What Gen Z actually want in the workplace: Amber Clignett's News Feature!

While some Gen Z work trends, such as Bare Minimum Mondays have been slammed, this list of wants and needs should have bosses taking note.


Generation Z – the cohort born between 1996 and 2012 – are not just the CEOs of the future, they’re today’s graduates and young professionals, with the oldest among them now approaching their late 20s.


And according to HR software company Employment Hero’s Gen Z In The Workplace report, they’re changing the landscape with a new way of viewing work, life, and the way the two interplay.


While 67 per cent of the cohort overall reported feeling dissatisfied in their jobs, that number reduced to 54 per cent in the 20-24-year-old age group, suggesting that teething problems may smooth out as they grow older and find a job to suit their needs. Still, 49 per cent of respondents revealed they plan to leave their job in the next year, with a whopping 75 per cent hoping to move on in the next two.


So, if it isn’t a lifelong career in the same place (which, let’s face it, hasn’t been the goal for some time now), what are Gen Z looking for in a job?


Mental health is paramount


Mental health is front and centre in terms of priorities for Gen Z employees, 75 per cent of whom told Employment Hero they expected their workplace to offer some form of mental health support, such as an Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Positive work culture and access to mental health days were also high on the list.


Amber Clignett, recruitment consultant at award-winning HR and office support recruitment company Lotus People, says there is a misconception that Gen Z are unable to receive feedback, and that one of the ways in which employers are shifting to embrace Gen Z ideals is to improve their feedback mechanisms.


“Employers are adopting open communication channels to engage with employees from the new generation,” explains Clignett, herself a member of Gen Z. “They value transparent and constructive feedback, provide opportunities for two-way communication, and listen to the voices and ideas of their workforce.”


Flexibility and balance


While pandemic-induced remote working heralded a revolution of sorts for ageing Millennials and members of Gen X either caring for young families or sandwiched between kids and ageing parents, it’s not solely for the family-focused.


Gen Z, explains Clignett, value the same things as their older counterparts – because they’re universally beneficial.

“I think the gap between generations and their ‘wants’ is being closed faster than we think due to the new standards of working and what people have access to,” she says.


“While in the past there may have been more specific criteria in what different demographics seek – the increased accessibility to information and the rise of remote work/ flexible arrangements has made work-life balance and flexibility important to all generations.”



Feature from news.com.au/

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