Millennials Struggle To Make It Past The Crucial 90-day Mark When Starting A New Job

This morning, I read this article titled; Millennials struggle to make it past the crucial 90-day mark when starting a new job. It made for an interesting read and, as a business owner recruiting predominately within business support, a large proportion of our roles sit under the $60,000 salary range, meaning we are often engaging with millennials for our recruitment processes.


Cost of millennial turnover


In the article, they say that according to Deloitte, millennials will make up 75% of the global workforce by 2025, but data shows this cohort have a much higher churn rate — and it’s costing Australian businesses money.


In 2015, PwC estimated staff turnover in the first 12 months was costing Australian businesses $3.8 billion in lost productivity and $385 million in avoidable recruitment costs.


The first 90 days


“Typically, one in four people will turn over in the first three months, either voluntarily or involuntarily,” said Mr Weiss, founder of HR firm CareerSupport365 and author of So You Got the Job, WTF is Next?


“The first three months of anybody’s employment are fraught with risks on both sides,” he said. “Often companies’ recruitment processes are at fault, on the employee side it may be that they didn’t understand what the company was wanting or have oversold themselves.”


Effective onboarding


It is true that, in our experience, the onboarding process can be crucial in terms of employee engagement and we have recently written about what you can do to improve this experience.


One of the main takeaways for me from this article is the importance of getting the hiring process right.


Here at Lotus People, we have a dedicated candidate management team, headed up by Sham Hassan, and Sham and her team are hyper aware of assessing softer skills throughout the recruitment process; diligence, responsiveness, enthusiasm, genuine commitment and interest, and most importantly understanding who is right for what environment.


We do this in a number of ways;


  • Thorough phone screening


  • Asking for skills testing to be completed within a certain timeframe


  • In depth interviewing including behavioural based interviews


  • Delving into why this job rather than any other job


  • Asking for a communicative and responsive approach throughout the process


Recruitment metrics


At Lotus, we pride ourselves on our above industry standard metrics. We have filled over 80% of all permanent jobs listed in the last six months and pride ourselves on ability to assess and understand culture and fit for long term successful hires. In the last 6 months at Lotus People, we have placed over 50 people in permanent roles and only 5 of these people have left within the first 90 days, meaning Lotus People are sitting 15% lower than the National standard.


As well as running a thorough consultative recruitment process, Lotus partners with our clients throughout the first 90 days, supporting with the induction, initiating feedback meetings and acting as an additional resource to all of our clients.

With millennials making up over 75% of the workforce in 2025, employers will need to understand how to engage, retain and keep this new generation of workers.


Get in touch today to speak to a consultant at Lotus People; 02 8274 4635.

You may also like...

March 5, 2026
A conversation with Hayley Martin, Executive Search Practice Lead at Lotus People As Lotus People formally launches its Executive Search practice, we sat down with Hayley Martin to talk about what separates a great senior hire from a costly one, what mid-market businesses consistently get wrong, and why she chose to build this here . 
March 5, 2026
A natural next step for Lotus People - Lotus Executive Search , an organic evolution of work we've been doing for years, now delivered with the rigour, discretion, and partnership it deserves.  Leading this practice is Hayley Martin who brings over 20 years of executive search experience, including deep expertise in the not-for-profit sector, membership organisations, and corporate leadership appointments
By Michelle Barrett February 25, 2026
In the ever-evolving world of talent acquisition, reference checks remain a standard practice. However, I've recently asked my network a question: Is bringing two candidates to the reference check stage a fair and ethical practice? The overwhelming consensus from HR professionals, recruiters, and hiring managers is a resounding no . While companies might justify this approach to ensure they make the best hiring decision, the practice has significant drawbacks. The Candidate’s Perspective: False Hope and Strained Relationships For candidates, reference checks often represent the final hurdle before an offer. Being asked to provide references is a hopeful moment—only to discover later that they were simply a “backup” candidate. This leads to: False hope : The process feels misleading if references are strong, but the candidate still doesn’t secure the role due to a small deciding factor. Professional risk : Candidates hesitate to repeatedly ask the same referees for endorsements, fearing it may strain professional relationships or cast doubt on their credibility. Frustration and wasted time : Candidates invest considerable effort in securing references, only to walk away empty-handed. The Referee’s Burden: A Drain on Time and Goodwill Reference checks aren’t just a candidate inconvenience; they also affect referees—often senior professionals taking time out of their busy schedules. Many commenters noted: Referees have limited patience: If a former manager is repeatedly asked for references for the same person without a job offer, they may be reluctant to vouch for them in the future. - A one-sided burden : The hiring company benefits from this additional insight, but referees get little in return other than expecting a favour. The Hiring Manager’s Responsibility: Why This Practice Undermines Decision-Making Some employers argue that reference checks help finalise a tough decision between two equally qualified candidates. However, many experts push back against this rationale: Hiring decisions should be based on direct assessment, not external opinion : As one commenter put it, “You should never put the decision of who best to hire in the hands of someone you don’t know and doesn’t work for your business.” Reference checks are not selection tools : Traditionally, references are a due diligence step , not a deciding factor between multiple candidates. It’s an outdated practice : With many companies now limiting references to basic employment verification, the value of this process is already diminished. So, What’s the Alternative? If reference checks shouldn’t be used to choose between candidates, how should they be utilised?
More Posts