Not Just About The Money

Millennials often get a bad rap; entitled, narcissistic and non-committal are words frequently thrown around in articles about the demographic cohort. In the workplace, there is definitely a trend for millennials to job-hop more frequently than their generational predecessors with a lack of engagement in the workplace often being cited as the reason for their jumpy CVs. In an ever-changing economic climate job security and a steady pay increase isn’t going to keep employees loyal like it used to. So, what does motivate millennials in the workplace and is unlocking this the key to reducing employee turnover?


I recently came across this article on Pulse by Chester Elton and Adrian Gostick titled ‘How making a difference in the world reduces employee turnover’. The article states the number one work motivator for Millennials is making an impact. We are more connected to the rest of the world than ever before and understand that our actions can and do have global impacts. Whether or not ‘making a difference’ is purely for self-gratification, being part of a company that contributes to the greater good has been found to increase employee engagement resulting in a decrease in turnover. The article focuses on a retail mobile company that has been able to reduce their turnover by involving their employees first hand in corporate social responsibility initiatives.


Whilst it is all well and good for employees to know their company makes donations every now and then it isn’t likely to create employee engagement. At Lotus every quarter we pick a charity to donate to as well as choose an initiative where we can donate our time. So far, we have volunteered at The Guide Dog Association and Ozharvest to assist in building new facilities and cooking meals for shelters. For me personally it is a great feeling knowing the company you work for shares your values and that my workplace offers me the opportunity to give back to my community.


Whilst not every business will be able to put a CSR initiative in place like the one discussed in this article, it is definitely good food for thought on how your company can make a difference to the community and in turn, increase employee engagement.

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