“AI is the future and it is going to revolutionise how we think and work. This is only going to complement the human intelligence.”

That was one response from our recent survey of 864 professionals across Australia and New Zealand and it captures a sentiment that’s becoming more common: hopeful, but grounded in reality.

If there’s one thing leaders need to know as they bring AI into their organisations, it’s this: how your people feel about AI will shape how they use it. Perception is a powerful predictor of engagement and understanding it can help you unlock momentum while avoiding resistance.

Cautious optimism is the dominant mood

We asked survey participants how they felt about the future of AI in their industry.
More than half (52.6%) said they’re “cautiously optimistic”.

That means they see the potential. But they’re also watching for risks.

Another 29.9% said they’re “excited” about AI’s future. Just 6.4% reported feeling “concerned”, and fewer still (0.5%) said they feel “overwhelmed”.

When asked how AI might impact their own roles in the next two years:

• 29.9% expected a “very positive” impact
• 47.9% expected a “somewhat positive” impact
• Only 7.7% expected any kind of “negative” impact

These numbers matter. They suggest your people aren’t afraid of AI, but they do want clarity. They want to know where the organisation is headed, how it affects their role, and what’s being done to make it a success.

“We cannot ignore a change that’s already here,” said one survey participant.
“AI is a solution to some business needs, it is not an objective or self-evident value proposition in its own right,” said another.

The leadership challenge: Earning trust before asking for change

Despite growing familiarity with AI, most organisations haven’t communicated a clear strategy and many aren’t actively involving their teams. In our wider survey:

• Only 16.7% of respondents said AI is a “high strategic priority” in their organisation
• Only 12.3% are planning to hire a dedicated AI specialist or leader
• Nearly 48% said they’re not sure where AI will be used in the business over the next 12 months

In other words, while employees are increasingly open to AI, most organisations haven’t told them what’s coming or how to prepare.

That’s a missed opportunity.

When leaders fail to engage with sentiment, they risk:

• Creating fear where curiosity exists
• Sparking resistance where trust could be built
• Missing out on grassroots innovation from teams ready to experiment

But when they get it right — when they listen, involve, and communicate — the payoff is huge. Teams begin to look for opportunities, not just instructions. They start solving problems with AI, not just waiting to be told how.

What can leaders do right now?

Start with these steps:

1. Test the waters. Don’t assume you know how people feel, ask.

2. Name the risks, but don’t feed the fear. Acknowledge concerns but balance them with possibility.

3. Make it practical. AI should feel like a tool, not a threat. Communicate use cases, not just ambition.

4. Show you’re in it together. Whether it’s training, experimentation, or role design, clarity builds trust.

One respondent goes as far to say, “AI is nothing more than marketing hype.”

Whether that’s true or not depends on what happens next. With the right leadership, AI can move from buzzword to business value, from doubt to momentum.

Want to know how AI is changing the way we work across Australia and New Zealand?

Download our full report based on responses from 864 business leaders and tech specialists and uncover the trends shaping the next chapter of work. Access the full dataset here.

In a world where artificial intelligence is reshaping industries by the day, how ready are we really?

To find out, we surveyed 864 professionals across Australia and New Zealand, including Chief Execs, HR leaders, and tech specialists, about their experiences, expectations, and concerns around AI. The results reveal a mix of excitement and uncertainty, optimism and hesitation. In short: the AI shift is here, but many are still finding their footing.

Confidence is low but belief is high

Over 90% of business leaders believe AI will positively impact their teams within the next two years. But when asked how well their organisation is responding to this change, just 5% said “extremely well.” That’s a gap worth paying attention to.

“We’re seeing two extremes,” says JP Browne, Practice Manager from our office in Auckland. “In some companies, AI tools are already being used on the ground, but leadership is scrambling to put the right controls in place. In others, execs are racing ahead out of FOMO, and tech teams are having to slow them down to make sure it’s the right solution.”

In both cases, the need for clarity, structure and strategy is clear. This isn’t just about embracing new tools, it’s about aligning people, processes, and platforms around a shared vision for the future.

More defence than offence

One in three organisations in our survey have already implemented policies restricting external AI tools, a sign that risk awareness is high. But in many boardrooms, fear is still outweighing forward thinking.

Rather than asking “How can we lead with AI?”, the question for many remains “How do we contain it?”

This caution is especially apparent in highly regulated sectors. As JP explains:

“Insurance, for example, is cautiously optimistic. They’re exploring AI but always keeping a human in the loop. Nobody wants to be the company on the front page because a bot denied a claim.”

Strategy, skills and leadership: the missing pieces

So, what’s holding organisations back? According to our data, the top three blockers are:

• No clear strategy – 41% of respondents say their organisation hasn’t defined a direction for AI.
• Skills gaps – while 52% of organisations are offering training, many teams are still catching up.
• Unclear ownership and goals – 34% say there’s no clear owner for AI, and 41% report unclear goals.

“The biggest shift we’re seeing in hiring isn’t just for AI Engineers,” says JP. “It’s for the roles that support AI behind the scenes. Data Engineers, Infrastructure Engineers, platform specialists who can enable the functionality in AWS, Microsoft, Salesforce and so on. That foundation is everything.”

Interestingly, only 12% of organisations are planning to hire an AI leader in the next 12-18 months, which suggests many are still unsure of how to structure their approach.

Agentic AI is coming and workers are wary

As AI tools become more autonomous, the implications for the workforce are getting real. One in four workers in our survey said they’re concerned about job displacement due to agentic AI systems, a tension that may slow down adoption if not addressed head-on.

“This isn’t a tech challenge, it’s a leadership challenge,” says Jack Jorgensen, Data, AI & Innovation Practice Lead from our consultancy arm, Avec. “Organisations need to move beyond fear-based narratives. That means involving their people, investing in relevant training, and being transparent about the intent behind every AI initiative.”

Where to from here?

If there’s one takeaway from this research, it’s that no one has it all figured out, and that’s okay. AI transformation doesn’t have to be perfect to begin. But it does need to begin with purpose.

That means building AI into your strategy, not just your tech stack. It means empowering teams to experiment, not just comply. And it means treating people, their concerns, their skills, and their potential, as central to the journey, not a barrier to it.

If you’re curious to explore more of what we learned from 864 professionals across Australia and New Zealand, you can access the full findings in our free report here.

“AI is a tool and only brings what has been inputted into it,  humans bring creativity and discretion.”

The message from workers is clear: AI won’t replace people, but people who understand how to use AI will be better positioned to thrive.

And right now, most teams are still early in that journey.

Our latest survey of 864 business leaders and tech professionals across Australia and New Zealand shows that while AI is gaining traction in the workplace, the skills needed to use it confidently and responsibly are still catching up.

Training is happening but, for most, it’s basic at best. The result? A lot of curiosity, and a whole lot of untapped potential.

Skill levels are rising… slowly

When we asked participants to rate their current skill level using AI tools:

• Just 2.3% identified as “experts”
• 11.3% said “advanced”
• The majority sat at “intermediate” (36.5%) or “beginner” (43.7%)

This isn’t surprising in such a fast-moving field but it does highlight the need for structured support, especially with AI tools evolving week to week.

“I firmly believe that it’s through knowledge, research, and learning that people are able to develop their AI readiness skills.”

Training is happening, but most of it isn’t sticking

The good news? Most organisations are starting to take action:

• 52.4% of organisations said they’re offering some form of AI training (44.5% limited, 7.9% comprehensive)

But when we asked individuals if they had completed any training:

• 68.2% said “no”
• And just 4.4% had completed “comprehensive” training

Even among those who had received training, only 7.7% found it “extremely relevant” to their work. The disconnect suggests many training efforts are still too broad, too theoretical, or poorly timed.

It’s one thing to roll out training and it’s another to make it useful. Teams need learning that is contextual, practical, and directly tied to how they work.

Confidence gaps are slowing progress

What we’re seeing is a classic enablement gap.

The tools exist. The appetite is there. But without real capability building, usage stays shallow.

And when people aren’t confident, they hesitate or, worse, they misuse the tools. That holds back experimentation and fuels the kind of fear that makes governance trickier than it needs to be.

As one participant put it:

“It will be hard to know whether people have capability and can think strategically when everything is done for them.”

The goal isn’t to create AI experts in every role. It’s to build a workforce that’s comfortable, capable, and ready to use AI with discretion and clarity in ways that support their goals, not distract from them.

So, what should leaders do now?

If you’re serious about using AI to gain a competitive edge, upskilling can’t be an afterthought. It has to be part of your core strategy.

This means:

• Offering hands-on, role-specific learning – not just AI awareness
• Creating space for safe experimentation
• Recognising that enablement is a journey and not a one-off webinar

Because when people feel empowered, not overwhelmed, the quality of AI use goes up and so does trust in your broader business strategies.

Want to find out how your organisation compares? Download the full survey findings here to explore how others are approaching AI adoption, skills, and strategy.

Before planning ahead, it’s important to understand what’s already happening on the ground. AI is no longer just a future trend, it’s part of the everyday reality for many professionals. But how it’s being used (and how it’s being managed) varies widely.

Our latest survey of 864 business leaders and tech professionals across Australia and New Zealand revealed both momentum and misalignment, with many teams using AI regularly, even in the absence of formal strategy or support.

Note: This survey closed on 16 June 2025 and reflects a moment in time in a rapidly evolving space.

AI is already in play and it’s changing how people work

AI is firmly embedded in daily workflows for many. Over two-thirds of respondents are using it for search and research (67.7%), 65.4% for summarising content, and more than half for drafting emails and documents. One in three are even using it for data analysis, with more advanced tasks like coding assistance and multi-step workflows also starting to gain traction.

And when asked whether AI use has led to greater efficiency or productivity, nearly two-thirds (64.7%) said yes, with 15.1% reporting significant improvements.

Cameron Robinson, Head of Enterprise Solutions at Solve by Talent, put it simply:

“The research shows that the vast majority of people are using AI already. We haven’t got an adoption problem. Businesses won’t succeed trying to suppress AI usage. If leaders treat AI for what it is – technology – then many of the tried-and-tested principles for change and risk management will still apply.”

In short: your teams are already moving. The question is whether your strategy and support systems are keeping up.

Control and caution are creeping in

Despite widespread adoption, 38.3% of organisations now have policies in place restricting the use of external AI tools. Another 28.9% say they use tools like ChatGPT and Gemini with minimal governance. It’s clear many organisations are still figuring out how to balance innovation with risk.

Some workplaces are stepping up:

• 12.9% are currently exploring secure, fit-for-purpose AI solutions
• 11% have already developed in-house AI capabilities

But many others are stuck in a grey area, trying to contain AI use without clear plans for enablement.

AI adoption is still in the early stages

While usage is high, formal adoption lags behind. When asked how they’d describe their organisation’s current stage of AI integration:

• Just 4% say AI is fully embedded in their business strategy
• Nearly half (47.6%) say they’re still in the experimental or pilot stage
• 13.5% say they haven’t started at all

And when it comes to frequency:

• 33.7% use AI tools daily
• Another 26.3% use them a few times a week

But only 19.7% report AI being implemented in a few departments, and just 8.7% say it’s widely adopted. There’s a clear disconnect between individual uptake and organisational planning.

Excitement meets uncertainty

Some teams are leaning into AI’s potential, using it for content creation, document management, knowledge sharing, and even code generation or customer support. But there’s still uncertainty around how to scale these use cases effectively.

As one participant put it:

“We’re seeing some exciting use cases, but also a lot of uncertainty around skills, change management, and long-term planning.”

Another flagged resourcing concerns:

“We are using AI and love it, but we are limited in our usage due to budget limitations and lack of experience.”

And then there’s the ongoing question of safety and ethics:

“Although amazing things can be done using AI, the lack of governance and data privacy is deeply concerning.”

AI is already here even if strategy isn’t

The data tells a clear story: adoption is happening from the ground up. It might not be part of your long-term roadmap yet, but your people are using it. They’re testing it. They’re learning. Sometimes with support and often without.

What’s missing is clarity, consistency, and leadership.

Now is the time to catch up. Where to start?

• Establishing a governance framework that enables safe, confident AI use
• Understanding the tools their teams are already using
• Scaling the use cases that work, and ditching the ones that don’t
• Treating AI like any other strategic investment: purposeful, aligned, and people-focused

Curious how your organisation compares? Download our full report here to see the complete findings and discover how teams across Australia and New Zealand are navigating the AI shift.

With AI dominating headlines and boardroom agendas alike, it’s easy to get swept up in grand predictions. But behind the hype, what’s really happening in Australian and New Zealand workplaces?

To cut through the noise, we surveyed 864 business leaders and tech professionals across ANZ to find out how AI is being adopted, what’s holding it back, and where it’s headed next. While the excitement is palpable, Jack Jorgensen, Data, AI & Innovation Practice Lead from our consultancy arm Avec, says what’s really unfolding is more complex and more revealing than the headlines suggest.

“A lot of organisations are still stuck in the Proof of Concept stage,” says Jack. “That’s not surprising – AI isn’t a magic wand. It’s a tool. Like any tool, it has to be embedded within real processes to have an impact. Right now, many businesses are still reconciling the hype with the reality of what AI can actually do.”

From urgency to uncertainty: Why strategy is still missing

Despite executive-level urgency to “do something” with AI, many organisations are struggling to translate that into tangible strategy. Our survey found:

• 41% of respondents cited “no strategy” as a major AI adoption barrier
• 41% said their organisation had “unclear goals”
• 34.4% pointed to a “lack of clear ownership”

“We saw this with Automation too,” says Jack. “Executives want momentum, but the problem is that every department has its own unique processes and that nuance often isn’t visible from the top. Without input from people actually doing the work, AI initiatives stall. The better approach? Let teams experiment, find real use cases, and celebrate the wins. That kind of bottom-up traction creates momentum that sticks.”

Fear of AI is real, but is it justified?

One in four survey respondents (24.9%) listed “job displacement or change” as their top concern when it comes to agentic AI systems. But Jack warns against jumping to conclusions.

“We’ve seen this fear before. The same anxiety was there when Automation started gaining traction. The reality is, many of the job cuts we’re seeing today aren’t because of AI, they’re because of economic pressure and over-hiring corrections. AI is being used as a scapegoat because it makes layoffs look like a forward-thinking decision, when really it’s about cost. If we focus too much on AI as a threat, we risk missing its actual value.”

Instead of seeing AI as a way to cut headcount, Jack says organisations should utilise it as a tool to enhance quality, speed, and productivity.

“If you reward people for improving their workflows with AI – instead of fearing they’ll work themselves out of a job – you’ll get two things: better, more reliable use cases, and more engaged teams actively looking for new opportunities. That’s what drives real business growth.”

Data use is up, but so are the risks

Our survey found that 33.9% of professionals are already using AI for data analysis; a promising sign of adoption in everyday workflows. But Jack adds a note of caution.

“It’s great to see adoption in areas like analytics, but we have to be careful. Large language models don’t understand truth, they generate probability. AI can support analysis, but it shouldn’t replace rigorous, traditional verification. We still need humans to make sense of what’s surfaced.”

Security is another concern that’s keeping some businesses from going further. 46.2% of respondents said “security or compliance” was the biggest barrier preventing more regular AI use.

“It’s encouraging that people are thinking seriously about security,” says Jack. “We need to treat AI systems and the data behind them with the same level of scrutiny we give to any other sensitive tool.”

So, where are we in the AI journey?

Jack believes we’re in an AI bubble, similar to the dot-com boom – full of excitement, investment, and a fair amount of overreach.

“The tech is real. The opportunity is real. But it’s early. We’re seeing fear, confusion and fast moves, often without strategy. If organisations can stop chasing the hype and start embedding AI into processes with care, they’ll not only unlock value but avoid repeating the mistakes of past tech cycles.”

Want to find out more?

Access the full findings from 864 professionals across Australia and New Zealand here. Discover how teams are really using AI, and what the data tells us about the future of work.

Sick of AI events telling you stuff you already know?

We’re cutting through the hype with a real-world look at what’s actually going on.

Join Jack Jorgensen, our in-house AI expert from Talent’s project delivery arm, Avec, and JP Browne, Practice Manager at Talent Auckland as they unpack:

• Where organisations are really at
• What’s holding teams back
• Concern and resistance on the ground
• Why security and trust matter now more than ever
• Early signs of change in workforce planning as a result of AI
• AI readiness: Sector comparison

Register today

AI is changing the way individuals and businesses are approaching work as revealed in Talent’s latest survey report which was released today. The report features insights from over 850 business leaders and technology professionals across diverse industries in Australia and New Zealand. Access the findings HERE.

The survey, focused on six key themes, Perception, Current Use & Adoption, Strategy & Leadership, Skills & Enablement, Barriers & Challenges, and Agentic AI, offer an in-depth understanding of how AI is being implemented today and its implications for the future of work.

Key findings include:

• Only 12% of organisations are planning to hire an AI specialist or leader over the next 12-18 months.
• AI has not impacted workforce planning for 55% of organisations.
• Only 5% of survey participants feel their organisation is responding to the changing AI landscape ‘Extremely well’.
• 90% of business leaders believe AI will positively impact their team’s work in the next 2 years. Whereas only 63% of workers believe AI will positively impact their role in the next 2 years.
• 25% of workers are concerned about job displacement due to agentic AI systems.
• Security or compliance concerns remains to be the biggest barrier preventing teams from using AI more regularly for 46% of respondents.
• 52% of organisations are offering training or upskilling opportunities related to AI.

Matthew Munson, Talent Managing Director NSW, weighed in on what he is seeing in the recruitment market, “AI is reshaping how businesses and individuals approach work, but our latest survey shows there’s still a cautious optimism in the market. While 90% of leaders see AI’s positive impact on their teams, only a small number are actively hiring AI specialists. This gap highlights the opportunity, and urgency, for organisations to build stronger AI capabilities otherwise risk being left behind.”

Jack Jorgensen, Practice Lead – AI, Data & Innovation at project delivery company Avec, said, “AI is fundamentally transforming the workplace. However, there are many unseen challenges. The implementation of large-scale AI projects can necessitate the storage of enormous volumes of data, which in turn requires fast and reliable access. Cloud storage, while convenient, comes with substantial costs which may not be considered in this regard. There are also security considerations evolving at an accelerated pace. There needs to be a greater focus on developing effective solutions and having the right AI leaders in the business to ensure the success.”

You nailed the interview. The recruiter gets a thank you email – that’s standard. But what about the hiring manager? That’s where things get tricky.

Most candidates wonder if reaching out directly to the person who’ll actually decide their fate is brilliant networking or an awkward overstep. The truth? It depends entirely on how and when you do it.

We sat down with Talent’s Managing Director of Marketing Chloe O’Toole and our SaaS recruitment expert Tom Mackenzie to settle this once and for all. Their insights might change how you think about post-interview follow-up.

The case for: Direct connection beats playing it safe

Tom believes a well-executed thank you note can be a powerful move in the hiring process but it’s all about delivery. He views follow-up messages as a chance for candidates to demonstrate initiative, professionalism, and genuine interest in the role, particularly when done with emotional intelligence and a light touch.

“There’s a difference between a thank you and a hard close,” Tom explains. “The best candidates tailor their approach to the context, who they’re writing to, what kind of role they’re applying for, and how the interview went.” For sales roles, he says, a more confident, assertive close might be entirely appropriate. “You want someone who can sell and follow through so showing that persistence early makes sense.” But for technical roles, or when communicating with someone less responsive to sales-like tactics, subtlety is key.

Tom also encourages candidates to see thank you notes as an opportunity to add value. “Maybe you didn’t nail an answer during the interview, or you’ve identified a business opportunity/new market for the hiring manager” he says. “A follow-up message gives you a chance to elaborate and share the stronger example you thought of after the fact.” He recently observed a candidate do exactly that, and it paid off. The candidate in question gave the hiring manager a lead , which impressed the hiring team, resulted in a new business opportunity and ultimately resulted in an offer for the candidate – a true win-win situation for all!

While he understands that some hiring managers might feel a line has been crossed if a candidate digs up their email address to follow up directly, Tom believes this often signals curiosity and resourcefulness. “For me, that’s a positive. They’re showing initiative, and in most cases, if they found your work email, it was already out there.” He adds that for roles where hustle and creative problem-solving matter, a candidate who bends the rules slightly to stand out could be just the kind of person you want on your team.

Ultimately, Tom’s advice is about balance. “Don’t send a templated, robotic message and don’t pressure someone into a decision,” he says. “But if you’re authentic, thoughtful, and respectful, a thank you note can absolutely help you stand out.”

The case against: Respect the process – and the boundaries

Chloe, an experienced hiring manager, takes a more cautious view on candidate thank you notes. Not because she’s against gratitude, but because of how easily these gestures can cross a line. For her, it’s less about the message itself and more about how it lands in the context of the hiring process. “I absolutely want the candidate to thank the recruiter, but when they come directly to me it can feel a little bit pushy,” she explains. “But more than that, it sometimes feels like a boundary has been crossed especially if I haven’t given out my email address directly.”

Chloe points out that candidates will often do their homework before an interview (sometimes impressively so), but when that turns into an unsolicited message to her personal inbox, it can feel invasive. “I trust anyone who’s made it to a final interview stage to be a great person,” she says, “but it still feels uncomfortable when someone shows up in my inbox without my consent. It’s not that I don’t want to hear from them, it’s just that I didn’t invite it.” For her, a candidate finding and using her email address, especially when it wasn’t shared on a calendar invite or through a recruiter, can feel like a small violation of privacy.

Beyond that, Chloe often finds these messages to be overly formulaic and lacking authenticity. “It can feel insincere like they’re ticking a box rather than really showing genuine interest,” she says. In particular, she takes issue with messages that try to force a strong close. “When someone says, ‘I want to reinforce that I’m the ideal candidate for the role,’ it just rubs me the wrong way,” she admits. “That’s my decision to make not yours to declare.”

She acknowledges that thank you notes might work better in certain industries or for specific roles such as sales, where persistence and follow-up are key skills. But as a marketing leader, Chloe prefers candidates to direct their follow-up energy through the recruiter, who acts as a trusted gatekeeper. “That’s why you use a recruiter,” she says. “I want them to pass on that feedback not for it to come straight to me.”

Still, she concedes that not all thank you notes are problematic. A soft, thoughtful message that shows appreciation or adds value (without the hard sell) is far more welcome. “It’s always going to land better with me if someone just says, ‘Thanks for your time, I really enjoyed our chat,’ rather than trying to persuade me they’re the perfect fit.”

For Chloe, it ultimately comes down to tone and timing. “It’s not about whether or not you do it,” she says. “It’s about how you do it and how it makes the other person feel.”

The verdict: It’s all about reading the room

Ultimately, sending a thank you note to the hiring manager after an interview isn’t a matter of right or wrong, it’s about context, intent, and delivery. As Chloe and Tom illustrate, what lands well with one hiring manager may feel inappropriate to another. The key lies in reading the room: understanding the role, the industry, and the personalities involved. A thoughtful follow-up can reinforce interest and add value, but when misjudged, it risks crossing boundaries or coming off as disingenuous. In today’s competitive job market, candidates should trust their instincts, tailor their approach, and when in doubt, seek guidance from their recruiter, the person best placed to help them navigate the nuances of closing well or as we like to put it, us!

In the world of Australian tech, not all code is created equal, and neither are the salaries. While everyone’s talking about AI this and cloud that, the real winners are quietly architecting enterprise frameworks, managing SOCs, and solving problems before most of us have had our morning coffee.

So, who’s raking in the big bucks in 2025? Let’s take a look at the 10 highest-paying tech jobs in Australia right now according to our internal placement data, and the skills needed, plus the industries, and cities where these roles shine brightest.

10. Technical Salesforce Architect ($200k)

Salesforce may have started as a CRM, but it’s now an enterprise platform, and Sydney and Brisbane are dominating the hiring landscape, especially in financial services, the health sector, and large-scale enterprise environments.

Doing more than configuring objects, Technical Salesforce Architects are engineering enterprise-grade systems using Apex, Lightning Web Components, and integration platforms like MuleSoft. If you’re leading a Salesforce CPQ rollout or building an omni-channel service platform, you’re in their world.

If you’re applying for roles in line with this, a Salesforce Certified Technical Architect (CTA) certification is your best bet. Add a deep knowledge of API integration and cloud infrastructure, and you’re set.

9. Cybersecurity Architect ($200k)

The quiet strategist behind the firewall, cybersecurity specialists go beyond day-to-day ops to build long-term security blueprints. Unsurprisingly, they’re also high in demand in Canberra, the land of federal contracts, and increasingly in Perth, where critical infrastructure and mining tech is investing in threat resilience.

Whether they’re engineering Zero Trust frameworks, leading secure cloud migration efforts, or coordinating simulations, they combine strategic foresight with hands-on experience in secure design patterns.

Tech stacks and skills to master include cloud security frameworks, penetration testing, identity and access management (IAM), and everything compliance (think ISO 27001, NIST, and Essential Eight).

8. Applications Solution Architect ($200k)

Application Solution Architects focus on designing tailored software solutions that integrate smoothly into existing environments. In demand across Melbourne and Sydney, particularly in retail, healthcare, and education.

You’ll often find them leading the design on custom enterprise software, rebuilding student management systems, or integrating SaaS solutions across business units.

The best of these Applications Solution Architects usually have deep experience with microservices, are familiar with enterprise platforms like SAP or Oracle, and have a knack for crafting solutions that are both elegant and realistic. UX intuition doesn’t hurt either.

7. Cybersecurity Manager ($202k)

The strategic head of a business’ cybersecurity, they don’t just respond to threats; they pre-empt, prevent, and plan for recovery. Sydney and Brisbane regions are the latest hot zones for hiring, particularly in insurance, banking, and government agencies.

From managing company-wide security frameworks to overseeing awareness programs and regulatory compliance, they need both technical depth and cross-functional influence.

If you’re aiming to land a role like this, get ahead of your competition with familiarity around ISO 27001 frameworks, GRC platforms, SIEM systems, and, most importantly, the ability to translate technical risks into business language that executives actually care about.

6. SOC Manager ($205k)

The Security Operations Centre (SOC) Manager is the heartbeat of an organisation’s real-time threat detection. This role is booming in Canberra, with federal defence contracts requiring round-the-clock vigilance, and Sydney, where large corporations are rapidly scaling their security maturity.

SOC Managers lead incident response teams, deploy SIEM platforms, and ensure the cyber early warning systems are always humming. When the 3am phone call comes, they already know what it’s about.

Level up your skillset with Splunk, QRadar, familiarity with incident response playbooks, and solid leadership in high-pressure environments. If you’re calm under pressure and fluent in threat intelligence, you’re halfway there.

5. Engineering Manager ($208k)

In the tech-heavy cities like Melbourne, Sydney, and Adelaide, Engineering Managers are hot in demand; often found leading high-performing software development teams through scale, complexity, and tight release schedules.

From building scalable platforms to leading team restructures during hypergrowth, top Engineering Managers possess a combination of deep systems thinking, strong communication skills, and a solid understanding of CI/CD, DevOps culture, and tech debt trade-offs. Competence in soft skills like hiring and mentoring talent, leadership and handling restructures don’t hurt either.

4. Cloud Architect ($209k)

Crafting the foundation of everything-as-a-service, Cloud Architects are thriving and in demand in Sydney, Brisbane, and even fast-growing regional tech hubs like Newcastle. With businesses moving to cloud-native architectures, they’re key to everything from cost control to performance optimisation.

Laying the digital scaffolding as cloud adoption cements itself as the norm, Cloud Architect professionals are responsible for designing secure, scalable, multi-cloud/hybrid environments, often in tandem with DevOps teams and infrastructure engineers.

The top skillsets outlined in the latest job descriptions include AWS/Azure/GCP certifications, Infrastructure as Code (IAC), and informed in architecture design best practices.

3. Program Manager ($210k)

When a project is too big to be called a project, a Program Manager steps in. These seasoned professionals hold together entire portfolios of delivery, from digital transformations in telcos to product launches in SaaS or modernisation programs in government.

Organisations in Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth are aggressively searching for top Program Managers in 2025. Whether they’re to steer multi-year ERP implementations or coordinating cross-border Agile teams, they’re essential to delivery at scale.

Advantageous skills to stand out and step into the big leagues as a project manager include experience with Agile-at-scale (i.e. SAFe or LeSS), stakeholder communication, budget oversight, and the ability to effectively lead cross-functional teams.

2. Big Data Architect ($220k)

With data fuelling every decision from marketing to machine learning, Big Data Architects are where data meets design brilliance. Brisbane and Canberra are seeing a sharp rise in demand, particularly in industries like healthcare, defence, and logistics as they double down on AI-readiness.

This role involves architecting data lakes, designing ETL pipelines, and ensuring data governance in every facet of the system. Top candidates are fluent in Scala or Python and bring a point of view on data mesh and privacy-centric design.

1. Enterprise Architect ($231k)

Coming in at number one this year, Enterprise Architects are responsible for aligning technology ecosystems with strategic business outcomes. We predict Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra as the hiring hotspots for these specialists; top sectors being banking, telco, and government.

Whether it’s to orchestrate a full ERP migration, enable enterprise-wide agility, or untangle a decade of tech debt, in-demand Enterprise Architects possess TOGAF certification and are fluent in cloud platforms, stakeholder management, and have the ability to navigate complexity with ease.

Ready to aim higher?

If you’re a tech professional eyeing your next move, these roles represent the top of the pay curve. Each of these positions blend technical expertise with communication, planning, and a knack for seeing around corners. Curious what other soft skills could help you have that extra edge as a candidate? Check out the top 5 soft skills hiring managers are currently looking for.

Looking to make your next strategic career move? We’ve got opportunities that match your ambition. Explore open IT & tech jobs on our jobs board.

Interested in checking out other top salaries? Head to our More than Money Salary Guide 2025.

‘The ROI of AI in procurement isn’t always about speed or savings. It’s also about better decision-making, supplier transparency, and creating space for value-led work.’

The buzz around AI isn’t slowing down, and in the procurement space? It’s ramping up.

Last week, at Talent’s Future Trends for AI and technology event in our office in Melbourne, the room was full of procurement and professionals asking the same question: Where is AI taking our industry and how do we keep up?

With the expertise of APA Group’s Head of Procurement Excellence, Lexia Laracy, and Leader of Technology & Corporate Category Management, James Sharman, the session unpacked what’s happening on the ground right now, what’s failing, and where the biggest opportunities are.

1. AI is here but most are struggling to use it well

From forecasting and spend analytics to supplier risk and contract automation, AI is already weaving its way into procurement teams. But there’s a gap between what’s possible and what’s actually working.

“85% of AI projects in procurement fail.”

The reason? Not the tech but everything around it: unclear strategy, messy data, lack of governance, and resistance to change.

Executives are excited but often frustrated. They want transformation at speed, but pilots don’t scale, outcomes aren’t clear, and the data foundations just aren’t there.

APA’s take? The tools are only as good as the ecosystem they’re plugged into.

2. A human-centric, data led shift

Throughout the session, one key idea kept surfacing: AI is not replacing people, it’s reshaping roles.

With automation taking over admin-heavy tasks like invoicing or basic sourcing, procurement teams are shifting from “process runners” to strategic advisors, ESG partners, and relationship builders.

But that shift isn’t automatic. It demands new capability frameworks, role redesign, and a serious focus on bringing multi-generational teams along for the ride. Some procurement veterans fear being replaced. Digital natives are frustrated by the pace of change. Lexia and James stressed the importance of clear communication, active change management, and recognising the value all generations bring to AI adoption. Lexia and James stressed the importance of clear communication, active change management, and recognising the value all generations bring to AI adoption.

3. Procurement is uniquely positioned to lead AI adoption

One of the standout moments was when Lexia described procurement professionals as the connectors of the business.

Unlike siloed functions, procurement touches almost every corner; finance, legal, risk, sustainability, tech. This makes them a natural fit to lead AI adoption. But it also means the stakes are higher if things go wrong.

To avoid the common traps, APA and other leading teams are focusing on a few core areas:

• Governance first: Align AI with ethics, values and strategic risk tolerances.
• Data integrity: Poor data in = poor outcomes out. Procurement must own its data foundations.
• Process documentation: AI can’t optimise what it doesn’t understand. Every manual workaround is a future barrier.
• Use case prioritisation: Start with what matters, risk, cost, ESG, efficiency and build from there.

4. Rethinking ROI: It’s not just about speed

The ROI of AI in procurement isn’t always about speed or savings. It’s also about better decision-making, supplier transparency, and creating space for value-led work.

Tools like predictive supply chains, generative tender creation, and supplier risk scoring are just the beginning. APA highlighted the value of focusing not only on technology ROI, but also on people ROI, freeing up skilled procurement talent to do the high-impact work they were hired for.

And while off-the-shelf solutions can look shiny, the panel reminded us that customisation isn’t always the goal. Standardisation and usability are what drive adoption at scale.

Key takeaways

1. Don’t get distracted by the hype. Focus on data, governance, and change management before chasing shiny tools.
2. AI is a capability amplifier, not a magic fix. It works best when it complements human expertise.
3. Procurement has a chance to lead. With their cross-functional influence, procurement professionals are well-placed to drive meaningful AI adoption.
4. Every organisation is on a different journey. Whether you’re in firefighting mode or thinking digital twins, the key is progress over perfection.

“We don’t want to be the 85% that fail. Let’s build systems and teams that give AI something meaningful to work with.”

Looking to implement AI into your business strategy?
Learn more here or get in contact with us if you’d like to discuss any of this further here.

The pandemic didn’t just change where we work, it shifted how we think about work altogether. Dining tables and spare bedrooms became our offices, Gen Z entered the workforce with fresh expectations, and a booming tech market sent salaries soaring. With remote work removing geographic barriers, job-hopping became more common and, in some circles, more accepted. But as employees embraced flexibility and opportunity, employers started to question the growing trend of short tenures. For some, it’s a sign of agility and ambition. For others, it’s a red flag.

To unpack both sides of the debate, we sat down with some of our recruitment experts to hear their take: Is short tenure a problem or simply the new normal?

Short tenure isn’t a bad thing

Georgia Townsend, a Candidate Manager at Talent who has worked with tech and digital candidates, argues that short tenure isn’t necessarily a red flag especially in today’s evolving workforce. She sees career movement as a strategic way for candidates, particularly younger generations, to accelerate growth.

“There are real advantages to moving roles more frequently,” Georgia says. “For candidates, short tenure can mean faster career progression, better pay, and broader exposure across industries and tech stacks.” She explains that staying too long in one company can sometimes slow down advancement, especially in fields like data and AI where hands-on experience with emerging tools is critical and often only gained through diverse, fast-paced environments.

Georgia also points out that the rise of remote and hybrid work has reshaped how people engage with companies. “Gen Z, for instance, entered the workforce just before or during COVID. Many haven’t had the chance to build strong in-person connections or feel a strong sense of loyalty to one employer,” she explains. “If companies haven’t nailed the ‘stickiness’ of culture in remote settings, you can’t blame young talent for moving on.” According to Yahoo Finance, Gen Z workers typically stay in a job for approximately 2 years and 3 months which is shorter than Millennials and significantly less than Gen X and Baby Boomers.

She believes employers need to consider the context. “Short stints shouldn’t be immediately disqualifying. Was it a toxic environment? A mismatch of values? A candidate with a few short roles but strong reasons and good reflection can still bring a lot of value.”

Georgia also highlights that short tenure can offer breadth of experience that longer stints might not. “Someone who’s worked in multiple environments might not have depth in one area, but they’ll have seen different ways of working and bring a broader toolkit to the table.”

Long tenure is best

Dylan Cohen, Director – Microsoft & Cloud Solutions, at Talent New York, who has been in the recruitment industry for nearly a decade, takes a more traditional stance, especially from the perspective of clients making long-term hiring decisions. As a recruiter who often works with consulting firms and high-stakes placements, he believes short tenure can – and often should – raise red flags.

“When I see four jobs in six years, I pause,” Dylan says. “Clients pay us a premium to find stable, long-term hires. They’re not going to shell out thousands in fees for someone who looks likely to leave in 12 months.”

He acknowledges that in early careers, especially post-COVID, some movement is expected. But past a certain point, he argues, repeated short stints can indicate a lack of depth. “A candidate may have breadth, but if they’ve never stayed long enough to see a project through or take on leadership responsibilities, it’s hard to judge their impact.”

Dylan also points out the salary inflation that short tenure can drive. “Candidates who hop around often demand more money with each move, but they’re not always bringing the seniority or experience to match. Some clients just won’t pay someone $130K because they had two short gigs – they want to see consistency and growth.”

Ultimately, short tenure should always come with an explanation. “COVID and economic disruptions are valid reasons. But if it’s a consistent pattern without context, it’s risky – for us as recruiters, and for our clients.”

Does location matter?

Dylan argues that whether short tenure is a red flag depends significantly on regional and industry contexts. He explains that in areas with more job opportunities, such as New York, short tenure may not be as concerning because of the fast-paced, high-risk, high-reward environment. “In places like New York, if someone has moved between companies every two to three years, it’s not that uncommon because the volume of opportunity is so high,” Dylan notes.

He believes the industry also plays a crucial role. For example, in sectors like sales, moving every 12 to 18 months is a red flag, but in software engineering, where projects may last several years, shorter stints may be more acceptable. Dylan also points out that the ability to explain why someone left a job can make a significant difference. “If someone can explain that they left because they outgrew the role or the company wasn’t able to provide new challenges, it helps.”

Georgia emphasizes that geographic location can influence how short tenure is viewed. For instance, in other markets, three years may seem like a relatively short tenure because of the slower pace of local industries. However, in cities with more dynamic job markets, such as New York or London, shorter tenures may be more acceptable. “In places like New York, three years in a role might be the norm before a person moves on for better opportunities,” Georgia explains. “In other markets, though, it could be more of a six-year game.”

She suggests that employers in regions with fewer job opportunities may be more inclined to view candidates with shorter tenures as flight risks, whereas in global hubs with constant industry shifts, the perspective on tenure might be different. Additionally, she highlights that even within a region, industries like mining, where growth is slower but more structured, may not align with candidates who are used to more fast-paced work environments.

Dylan’s final thoughts:

“I think the key takeaway here is that the answer depends on the industry and region. In my market, for example, I’d love a candidate with three jobs over 10 years who can speak specifically about migration projects. However, in other markets, that might not work. Long tenure typically signals loyalty, commitment, and the ability to see a project through, but it doesn’t always equate to experience across different job functions. Someone with long tenure in an end-user role might not be suitable for consulting clients because they’ve only seen one way of doing things. So, longer tenure is often better, but not always. It’s important to remember that more tenure doesn’t necessarily mean more diverse experience.”

Georgia’s final thoughts:

“The real debate comes down to what clients want out of a role. For example, in a complete transformation, you wouldn’t hire someone who’s been at one company for seven years, because they’ve only seen things done one way. That’s where someone with three jobs in six years might be favored. I agree that less than 12 months in a role is a red flag, and having multiple stints under 12 months is also concerning. But in rapidly changing industries like data, AI, or coding, the shorter learning curves and evolving technology challenge traditional thinking about tenure.”

With the election fast approaching, the debates in full swing, and the Democracy Sausages getting ready to be devoured on 3^rd May, the next few weeks will be interesting to say the least as the Australian public hears from both leaders on what their policies will be if they’re to be elected. Cost of living, energy, health, and the economy will be big points of discussion.

So, Dutton vs Albanese, who will come out on top? We wanted to break down who stands for what and get our leaders’ insights. Let’s get into it.

The economy

Wages grew 0.7% in the December quarter, the slowest quarterly rate since March 2022, bringing annual wages growth to 3.2%. Unemployment remained flat at 4.1% in February. Both parties are facing extreme pressure on interest rates, cost of living and now we’re seeing the impact of the Trump government.

Matthew Munson, Managing Director, Talent Sydney, said, “It is hard to see that either party will have the ability to impact the economy with the global situation. Donald Trump is leading economic disruption and uncertainty globally; it would be a brave person to predict what he is going to do next. The way the other large economies react, primarily China and the EU will also define the impact to Australia. It is hard to see what Dutton or Albanese will be able to do to influence the economy, other than to try and react as best as they can. The Australian economy is intricately linked to Chinese demand for minerals, if they react by increasing economic stimulus, that could be a good thing. However, there is also a good chance we could be pulled into a global recession.

“Comparing the parties proposed economic policies for the election, neither appears to have a compelling advantage. The Labor party have proposed a small tax break, which is hard to see having much of an impact on voters. The Coalition has proposed changes to energy policy, centered around nuclear, which is a long term plan also unlikely to have an impact on the election. In response to Labor’s small tax cut, the Coalition are proposing a fuel excise tax break to assist with cost-of-living pressures.

“Our best prediction would be that unemployment will increase this year, particularly if we enter a recession. However, we expect technology hiring to remain flat or even to increase, after two years of reductions.”

Work from home

It has been an interesting few weeks when it comes to flexible work policies. The Coalition’s stance on scrapping working from home privileges for public servants has been quite firm, however only this week they’ve done a complete backflip due to the huge backlash. About 365,400 people work for a federal government agency, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This includes the departments of finance, health, and defence force personnel.

The most recent Australian Public Service (APS) survey showed 61% of public servants worked away from the office at least “some of the time” in 2024.

Labor has been against this policy for public servants with the Labor government publishing analysis claiming that job-sharing would force women to abandon flexible full-time work and scale back to part-time hours, reducing their salaries by up to $740 a week.

The Coalition has also clarified that it will not force any redundancies across the APS. Instead, the party estimates it will reduce the public service by 41,000 over five years through a hiring freeze and natural attrition

Simon Yeung, Managing Director, Talent Melbourne, said, “Despite some high profile local and international return to office mandates, the share of Australian job ads offering WFH has declined slightly since its peak in 2023. Over 50% of workers would ideally like to work from home 2 or more days a week. Industries with limited and decrease WFH opportunities are customer focused roles like Trade & Services, Sales, Retail, and hospitality. If you are hiring, it’s important to offer flexibility.

“Job seekers have had an increased focus on work-life balance with many considering WFH as an important contributor to achieving it. Offering hybrid and flexible working has become one that businesses can compete for talent. WFH/Hybrid working is here to stay no matter who wins the election, evident with the Coalition’s backflip on their decision.”

Cost of living & wages

As part of Labor’s policy to help tackle the cost of living, they’ll be pushing for an increase to the minimum wage as part of an independent annual wage review. The Coalition Leader said in response, “We support wage increases”, without sharing an amount.

The Coalition has put forward a 50% fuel excise. The Albanese government has been asked if they would be open to this policy however, they felt the Coalition would only have it as a “temporary” measure which would disappear after 12 months.

Labor has announced it will create a $1000 instant tax deduction for work-related expenses, so people don’t need to submit receipts up to that amount in their tax returns.

Steve Jobson, Account Director, Talent Canberra, said, “Cost of living will be a defining issue in the upcoming election, with both major parties offering different approaches to relief. Labor’s commitment for a minimum wage increase shows a long-term strategy to support low-income earners, whereas the Coalition’s proposed fuel excise cut offers short-term relief at the bowser. Australians might question the sustainability and impact of temporary measures versus structural wage reform. Ultimately, trust in economic management and cost-of-living relief could sway undecided voters.”

Energy

Energy has been a leading topic for the election campaign. There was a great amount of time spent discussing this in the first debate.

The Coalition is holding firm on their plans for nuclear power and gas; however, the Albanese government has slammed it over the cost, timing and detail. Albanese was quoted saying, “The only gas policy that the Coalition has is the gaslighting of the Australian public.”

Dutton’s stance is that the nuclear and gas policy will deliver cheaper power bills with flow-on effects economy-wide.

Steve Jobson, Account Director, Talent Canberra, said, “Energy policy is also shaping up to be a major issue, with clear ideological and practical divides between the two parties. The Coalition’s push for nuclear power plants and an increase in gas reserves allocated for Australians, focuses on long-term infrastructure and energy independence, however questions remain around cost and implementation timelines. Australians will most likely weigh the promise of future savings against the urgency of current energy affordability and climate commitments.”

Health

The first debate touched heavily on healthcare with both parties promising increased investment with a focus on mental health.

Labor has announced it would roll out $1 billion to boost mental health services around Australia starting in January 2026, mostly building on existing programs and centres.

The Coalition’s key policy has been to permanently double the number of subsidised mental health sessions from 10 to 20, which was the number offered during the pandemic. Similarly to Labor, it has also committed to extra headspace sites.

Matthew Munson, Managing Director, Talent Sydney, said, “Health is an area where Labor looks to have a clear advantage. The party has a number of proposed policies; including an $8.5 billion investment in Medicare increasing bulk-billing GP capacity, $1 billion to expand mental health services, a 15% wage increase for aged care workers and a reduction in cost of PBS medications by 29%. Labor is also looking to invest significantly in technology projects. Major investments include upgrades to digital health records, aged care ICT systems, and telehealth platforms. The aim is to modernise services, improve patient outcomes, and enhance data security across the sector.

“The Coalition are yet to announce any proposed policy changes related to health other than a $400 increase for youth mental health services.

“Labor’s planned technology projects in the space would create jobs and further investment in the sector.”

Final thoughts

As we await to find out how Australia will vote, one thing is clear, the hiring market will react to whichever way it swings. The cost of living is a defining issue, and global affairs are putting a spotlight on the economy.

Steve Jobson, Account Director, Talent Canberra, reflected, “As the election draws closer, Australians are faced with a choice between two distinct visions for the nation. Labor is positioning itself as the party of structural reform, with investments in health, mental health, and wage growth, alongside a commitment to flexible working and public service stability. Their investment in Medicare, Aged Care, and digital health infrastructure signals a future-focused approach aimed at long-term service delivery and job creation.  In contrast, the Coalition has focused on cost-of-living relief through temporary measures such as a fuel excise cut and proposed structural change via energy reform cantered around nuclear power. The Liberal Party also plans to reduce the size of the APS by 41,000 people over five years through a hiring freeze and natural attrition, whilst so far ruling out forced redundancies.

“Neither party appears to have a silver bullet when it comes to steering the economy through rising global uncertainty, with Donald Trump and shifting Chinese demand looming large. What may tip the scales are domestic issues where Australians feel an immediate impact—cost of living, healthcare, and workplace flexibility. Labor’s advantage maybe in clearer policy detail and a perceived alignment with everyday pressures, while the Coalition will need to convince us that its long-term strategies can deliver real change. The next three weeks will test each leader’s ability to cut through complexity and connect with a population eager for stability and relief.”