Employers Say They Can't Find the Right Talent. Are They Screening Out Good Candidates Too Early?

Most Singapore employers will tell you they're struggling to find the right talent. But the same research raises another question: could some screening practices be narrowing the available talent pool further? Reeracoen and Rakuten Insight's joint study of 375 Singapore-based hiring managers, Hiring Managers Unfiltered, surfaces a genuine tension: employers report real difficulty finding qualified candidates, while their own responses suggest screening criteria that may be narrowing the pool more than necessary.

The confidence gap behind "we can't find talent"

Only 23.2% of the hiring managers surveyed said they were very confident in finding qualified local talent, with 49.1% only somewhat confident and 27.7% reporting neutral to low confidence. That's a genuine confidence problem, not a rounding error. Salary expectations (80.3%) and skills mismatch (65.1%) were the two most commonly cited hiring challenges, followed by a lack of experienced candidates (56.3%).

At the same time, when asked how they perceive candidates who have been unemployed for more than three months, 63% of the same hiring managers held some form of reservation, viewing them as either less competitive (29.7%) or requiring stronger justification before being considered (33.2%). Only 30.5% said they viewed such candidates as equally qualified. Put those two findings side by side, and a pattern emerges: employers report a shortage of qualified candidates, while simultaneously applying screening filters, such as treating a gap in employment as a mark against a candidate by default, that risk excluding people who may well be qualified.

Where screening criteria may be working against employers

Employment gaps treated as a red flag rather than a question. A gap doesn't tell an employer anything about a candidate's capability on its own. Treating it as an automatic deduction, rather than a prompt to ask what the candidate did with the time, filters out capable people before their actual skills are even assessed.

Overweighting continuous, linear experience over demonstrated capability. Requiring an unbroken, conventional career path can screen out candidates who retrained, took on caregiving responsibilities, freelanced, or changed industries, some of whom may be a stronger fit for the role than a candidate whose experience simply looks tidier on paper.

Review whether salary expectations are being treated as automatically disqualifying. With 80.3% of hiring managers citing salary expectations as a hiring challenge, it's worth distinguishing between candidates whose expectations are genuinely out of range for the role, and candidates who could be a strong fit at a figure closer to market rate, but who never get the chance to discuss it if an initial number is used as an automatic filter rather than an opening point for negotiation.

Certification and training signals being underweighted relative to their stated importance. Employers in the same survey rated recent certifications or training (62.7%) and a clear motivation or re-entry plan (55.4%) as top factors that would improve their consideration of a candidate. That suggests many employers already know what a strong "second chance" signal looks like. The question is whether that knowledge is consistently applied at the screening stage, or only surfaces once a candidate has already made it past an initial filter.

What this means for hiring managers and recruitment teams

None of this means employers should lower their standards. It means being precise about what the screening criteria are actually testing for. A criterion like "no employment gaps" or "must have X consecutive years in the same function" often exists as a shortcut for a harder-to-measure quality, such as reliability or depth of experience, but shortcuts like these can filter out exactly the kind of candidate who would perform well if given the chance to demonstrate it.

A useful exercise for any hiring team is to review the last quarter's rejected applications and ask, honestly, how many were screened out for reasons that had little to do with the candidate's actual ability to do the job. If that number is meaningfully higher than expected, the shortage your team is experiencing may be narrower than it looks, and more fixable than it feels.

Frequently asked questions

Are Singapore employers actually facing a talent shortage, or is it a screening problem?

Both can be true at once. Reeracoen's research shows genuine hiring challenges around salary expectations and skills mismatch, while the same employers' screening behaviour toward candidates with employment gaps suggests some of the reported shortage may be self-reinforcing rather than purely a shortage of qualified people.

Why do employers view candidates with employment gaps as less competitive?

Employment gaps can become a proxy signal for perceived risk, without directly assessing the reason for the gap. Reeracoen's research found that 63% of hiring managers hold some reservation about candidates unemployed for more than three months, even though many such candidates remain fully qualified.

What would make Singapore employers more confident about candidates with a gap?

The same research found that recent certifications or training (62.7%), strong prior work experience (61.2%), and a clear motivation or re-entry plan (55.4%) were the top factors that improved employer confidence in these candidates.

How can employers reduce the risk of screening out good candidates too early?

Reviewing screening criteria to check whether they test for the actual capability required, rather than acting as a proxy for it, and giving candidates with gaps or non-linear experience a chance to demonstrate recent effort and relevant skills, can widen the qualified pool without lowering hiring standards.

Take the next step

If your team wants a second view on whether your screening process might be narrowing your talent pool more than necessary, speak to a Reeracoen consultant about reviewing your current hiring criteria.

If you're a candidate who has faced hesitation over a gap in your work history, register with Reeracoen and let our consultants help position your experience to employers who are looking past the gap.

Related articles

• Singapore Hiring Trends 2026: What 375 Hiring Managers Told Us About the Future of Talent
• The Hardest Roles to Fill in Singapore Right Now, According to 375 Hiring Managers
• Skills AI Cannot Replace: How Singapore Employers Can Build Future-Ready Teams in 2026

About the Author

Valerie Ong, Regional Head of Marketing, Reeracoen Group. Valerie leads content and market insights for Reeracoen across Asia. She works closely with Reeracoen's specialist recruitment consultants to translate hiring data, salary benchmarks and labour market trends into practical guidance for Singapore's employers and professionals. Her work draws on Reeracoen's proprietary research including the annual Salary Guide, Hiring Pulse, and Hiring Manager Survey.

This article is published in English. Reeracoen Singapore also publishes selected content in Chinese and Japanese for our bilingual and Japanese-speaking professional community.

References

• Reeracoen × Rakuten Insight, "Hiring Managers Unfiltered: How Singapore Employers View Unemployment, Skills & Talent in 2025/2026" (375 Singapore-based hiring managers surveyed)

Disclaimer:

The information provided in our blog articles is intended for general informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional advice and should not be relied upon as such. 

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, the ever-evolving nature of certain topics may result in content becoming outdated or inaccurate over time. Therefore, we recommend consulting with qualified professionals or experts in the respective fields for specific advice or guidance. Any actions taken based on the information contained in our blog articles are solely at the reader's discretion and risk. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for any loss, damage, or adverse consequences incurred as a result of such actions.

We may occasionally provide links to external websites or resources for further information or reference. These links are provided for convenience and do not imply endorsement or responsibility for the content or accuracy of these external sources. Our blog articles may also include personal opinions, views, or interpretations of the authors, which do not necessarily reflect the views of our organisation as a whole. We encourage readers to verify the accuracy and relevance of information presented in our blog articles and to seek professional advice when needed. Your use of this website and its content constitutes acceptance of this disclaimer.