The Ethical Recruiters Voice

The Global Talent Mirror: What Greek Hiring Misses, and What Europe Already Knows

"Greek employers must realise that how you treat a candidate is a direct preview of how you will treat them as an employee." - Georgia P. -

Georgia Papageorgiou

Career Coach & HR Consultant · July 7, 2026 · 6 min read

Having spent years driving talent acquisition across the fast-paced, candidate-centric markets of the UK, the Netherlands and across all Europe, returning to the Greek hiring landscape felt less like a geographical shift and more like a step back in time. In the UK, talent acquisition is treated as highly structured, followed by the law, and obsessed with candidate experience. In the Netherlands, it feels more like a collaborative partnership, built on radical transparency, more flat hierarchies, and an acute respect for work-life boundaries.And now, Greece. As a Greek HR professional who returned home after years abroad, I wanted to believe that the local market had evolved at the same pace as its European counterparts. And in some ways, it has. We have brilliant minds, unparalleled resilience, and a growing tech and business ecosystem. But as I embedded myself back into the local landscape, a frustrating reality became clear: when it comes to hiring, many Greek companies are still playing by rules written two decades ago.However, if Greek employers want to reverse the brain drain and position themselves as competitive hubs for top-tier talent, the path forward requires looking into the global mirror. There are fundamental shifts in the hiring paradigm that European markets now take for granted, which present a powerful opportunity for Greek companies ready to adapt. To close the gap and build a truly resilient, competitive talent ecosystem, Greek employers should look closely at the four foundational pillars of modern recruitment that I will be analysing below:
 1. The Candidate Experience: Treating Talent as a Customer, Not an ApplicantIn hubs like London and Amsterdam, recruitment is treated as an extension of a company’s brand. European employers track candidate Net Promoter Scores (cNPS) with the same rigor they track customer satisfaction, knowing that a clunky interview process can actively damage their reputation. Every touchpoint is designed to be efficient, engaging and respectful.In Greece, however, candidate experience is too often treated as a secondary priority. Professionals frequently face lengthy communication gaps, unpredictable scheduling and delays and a lack of feedback. When a hiring process stretches on for weeks without updates, it signals a lack of organisational agility. Greek employers must realise that how you treat a candidate is a direct preview of how you will treat them as an employee. Shifting from a transactional process to a candidate-first journey is the fastest way to stand out!
 2. Sourcing vs. Waiting: The Active Cultivation of TalentOne of the sharpest contrasts I’ve observed is how talent is acquired. A lot of Greek companies still rely on "post-and-pray", putting a job ad on a job board and waiting for resumes to roll in. When they don't get the right profiles, they blame a "lack of talent in the market."My time in the UK taught me that the best talent isn't actively looking at job boards. They are passive. To hire the best, you have to hunt. You have to build talent pipelines, engage in community sourcing and pitch your company to them.Furthermore, when Greek companies do source, they often look for the "purple squirrel", a candidate who ticks 100% of the boxes, has a specific degree from a specific university, and is willing to accept a mediocre salary. Western European markets shifted long ago toward hiring for potential, learning agility and cultural add. They understand that skills can be taught, but intrinsic motivation and adaptability cannot.
 3. Culture is Not an extra employee benefit (It’s Flexibility and Trust)There is a profound misunderstanding of modern workplace culture among many Greek employers. Many think that adding an extra employee benefit or hosting a summer party means they have a "modern company culture."But when you look at what talent actually values, especially the younger generation and expats, it comes down to two words: autonomy and flexibility.In the Netherlands, remote and hybrid work isn't a perk; it’s a baseline expectation. Trust is granted by default until proven otherwise. In Greece, however, I still see a persistent, anxious fixation on presenteeism. Managers still want "eyes on seats." Micromanagement is disguised as "quality control," and hybrid models are often granted grudgingly rather than embraced as a tool for productivity. If you require top talent to sit in Athens traffic five days a week just so a manager can watch them type, you will lose them to a remote-first European competitor every single time.
 4. The "Internal Talent" Blind SpotHiring doesn't end when the contract is signed. European talent markets place immense weight on onboarding, continuous development and clear career mapping. They know that retention is the cheapest form of recruitment.In Greece, onboarding is frequently an afterthought, a quick office tour, a stack of paperwork, and a "good luck, let me know if you have questions." Employees are often left to navigate ambiguous organisational structures on their own. Without clear paths for upward mobility, talent stagnates, grows frustrated, and eventually logs onto LinkedIn to find a company, likely remote or abroad, that will invest in their growth.
 The Shift We Need to MakeFixing these mistakes doesn't require a massive budget; it requires a shift in mindset.
Greek employers need to stop viewing HR as an administrative, bureaucratic function and start viewing Talent Acquisition as a strategic business partner. We need to treat candidates like consumers. We need to be honest about compensation, efficient with our interview timelines, and courageous enough to manage through trust rather than control.I returned to Greece because I believe in the potential of this market. We have the grit, the intelligence, and the passion. But talent is a fluid, global commodity. If Greek companies want to keep our brightest minds home, and attract global professionals to join them too, we have to stop recruiting like it's 2006. It's time to build a hiring culture that mirrors the maturity, respect, and sophistication of the global stage.
 
 
Georgia Papageorgiou for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •

The Transformation Voice

How HR Becomes the True Engine of Business Transformation

"HR has stopped being a cost center and became the sharpest engine of transformation."
- Evgenios Z. -

Evgenios Zogopoulos

Head of People & Culture · June 11, 2026 · 7 min read

I’ve spent enough years in HR to know the good old script by heart. HR used to be the polite people (you can replace the “polite” with “strange/cult”) in the corner office handling paperwork and the occasional team-building activity that everyone secretly rolled their eyes at. “Support function.” That’s what they called us; and maybe it was deserved too. Polite code for “necessary but not strategic.”I never agreed with that. As an HR Leader in a company that’s transforming fast in a brutally competitive global market, I refuse to accept the idea that HR is adjacent to the business. HR IS the business; because companies are not lines of code or P&L columns, but humans making things happen. HR has stopped being a cost center and became the sharpest engine of transformation. This isn’t theory. It’s what we’re striving for!Let’s be honest: most companies still treat these four elements as separate initiatives. Random org changes, AI initiatives in a vacuum, “performance” used as a buzz word thrown around more for administrative theater rather than real change.The result? Fragmented efforts, frustrated people, and transformation that stalls before it starts.
 
 
Organizational Design as Living StrategyTrue organizational design isn’t about boxes and lines on a slide. It’s about building the exact human architecture that lets your strategy win: putting the right people in the right place.Structure then, is a strategic tool. HR can’t wait for the mandate. We must sit at the table from minute one, asking the uncomfortable questions: What capabilities do we actually need? Where are we over-layered? What does this person have to offer in this role? Is this new role needed? What is the impact?I’ve challenged leaders and founders more than once. “If this new structure doesn’t make our best people 10x more effective, why are we doing it?” It creates tension. Good. HR leaders who only say YES and never challenge are complicit. We owe the business friction when it’s necessary; and if you’re transforming and you don’t get friction, it probably means that nothing is changing.
 
 
AI Adoption That Actually Empowers HumansThe AI conversation in most companies is still poisoned by fear or hype. Some leaders see it as a headcount reduction tool. Others treat it like magic that will solve everything (remember when SAP and HRIS systems were the magic pill?).We position AI as a force multiplier for human potential so our people can focus on what machines still can’t do: build trust, navigate nuance, spark creativity, and make ethical calls in ambiguous situations.Our HR team won a Hackathon with an idea born before AI was cool, answering old questions in a new way: “how do we remove the administrative burden from development planning and give that time back to meaningful conversations with people?”I’ve said it before in public forums: I want AI to do the manual labor so humans can focus on the art; AI can cut the marble from the rock so Humans can shape it into a marvelous statue. Heresy in an AI-crazed world? Maybe. I still vouch for humans.We’ve deployed AI agents that dramatically accelerate routine coding and analysis, but we pair every implementation with intense focus on human judgment. The uncomfortable truth? AI will expose gaps faster than anything else.If your managers can’t inspire people beyond what a chatbot can do, they won’t survive. AI doesn’t replace humans; it raises the bar for them.
 
 
Leadership Discipline as the Non-Negotiable CoreHigh performance without leadership discipline is just burnout wearing a productivity mask. Leadership accountability must be a core part of our operating system. Every leader must have clear, measurable commitments around both results and how they get them; and this needs other leaders to support and challenge.I’ve sat across from talented but ego-driven managers and asked the hard questions; because a system is as strong as its weakest spots. If HR cannot challenge the leaders – the most impactful humans in the organization – who can it challenge?Some call this tough or “politically incorrect”. I call it honest. We support our leaders fiercely — coaching, development, air cover when they take smart risks — but we also hold the mirror up without flinching.
 
 
High Performance as a System, Not a Slogan (or another magic pill)The real magic happens when these pieces click together. Org design creates clear accountability. AI removes friction. Leadership discipline ensures the human element stays strong. And high performance becomes the natural outcome: people who know exactly why their work matters, who have the tools and autonomy to move fast, and who are led by humans worth following.We believe performance must be approached holistically. We measure it through a mix of hard metrics (output, outcomes, impact) and softer but critical signals (mindset, culture, growth). We must measure the What but also the How. When one part slips, the whole system signals early.
 
 
Preaching rebellionIf you’re in HR and reading this, I hope you feel a little provoked. Stop waiting for a seat at the table. Build the table and make sure the pieces are there; otherwise, you’ll just be the first pawn to go so the Bishop can play the gambit with the Queen.Question the legacy processes that waste everyone’s time. Push back when short-term thinking threatens long-term capability. And above all, remember we are not the department of nice policies or the irrelevant ideas. We are the department of competitive advantage through People.The companies that win in the next decade won’t be the ones with the most advanced AI or the slickest org charts. They’ll be the ones where HR had the courage to integrate everything into one living system. A system built for empowered humans.HR won’t move the needle with policies or processes, but through HR leaders willing to operate as architects of business performance, not observers.
 
That’s not the future of HR. That’s Now.
 
 
Evgenios Zogopoulos for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •

The Resilient Voice

When you feel lost, start with your “why”

“In times of uncertainty, people don’t need perfect answers. They need honesty. They need direction. They need to be reminded of their ‘why.’”
- AnastasiaT. -

Anastasia Toulaki

Chief Administrative Officer & HR Manager · May 8, 2026 · 7 min read

It wasn’t an easy period.
 
Not in the way people casually describe difficulty, but in a way that sits quietly on your shoulders and follows you throughout the day.
 
The Board of Directors had recently been dissolved.
 
The company was at a pivotal growth point in the market, facing a transformation that required cohesion, structure, and organization, things we simply did not fully have yet.
 
At the same time, we were preparing for our relocation to a new operational base: the first private airport in the country. A milestone full of promise, but also one that demanded focus, alignment, enormous operational effort, and a fundamental shift in our operational practices, habits, and way of thinking.
 
And all of this after the Covid period.
 
After restrictions.
After exhaustion.
After losses.
 
With a team that was tired from limitations, uncertainty, and the emotional weight of everything we had collectively gone through.
 
People didn’t know what to expect. And that uncertainty wasn’t loud. It was subtle, persistent, present in every conversation and every silence.
 
There was uncertainty about leadership, about the future, about stability.
 
Questions without clear answers. Concerns without a timeline.
 
And me?
 
I was right in the middle of it.
 
Head of HR, but also a human being who felt tired, confused, and, at times, lost.
 
While I was seeing crisis, my CEO was seeing opportunity.
 
Both perspectives were real!
 
And somewhere between the two, I found myself conflicted, trying to reconcile what I felt with what I was expected to see.
 
I won’t pretend otherwise.
 
I allowed myself to feel it.
 
Up to a point.
 
Up to the point where I didn’t give up.
 
Almost unconsciously, something I had read years ago came back to me. Something that hadn’t meant much back then. Something that had felt distant, almost abstract.
 
“Start with WHY.”
 
And my “why” was my cause and belief in a company that, when I first joined, was small but carried a vision that truly inspired me.
 
A vision to build an innovative, reliable general aviation ecosystem, something that doesn’t currently exist in Europe, led by passion and integrity, not just ambition.
 
That’s where everything started.
 
Not with the “how.”
Not with the “what.”
But with the “why.”
 
I started working on the structure.
 
Not just a new org chart.
Not just lines and titles.
 
But a shared understanding of responsibility and accountability, something we didn’t truly have at the time.
 
Something that needed to be built, not imposed.
 
I explored different organizational models, not to copy what others were doing, but to find what genuinely fit who we were becoming, not who we had been.
 
The goal wasn’t complexity.
 
It was clarity.
 
The kind of clarity that removes friction and creates direction.
 
I opened my email.
Clicked “compose new message.”
Addressed it to the two CEOs.
 
From there, and through a lot of shared work, alignment, discussion, and interaction, the current leadership model was built:
 
• A C-Suite structure with four roles: CFO, COO, CCO, CAO
• Clear lines of accountability
• Consolidation of “orphan” functions, HR, IT, Legal, under the CAO
• Creation of Procurement and Corporate Governance functions
 
But structure alone is not enough.
 
It never is.
 
We realized something critical:
If you want to grow, it’s not enough to organize people.
 
You need to organize the business itself.
 
The way it operates.
The way it scales.
 
So, we made a decision that initially felt unnecessary, especially since our operational entities were already heavily compliant with European regulations and approved by the competent Civil Aviation Authorities.
 
We moved forward with ISO process standardization.
 
Not for the certification.
 
But to create consistency, clarity, and repeatability in the business.
 
To build a strong core that could support operations scaling almost aggressively, faster than informal structures could sustain.
 
We also did something that isn’t always obvious.
 
We invested in new people with fresh perspectives.
 
People not shaped by the old habits we were trying to leave behind.
 
People dedicated entirely to this effort and fully aligned with the direction we wanted to move towards.
 
And they did it exceptionally well.
 
At the same time, we introduced technology to support this transformation: ERP, HRMS, and a performance management system.
 
Not just to digitalize.
 
But to bring transparency, data-driven decision making, and alignment into the way we operate.
 
To make the invisible visible.
 
Because strong organizations are built by people, enabled by systems, technology, and automation.
 
Standardization is not a limitation.
 
It is what allows you to grow without falling apart, without losing control as complexity increases.
 
But the hardest part was something else.
 
We took responsibility for the fact that some people, although excellent professionals and high performers, had been promoted without being properly equipped to lead.
 
A reality that is more common than we admit.
 
And we chose not to lose them.
 
So, we invested in them, consciously and intentionally.
 
We designed a one-year leadership development program for 12 of our managers and key staff.
 
Not theoretical training.
 
Real work:
 
• blended learning experience
• simulations
• customized scenarios
• feedback
• conflict
• understanding each other’s roles
 
Somewhere along the way, something shifted.
 
Not because we “learned something new.”
 
But because we started to truly understand each other beyond roles and titles.
 
People stepped into each other’s shoes.
 
And collaboration changed.
 
Less ego.
More awareness.
More empathy.
More intention in how we worked together.
 
Two years later?
 
I won’t say “we made it.”I’ll say we are on the right runway.
 
• We have structure.
• We have a shared language.
• We make better decisions together.
• We have become a stronger, more aligned team.
 
And most importantly, we have resilience.
 
The kind that is built, not assumed.
 
If there’s one thing I take from this experience as an HR professional, it’s not the models.
 
It’s not the org charts.
 
It’s this:
 
In times of uncertainty, people don’t need perfect answers.
 
They need honesty.
They need direction.
They need to be reminded of their “why.”
 
This was not the first wave of uncertainty we had to navigate.
 
And it probably will not be the last.
 
But I realized that uncertainty does not only challenge us.
 
It can also bring us closer to our purpose.
 
And as long as my “why” stays alive, I know I will always find a way forward.
 
 
Anastasia Toulaki for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •

The Inaugural Voice of Greece: The Negotiator’s Voice

When You Stand Between Two Sides: Leadership in Negotiation Is Not About Winning — It Is About Ensuring No One Loses

“You do not negotiate to win. You negotiate to create an outcome that lasts.”
-GerasimosC.-

Gerasimos Chatziemmanouil

Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) · April 17, 2026 · 4 min read

When I took on the role of HR Director in the company, I immediately found myself at the center of an intense conflict. On one side, management. On the other, the employees’ union. In the middle, an arbitration decision that—if fully implemented—could derail payroll costs and effectively blow up the company’s budget.In real terms, we were discussing a financial burden that could increase monthly payroll to levels that were not sustainable for the company’s operation. And I, new to the organization, found myself needing to deliver a solution as fast as possible. But, not to a theoretical disagreement, but to a real conflict with immediate financial, operational, and human impact. These are the moments where HR is not simply called to “manage” a situation, but to truly stand at its center and influence its outcome.The reality was clearly confrontational. The union demanded full implementation of the decision. Management refused, relying on a legal “loophole.” Trust between the two sides was low. And the most dangerous element was that neither side was truly listening. Each side came to the table not to understand, but to defend its position. And that is usually the point where a negotiation stops being a process of resolution and becomes a mechanism of escalation.My approach was clear from the beginning. I did not enter the negotiation to impose. I entered to understand. I started with something simple but rare: I described the conflict objectively, without taking a position. Then I asked in depth, listened without interruption, and confirmed that I had understood correctly. This step is often underestimated, but it is critical. Because there is a truth that is frequently overlooked: most conflicts do not start from disagreement. They start from misinterpretation. From incorrect reading of intentions. From lack of trust. From the certainty that “the other side” is not acting in good faith.From the very first moment, my stance was clear. I was not interested in being liked. I was interested in being credible. And most importantly, in contributing to a solution that could endure over time. Because you do not negotiate to win. You negotiate to create an outcome that lasts. That was the real objective for me. Not a temporary “closure” of tension, but an agreement that would not generate the next crisis from the first day of its implementation.When I returned to management, I did not simply transfer the problem. I proposed alternatives. Because every serious negotiation follows one rule: if you do not have options, you do not have negotiation. You have a dead end. And the difficult balance was exactly there. The proposal was clear: not to fully implement the arbitration decision, but to provide targeted elements, such as allowances, in order to create balance. In simple terms, the company should not lose. But the people should not lose either.When I returned to the union, I maintained a clear line. Honesty. Clear positioning. No ambiguity. I communicated directly that some things could not change, but some things would move forward. And this clarity mattered. Because in such moments, even when you are not telling everyone what they want to hear, you can keep the dialogue alive if you speak with clarity and without games.The harsh reality of negotiation is that there is not always room for comfort. There was tension. There was conflict. And there was a moment where, if the negotiation had collapsed, the company would have faced a financial burden significant enough to directly affect its viability and operational stability. This is where your role is defined. Not when everything goes well. But when you know that a wrong move carries real consequences. When you must keep the process balanced while both sides test its limits.Ultimately, the agreement was reached. And the outcome was meaningful. The company avoided a significant and disproportionate financial burden. The employees received tangible benefits. Tension de-escalated. Trust began to build. And most importantly, we moved from conflict to cooperation. Not perfectly, not automatically, but substantially.The real impact does not lie only in the outcome of the agreement. It lies in what followed. The union began to trust the process. Communication became more direct and honest. The relationship remained positive even after my departure. From being perceived as the “black sheep,” I became a point of reference of trust. And this is often the most silent, yet most substantial proof that the approach worked.The essence of leadership in negotiation is simple. Negotiation is not a battle. It is a responsibility. It is not about pushing, imposing, or winning. It is about understanding, balancing, and creating a solution that lasts. A solution that does not humiliate one side so that the other can feel it has won. A solution that allows the organization to continue operating and people to continue trusting that there is space for serious dialogue.In HR, especially in such moments, you are not an “intermediary.” You are a catalyst. And true leadership is demonstrated when you deliver results without destroying the relationships that create them.
 
 
Gerasimos Chatziemmanouil for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •

The Structured Voice

People Leadership in the Hospitality Industry: Where Operational Reality Meets Standards

“If the culture we communicate and the daily operational reality do not align perfectly, the standards remain empty words.”
- Dimitris P. -

Dimitris Pavlakis

Corporate Human Resources Manager · May 26, 2026 · 5 min read

In the hospitality industry, Human Resources management is not a theoretical exercise but the active management of a critical balance: on one hand, the strict Operating Standards (SOPs) that guarantee quality and consistency of the guest experience, and on the other, the deeply person-centered nature of the service. The central question - which lies at the heart of modern management - is what people leadership truly requires when culture, service standards, development, and operational reality must align strictly.
 
 
Attraction and Trust: The Strategy of the First ContactIn today’s highly competitive landscape, the battle to attract talent and build trust begins at the very first contact during the Job Interview. This is not merely a process for evaluating formal qualifications, but the moment when the foundations of the upcoming collaboration between employer and employee are laid. At this stage, the organization must communicate its Mission and Vision with absolute clarity. If the candidate does not perceive the "why" behind our operation, their commitment will remain superficial.Honesty regarding expectations and the presentation of a specific Career Path are integral parts of this process. If leadership fails to inspire the candidate and show them a path toward professional fulfillment, then we have lost them before they even sign a preliminary agreement or employment contract. Loyalty is not something to be demanded after the fact, it is earned through transparency and the promise of a mutually beneficial partnership.
 
 
Onboarding: The Moment of Truth for Employer Branding and TurnoverIf the interview is the promise, Onboarding is the tangible proof of our credibility and the moment of truth for Employer Branding. We can invest vast sums in promoting our corporate image, but if a new partner finds themselves in an environment without guidance or structure on day one, that image collapses instantly.Furthermore, structured onboarding is the most powerful tool for limiting turnover, a phenomenon particularly intense in our industry due to the seasonal nature of most businesses. In an environment where the duration of the collaboration is predefined,
fast and meaningful integration reduces the feeling of "transience". It is essential to explain to the employee not just the "what" of the SOPs, but primarily the "why" they are necessary. When an employee understands the philosophy behind the standard, they cease to view it as a restrictive rule and adopt it as a tool for excellence, which significantly strengthens staff retention throughout the period.
 
 
Holistic Health and SafeIn the current operational reality, leadership must recognize that Health and Safety at work has taken on holistic dimensions. It is no longer limited to compliance with protection rules in the physical work environment but extends to the psychological integrity of the staff.• Physical Safety: Strict adherence to safety protocols and the provision of an ergonomic environment are the minimum indicators of respect for the
individual.• Psychological Safety: Especially in hospitality, where the pace is grueling, psychological health is critical for reducing burnout. Leadership that prevents toxic stress, encourages open communication, and protects the mental balance of its partners succeeds in creating a team with high levels of resilience and dedication.
 
 
Economic Realism and RetentionWe cannot discuss HR while ignoring the current economic climate. Inflation is a serious parameter pressing the disposable income of our employees. A leader must be
a realist: competitive pay is now the necessary baseline, but it is not enough on its own for staff retention.The real difference is made by the "intangible" value offered by the organization: respect, the holistic safety mentioned above, and active support. In today’s job market, people are looking for an employer with empathy who recognizes daily
challenges. Staffing difficulties are not solved by numbers alone, but by creating a culture where the employee feels their contribution is valued and their effort is rewarded both ethically and materially.
 
 
The Generational AccordOne of the greatest challenges is the harmonious coexistence of the three different generations dominating the labor market. Gen X brings stability, Millennials bring strategic flexibility, and Gen Z brings digital speed.The key here is mentoring. However, for this to work, Gen X must first and foremost trust the younger generations and then pass on their experience. On the other hand, the younger generations must help modernize daily operations through technology and AI. AI in HR did not arrive to replace personal contact, but to automate part of the administrative burden, freeing up time for the employee to dedicate themselves to the emotional connection with the guest.
 
 
ConclusionIn conclusion, leadership in the hospitality industry requires realism and quick reflexes. Operating Standards are our roadmap, but people are the driving force. If the culture we communicate and the daily operational reality do not align perfectly - especially regarding safety and support - the standards remain empty words.Success comes when the employee evolves organically within the business, feeling safe both physically and mentally.Only then can objectives be met, no matter how demanding the market conditions may be.
 
 
Dimitrios Pavlakis for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •

The Operational Conscience Voice

Taking Care of People: Charity or Strategy?

“Longer working hours do not automatically lead to higher productivity. In fact, they may point to the opposite.”
- Vera B. -

Vera Baka

HR Officer | HR Operations | Recruitment | Psychologist · May 18, 2026 · 6 min read

It has been 8 years since Greece exited the bailout program, yet according to Eurostat data, it consistently ranks first among the 27 EU member states in the share of employed persons usually working 49 or more hours per week in their main job (1). At the same time, Greece has the second lowest labour productivity per hour worked (2). The European Commission’s report states that Greece is not achieving productivity convergence with the rest of the EU, while labour productivity per hour worked was the lowest in the EU in 2023 (3). In other words, the data suggest that longer working hours do not automatically lead to higher productivity. In fact, they may point to the opposite.But let us leave statistics aside for a moment. The other day, I was talking with a friend who has been working in the retail sector for years. “They’re squeezing us,” he told me. “Every day feels like torture: long hours, heavy workload. But when the foreign brand representatives visit, everything suddenly seems to change and the business starts operating properly.”Of course, it was not the first time I had heard of what I would call the “squeezing method,” the practice of pushing employees to their limits in the name of KPIs. I am not sure whether this is the rule or the exception, but it is certainly a topic that comes up often around the table among friends and colleagues.And the results? High turnover, burnout, psychological distress, musculoskeletal problems, heart disease, and strained family relationships (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). If we look at the consequences in a broader social context, the impact becomes even heavier: increased pressure on the healthcare system, wider social strain, family disruption, you name it.According to the WHO, poor working environments, including excessive workloads, intense work pace, understaffing, long, unsocial or inflexible hours, and conflicting work and family demands, pose serious risks to mental health (9).
Recent studies show that long working hours prevent workers from spending time with their families, increasing the risk of work family conflict (8). In addition, these studies suggest that overwork and poor working conditions are significantly associated with a higher risk of sleep disturbance and burnout, particularly disengagement and exhaustion (4), (5), (8), (10).Burnout, as introduced by Maslach and Jackson (1981), consists of three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynical and detached attitudes towards the people one interacts with at work, and negative self evaluation in relation to one’s work and sense of fulfilment (11).Other studies report a significant negative relationship between burnout and productivity, as reflected in absenteeism, absence from work, often due to ill health, presenteeism, being at work despite being unwell, intention to remain in the profession, intention to change jobs, work accidents, and work ability (8), (12), (13).And this brings us to HR and its role in such a context. Does it watch? Does it become part of the system? Does it tolerate, stay silent, perhaps even stay asleep? Or does it react, step in, influence, speak out, and wake things up?Of course, it may be afraid to challenge what is happening, to say the uncomfortable truth. After all, “I’m just an employee,” one might think, like anyone else. And it is only human to be afraid of opposing the person who pays you. It is perfectly understandable to fear losing a prestigious and well paid job, who would not? But is it acceptable to stand back and watch people collapse under physical and mental strain?Maybe the answer lies in the term manager itself. What is a manager’s mission? According to Mintzberg (1990), the manager is not a passive observer but a key figure in the unit’s decision making system (14). The manager is vested with formal authority, develops interpersonal relations, makes decisions and strategies, commits the unit to important new courses of action, and negotiates between costs, benefits, and feasibility (14). In other words, the role itself implies responsibility, judgement, and influence. This means that a manager is not simply there to observe reality, but to shape it. And if reality is harming people, then the manager is in a position to change it.And this is exactly the point at which the HR manager should turn to the boss and say: “Listen, boss, I need to tell you something. Heavy workload and long working hours are damaging employees’ physical and mental health.” And the boss may well reply: “Even if you are right, I do not really care. Business is business, and money is what matters.” But that is precisely where the manager should answer: “Money is exactly what I am talking about too.”According to recent studies, employee disengagement, overextension, ineffectiveness, and burnout cost employers heavily (15). Over the course of a single year, burnout costs an employer an average of $4,000 for a non managerial hourly employee and approximately $11,000 for a manager (15). In a U.S. company of just 100 employees, disengagement and burnout can amount to roughly $500,000 per year. In many cases, employers do not act unless they realise that a problem has a direct financial impact on the organization (15). Once burnout is seen not only as an employee wellbeing issue but also as a measurable economic burden, the willingness to intervene may become much stronger (15).In other words, boss, squeezing your employees is costing you far more money than you think. So what will you do: keep losing money, or finally understand that taking care of your people is not charity, but strategy?"
 
 
Vera Baka for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •
 
 
References_{(1) Eurostat. (2026). Long working hours in the main job by professional status
and occupation (lfsaqoe3a2) [Data set]. European Commission. Retrieved
April 18, 2026, from
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsaqoe3a2/default/bar?lang
=en(2) Eurostat. (2026). Labour productivity per person employed and hour worked
as percentage of the EU average (TESEM160) [Data set]. European Commission.
Retrieved April 18, 2026, from
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/TESEM160/default/bar?lang=en(3) European Commission. (2024). Country report – Greece. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs. https://economy-
finance.ec.europa.eu/economic-surveillance-eu-member-states/country-
pages/country-report-greece_en(4) Rotenstein, L. S., Brown, R., Sinsky, C., & Linzer, M. (2023). The Association of
Work Overload with Burnout and Intent to Leave the Job Across the Healthcare
Workforce During COVID-19. Journal of general internal medicine, 38(8), 1920–1927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08153-z(5) Cokki, C. (2021). Effect of work overload on job satisfaction through burnout. Jurnal Manajemen, 25(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.24912/jm.v25i1.703(6) Hu, B., Wu, Y., Pan, Y., Ding, X., Niu, D., Li, J., & Yan, T. (2024). Association of
long working hours and multi-site work-related musculoskeletal disorders
among transportation industry workers in Beijing, China. International archives
of occupational and environmental health, 97(10), 1063–1071.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-024-02110-x(7) World Health Organization. (2021, May 17). Long working hours increasing
deaths from heart disease and stroke: WHO, ILO.
https://www.who.int/news/item/17-05-2021-long-working-hours-increasing-
deaths-from-heart-disease-and-stroke-who-ilo(8) Baek, S. U., Won, J. U., & Yoon, J. H. (2023). The role of work-family conflict in
the association between long working hours and workers' sleep disturbance and
burnout: results from the sixth Korean Working Conditions Survey. BJPsych
open, 9(5), e165. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2023.555(9) World Health Organization. (2024, September 2). Mental health at work.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work(10) Conceoção, A., & Palma-Moreira, A. (2025). The Relationship Between
Occupational Stress, Burnout, and Perceived Performance: The Moderating Role
of Work Regime. Administrative Sciences, 15(10), 377.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15100377(11) Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (1981), The measurement of experienced
burnout. J. Organiz. Behav., 2: 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205(12) Dewa, C. S., Loong, D., Bonato, S., Thanh, N. X., & Jacobs, P. (2014). How
does burnout affect physician productivity? A systematic literature review. BMC
Health Services Research, 14, Article 325. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-
14-325(13) Aronsson, Gunnar & Gustafsson, Klas & Dallner, Margareta. (2000). Sick but
yet at work. An empirical study of sickness presenteeism. Journal of
epidemiology and community health. 54. 502-9. 10.1136/jech.54.7.502.(14) Mintzberg, H. (1990). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business
Review, 68(2), 163–176.
https://gcc.glendale.edu/ppal/Busad%20101/mintzbergmar1990.pdf(15) Martinez, M. F., O'Shea, K. J., Kern, M. C., Chin, K. L., Dinh, J. V., Bartsch, S.
M., Weatherwax, C., Velmurugan, K., Heneghan, J. L., Moran, T. H., Scannell, S.
A., John, D. C., Shah, T. D., Petruccelli, S. A., White, C., Dibbs, A. M., & Lee, B. Y.
(2025). The health and economic burden of employee burnout to U.S. employers.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 68(4), 645–655.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2025.01.011}

Employee Benefits (Affiliation Article)

What We Have Learned About Employee Benefits

“According to Mployer Advisor, companies with highly rated benefits and effective communication around them experience 27% lower voluntary turnover than their peers.”
- madbenefits -

Periklis Hanna and Dimitris Antoniou

Co-founders, MadBenefits · May 5, 2026 · 5 min read

We are not HR practitioners. We are not merchants. We sit somewhere in between, running an employee benefits platform that connects 250+ Cyprus merchants with 6,000+ employees, and from this vantage point, we see something that neither side sees on its own. We see why employee benefits programmes quietly fail across this island, and we see what it takes to make them actually work.Let us start with what the research is telling every HR team in 2026, whether they have time to read it or not.According to Mployer Advisor, companies with highly rated benefits and effective communication around them experience 27% lower voluntary turnover than their peers. Aflac found that 84% of employers credit their benefits package as the reason they were able to recruit top talent. Forbes reported that 46% of workers left a job specifically because they felt under-appreciated. Replacing a single employee costs a lot.The numbers all point the same way. Benefits, done well, are one of the highest-leverage retention investments a company can make. And yet most Cyprus companies are running benefits programmes that look almost exactly the way they did fifteen years ago. A list of partner discounts, a printed plastic card, sometimes a PDF circulated by email, occasionally an Excel file maintained by whoever in HR has the patience for it. The intention is real. The execution has not kept up.Here is what we see from our seat that HR teams do not always see.The merchant side is harder than it looks. When a Cyprus HR team builds an in-house discount programme, someone on that team has to call a gym, a restaurant, a beauty salon, a dental clinic, and convince each one to offer a deal. The merchant’s first question is almost always the same. How many employees do you have? If the answer is under a few hundred, the conversation often ends there. We have watched it happen. We have also watched merchants threaten to leave existing schemes because “nobody is coming,” demand in-person meetings before agreeing to anything, and ghost HR teams the moment a more attractive partner appears. None of this is anyone’s fault. It is the natural friction of bilateral negotiation at a small scale. Multiply it by twenty merchants, then update it quarterly, and the cost in HR hours becomes considerable.The employee side is harder than it looks too. The research that struck us most when we were building this platform came from an Xexec survey: two-thirds of employees said they would prefer two tickets to a concert of their choice over three times the value of those tickets added to their paycheque over a year. Read that again. Three times the cash, declined, in favour of something personal. This is the part most benefits programmes get wrong. They treat the workforce as a single audience. But a single mother of two does not want the same thing as a twenty-six-year-old training for a marathon. A new father saving for a baby stroller does not want the same thing as a couple planning a holiday. When a benefits programme offers the same five logos to all of them, most of the workforce sees nothing they would actually use, and the programme quietly becomes invisible.This is why we built MadBenefits the way we did. Not as a static list, but as a live platform spanning more than fifteen everyday categories, from food and dining to fitness, beauty, travel, education, pet care, electronics, entertainment, and more, with a personalisation layer that surfaces different deals for different employees based on what they actually use. New merchants are added every month. Expiring offers are refreshed before they go stale. Push notifications and flash deals create the kind of small, repeated moments that recognition research tells us matter far more than annual gestures.Our deepest belief about this category, and the one we want to share with the HR community on this island, comes from something Gallup-Workhuman documented clearly: employees who receive frequent, small, personalised acts of recognition show dramatically higher retention than those who receive occasional large ones. Benefits, used well, are exactly this. A small saving on a Tuesday lunch is a tiny act of being seen. A discount on a child’s birthday gift is the company quietly showing up in family life. A weekly engagement loop, repeated across hundreds of employees, builds something an annual salary review cannot.There is one feature we built that we believe matters more than any other, and it is the one that solves a problem most HR teams in Cyprus have never been able to solve. 73% of companies, according to Thanksben’s benefits benchmarking research, do not measure the engagement of their benefits at all. They cannot tell their CFO whether the programme is working. With our platform, every employee can log how much they saved on each redemption, anonymously, and HR sees the aggregate total. For the first time, an HR director can walk into a board meeting and report exactly how many euros their benefits programme returned to their workforce last quarter. That number is the proof of investment that has been missing from this category for two decades.The future of HR in Cyprus, in our view, will not be defined by who pays the most. Salaries are competitive across the island, especially in tech, financial services, and shipping. The differentiator over the next five years will be which companies make their employees feel personally seen, in small ways, every single week. That is what benefits, built properly, do.Our job is to make that easier. The HR community’s job is to demand more from the category, and to stop accepting the spreadsheet, the plastic card, and the PDF as the best the market can offer. They are not, and the data says you deserve better.
 
 
Periklis Hanna and Dimitris Antoniou for Top HR Voices of Cyprus

Inside The Recruitment Crisis in Sunny Cyprus

"What kind of society are we building with the way we hire?"
- ChristinaK.-

Christina Koro

Founder & Recruitment Director, InnerCircles | February 5th, 2026 · 9 min read

In Cyprus right now, recruitment is not just about filling roles. It is quietly rewriting who gets to live in which city, who can afford rent, and who is pushed to the edges of the economy.Fintech, iGaming and tech companies are pouring into the island under the umbrella of “companies of foreign interests.” On paper, there are rules, ratios and compliance frameworks. In reality, there are salary gaps, nationality bubbles, language-based hiring shortcuts and a labour market where “cost and speed” often win over ethics and balance.Into this landscape steps Christina Koro, Founder & Recruitment Director of InnerCircles — a recruiter who openly and honestly describes recruitment as PR, and who is blunt about what really happens when companies treat people as “robots” or “numbers” and culture as an “afterthought”.What follows is a heavily curated version of our long-form conversation. We have kept the structure, intent and voice intact — and used only Christina’s sharpest verbatim lines, without rewriting her words. The aim is simple: to maintain a stage where honest voices can speak clearly about what others prefer to sugarcoat and (well) hide!
 
 Q1. The anthropology deficit: who gets seen, who gets sidelined?
Question:
In Cyprus’s fintech, iGaming and tech industries, how do you see companies treating candidates from different nationalities, and what worries you about the way management asks recruiters to evaluate people?
-
ChristinaK:
“Let’s start with the companies that currently influence the market in Cyprus — fintech, iGaming and technology.These are the industries I’ve been working in for the last seven years of my career.The point is that in most of these companies, what management sees — and what they push recruiters and HR to work on — is not to see candidates for their skills, their capabilities, or their identity beyond the CV. They mostly see candidates as robots, as people who will work only in the way the company wants them to work.
In my perspective, in these industries, the cultures that are mostly on top are Israeli companies and Russian companies. And what we see, especially in Russian companies, is that local people are not prioritised.They prioritise people originally from those countries — Ukrainians, Russian speakers — and this, in my view, is not something that should be done, especially when we are working in Cyprus, a naturally regional country.We need to give opportunities to Cypriots. We need to give opportunities to Germans. We need to give opportunities to all people, no matter the country, no matter the culture, no matter the language they speak.We need to give more equal opportunities.”
 
 
Q2. When the “perfect CV” explodes in your hands
Question:
Have you seen cases where a CV looked perfect on paper but the hire failed badly once the person joined? What did those experiences teach you about the limits of CVs and interviews?
-
ChristinaK:
“What I’m trying mostly to do with management is to convince them that above all we need to see the character of the candidate.Character is a specific characteristic of a human being that you cannot change.But most companies, and most top-level hiring managers, say that it’s just the CV, just the experience, that matters at the end of the day — especially at senior level.Many times, in my experience, we have hired people whose CV was extraordinary. The experience was on another level, and we honestly expected huge success.And after four months, we realised that it had nothing to do with the capabilities of the candidate.Nowadays, technology makes it very easy to create a CV and put fake information in it. And most of us don’t spend the right time to figure out if what we see is true.One interview, a second interview, or a test cannot give you the final image of what a candidate is capable of.And this has happened many times in my career — hires that were not what we expected, and that created a lot of crisis at the end of the day.”
 
 
Q3. Cost, speed and the silent responsibility of recruiters
Question:
When companies in Cyprus focus on filling roles fast and at the lowest possible cost, often hiring from abroad instead of paying local talent what they deserve, what impact does this have on local morale, trust in employers, and the way recruiters are expected to behave?
-
ChristinaK:
“The market of Cyprus is very limited.There are many capable candidates, but they are already taken. And sometimes companies see only money.But the money that comes to companies comes from the employees. And most of the time, companies prefer to let a good local candidate go, instead of paying them what they deserve, and hire someone from other countries for lower cost. And this is not something that we should do.I agree that there are specific positions where we need to hire from abroad. But we also need to give opportunities to local and in-house people, with training and good integration. So it’s 50/50, to be honest — it depends on the position.What companies mostly try to do is: ‘We have a position, we need to cover it in one week. Find me someone. I don’t care. Just fill the position.’But what recruiters need to understand is that recruiters are responsible when they stay silent. When you see that what the company wants to do is not what should be done, you need to speak.Recruiters need to have a voice — to suggest what should be done on a cultural strategy level, not just ‘fill the position’. Because this brings crisis: bad hiring and unstable positions.”
 
 Q4. Who owns ethical responsibility when new markets open?
Question:
When foreign-interest companies enter the Cypriot market, who do you believe should be responsible for keeping hiring practices fair, ethical and balanced — and how should they handle differences in benefits between regions and between “old” and “new” employees?
-
ChristinaK:
“All together. And this starts from HR.HR needs to understand together with recruiters, because they work at the same time. They need to understand how the market works, how new markets work, and the differences that come with them.Let’s take an example. When we bring an employee locally, let’s say, and there are differences in annual leave, differences in public holidays, differences in bonus structure and profit fund — you should not create differences in the benefits you provide to employees.You need to have specific policies. No matter which region you enter, you need to find the spot where all employees are treated in the same way.I understand that sometimes there are differences between senior, middle and junior level. But at the end of the day, they all need to taste the same benefits. Because we are all the same.What we see very often is that when companies enter new markets, they hire new people and give extra benefits to the new employees, while the old employees are treated as stable and loyal — as if they will not leave, as if they will not find other opportunities.But that’s not true. Loyal employees are the ones who are with you from the beginning, and you need to treat them the same way you treat the new employees.
Especially in these markets, we focus on pleasing management — instead of placing the employees.”
 
 Q5. When “business need” clashes with being human
Question:
Can you share a moment where the “business decision” clearly clashed with your own sense of what was humane and right as HR, and how you tried to navigate that tension?
-
ChristinaK:
“Many times. Many, many times.A very clear example was a few years ago, when it was Christmas and we had to fire someone two weeks before Christmas. It was a huge fight with the management, and they didn’t understand.At the end, of course, I couldn’t do anything. Because when a decision is made, it is made.But I tried other ways. I tried to find another way with the management to give something to the employee, at least after the firing, to make it a bit not such a bad feeling during Christmas.And always what I try to do in these cases is to convince the management, or people, or companies, or friends — or even myself as an HR and recruiter — to help that person find a job as easily and as soon as possible.What I’m trying to say is that HR and recruiters must say no sometimes. We are not only acting on behalf of the management. Yes, we are the voice of the management — but we are the voice of the employees as well.And when we have toxic practices from management, we need to make them hear it. Not only act. We need to persuade them.”
 
 Q6. Convenience, culture bubbles and the cost of turnover
Question:
If a company repeatedly prioritizes convenience — same culture, same language — over true cultural fit and diversity, what kind of invisible damage do you see building up inside the organization, and how does that connect to turnover?**
-
ChristinaK:
“The damage is turnover. Multiple turnover.At the beginning, companies don’t realise it. They think that if they bring someone with the same culture and the same language, it will be easier for a number of employees to work with that person. But it’s not like that.This creates turnover and turnover and turnover, many times, and most companies don’t realise it. They think turnover is not a problem — and that’s not true.
I agree that in some specific departments this might work for a certain number of people, but in general it’s not true.Companies need to realise that when you find a good candidate with good skills and good character, even if they are not from the same culture and even if they don’t speak the same language, this person will bring value to the company.And I will tell you something else: sometimes it’s not only a management problem. It’s also a problem of the employees of these cultures, because they want to work only with their own people, only with those who speak the same language.This is where the problem starts. And this is where HR and people retention need to come in — with good communication, to make employees understand that they are not the only ones, that they are not the only stars.”
 
 Q7. Integration vs disruption: what real cultural work looks likeQuestion:
Beyond onboarding decks, branded bottles and welcome lunches, what does real cultural integration actually require from organizations operating in Cyprus, day to day?
-
ChristinaK:
“I will tell you this: integration is continuous negotiation.What companies must do, in my perspective, is invest time. They must invest in cultural education. This is something we don’t really see, and it connects to what we said before about culture.If you educate your people and if you make them realise things — and I hope the audience will not take this badly — the reality is this: Russians love Russians. Israelis love Israelis. Greeks love Greeks. Cypriots love everybody; they don’t care so much, they love several cultures.I am Greek, and I am Albanian as well, and I don’t care if I work with Russians. I don’t care if I work with Israelis. I don’t care if I work with Albanians.I don’t want the audience to take this in a bad way. What I want to say is that we need to leave our comfort zone, and we need to be educated to understand that working with multicultural people brings thousands of benefits — especially when companies are constantly entering new markets.Employees need to understand this. Management needs to understand this. Recruiters and HR need to measure integration — not just repeat slogans coming from management.And the difference I want to point out between integration and disruption is respect. When we forget respect for each other, we stop competing on skills and we start competing on culture.That’s what I see today: we compete cultures instead of competing skills in a healthy way.”
 
 Q8. One non-negotiable hiring principle
Question:
If recruiters and HR leaders had to adopt just one non-negotiable principle when hiring in high-influx markets like Cyprus, what should it be and why?
-
ChristinaK:
“The character. One hundred percent the character.Because character cannot be changed. When you see an arrogant person, this will always become self-sabotage — for the team, for the company, and for the role.So let me place it from a different perspective: If recruiters and HR leaders had to adopt just one non-negotiable principle while hiring, and if they truly want to pay more attention to soft skills, then the non-negotiable should be a character or personality test.Because [some] skills can be developed. Experience can grow. Character cannot.”
 
 Q9. “Recruitment is PR”: Fairy tales vs 98% reality
Question
You’ve said “Recruitment is PR.” If hiring is truly a form of public relations, what story do you think companies in Cyprus are telling right now — and what story should they be telling instead?
-
ChristinaK:
“Recruitment today is PR — it’s about attraction.What recruiters usually sell is a beautiful story: a great environment, amazing benefits, perfect communication, wonderful management.But very often, especially in headhunting, we don’t actually know the real environment of the company. And what happens is that recruitment becomes a PR exercise built on fairy tales.People join — and then they realize that reality has nothing to do with what they were promised.Companies need to stop using recruitment as decoration.PR must be true.Hiring should represent 98% of who the company really is, not an idealized version shown through LinkedIn posts, Christmas parties, or staged benefits.And if the environment is not good, if management is not delivering what is advertised, this is where HR must stop and question why.”

Closing editorial note
This is why we built Top10HRVoices: not to recycle corporate messaging, but to give a carefully curated stage to people who are willing to say, out loud, what many only whisper in private.Christina’s words are imperfect, human, and unpolished — but that is precisely where their value lies. She reminds us that behind every “resource” is a person, behind every “hire” is a story, and behind every “PR line” there is either reality or a fairy tale.For companies operating in Cyprus’s high-influx market, the real question is no longer “How fast can we hire?”But: “What kind of society are we building with the way we hire?”