead. The offer was accepted, and they hired an extremely talented engineer who fitted the culture and the role, because they were willing to look again instead of start again.

The difference between those outcomes was whether the relationship and the pipeline survived the gap between “not right now” and “right now”.

Need a more proactive way to tackle these hiring challenges?

If reactive recruitment is slowing delivery, limiting access to cleared talent, or making workforce planning harder than it needs to be, a Talent Solutions approach could help. Speak to James or Mollie, our Head of Talent Solutions, to explore how a more planned, pipeline-led strategy could help you solve these issues before they become urgent.

If you would like to get in contact with us directly please click here.

When we think about great leaders, what picture comes to mind?

For many of us, it’s still remarkably similar. We picture someone charismatic. Outspoken. Decisive. The person who commands the room, has all the answers, and never seems to doubt themselves.

It’s an image we’ve inherited over decades, and despite the progress we’ve made, it’s one that still influences how leadership is recognised, rewarded and developed.

Last week at Women Empowering Defence (WED26), Tara McGeehan posed a simple question that has stayed with me ever since.

What do these six women have in common?

• Boudica
• Florence Nightingale
• Amelia Earhart
• Edith Cavell
• Edith Smith
• Noor Inayat Khan

At first glance, they couldn’t be more different.

They lived in different centuries. They came from different backgrounds. Their careers, personalities and circumstances bore little resemblance to one another. Yet each became a remarkable leader.

Not because they all possessed the same qualities, but because they embodied entirely different ones. Boudica demonstrated fierce determination in the face of impossible odds. Florence Nightingale transformed healthcare through compassion, resilience and relentless commitment to improving the lives of others. Amelia Earhart challenged expectations with extraordinary ambition, proving that the boundaries placed around us are often the very ones worth pushing. Edith Cavell’s leadership was grounded in conscience and principle, choosing humanity even when the personal cost was unimaginably high. Edith Smith, Britain’s first female police officer with full powers of arrest, showed quiet resilience and humility while breaking barriers in a profession that had never expected someone like her. And Noor Inayat Khan displayed exceptional courage, serving as a wireless operator in occupied France during the Second World War despite knowing the risks she faced.

None of these women led in the same way. None shared the same personality. None fitted a single definition of what a leader should look like.

And that’s exactly the point.

Leadership has never been one-size-fits-all

Too often, leadership is still associated with confidence over competence, volume over substance, or visibility over impact.

The loudest voice is assumed to be the strongest leader. The most assertive person is often seen as the most capable. Yet when we look across Defence, National Security and technology, many of the people making the biggest difference don’t fit that stereotype at all.

Some lead through technical excellence. Others through empathy and trust. Some inspire by bringing calm during uncertainty. Others challenge convention and encourage innovation. Some are natural communicators.Others prefer to listen first and speak only when it matters.

All of these approaches have value. In fact, the complexity of today’s challenges means organisations need all of them.

Diversity of thought starts with diversity of leadership

In recruitment, we’re often talking about diversity of experience, diversity of backgrounds and diversity of thought. But perhaps we spend less time talking about diversity of leadership.

If every leader in an organisation looks, thinks and behaves the same way, we inevitably narrow the perspectives around the table. Innovation suffers. Teams become less representative. And talented people can find themselves wondering whether there’s room for them to progress if they don’t fit the traditional mould. One of the most encouraging things about the Defence and National Security sector is seeing that perception begin to change.

We’re meeting more leaders who are collaborative rather than commanding. More leaders who are curious rather than certain. More leaders who create psychological safety instead of simply directing from the front. Those qualities aren’t weaknesses. They’re increasingly becoming strengths.

The importance of authenticity

Perhaps the biggest lesson these six women leave us with is that leadership isn’t about becoming someone else. It’s about becoming more of yourself. Each of them leaned into the qualities that made them unique. None tried to imitate another style of leadership. None waited until they perfectly matched society’s expectations. Instead, they led with authenticity, conviction and purpose.

That’s a lesson that extends far beyond history. Whether you’re managing a team, mentoring a colleague, leading a programme or simply influencing those around you, leadership doesn’t require you to be the loudest person in the room.

It requires integrity. It requires courage. It requires empathy.

Sometimes it requires ambition. Sometimes humility. Often, it requires all of those qualities at different moments.

Looking beyond the stereotype

For organisations looking to build high-performing teams, perhaps the question isn’t simply ‘Who are our future leaders?’ but ‘What qualities are we recognising as leadership?’

If we’re only rewarding one style of leadership, we’re almost certainly overlooking people with different strengths who could have an even greater impact. The organisations that thrive over the next decade won’t be those led by people who all think, communicate and behave in the same way. They’ll be the ones that recognise leadership in all its forms.

The six women Tara McGeehan spoke about remind us that there has never been a single blueprint for leadership, there never will be. That’s something worth celebrating, because the strongest organisations aren’t built by leaders who all think alike they’re built by people with different strengths, different experiences and different ways of inspiring those around them.

Leadership doesn’t have one face. It has many, and perhaps the best leaders are simply those with the confidence to lead as themselves.

If this topic resonates with you and you’d like to learn more about our partnership with WED, visit our Women Empowering Defence page to discover how we’re helping to create space for more diverse voices, leadership styles and experiences across Defence and National Security: https://www.sandersonplc.com/women-empowering-defence. Alternatively, you can get in touch with Alice, our WED ambassador.

Here’s a pattern I’ve watched repeat for twenty-four years.

A critical programme is launched, exceptional people, cleared, capable, committed, every seat filled with someone qualified, and the programme still overruns. Still overspends. Still fails to deliver what it set out to achieve.

So, what went wrong?

Nothing was wrong with the people. It’s the model.

The model nobody wants to defend

The way most of this market works: identify the requirement, find the people, place them, invoice by the day. Success is measured in utilisation. In headcount. In days billed.

Follow that logic to its end and you reach an uncomfortable truth: talent without accountability for outcomes is just cost.

Nobody owns the result. Nobody is accountable for whether the programme actually delivers. And when it doesn’t, and too often it doesn’t, everyone points somewhere else. The supplier delivered people. The consultancy delivered advice. The client is left holding the outcome.

I’ve had a front-row seat to this for two and a half decades. I founded Sanderson Government & Defence twenty-four years ago; for the last ten I’ve led it full time, growing it from fewer than 100 workers on assignment to over 800, across government, defence and national security, the most complex and sensitive environments in the UK.

Which is exactly why I can say this with confidence: the market doesn’t need more suppliers. It needs partners willing to stand behind the result.

What we’re doing about it

Sanderson Government & Defence is evolving from a specialist talent business into a full capability partner, able to staff, consult, manage and deliver across the most demanding programmes in government and defence.

The distinction matters. A supplier provides people and steps back. A capability partner puts skin in the game: defined outcomes, fixed scope, and someone at the table who says, we will deliver this, and we stand behind it.

This autumn, we’ll introduce a distinct delivery brand built specifically for that promise. More on that soon. But I wanted the people we work with to hear the direction from me first, not from an announcement.

“Are you becoming a competitor?”

A few clients have asked me this directly and it deserves a direct answer.

No.

We are not building a management consultancy. We’re not assembling a pyramid to chase the same transformation programmes as the firms you already work with. That’s not our model and it’s not our ambition.

What we are is the same trusted partner we’ve always been, with more skin in the game.

For the consultancies and primes we work alongside: we make your delivery stronger. The cleared, specialist talent nobody else can reach at the same depth, plus a partner who can carry defined delivery accountability when the brief calls for it.

For government clients: one partner who can staff, manage and deliver, with full accountability for what comes out the other end.

The relationships don’t change. The commitment doesn’t change. The depth of what we can offer does.

The commitment

The UK’s most complex and sensitive programmes deserve partners who are accountable for outcomes, not activity. That’s the business we’re building, and we’ll be measured against it.

If any of this resonates, as a client, a partner, or someone thinking about where your career goes next, please visit our consulting page to learn more about the work we do, or get in touch with me directly. I’d genuinely welcome the conversation.

Delivery-led. Talent-fuelled. Built for outcomes.

In today’s competitive hiring market, organisations are searching for candidates who not only bring technical experience but also resilience, adaptability and strong character. One sometimes overlooked talent pool that delivers all of these, and more, is UK military veterans.

While service leavers are frequently focused on how to translate their experience into civilian careers, employers should be asking a different question: what can we gain by hiring them?

This blog sets out some of the benefits for employers of hiring veterans:

Leadership that’s been tested in real-world environments

In the Armed Forces, leadership is developed early and refined under pressure, this means ex-military candidates are:

• Confident decision makers
• Skilled at managing teams with diverse backgrounds
• Comfortable taking responsibility and accountability

Discipline and reliability you can depend on

Discipline is a cornerstone of military life, and it carries over into the workplace. Veterans understand the importance of structure, deadlines, and maintaining high standards

For employers, this translates into:

• Strong work ethic and professionalism
• Consistent performance and reliability
• Respect for processes, compliance, and safety

Problem-solving in high-pressure situations

Military personnel are trained to think critically and act decisively, often in unpredictable environments where quick thinking is essential.

As a result, veterans excel at:

• Analysing complex problems
• Remaining calm under pressure
• Finding practical, effective solutions

This makes them invaluable in fast-paced civilian roles such as operations, logistics, IT, and emergency services, where challenges require both strategic and real-time thinking

Strong teamwork and a mission-focused mindset

In the military, success depends on teamwork, trust, and clear communication, values that translate seamlessly into civilian organisations.

Hiring veterans means bringing in individuals who:

• Collaborate effectively across teams
• Put organisational goals above personal gain
• Thrive in structured, team-oriented environments

This mission-driven approach helps foster stronger, more cohesive workplace cultures.

Highly transferable skills across key industries

Veterans bring skills that align with many of the UK’s most in-demand sectors.

Their experience in areas like operations management, technical systems, and security makes them particularly well-suited to roles in:

• IT and cybersecurity
• Engineering and infrastructure
• Public sector and national security

With minimal additional training or upskilling, many veterans can transition quickly into these roles and start delivering value.

If your organisation is looking to strengthen its workforce with highly capable, values-driven candidates ready to make an immediate impact, and (an additional benefit in our sector) often already holding a security clearance, it may be time to look more closely at the veteran community. Want to find out more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch!

On Wednesday 13 May, Sanderson Government & Defence, alongside HR World, hosted a panel event at The Mayfair Townhouse, bringing together leaders from across government, defence and industry to explore a critical question:

How do organisations plan a workforce in an environment shaped by skills shortages, security clearance constraints and the rapid evolution of AI?

Key takeaways for anyone who missed the event

• The real challenge is not just a shortage of talent, but a shortage of adaptable capability in security-cleared environments.
• Too many organisations still compete for the same “finished product” candidates, rather than investing in people with transferable skills and long-term potential.
• AI should be used to enhance human capability, not simply reduce headcount.
• Workforce planning needs to shift from roles to skills, with more emphasis on development, mobility and adaptability.
• Human judgement, trust, creativity and mission understanding remain essential, especially in secure and highly regulated settings.

The panel

We were joined by an exceptional panel of speakers:

• Kate Spencer, Partner – Workforce Planning, PA Consulting
• Ben Gilbert, Data Ethics Lead – Cabinet Office & DSIT
• Lieutenant Colonel Philip Gill FCIPD, Workforce Planning – MOD
• Nick Walrond, Managing Director – Sanderson Government & Defence

Each brought a distinct perspective, spanning strategic workforce transformation, responsible AI, defence workforce planning and talent delivery in highly secure environments.

From talent shortages to adaptable capability

A clear tension emerged throughout the discussion. On one hand, organisations continue to report significant talent shortages, particularly in security-cleared environments. On the other, there are capable individuals actively seeking opportunities, including people whose skills are being overlooked or who are simply unaware of routes into the secure world.

If both of these realities exist at the same time, where is the disconnect?

Part of the challenge lies in how organisations define and access talent. In highly regulated environments, there is still a strong preference for the “finished product” — people with highly specific experience, existing clearance and the ability to contribute immediately. Inevitably, this creates intense competition for the same narrow talent pools, making the model increasingly difficult to sustain.

Other challenges remain too. Attracting younger talent into defence is still difficult, and many people leaving the armed forces are not fully aware of the value of their skills and clearances in the civilian market.

Encouragingly, there is growing recognition that a different approach is needed. More organisations are starting to focus on potential rather than perfection, recognising transferable skills and investing in capability through broader entry pathways and ongoing development.

This marks an important shift: away from asking, “How do we hire the finished product?” and towards a more strategic question — how do we build capability over time?

That brings us back to one of the most important questions raised during the panel:

“Is there really a war for talent, or is there a war for adaptable capability?”

AI and the workforce: opportunity or risk?

AI was, unsurprisingly, central to the discussion, but not in the way many might expect.

One of the evening’s standout points came from Philip Gill:

“The biggest workforce risk is not that AI reduces the need for people, but that organisations deploy AI too narrowly as a headcount reduction tool.”

That distinction matters. The discussion made clear that AI should be seen as:

• a productivity enabler
• a tool for reskilling and capability building
• a way to unlock capacity for higher-value work

There was also strong agreement that:

• AI should enhance human judgement, not replace it
• organisations must remain accountable for decisions, particularly in hiring and progression
• the long-term impact of AI on the workforce is still evolving and must be actively managed

In other words, the real opportunity is not to use AI as a shortcut to reduce people, but to use it intelligently to strengthen capability, improve decision-making and free up people to focus on work that matters most.

The human element: what AI can’t replace

One of the most valuable parts of the evening was the level of audience engagement. The conversation extended well beyond the panel itself, with questions and comments focusing on:

• the importance of employee experience when working alongside AI
• maintaining human interaction in recruitment processes
• the growing need for adaptability and outcomes-based thinking

It reinforced an important truth: talent is not just a job title or a list of technical skills. It is a combination of capability, behaviour and human perspective.

AI can support decision-making, but it cannot replicate:

• human judgement
• challenge and debate
• creativity and curiosity
• real connection

That matters in any organisation, but especially in security-cleared environments, where trust, judgement and mission understanding are critical.

Looking ahead: rethinking workforce planning in secure environments

The full impact of AI on workforce planning, particularly in security-cleared environments, is still unfolding. Its potential to drive efficiency and unlock capacity is clear, but its value will ultimately depend on how it is implemented.

In these environments, the constraint is not just skills; it is people who combine clearance with judgement, integrity, mission understanding and digital expertise.

The organisations most likely to succeed will be those that take a balanced approach: investing in people as well as technology, and focusing on long-term capability rather than short-term fixes.

While there was not enough time during the event to explore how organisations might implement these ideas in practice, we will be sharing a second blog with some suggested approaches.

If you have any additional takeaways or reflections from the event, please do share them with me so we can continue the conversation more widely.

Final reflections

Bringing together perspectives from across government, defence and industry highlighted both the complexity of the challenge and the shared determination to address it.

There is no single solution. But the discussion made one thing clear:

The future of workforce planning will be defined not by who can hire the fastest, but by who can adapt, build and evolve most effectively.

Career decisions carry weight in any sector, but in defence and national security there are added layers that can make those decisions harder to reverse.

They impact:

• Your clearance
• The projects you can actually access
• Your long-term trajectory
• And your overall financial package (not just base salary)

So, when a counter-offer lands from your current employer, it can feel like a compelling reason to stay.

Maybe your employer has realised you’re exploring new opportunities, or you’ve already handed your notice in. Either way, before making a decision, it’s worth pausing for a moment.

Why you should think twice before accepting

Having supported recruitment across defence, government and national security projects, I’ve seen how counter-offers play out firsthand, and they don’t always land the way people expect.

Let’s start with the appeal.

A counter-offer can feel like recognition. Suddenly, your value is being acknowledged, and improvements are being promised – whether that’s salary, project alignment, or progression.

And I get it, that’s hard to walk away from.

But the reality is often different.

Once you’re back in role, those promises don’t always materialise in full. And even if they do, the underlying reasons you started looking in the first place can still remain.

In defence and NS, the most common drivers for moving roles tend to be:

• Limited access to high-impact or interesting programmes
• Lack of progression or visibility of a long-term career path
• Compensation not reflecting market value or clearance level
• Constraints around clearance or project mobility
• Challenging programme environments or delivery culture
• Limited flexibility (location, on-site expectations, travel)
• Concerns around long-term stability linked to project funding

Aside from personal or relocation-driven reasons, most counter-offers attempt to address one or more of these points.

Here’s the reality: the number one reason people accept counter-offers is money.

And I get it, the UK economy isn’t exactly easy right now. Cost of living is high, inflation has had a real impact, and financial security matters. So, when a significant pay rise is on the table, it’s incredibly hard to walk away from that.

But this is where it’s important to take a step back and look beyond the immediate win.

Because in many cases, that pay rise can come with trade-offs that aren’t always obvious at first.

If your current employer matches or exceeds an external offer to retain you, there’s a strong chance you’ll be earning more than peers with similar experience. While that sounds like a positive, it can bring added pressure – higher expectations, greater scrutiny, and less room for error.

It can also impact your longer-term progression. If you’re already sitting at (or above) the top end of a salary band, future increases, promotions, or internal moves can become much harder to achieve… which can actually slow your career down rather than accelerate it.

And it raises an important question:

If these issues could have been addressed before, why weren’t they?

And why has it taken your resignation for that change to be offered?

What you should consider when offered a counter-offer

When considering a counter-offer in this space, there are a few things that are especially important to think through:

• Will anything actually change beyond salary?
  In defence, salary is only one piece of the puzzle. If your day-to-day work, programme exposure, or leadership environment stays the same, the long-term outcome likely will too.
• Are you being artificially repositioned in the market?
  Earning above your peer group can sound like a win, but it often comes with increased expectations and can limit future progression once you hit the top of a band.
• Is the offer realistically deliverable?
  This is particularly important in national security. Promises around moving onto different projects, gaining new clearances, or accessing more interesting work are often constrained by factors outside your employer’s control – such as client demand, clearance processes, or contractual limitations.
• Will your reputation be impacted?
  This is a is small and relationship-driven sector. Once you’ve made it known you’re looking externally, perceptions can shift – even subtly.
• Are you solving the root issue?
  If your reason for leaving was cultural, structural, or related to the nature of the work itself, a counter-offer is unlikely to fix that long term.
• Are you trading long-term growth for short-term comfort?
  Staying can feel like the safer option – especially when navigating clearance timelines or project continuity – but it can also delay the move you ultimately need to make for your career.

Before accepting a counter-offer, take a moment to revisit why you started exploring the market in the first place.

What were you hoping to change?
What does your long-term career in defence or national security actually look like?

One of the most common patterns I see is candidates accepting counter-offers, only to re-enter the market a few months later – often with fewer options than before.

That’s not to say counter-offers are always the wrong choice.

There are absolutely situations where staying is the right decision – particularly if the changes being offered are genuine, achievable, and aligned with what you want long term.

But it has to be a considered decision, not a reactive one.

Finally, one piece of advice that applies across the board: be honest.

If you’re unhappy in your current role, have the conversation early. In many cases, organisations are willing to support retention if they understand what matters to you.

And if they can’t provide what you need?

That’s usually a clear sign it’s time to move on – and find an environment that can.

If you’d like any advice, please feel free to reach out to me at [email protected]

Across government and regulated programmes in 2026, demand for SC‑cleared professionals shows no sign of slowing. Digital, data, cyber, engineering, delivery and change roles increasingly specify “active SC required” as a non‑negotiable, particularly for contract hires.

The intention is understandable: programmes are under pressure, onboarding time is critical, and nobody wants delivery blocked by vetting delays.

But an important question is emerging in the market:

Are organisations unnecessarily shrinking their talent pool by focusing only on candidates with currently active SC clearance? Let’s explore…

The Talent Bottleneck You May Have Created

Active SC clearance is finite. It expires, lapses between roles, and is largely controlled by employer sponsorship rather than the individual.

By insisting on already active SC, many hiring managers are competing for the same small subset of contractors. This has several consequences:

• Inflated day rates and reduced value for money
• Longer time to hire despite “strict” criteria
• Recycled talent rather than fresh perspectives
• Reduced diversity of experience and background

Meanwhile, a much larger population of candidates sits just outside your eligibility window.

The Overlooked Opportunity: Candidates With Lapsed SC

Candidates with previously held SC clearance, now lapsed, are often indistinguishable in capability from those who remain actively cleared:

• They have already passed full SC vetting once
• They understand government environments and compliance expectations
• They are familiar with secure delivery constraints
• They often have stronger commercial and programme experience than the typical “clearance‑first” contractor

In many cases, their clearance has lapsed simply because:

• They moved to a non‑cleared programme
• They took time out or changed sector
• Their sponsoring organisation changed

Not because of any suitability or risk issue.

Can You Sponsor Someone for SC on a Contract Role?

This is the question that usually stops the conversation.

Yes, in certain circumstances, contractors can be sponsored for SC clearance.

However, it requires the right operating model and mindset.

Sponsorship is typically more viable when:

• The contract is of sufficient length (6–12 months+)
• The role is genuinely hard to fill with active SC alone
• The candidate brings scarce or high‑value skills
• The programme has appropriate sponsorship routes in place

What matters most is clarity up front: timelines, risk appetite, and delivery sequencing.

Many organisations already accept onboarding delays for niche skills in other areas. SC sponsorship should be viewed through the same commercial lens.

The Cost of Waiting vs the Cost of Sponsoring

Hiring managers often assume sponsorship equals delay and risk. In reality, the comparison should be:

• Waiting months to secure the “perfect” active SC candidate at a premium rate
  vs
• Sponsoring a proven candidate and retaining control of the talent pipeline

Programmes that adopt this approach consistently report:

• Improved quality of hire
• Reduced churn
• Greater loyalty and continuity
• Stronger medium‑term delivery capability

Permanent Hiring Already Understands This, Contracting Often Doesn’t

Permanent recruitment accepted long ago that SC sponsorship is part of building capability.

Contract hiring has lagged behind, often defaulting to immediate readiness over long‑term value. In today’s market, that approach is becoming increasingly expensive and restrictive.

If your programme horizon extends beyond a few months, restricting yourself to “active SC only” may no longer be the most commercial decision.

Risk Management Still Matters

None of this suggests lowering standards.

Security vetting exists for good reason, and hiring managers must remain compliant. The shift is not about bypassing clearance, it’s about widening the pool responsibly by:

• Considering candidates with prior SC history
• Exploring sponsorship pathways where viable
• Making informed decisions rather than blanket exclusions

How Sanderson Can Help

A common challenge for hiring managers is understanding the true status of a candidate’s SC clearance, whether it’s active, transferable, or has recently lapsed.

With decades of experience supporting government and regulated programmes, Sanderson brings deep market knowledge and an unparalleled network of cleared and previously cleared professionals. We support hiring managers by:

• Using our industry experience to verify and sense‑check clearance status early in the process
• Providing clear insight into whether SC is active, recently lapsed, or likely to be transferable
• Advising on practical sponsorship options, timelines and feasibility based on real‑world delivery experience
• Reducing risk and uncertainty by applying informed judgement rather than relying solely on self‑reported information

This enables hiring managers to make confident, well‑informed decisions, balancing delivery urgency with long‑term capability and value.

Final Thought

In a market where demand outweighs supply, talent strategy matters.

Hiring managers who continue to chase only actively SC‑cleared candidates may unknowingly be:

• Slowing delivery
• Increasing costs
• Missing out on proven, experienced professionals

Those willing to consider candidates with lapsed SC, and to explore sponsorship pragmatically, are often the ones building stronger, more resilient teams.

If you want to talk candidly about clearance strategy, sponsorship options, or the reality of today’s SC talent market, I’m always happy to have that conversation.

Many of you will have noticed an increase in the contract and permanent roles I’ve shared in 2026. You may also have spotted a clear pattern: a growing number now require active SC Clearance before candidates can even be considered.

This article explains what SC Clearance is, why it’s increasingly in demand, and the smartest way to obtain it – particularly if contracting is your longer‑term goal.

What Is SC Clearance?

Security Check (SC) Clearance is a UK Government vetting level that allows individuals access to sensitive information, systems, or sites. It sits below Developed Vetting (DV) but above standard background checks, making it one of the most commonly required clearances across government programmes.

SC Clearance is widely required across roles including digital, IT, data, cybersecurity, engineering, UCD, and delivery, especially where work touches critical services or national infrastructure.

Why Is SC Clearance So In Demand?

Demand for SC‑cleared professionals in 2026 continues to rise, driven by:

• Increased government investment in defence and national infrastructure
• Large‑scale public‑sector digital transformation programmes
• A growing focus on cybersecurity, data, and resilience

For contractors, this presents a challenge. Most clients want people who can start immediately, which means many roles now require active SC Clearance rather than being willing to sponsor it.

Why Permanent Roles Are the Smartest Route

One key thing to understand: you cannot apply for SC Clearance yourself. Clearance must always be sponsored by an employer.

In practice, this makes permanent roles the most reliable and realistic route to getting cleared. Permanent employers are far more willing to:

• Sponsor SC Clearance
• Absorb the cost and time involved in vetting
• Take a long‑term view when hiring

Importantly, you’re also paid while the clearance process is underway, gaining relevant experience rather than waiting on the sidelines.

A Critical Point: Ideally Stay at Least 3 Years

This is a crucial point that’s often overlooked.

If you take a permanent role specifically to obtain SC Clearance, you should ideally plan to stay in that role for at least three years.

This approach:

• Looks significantly stronger on your CV
• Allows you to build real domain knowledge in government and complex delivery environments
• Demonstrates commitment, not “clearance chasing”
• Positions you for better contract opportunities and stronger day rates later

Clearance alone opens doors – but it’s experience combined with clearance that really drives demand.

Key Requirements (High Level)

While details vary, SC Clearance typically requires:

• British citizenship (in most cases)
• At least 5 years UK residency
• Identity, employment, criminal, and financial checks
• Completion of detailed security questionnaires

Can SC Clearance Be Transferred?

Yes. SC Clearance is generally transferable between employers while active (usually valid for up to 5 years).

This is where the longer‑term strategy pays off: obtain clearance in a permanent role, build solid experience over time, and then move into contracting with both credibility and clearance.

Final Thoughts

SC Clearance remains a gateway to some of the most secure, interesting, and well‑paid roles in the UK market. While contracting is often the end goal, permanent roles are very often the smartest way to get there.

If you’re prepared to commit ideally at least three years, build genuine domain expertise, and take a long‑term view, you’ll be in a much stronger position when you do move into the contract market.

And yes — I’m recruiting 😊If you want to talk through strategy, timing, or current opportunities, feel free to get in touch.

The demand for DV cleared software engineers continues to exceed supply, making it essential for organisations to understand what these professionals value when considering a new opportunity. Based on ongoing conversations within this specialist talent market, several themes consistently stand out:

Appropriate Financial Recognition

Salary remains an important consideration for DV‑cleared software engineers. Organisations that offer remuneration aligned with current market conditions are better positioned to attract and retain experienced talent.

Current salary ranges within the market typically include:

• Mid‑level engineers: £50,000–£70,000
• Senior engineers: £70,000–£85,000
• Principal/Lead engineers: £85,000–£100,000
• Bonuses: commonly range from £5,000–£15,000, depending on role and organisation.

These figures vary by project demand, technical expertise and organisational structure, but providing transparent salary bands helps set clear expectations from the outset.

Clear Progression Opportunities

Candidates increasingly want clarity on how their careers could evolve within an organisation. Providing a well‑defined structure for progression covering responsibilities, job titles, and associated remuneration helps prospective employees understand the long‑term value of joining your team.

A transparent progression framework might include:

• A clear five‑year career pathway, outlining typical timelines for advancement and the criteria used to assess readiness for each step.
• Defined competency expectations for each level, giving candidates a realistic understanding of the skills, behaviours and technical capabilities required to progress.
• Examples of how responsibilities evolve over time, such as leading project workstreams, mentoring colleagues, or contributing to technical decision‑making.
• Details of the support available, including training budgets, professional certification opportunities, mentorship schemes and time allocated for personal development.
• Indicative remuneration changes linked to progression, demonstrating how increased responsibility aligns with increased compensation, even if exact figures cannot be shared.

Importantly, any progression pathway presented during the hiring process must be realistic and deliverable from day one. Organisations that clearly articulate their development framework, and then follow through, build trust early and create a compelling proposition for candidates considering their next move.

Culture and Benefits

While secure environments often require full‑time on‑site presence, some flexibility is still possible. Organisations may consider alternative working patterns, such as compressed hours or varied start and finish times that could offer meaningful support without compromising operational requirements. Equally important is the broader work culture, candidates value an environment where teams collaborate effectively, communication is open and respectful, and leaders are visible and supportive.

One of the key advantages of working within National Security is the opportunity to contribute to meaningful, purpose‑driven work that supports both the aims of the business and the wider mission of protecting the country. Although the sensitive nature of many projects limits the level of detail that can be shared during the recruitment process, candidates value any high‑level insight into the type of challenges they may be involved in solving. Providing opportunities for candidates to speak with current team members can further strengthen this understanding, offering reassurance and an insight into the exciting projects they will be working on.

If your organisation is looking to improve its attraction strategy for DV‑cleared talent, we would be pleased to discuss how you can strengthen your approach within this competitive market, so please do get in touch.