No One Wants to Lead Here: Why Australia’s Meat Sector Has a Leadership Crisis No One’s Talking About
John Elliott • April 17, 2025

Australia’s meat and poultry processing industry pumps over $23 billion into our economy each year. It employs close to 150,000 people, keeps regional towns alive, fuels exports, and feeds millions. But there's a conversation not enough people are having.

Why is it so hard to find good leaders for one of the country’s most essential sectors?



The Crisis Behind the Carcass

This isn’t just a labour problem. It’s not about visas, or headcount, or overtime. This is a leadership vacuum, and it’s dragging the sector down from the inside out.


A 2023 Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) report didn’t bury the lead: executive leadership shortages across processing plants — especially regionally — are putting long-term sustainability at risk. While the media talks endlessly about unskilled labour shortages, the bigger question is this: Who’s steering the ship?


Industry data tells us more than 60% of businesses struggle to fill operations leadership roles. Most end up promoting internally, not because the candidate is right, but because no one else wants the job. That’s not succession planning. That’s survival mode.



Why No One Wants to Lead in Meat

Let’s stop pretending this is just a recruitment challenge. For many executives, meat and poultry processing is seen as:


  • A reputational risk
  • A moral quagmire
  • A logistical headache
  • A PR nightmare

It’s tough, gritty, heavily scrutinised, and often thankless. Add in remote locations, activist pressure, outdated public perception, and you’ve got one of the least appealing leadership propositions in modern Australian industry.


Even when the pay is good, the pitch is bad.


And yet the cost of this avoidance is steep:

  • Succession plans are paper-thin
  • Transformation is on ice
  • Executive burnout is high and rising
  • ESG compliance risk is creeping up daily



The Numbers Don’t Lie

  • Over 40% of regional processors in NSW and QLD ran under capacity last year — not because of labour gaps alone, but because no one wanted to lead the sites (Jobs and Skills Australia, 2023).
  • 72% of meat companies rank leadership capability as their top operational risk (MLA Insights 2023).
  • Only 35% of processors have any formal succession strategy in place (AMIC, 2023).


These aren’t minor stats. They’re flashing red lights.


Loyalty vs Capability: The Silent Conflict

There’s a romantic idea in this industry that leadership should rise from within. That someone who’s been on the floor for 20 years is best equipped to run the plant. Sometimes that works. Often it doesn’t.


Why? Because operational loyalty doesn’t equal transformation capability.


Many of today’s site and executive leaders are phenomenal operators. But they’re underprepared for:


  • Global compliance shifts
  • ESG audits
  • Workforce diversification
  • Supply chain digitalisation


The job changed. The leadership didn’t.


What Needs to Happen — Now

If the sector wants to survive — let alone grow — it needs leaders who:


  • Don’t flinch at complexity
  • Get compliance, but move commercially
  • Can lead regionally without burning out
  • Speak operations, brand risk, and strategy — fluently


It also needs boards and executive teams to:

  • Stop defaulting to internal promotions because it’s easy
  • Get serious about executive relocation strategy
  • Start building pipelines now, not after the next resignation
  • Tell a better story about what meat and poultry leadership really is


Because here’s the thing: the right people are out there. But they’re not applying because they don’t think this is where future-fit leaders belong.


That’s not a candidate problem. That’s a positioning failure.


Final Thought

Australia’s meat and poultry sector can’t outsource resilience to policy. It can’t wait for perception to change on its own.



It needs sharper leadership, better planning, and the courage to hire differently — before the gap becomes too wide to close.

A woman is holding two bottles of cosmetics in her hands.
By John Elliott April 21, 2025
Australia’s health, wellness, and supplements sector isn’t just growing. It’s exploding. From functional drinks to adaptogenic gummies, wellness brands have gone from niche to mainstream in record time. The industry is now worth over $5.6 billion, up from $4.7 billion in 2020 — a 19% growth in just three years. IBISWorld projects continued expansion with a CAGR of 5.3% through 2028. But behind the glossy packaging and influencer campaigns, something else is happening: the regulators have arrived. And most wellness brands? They’re underprepared. From Trend to Target The boom brought founders, fitness coaches, nutritionists, and marketing entrepreneurs into the supplement space. What many built was impressive. But what most forgot was how fast wellness moves from enthusiasm to enforcement. With more than 40 infringement notices and administrative sanctions in Q1 alone, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) strengthened enforcement of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in early 2024. Prominent companies were named in public. Soon after, the ACCC revised its guidelines for influencer marketing disclosures and launched a campaign against the use of pseudoscientific terminology in product marketing. TGA head Professor Anthony Lawler noted in March 2024: “We’re seeing an unacceptably high level of non-compliance, particularly around unsubstantiated therapeutic claims.” In short: credibility is the new battleground. Why Sales-First Leadership is Failing Too many brands are still led by executives whose playbooks were built on community engagement, retail hustle, and Instagram fluency. That got them early traction. But it won’t keep them compliant — or protect them from an investor exodus when the lawsuits begin. The biggest risks now are not formulation errors. They’re: Claims breaches Compliance negligence Advertising missteps Unqualified health endorsements Reputational collapse through regulatory exposure And these aren’t theoretical. The TGA pulled 197 listed medicines from the market in 2023 alone — a 42% increase on the previous year — due to non-compliant claims or sponsor breaches. What the Next Wellness Leader Looks Like This is where many boards and founders face a difficult transition. The next generation of leadership in wellness isn’t defined by hustle. It’s defined by: Deep regulatory fluency Cross-functional commercial leadership (eComm, retail, pharma, FMCG) Reputation management under pressure Ability to scale with scrutiny, not just speed The leadership profiles now needed aren’t coming out of marketing agencies — they’re coming out of pharmaceuticals, healthtech, and functional food. They’ve sat on regulatory committees. They’ve built compliance-first commercial strategies. They understand how to win trust, not just impressions. Yes, this might feel like a shift away from the founder-led energy that made these brands exciting. But it’s not about slowing down. It’s about making sure you’re still standing when the music stops. Where the Gaps Are The underlying problem isn’t just non-compliance. It's immaturity in structural leadership. The majority of wellness brands haven't developed: An accountable governance structure; a scalable compliance architecture; a risk-aware marketing culture; and any significant succession planning beyond the founder. In fact, a 2023 survey by Complementary Medicines Australia found that only 22% of wellness businesses had dedicated compliance leadership at executive level, and just 14% had formal succession plans in place. This isn’t sustainable — not at scale, and certainly not under scrutiny. Final Thought The wellness boom isn’t over. But the rules have changed. Rapid growth is no longer enough. The brands that win from here will be those with: A compliance culture baked in Leadership teams built for complexity A board that sees regulation not as a barrier, but a brand advantage Those who don’t? They could be one audit away from crisis.
By John Elliott April 6, 2025
Comfort has become the silent killer of executive performance. In an era defined by disruption, volatility, and shrinking margins, too many leadership teams are still optimising for control, not adaptability. They talk about transformation, but build cultures of stability. They prize clarity, yet avoid the ambiguity where real growth lives. The problem isn’t capability. It’s discomfort intolerance. The solution? Start hiring and promoting leaders who deliberately seek discomfort—not just those who can tolerate it when it arrives. Growth Mindset Isn’t Enough Anymore You’ve heard the term "growth mindset" countless times. It’s become a leadership cliché. But it’s not wrong—it’s just incomplete. A growth mindset says, "I believe I can learn." Discomfort-driven leadership says, "I will actively seek out the hardest experiences because that’s where I’ll grow fastest." The distinction matters. Leaders with a growth mindset tend to thrive when external change forces them to adapt. But leaders who embrace discomfort create those conditions on purpose. They invite hard feedback. They question their own success. They take action before external pressure arrives. According to a 2023 study by Deloitte, only 22% of executives say their leadership team is “very prepared” for the future—despite record spending on transformation programmes (Deloitte Human Capital Trends, 2023). That gap exists because most teams are trained to manage change , not lead into uncertainty . Ask yourself: Are you hiring leaders who wait for disruption—or ones who walk towards it? Discomfort Is the Driver of Strategic Advantage Companies don’t fall behind because they make bad decisions. They fall behind because their leaders avoid the hard ones. In high-stakes industries like FMCG, where regulatory pressure, margin compression, and shifting consumer loyalty are accelerating, comfort is dangerous. It fosters: Short-termism Decision paralysis Lack of innovation Cultural stagnation McKinsey found that organisations with a strong tolerance for ambiguity—where leaders frequently challenge their own assumptions—are 2.4x more likely to be top-quartile performers on total shareholder returns (McKinsey & Company, 2022). In other words: embracing discomfort isn’t a trait—it’s a multiplier. Let’s take an example. When COVID hit, Lion Brewery—one of Australia's largest beer producers—was forced to rethink logistics and supply overnight. But smaller craft breweries who had already diversified through direct-to-consumer models adapted faster. Why? Their founders had already been operating in discomfort. They were trained for volatility. What Discomfort-Driven Leaders Actually Do Differently You can spot these leaders. They don’t always look like the most confident in the room—but they’re always the most effective in a storm. They: Seek feedback from critics, not fans Prioritise strategy over popularity Tackle underperformance head-on—even if it means conflict Ask hard questions that slow down groupthink Regularly step out of their functional lane to challenge assumptions They also act . Not rashly—but decisively. In a recent Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) survey, directors ranked “resilience and adaptability” as the #1 trait they now seek in new appointments—outranking experience for the first time (AICD, 2024). That’s not a trend. It’s a shift in what leadership now demands. The Real Cost of Hiring for Comfort Not hiring discomfort-driven leaders isn’t just a missed opportunity—it’s a risk. Here’s what it’s costing you: Strategic Drift: Without challenge, strategies become stale. Your team optimises yesterday’s model. Talent Exodus: Top performers disengage when they see leadership avoiding tough calls. Innovation Bottlenecks: Safe cultures don’t take smart risks. New ideas die in committee. Crisis Fragility: Leaders who haven’t been tested won’t perform when stakes are high. Bain & Company found that companies with decision-making cultures built around speed and tension—not consensus—were 95% more likely to deliver sustained value creation (Bain, 2023). Ask yourself: Is your executive team equipped for bold calls—or just built for calm waters? How to Identify Discomfort-Driven Leaders in Interviews Everyone talks a good game in interviews. But few have the scar tissue that comes from operating in real discomfort. The trick is to go beyond surface-level success stories. Here’s how: Ask Better Questions: “What’s the most uncomfortable decision you’ve made in the last 12 months—and how did it play out?” “Tell me about a time you got strong pushback from your team. What did you do?” “What’s a belief you held strongly that you’ve now abandoned?” “When have you chosen a path that was harder in the short term, but better long term?” Look for: Specificity (vagueness = theory, not lived experience) Self-awareness without self-promotion Signs of humility: they talk about learning, not just winning Evidence of risk-taking: role changes, cross-functional moves, or failed experiments Pro tip: Ask referees how the leader handles ambiguity. Not just performance. This will tell you more about how they lead under pressure. What to Do Now: Practical Actions for Executive Teams If you want to build a leadership culture of discomfort, you have to engineer it. It won’t happen organically in high-performing, risk-averse teams. Here’s how to start: Audit Your Current Team: When was the last time each leader took on something that scared them? Rethink Talent Criteria: Shift from stability and experience to adaptability and action under pressure. Redesign Development: Stretch your execs with ambiguous, cross-functional challenges—not just workshops. Model It at the Top: If the CEO isn’t embracing discomfort, no one else will. You don’t need to create chaos. You just need to stop insulating your leaders from discomfort—and start asking them to seek it. The Discomfort Dividend You can’t build a future-ready business with comfort-first leadership. The next generation of strategic advantage will come not from better processes or faster tech—but from bolder human decisions. From leaders who are willing to feel awkward, wrong, or out of their depth—because they know that’s where the value is. So next time you're hiring a leader, ask yourself: Are they looking for clarity—or ready to lead without it? Do they want the role—or are they ready for the risk that comes with it? Are they seeking comfort—or prepared to create discomfort for progress? Because in 2025, comfort is a luxury your business can’t afford .