Skip to content

Security Independently confirmed2 publishers 2 min read Published Updated

57% of security executives tell SkillBit a new hire needs six months to deliver value

SkillBit's survey of 200 security executives found 57% say a new hire takes six months to deliver value. A team that loses an analyst therefore stays short-staffed for months after the replacement starts, whatever its patch deadlines.

The Watch · Security desk

Send a correction

What happened

  • Seventy percent of the organizations surveyed say they have few roles open to candidates with under two years of experience.
  • 84% sponsor certification training for staff, even though 71% of the managers said they prefer 20-minute weekly upskilling sessions to annual training.
  • 30% of leaders would accept interactive lab formats in place of credentials, and another 49.5% would if shown convincing evidence that labs work.
  • ThreatLocker CTO Michael Jenkins said his team hires early-career staff, including people straight out of high school, and grows them into advanced roles.

Why it matters

  • What it limits constraint A budget case built on shrinking patch windows cannot cite this survey as support. Its data covers hiring and training, and the patch link comes from the write-up.
  • Who has to decide decision With 79.5% of respondents at least open to lab tests, the two-year experience filter is open to negotiation. Whoever can show that labs predict job performance will settle it.
  • What it costs cost At least 55% of respondents pay for certification courses while preferring short weekly sessions. The course hours come out of teams the write-up says can barely keep up.

Next story · Build · yesterday

Claude Code Desktop's preview pane ran scripts in HTML files over 256KB

Confirmed2 publishers

SC Media's write-up ties the six-month figure to "the compressed timeline for managing patches in the AI era" [22]. The results it reports cover hiring and training. None of them measure patch windows or exploit timing, so the link between onboarding and patching is the publication's framing, and the numbers do not test it [22].

SkillBit released the study on September 29 [1]. On a base of 200, the six-month group is about 114 executives [20]. The article gives the sample size but not how respondents were chosen [1].

The training figures overlap heavily. If the 71% and the 84% share that base, at least 55% of respondents both prefer short weekly sessions to annual training and pay for certification courses [21]. According to SC Media, certification training "often takes a large amount of time to complete, at a time when most security teams can barely keep up" [9].

Respondents are more flexible on the experience requirement. Leaders said they are open to changing the strict two-year rule if a candidate can show subject knowledge [5]. Counting the conditional group, 79.5% would at least consider interactive labs as a credential substitute [18]. Most of that is conditional: 49.5% want convincing evidence of effectiveness first [7]. The remaining 20.5% fall outside both groups [19].

"We can't keep asking for experienced cybersecurity professionals without giving people a chance to gain that experience," said Michael Jenkins, chief technology officer at ThreatLocker [10]. "AI can help with some tasks, but it cannot replace human judgement, and that needs to be learned through experience," he said [11]. On the six-month figure, Jenkins said every job has a learning curve. What matters, he said, is whether new staff get the chance to contribute and grow during that training time [14].

His method is review. "Every code commit is reviewed by multiple people, and significant actions get a second look, even when a senior employee is involved," Jenkins said [13].

Ram Varadarajan, chief executive officer at Acalvio, said that a few years ago cybersecurity training was viewed as discretionary spending [16]. "To overcome training-time and onboarding challenges, organizations should treat learning as a business requirement with protected time and measurable goals," he said [15]. Diana Kelley, chief information security officer at Noma Security, said employers are still looking for experience and proof of capability, even at entry level [17].

What to watch

  • Publication of SkillBit's full questionnaire and respondent profile, which would show whether the 71% and 84% figures share a base and who was surveyed.
  • Any data linking onboarding time to patch or remediation times, which would test the patch-window framing the write-up attaches to the six-month figure.
  • Outcome data on hiring through interactive labs, the evidence 49.5% of respondents say they need before accepting labs in place of credentials.

Clarity's read

What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.

Reality

Evidence55
Adoption
Not scored
Hype gap+20
Incentives60
Confidence60
Why these scores

Claim ledger

Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.

  1. [1]

    SkillBit released a study on September 29 based on a survey of 200 security executives.

    Reported Supported Source: SC Media report on SkillBit studyView cited source
  2. [2]

    57% of the 200 security executives surveyed reported a six-month time-to-value for a new employee.

    Reported Supported Source: SkillBit survey via SC MediaView cited source
  3. [3]

    70% of organizations say they have few roles available to candidates with under two years of experience.

    Reported Supported Source: SkillBit survey via SC MediaView cited source
  4. [4]

    71% of security managers said they prefer 20-minute weekly upskilling sessions over annual training.

    Reported Supported Source: SkillBit survey via SC MediaView cited source
  5. [5]

    Cybersecurity leaders are becoming open to changing the strict 2-year experience requirement so long as the candidate can demonstrate some subject knowledge.

    Reported Supported Source: SkillBit survey via SC MediaView cited source
  6. [6]

    30% of leaders are receptive to 'Interactive Lab' formats as a credential substitute.

    Reported Supported Source: SkillBit survey via SC MediaView cited source
  7. [7]

    Another 49.5% of leaders are open to Interactive Lab formats as a credential substitute if presented with convincing evidence of its effectiveness.

    Reported Supported Source: SkillBit survey via SC MediaView cited source
  8. [8]

    84% sponsor 'Certification' training for their staff.

    Reported Supported Source: SkillBit survey via SC MediaView cited source
  9. [9]

    Certification training often takes a large amount of time to complete, at a time when most security teams can barely keep up.

    Reported Supported Source: SC MediaView cited source
  10. [10]

    "We can't keep asking for experienced cybersecurity professionals without giving people a chance to gain that experience,"

    Reported Supported Source: Michael Jenkins, CTO, ThreatLockerView cited source
  11. [11]

    "AI can help with some tasks, but it cannot replace human judgement, and that needs to be learned through experience."

    Reported Supported Source: Michael Jenkins, CTO, ThreatLockerView cited source
  12. [12]

    Jenkins said his team tends to hire early-career employees, including people straight out of high school, and help them grow into more advanced roles.

    Reported Supported Source: Michael Jenkins, CTO, ThreatLockerView cited source
  13. [13]

    "Every code commit is reviewed by multiple people, and significant actions get a second look, even when a senior employee is involved."

    Reported Supported Source: Michael Jenkins, CTO, ThreatLockerView cited source
  14. [14]

    On the 57% time-to-value number, Jenkins said every job has a learning curve when someone joins a new organization, and what matters is whether they get the chance to contribute and grow during that training time.

    Reported Supported Source: Michael Jenkins, CTO, ThreatLockerView cited source
  15. [15]

    "To overcome training-time and onboarding challenges, organizations should treat learning as a business requirement with protected time and measurable goals."

    Reported Supported Source: Ram Varadarajan, CEO, AcalvioView cited source
  16. [16]

    Varadarajan said the findings reflect a shift from a few years ago, when cybersecurity training was viewed as discretionary spending.

    Reported Supported Source: Ram Varadarajan, CEO, AcalvioView cited source
  17. [17]

    Diana Kelley said employers are still looking for experience and proof-of-capability, even at the entry level.

    Reported Supported Source: Diana Kelley, CISO, Noma SecurityView cited source
  18. [18]

    79.5% of leaders are at least conditionally open to interactive labs as a credential substitute.

    Derived Supported
  19. [19]

    20.5% of leaders fall outside both the receptive and the conditionally open groups.

    Derived Supported
  20. [20]

    About 114 of the 200 executives reported a six-month time-to-value.

    Derived Supported
  21. [21]

    If both figures share the 200-respondent base, at least 55% of respondents both prefer weekly 20-minute sessions to annual training and sponsor certification training.

    Derived Supported
  22. [22]

    SC Media wrote that the six-month time-to-value puts a lot of pressure on security managers racing to onboard people in the wake of the compressed timeline for managing patches in the AI era.

    Reported Insufficient Source: SC Media framingView cited source

Sources

2 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.

  1. helpnetsecurity.com

    1 article · September 29, 2026

    Cybersecurity hiring practices leave little room for junior talent
  2. scworld.com

    1 article · September 29, 2026

    57% of security execs report challenges with onboarding entry-level staff

Topics and entities

Topics

  • Security training and upskilling
  • Cybersecurity Workforce