Why Total Rewards Only Works as a Package full discussion

Q: Let's start broad. Why is it a mistake to evaluate one piece of total rewards — a benefit, a pay decision, a program — in isolation?

Jessica: Because employees don't experience their rewards as a list of separate line items — they experience the whole package. That means if you're going to make a change, especially cutting something, you have to be able to explain the trade-off in the context of everything else. Something like: this program costs $1M annually but only 50 employees use it, so we're winding it down and putting that investment into something that reaches 5,000 people instead. That story only holds together if leadership is already thinking about total rewards holistically, not program by program.

I built a model years ago around this exact idea. It's telling that organizations like WTW and WorldatWork are now landing on very similar frameworks. The thinking isn't new; it's just becoming more necessary as companies face harder decisions.

Q: Emma, you're generally aligned with that. But you've pointed out a tension — where does it show up?

Emma: I am generally in agreement with Jessica, especially on the transparency piece. But here's where I'd push: as a communicator, I often see leaders reach for communications as the first move. The instinct is, "let's build appreciation and understanding through better messaging," before they've really examined whether the underlying programs are substantive enough to support that message.

That ordering matters. If the programs aren't robust enough to actually support employees' lives, no amount of great communication is going to manufacture appreciation for them. Communications can clarify, contextualize, and build trust around something real — but it can't create value that isn't there. So: yes to transparency, yes to great communications, yes to giving employees real choices. And all of that only works on top of programs that are actually strong.

Q: Jessica, does that land for you?

Jessica: Completely — I don't think we actually disagree. I'd add that this is exactly why the trade-off conversation has to happen honestly and early. You can't communicate your way out of a program that isn't working. The transparency I'm talking about only has integrity if it's baked in both data and the voice of the employee.

Q: Let's talk about statements — a classic total rewards communication tool. Are they worth the investment?

Jessica: I've done this a lot of different ways. I built statements in-house at low cost with genuinely great feedback. I've also invested more for big vendor-built statements. Both can work. But my honest read after the last several years: the expensive version has increasingly become a hard sell. If your HRIS is set up well, you can surface the same personalized total rewards detail on demand, even to candidates, for little to no added cost. I did that at a prior company, including a version built for external recruiting, and it was really well received.

Q: You've mentioned before that you're wary of leaning too hard on generational framing like "this is what Gen Z wants." Why?

Jessica: I have a strong opinion against overly bucketing preferences by generation — I think it oversimplifies what's really individual variation. That said, I do think there's something real about employees increasingly expecting on-demand, self-service access to their own information rather than a once-a-year mailed statement. Whether you attribute that to generation or just to how digital expectations have shifted broadly, the practical answer is the same: build the infrastructure to make total rewards information available whenever someone wants it.

Emma: I’m with Jessica on this one too, although maybe for different reasons. I think understanding generational qualities, characteristics, expectations, etc. are best understood as the landscape or backdrop your specific audience sits in and listening to and learning directly from your employees about who they are is going to have the greatest impact. Deep knowledge of who they are means you can give them what they want, when they need it, in a way that you know will land with them and stick. 

Q: Any closing thought on what this all adds up to?

Emma: Get the substance right first, be transparent about the trade-offs, and communicate clearly — in that order. Skipping to communications first is the most common mistake I see.

Jessica: And build for total rewards as a system, not a set of disconnected programs. That's the through-line in every framework that's held up best.