My take on millennial’s in the workplace – Maritza Godinez

There has been a lot of criticism and debate about millennials in the workforce recently. To clarify, a millennial is anyone who is born between the ages of 1981 and 1997 and we are soon going to make up the majority of the workforce in the world. We have been referred to as the “Peter Pan” generation, refusing to grow up and take on responsibilities like getting a mortgage, getting married, having children or even working towards a career plan. We are a generation with more tertiary education than ever before… along with more debt. Older generations call us lazy, entitled and glued to our smartphones. I believe we are just different and we crave a life beyond a desk and a retirement plan. At end of the day we aren’t afraid to talk about our wants and needs because technology has given us a platform and the confidence to do so. In this article I’d like to highlight what I think is important to my generation as they enter the workplace – this is based on my own experience as a recruiter and a millennial.


Purpose


Millennials don’t want to come to work, put in the bare minimum and wait for the clock to hit 5:00pm to dash out. We approach a new role and a company with a highly defined set of expectations, wanting our work to have meaning and purpose. We want to develop our talents and strengths to do our best every day. Finally, we want to find a job that we are passionate about and gives us pride to be apart of.


Perks, Pay & Flexibility


Millennials are not just looking to hop around jobs for the experience, we want a pay rise to come with it. Additionally, we strongly value benefits and perks that offer greater flexibility, autonomy and the ability to lead a better life. Free lunches, onsite gyms and pet-friendly offices are examples of perks that would make us happier, healthier and better workers.


Management & Culture


Millennials want to work in an environment that is comfortable and safe, not oppressive and critical. We prefer to collaborate than compete with our peers and employee engagement in the office allows us to create the types of friendships we thrive on. When it comes to management, we crave mentorship rather than dictatorship from those on top. We respect leaders with integrity who can coach us to become our best selves.


I look at resumes all day long and I can tell you from experience that my generation is not afraid to change jobs. Many consider this “jumping around” as bad thing, but perhaps millennials are just confident enough in their ability to find something better.


They don’t want to settle or feel trapped in a life that was chosen for them. They crave a purpose, a challenge, a positive company culture, and the right leadership to help them reach new heights in their careers. In our hyper-competitive environment, millennials are natural innovators and they’re popping up with new ideas everywhere. Their confidence makes them not afraid to step up and show their leadership skills. Finally, millennials have a lot to offer – they’re tech-savvy, socially conscious, and despite remarks about their work ethic, this generation does believe in hard work! Employers should welcome the influx of millennials into their ranks because they are likely to change business for the better.



Written by Maritza Godinez – Temporary Consultant

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