Season 2 Episode 8: On social change, why diversity and inclusion is a crucial brand differentiator and doing business with heart with Lyndal Hamwood

When Work Isn't Work: Season 2, Episode 8

This episode is a must-listen for any employees or employers wanting to learn more about what they can do to create a diverse, inclusive, and engaged workforce. 

Lyndal Hamwood is the founder of (ide)ate studio, a DEI consultancy working with businesses to embrace diversity and different perspectives in order to drive inclusion and business growth. Lyndal is passionate about social change, collective intelligence and she and I speak about how small steps result in moving the needle, what she does to remain optimistic in a challenging, often unjust area of work and about the importance of the next generation in driving change. 

This is a fantastic podcast with a passionate, committed change-marker and I am so excited for everyone to listen. 


Follow Lyndal Hamwood below

- Lyndal's LinkedIn
-
(ide)ate Studio's LinkedIn
-
(ide)ate Studio Website


--


If you'd like to get in touch, email us at whenworkisntwork@lotuspeople.com.au.


This podcast is hosted by SEEK's Recruitment Leader of the Year, Sinead Connolly. The podcast is sponsored by award-winning recruitment agency, Lotus People. For more information about Lotus People, visit lotuspeople.com.au or follow us on Lotus People's LinkedIn page or on Sinead's LinkedIn page.


- Lotus People LinkedIn
-
Sinead Connolly's LinkedIn


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