In July 2021, strategy+business published Andrew Curcio and Alastair Woods’s argument for rethinking total reward around employee preferences. Their practitioner framework calls for understanding needs, adapting offerings, explaining choices and reviewing the result. The proposal remains useful as a design question, although it does not guarantee that another employer will reproduce the reported business outcomes. A benefits programme needs to explain what each choice is intended to achieve.
Begin with the purpose of protection
Employee preference is important evidence, but it should be considered alongside the function of a benefit. An employee may place little immediate value on protection against a rare event precisely because that event is unfamiliar. Before introducing flexibility, an employer should distinguish the protection it regards as essential from additions that employees can reasonably choose according to their circumstances and priorities.
That distinction needs a clear rationale. A core package might reflect the employer’s intended level of financial protection, while optional benefits address more varied needs. The appropriate boundary depends on local circumstances and requires local review. Asking employees what they value can inform that decision; it should not quietly transfer responsibility for the programme’s overall design to people making individual elections.
Ask questions that illuminate a decision
A preference exercise should describe realistic alternatives and their costs. A list of appealing benefits with no budget constraint is unlikely to tell the employer which trade-offs people would actually accept. Similarly, a question framed around an unfamiliar product may measure the quality of its explanation rather than an underlying need. Testing the wording first can expose these problems before the answers drive expenditure.
Employers should consider whether the respondents reflect the eligible workforce. A survey accessed through a corporate email account may miss employees who use that account infrequently. Language, disability and working hours can also affect participation. These are questions for the design of the exercise rather than grounds for assuming that one group shares the preferences expressed by another. Uncertainty should remain visible in the interpretation.
Make the package manageable
Choice has administrative consequences. A proposed benefit should have an identified owner, reliable eligibility information and a process for resolving errors. Payroll deductions, enrolment changes and the interaction with existing cover should be assessed before launch. Employees experience the package through these practical details; a compelling catalogue offers little reassurance when the selected benefit cannot be delivered as explained.
The employer should also calculate the cost of operating the options, rather than considering only their headline prices. A small pilot can reveal questions that were absent from the original design. Its scope should be sufficient to test the process without implying that a successful trial proves a future effect on retention or productivity. Those outcomes would require a separate and more demanding evaluation.
Preserve accuracy across countries
A multinational reward philosophy can define the objectives of a programme, but employees need descriptions of their actual local entitlements. Statutory provision, tax treatment and insurance conditions require appropriate country expertise. A global comparison should avoid suggesting that two packages are equivalent solely because the employer spends the same amount or uses the same product name in each location.
Communication should show the cost to the employee, the employer contribution where relevant and the circumstances in which a benefit becomes useful. It should explain any material limits in ordinary language. Understanding can be tested with realistic scenarios, including a scenario in which an option is unsuitable. Supporting an informed decision includes helping an employee decline an additional benefit when that is the sensible choice.
Review the decision after delivery
Preference, enrolment and service experience answer different questions. A programme can attract interest yet create disappointment when a claim or request is made. Benefits teams should compare employee explanations of what they expected with the product actually delivered, using proportionate feedback and appropriate confidentiality. This can help identify a design problem that participation numbers would otherwise conceal.
This editor recommends recording the rationale for a material change in total reward before implementing it. The record should identify the employee need, the alternatives considered, the cost and the review date. Revisiting that rationale after delivery makes the exercise useful to management. The test is whether the programme meets its stated purpose and supports intelligible choices, with claims about broader business benefits kept proportionate to the evidence.
Share this:
- More [2]
