By Nick Marchant, Director, March Talent Partners · Published 27 May 2026 · 5 min read
TL;DR. Roughly eight in ten of the candidates we’ve placed across 49 placements weren’t actively looking when we approached them. With the Australian food supply chain short an estimated 172,000 workers paddock to plate, a talent strategy built before you need it separates the operators who fill key roles well from the ones who don’t.
Key takeaways
- The food supply chain is short an estimated 172,000 workers paddock to plate (NFF, 2025); mid-senior management is the hardest band to fill.
- Across our 49 placements since founding, roughly eight in ten of the candidates we placed weren’t actively looking when we made contact.
- Operators rate their employer brand higher than candidates do. The gap shows up in what candidates ask about, not in how operators describe themselves.
Most agribusinesses still treat their workforce as something to manage when a role opens. In 2026, with the mid-senior management band tighter than most operators have experienced and most candidates worth hiring not looking, that’s becoming expensive. Scale isn’t the constraint at this level; capability is. Talent strategy is what you build before the vacancy opens. This piece covers the building side; Part 2 covers retention.
Why does building a thriving agricultural workforce start before the vacancy?
Two things are moving at once. Australian agriculture ran at $101.4 billion in gross production for 2025-26 (ABARES Snapshot, 2026), employing 354,600 people, with consolidation lifting the bar for mid-senior management. The NFF estimates the food supply chain is short an estimated 172,000 workers paddock to plate (NFF, 2025), with experienced managers the hardest band to recruit. Workforce data has been fragmented for years (the AgriFutures workforce mapping project is the first proper attempt to consolidate it). The role you’ll need filled in nine months has to be sourced now. We’ve covered the sector view in our piece on workforce planning across Australian agriculture.
Who are the eight in ten candidates you can’t reach with a job ad?
The most placeable people in agricultural management don’t read job boards. Across our 49 placements since founding, roughly eight in ten of the candidates we placed weren’t actively looking when we approached them. They were running a property, finishing a season, or thinking about succession on a longer horizon than the next career move. They weren’t browsing recruiters; they were doing the job. The active candidate pool skews toward people job-searching for reasons unrelated to capability. The strongest are usually elsewhere.
What does this mean for the hiring brief?
The input changes. A brief that assumes inbound applications will surface the strongest candidates is set up to disappoint. The realistic input is who you’d want to hire if any of them would take the call, mapped against what they’re doing and what would make a conversation interesting. That takes longer to build than a job ad. We’ve written about the experienced-manager supply gap in our piece on the farm manager pipeline.
How does employer brand decide which passive candidates take your call?
When we approach someone who isn’t looking, the second conversation decides whether the conversation continues. That’s where employer brand does its work, and it usually doesn’t look like what the operator thinks they’re selling. The gap shows up in what candidates ask about versus what operators describe themselves on. Operators lead with scale, brand, and technology. Capable candidates ask about housing, leadership, and what the career path looks like in three years.
| What operators describe themselves on | What capable candidates ask about |
|---|---|
| Scale of operation, asset under management | Housing quality, particularly for remote postings |
| Brand and market position | Leadership accessibility and decision consistency |
| Technology investment and precision agriculture | What the career path looks like in three years |
| Package, bonus structure, vehicle | Operational autonomy and decision authority |
What candidates actually weight
Housing matters more than most employers credit, especially for remote postings where it’s a household decision. Leadership accessibility comes up early; candidates want to know whether the principals make decisions consistently enough to plan against. Career path comes up last and matters most. A capable mid-senior manager assessing your offer is also assessing whether the next step is visible from here. If it isn’t, the offer has to compensate. We’ve written about the financial cost of getting this wrong in our piece on the real cost of a bad hire.
How do you hire and onboard for the operation you’ll be running in three years?
The most common mistake at the mid-senior management level is hiring narrowly for the role as it exists today. Operations scale, technology investment shifts what the role requires, and the farm manager hired now may be expected to step into a Regional Manager role across multiple properties in three to five years. The brief has to anticipate that, or the hire ages out of usefulness.
A brief for the operation you’ll have, not the one you’ve got
Different questions come up. Has the candidate managed through change? How did they respond when a role expanded beyond its original scope? Where do their career ambitions sit relative to where the business is heading? You can’t ask any of that without knowing where the business is heading, which means the talent conversation has to connect to the strategy conversation.
The first 90 days
The first three months in a new agricultural management role matter disproportionately. Property knowledge, operational rhythms, contractor and neighbour relationships, none of it transfers automatically. A manager left to find their feet without structured support takes longer to reach full effectiveness and is more likely to disengage. This doesn’t require a formal program. It requires someone taking deliberate responsibility for the transition.
The businesses that build their agricultural workforce well aren’t the highest payers. They’re the ones who started their talent strategy before they needed to.
March Talent Partners works with farming businesses and agribusinesses across Australia on permanent placements, from operational roles through to senior management. If you want to talk through where to start your talent strategy, get in touch.
Frequently asked questions
How long does it take to build an agricultural talent strategy?
A working version takes a few weeks of structured conversation at leadership level: mapping key roles, benchmarking remuneration, identifying who you’d want to talk to before roles open. A mature version is a quarterly conversation, not a one-off exercise that produces a binder and sits on a shelf.
What’s the difference between recruitment and talent strategy?
Recruitment is the act of filling a specific vacancy. Talent strategy is the work above it: knowing which roles will need filling, who could fill them, and what the brief should look like for the business you’re running in three years. Strategy makes any individual recruitment faster.
How do small agribusinesses build a talent strategy without an HR function?
You don’t need an HR function. You need to know your three hardest roles to replace, your remuneration position against the current market, and a recruiter who maintains a live candidate network in your sector. Most of the value comes from the conversations being live before the vacancy is.
