Special Episode: AI & Human Skills Shaping The Future Of Work LIVE

People First: A Lotus People Podcast

Special Episode: AI & Human Skills Shaping The Future Of Work LIVE

In this special bonus episode of People First, we’re bringing you a live recording from our recent panel event: AI and the Human Skills Shaping the Future of Work.


Hosted by Lotus People’s Amy Locke, this episode features an honest, forward-thinking conversation with:

  • Lucy Wilson, Chief People & Culture Officer at Gumtree Group
  • Claritta Peters, Chief People Officer at Fishbowl
  • Nick Denison, Client Principal at Mantel Group


As AI becomes embedded across recruitment, HR, customer experience and more, this panel explores how businesses can stay ahead — without losing the human edge.


We cover:

  • How AI is reshaping business functions across industries
  • The evolving role of soft skills like empathy, adaptability and communication in 2025
  • Practical advice for hiring, developing and retaining talent in a tech-driven world
  • Where to strike the balance between automation and human connection
  • Why people – not just processes – remain your greatest competitive edge


Whether you joined us in person or you’re catching the conversation for the first time, this episode will leave you inspired to lead with humanity in a digital age.


Have feedback or want to get in touch? Email us at info@lotuspeople.com.au


Learn more about Lotus People at lotuspeople.com.au or find us on LinkedIn at Lotus People.


SPOTIFY


APPLE MUSIC


BUZZSPROUT

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