Omar Quintero· Compensation Consultant, Cardinal Insurance
Posted in Benefits & Wellbeing ·
Sharing a format that has worked for us at a Dutch university medical centre with about 12,000 staff. Our old total reward statement led with one large figure, salary plus the employer cost of every benefit, on the theory that people would be impressed.
They were not. In focus groups, staff called it the number that is not my pay. Nurses in particular read it as the employer arguing they were paid more than they felt they were.
The new version leads with what you have: days of leave remaining, pension built up so far and projected, what you would receive if you were ill for a long period, and what your family would receive if you died. Costs are on page two. Open rate went from 31% to 67%.
5 helpful · 3 insightful · 3 replies · 132 views · 3 following
People Analytics Lead, Steinbach Industrie
We came to the same conclusion from the other direction. The line people actually read on ours is the death-in-service one, because most had no idea it existed. Beneficiary nominations went from 44% complete to 79% in the month after the statement, which I count as the most useful outcome a statement has ever had for us.
Compensation Manager, Fairlead Shipping
I would not drop the total figure entirely. For our sales population, where a competitor's offer is always a base salary comparison, showing employer pension at 12% and the value of the car as money is the whole point. Perhaps it depends on whether your retention risk is people leaving for more cash.
Director of Benefits, Bellwether Consulting
Agreed that it depends on the audience, and we kept the figure, just not on the front. One practical note for anyone copying this: the long-term illness line needed checking by our insurer for every pay group, because the definition of covered salary differed for staff with irregular shift allowances. That took six weeks we had not planned for.
