Lotus People and Stepping Stone House – 46km Challenge

At Lotus People, we believe in taking steps – not just in our recruitment efforts, but also in making a difference in the community.


On May 10th, some members of our team took on a big challenge of walking 46kms in one day for Stepping Stone House, an organisation dedicated to reducing youth homelessness rates in Australia. With every step, we aimed to raise awareness and funds for the growing number of young people experiencing homelessness in the country. 

The statistics are staggering, nearly 46,000 individuals under the age of 25 are currently homeless or at risk of homelessness. Stepping Stone House works tirelessly to provide essential care, accommodation, and development opportunities to these vulnerable youth – and for over 6 years, we at Lotus People have proudly supported their cause, recognising the importance of this mission. 

To show support, our team took part in the Step by Step May challenge by walking a total of 46kms in 10 hours, taking over 57,000 steps. But our commitment didn’t stop at walking – we also set a fundraising goal of $4,000 as a team, for a profound impact. It can provide essential school supplies for eight young people for an entire year or cover 47 weeks of groceries for a young person in residential care. Every dollar goes towards Stepping Stone House’s goal of eliminating youth homelessness in Australia. 


We extend our gratitude to Stepping Stone House for their mission, as well as to everyone who supported our team on this journey, whether through donations, words of encouragement, or simply by spreading the word about the challenge! 

Your support makes a real difference in the lives of vulnerable young people, offering them hope and opportunity where it’s needed most. 

And for those who still wish to get involved, it’s not too late! Step by Step: The 46km Challenge continues throughout May, offering everyone the chance to make a difference in their own way. 


You can also help us reach out goal by clicking below. Together, let’s continue to step up to help those in need! 

Donate Now

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