Reviewing our Summit: The Laws of Attraction… and Retention – Employers of Choice Panel

Reaching five years in business is a milestone worth celebrating!


With our usual methods of celebration out of the question, we thought outside of the box and decided to dedicate an entire day to the celebration; an online virtual summit to be delivered in four sessions. Featuring a number of friends of the business, and powerhouses in their own rights, we sought to give back to our amazing clients and candidates who have supported us over the last five years by providing completely free, insightful, and topical content, all whilst supporting our charity partner, Stepping Stone House.


The Laws of Attraction… and Retention – Employers of Choice Panel


The first session of the day was a conversation with leaders of businesses that have found success and prestige by placing culture and employee experience at the forefront of their talent acquisition and retention strategies. Moderated by Co-Founder and Director of Lotus People, Sinead Connolly, The Laws of Attraction… and Retention – Employers of Choice Panel featured Head of HR at Cisco, James Comer, Chief of Staff at Google, Stephanie Borgman, and Zrinka Lovrencic, the Managing Director at Great Place to Work Australia. 


We are so thankful for each panelist for participating in an open dialogue about why trust is fundamentally the core of any great culture, how businesses of any size can develop a rock solid employer brand and why every person in a business should see culture as their responsibility. See our key takeaways below.

 

  1. People are the true foundation of culture – culture is anchored in trust between employees, leaders and companies, and it is not static. 
  2. It is important to make many of the implicit expectations that exist between people and their organisation, explicit.
  3. Looking after employees mental health moving forward is going to have to become a standard, everyday thing that happens in an organisation. 
  4. Everybody, leader or individual, has exactly the same amount of ‘coping with a pandemic’ experience – it is important that leaders share their wrinkles and their flaws so that when their people come to them, they feel comfortable and safe.
  5. The most important ingredient in culture is hiring; hiring should be treated as a privilege. 
  6. The lockdown period actually provided organisations with an opportunity to be honest with their employees and keep them informed – communication improved, as did one-on-one attention. 
  7. Focussing on perks is a thing of the past and isn’t going to keep people happy. 


We hope you enjoyed the session!



If you missed it, click HERE.

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