It is common knowledge by now that engagement through compensation is not so simple as giving a pay cheque at the end of the month and calling it quits. HR managers, alongside their hiring, firing and tracking responsibilities, have to strike a balance between the benefits that will keep employees happy, engaged and productive, and the budget that will keep the company coffers and board members content.
While we at HR Magazine find ourselves printing the words ‘one size fits all’ far too much (HR needs a new term!), it has been shown time and time again to be true. Non-monetary benefits such as holiday allowance, sick leave and medical insurance policies can be deal makers or deal breakers. But since every employee is an individual, with their own worries, priorities and background, building a package that suits all is a challenge.
A recent survey on medical consumer and providers needs in Asia by Swiss Re attempted to broadly identify the links present in different markets to be able to map medical coverage needs to socioeconomic status. It found that in Hong Kong there is a huge gap between consumer awareness and insurer provisions. This has resulted in low use of medical benefits, rendering the provision undervalued. For fear of incurring high fees for consultation, treatment and other add-ons, Asian employees are unlikely to use the subsidised medical insurance provided to them by their company.
Furthermore, the results showed that in high-ownership markets, employees will place more value on added features such as family plans and wide coverage. In markets with low ownership of medical plans, the most valued products are those that meet immediate needs. HR managers can leverage this knowledge by factoring in the uptake of medical insurance in their locality when deciding upon its weighting in benefit packages. In Hong Kong, for example, many employers provide a basic plan meaning that to further engage they should create a more comprehensive package. In other countries where the uptake is low, and illness could prove economically disastrous, these added perks would not likely be used, and employers should offer simple policies to cover basic needs with low excesses or none at all.
Paul Arkwright
Publisher
