Why keeping your employees happy regarding workplace flexibility should be top priority for 2022

Having kicked off our newsletter covering topics such as tackling the great resignation and tips on how to level up your employer brand and, most recently, tips to minimise turnover, this is the fourth instalment where Lotus People guide you on creating the best talent strategy for 2022.


To find out more about what you can to do position yourself for success this year, join our upcoming webinar on talent strategies for 2022; how to attract and retain your best people. I’ll be joined by Kate Jolly from rapidly growing tech business, Employment Hero, and we’ll be speaking about the market and the changes we’re seeing from both an internal talent and external agency perspective.


This week, I’m going to be touching on a much debated topic – the work life balance/ hybrid blend and the importance of flexibility at work.


Any of the data I’ve read shows that most employees want to continue with some time working from home every week post-pandemic. There is no hard and fast solution to this issue, with a number of considerations; business needs, employee mental health, impact of isolation whilst working from home, importance of community and connection gained through working in an office and much more. But the data supports the fact that when attracting the best talent, a favourable WFH policy is going to be crucial for businesses.


According to LinkedIn data, employees satisfied with their organisation’s flexibility are:


  • 3.4 times more likely to successfully balance work and personal obligations 
  • 2.6 times more likely to be happy working for their employer 
  • 2.1 times more likely to recommend working for their employer 


Just yesterday I spoke with a business who is asking their team to come in to the office four days a week. They are hiring a key role for the business and told me that they have had their last three offers rejected, with countless candidates dropping out of the interview process, leaving them frustrated and fatigued by recruitment.

After a bit of digging, I found out that the leadership team don’t like managing people from a distance and really prefer that their employees are physically in the office.

This is a story we hear often, employers requesting employees return to an almost pre-COVID way of working and most of the time it’s because of lack of trust, lack of tech adoption and a frustration with the “new way of working”. Anecdotally, most of the candidates we speak to daily are seeking a new role because their organisation hasn’t adopted a flexibility policy that aligns with their preferences.


It’s a very different world of work but is an important consideration for 2022 and one that the Lotus People team get asked about daily and whilst every business will have a different approach, I do know that companies who do not adjust their flexible policies to reflect the new way of working risk being left behind in 2022, in what is a job-seekers market.


Find out more about how to keep up with the ever-changing recruitment industry by following our newsletter, blogs, and reaching out to info@lotuspeople.com.au for a copy of our talent strategy guide this 2022.

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