Your EVP spend is already big enough 

Adding something new feels responsive and gives employers something tangible to communicate. The trouble is that many organizations already have an employee value proposition (EVP) that has grown too big over the years. Benefits have been introduced at different times for different reasons, and some will now matter far more to employees than others. Over time, organizations can lose sight of which parts of the offer are still delivering value.

Before adding anything new, rewards leaders should look harder at what they are already funding and ask what should stay, what should grow, what could be offered for more flexibly and what is no longer needed. The answers should reflect what employees value, but also the capabilities and skill the business needs more of.

Two-thirds of human resources (HR) leaders in Marsh’s Global Talent Trends 2026 research believe personalized employee experiences are the next era of EVP. There is plenty of logic in this. Different employee segments have different needs, and these needs change over time. The danger is that personalization can become another reason to expand the offer, when the bigger opportunity may lie in reallocating existing investment.

Only 20% of organizations use always-on employee listening. Many are therefore making decisions about the employee experience using information gathered through annual or biannual surveys. This can tell you a great deal about broad sentiment but it is a fairly blunt instrument for deciding how to allocate a significant rewards budget.

Few businesses would make major decisions about customers using one snapshot of their preferences each year. Employee investment deserves similar discipline. 

Better listening and increasingly artificial intilligence (AI)-powered people analytics can show where money is having an effect and where it could be doing more. Every benefit carries an opportunity cost, so funding outdated programs leaves less room to address critical workforce needs and business capabilities.

The employee value proposition extends well beyond the traditional benefits catalog. Development is becoming a more important part of how people judge value at work, which gives rewards leaders a broader set of choices about where investment should go. Our research highlights that 63% of employees are willing to trade a 10% pay increase for opportunities to upskill in AI and digital skills. Tuition reimbursement could be the best way to attract certain employee segments, while on-the-job upskilling might better incentivize other groups to perform at peak. Where development also builds skills the business would otherwise struggle to buy, the value runs both ways. Rewards investment can strengthen the employee experience while helping the organization build the capability it needs to grow.

The same argument applies to pay. Three-quarters of HR leaders believe skills-based pay drives higher retention than tenure-based approaches, yet only 26% currently have a skills-based pay component in place.

Part of the problem is that many reward systems were built for jobs that no longer look the same. Rewards leaders may know which skills are becoming more valuable but still struggle to reflect that in pay when the company’s job structures have not kept up. A modern job architecture offers a clearer view of roles, skills, and levels across the business, and where value is changing.

This is an important part of the personalization debate that can easily be missed. It is difficult to optimize investments in the workforce if the organization lacks a clear picture of the work itself. Rewards leaders need to understand what employees value, alongside which skills and roles will drive future performance. This is what allows reward investment to support talent mobility, productivity, and agility, rather than simply improve the offer.

Pay brings us to trust. Our research finds that only 31% of employees are confident they would be compensated if they upskilled. Meanwhile 42% believe it is easier to secure a pay rise by leaving their employer and later rejoining.

As rewards become more differentiated, employees need to understand how skills and performance affect pay and progression. This is where communication and employee engagement are an essential part of reward strategy. Managers can only explain decisions credibly when the underlying structure of roles and expectations is clear and defensible, and when employees understand how the wider EVP connects to their unique interests and contributions.

Comp and benefits season is a useful moment to review the whole portfolio rather than focus on what to add next. Some areas will merit greater investment, while others may no longer reflect what employees or the business need. Better insight can help rewards leaders make these choices against much more specific priorities: where scarce skills are needed, where performance is being held back, and where investment could do more to strengthen capability or agility.

This is the real opportunity in personalization. A strong EVP can look different across the workforce without becoming an endless menu of individual choices. The aim is to direct investment toward the things employees value and the outcomes the organization needs.

Before looking for the next benefit, are you prepared to stop paying for past decisions so you can invest more in what matters now?