Big step back to classroom

Q: How easy is it to switch from the commercial world into academia?

I have a good University of Auckland BCom (seven years ago) and work in finance. One of my cousins is an academic (in another field) and I'm tempted by the thought of working in a university.

What do you have to consider to make the change, or is the switch from commerce to academia rather rarer than the other way around? Sometimes the two worlds seem to be completely separate.

A: Dr Marie Wilson is associate professor of management at the University of Auckland, research director of the ICEHOUSE business accelerator and a veteran of 20 years in corporate management and small business.

The two worlds aren't separate, but they do require different commitments and have different criteria for entry and advancement. Working in a university will require a further four to seven years of postgraduate study beyond your BCom, and then teaching and research skills to work in the university environment.

These are skills that may not have been developed in your current employment.

Your business experience will be very valuable for your university career, however, both for bringing topics to life in the classroom and in explaining research to practitioners.

But this is a major career transition and you should be very sure before you make such a move.

You are talking about going back to a nominal student income for many years, and even though you have experience, you will still be starting near the bottom of your new career. If it helps, however, finance academics are highly sought after all over the globe, so your career opportunities will be very robust if that is the choice that you make.

Some time ago I sent you a question related to job applications and "relevant New Zealand experience" which you answered quite fully in your column.

Now, because I confess to being somewhat phobic about this matter, I send a further question on this topic. My question is: Why do Australian employers never seem to require "relevant Australian experience" as an essential selection criterion, whereas New Zealand employers almost invariably seem to use "relevant New Zealand experience" to exclude immigrant applicants?

I recently found myself, for the first time in my life, as a member of a job-selection committee vetting 13 job applications for a particular position in the Northern Territory Public Service (whose multiculturalism and openness to immigrants is impeccable).

The chairperson of the selection committee was a born-and-bred Australian, the second member of the committee was an immigrant from Mauritius and the third member was myself, an immigrant from New Zealand. At no time in our deliberations did we use lack of Australian experience to remove an applicant from consideration.

I surmise that had we been a selection committee in the New Zealand public service, we would have removed at first perusal all those applicants who lacked relevant New Zealand experience.



I've looked through the last month of "help wanted" advertisements in the largest newspapers in Australia and New Zealand without finding the requirements for relevant New Zealand (or Australian) experience in any of them.

As I noted in prior replies, there are occasions when knowledge of local practice can be important to an employer, particularly if legal issues are involved or where certification or licensing cannot establish equivalence of practice.

I have also noted, in prior columns, that such statements may be used to disguise discriminatory practices, and I do not doubt that job-seekers may encounter this in many labour markets, due to any combination of factors that are illegal as a basis of decision-making - for example, age, gender or ethnicity.

Certainly, most analyses of the labour market do not suggest that access is equal for all. But given the diversity of the New Zealand public sector, I find it difficult to believe that there is an initial screening on New Zealand experience for posts.

The specifications for jobs and hiring procedures appear of a very high standard, and New Zealand has broader anti-discrimination laws than Australia.

I know from your prior correspondence that you are very happy that you moved to Australia, which you feel is much more open to hiring immigrants than New Zealand.

It is very difficult to make direct comparisons, however, when there are such substantial differences in the supply and demand for labour in the two countries, and where there are major differences in size that affect the difficulty of gaining professional employment.

If there are 10 jobs of a certain type in Auckland, there may be 10 to 20 times that many in Melbourne or Sydney, which increases the options to quickly find a position.

In more remote areas of Australia (and New Zealand) there are fewer applicants to choose from, which can advantage those who are already there or prepared to move. If you have moved from Auckland or Wellington to the Northern Territory you are not comparing apples with apples.

I can understand your phobia. Much discrimination is based on unfair stereotyping, which can only be broken down by positive experiences, not looking for evidence that constantly reinforces your own negative experiences.

* Send your questions to: julie_middleton@nzherald.co.nz