The Frequency

I addressed inclusivity by combining plan utilization data with direct employee feedback and using that insight to target adjustments while keeping core, high-value benefits intact. We identified underused benefits and prioritized cost-effective wellness options such as virtual fitness, mental health resources, and preventive programs to fill real gaps across life stages. The single change that most improved perceived fairness was instituting routine employee feedback tied to utilization analysis so we could make changes based on demonstrated need rather than assumptions. That data-informed, employee-centered process let groups who felt overlooked see their priorities reflected without overextending the plan.

Our previous benefits, on paper, looked great and on the ground seemed stingy. They were constructed around a single vision of what a ‘life’ looks like.

The one thing which we changed that had a disproportionately big impact was we swapped some fixed benefits to an allowance, where individuals could choose how they wanted to apply the benefit in a way that meant something to them – childcare for person ‘A’; care for parents of person ‘B’; extra training and development for person ‘C’. We changed absolutely nothing to the value we committed each individual to. We just spread this evenly on what mattered to individual people with real, different lives.

Within hours of making the change, the language the teams used immediately changed, and the team that previously had felt a little ‘invisible’ now said they felt that this structure had been designed for them, not applied. I like this phrase: ‘Fair is not the same as providing equal provision – it is making what individuals receive fair to an individual’s life’.

Fairness and identical treatment are not the same thing, and that is usually where benefits feel exclusive. A single package built around one life stage will always leave someone out, because a graduate, a new parent and someone approaching retirement do not want the same things.

The change that improved perceived fairness for us was moving toward choice within a set budget rather than adding ever more benefits. When people can direct a portion of the spend toward what matters to them, whether that is caring responsibilities, health cover, or extra pension, the same pot starts to feel personal. Nobody has to argue that their situation is more deserving.

The other half is listening properly. We ask people what they find useful and what they never touch, and we act on it visibly. Perceived fairness rises less from the plan itself and more from people seeing that they were asked and that the answer changed something.

Fair benefits do not require guessing what each identity group wants. The most useful change was replacing a narrow perk with a same-value allowance that employees could use across approved areas such as learning, wellbeing or caring needs. The budget stayed controlled, but people at different life stages no longer had to subsidise a benefit they could not use. Before adding any perk, I ask one question: who gets no practical value from this? That usually exposes unfairness faster than adding more benefits.

Perceived fairness improves when benefits are treated as part of the employee trust model, not just a compensation line item. People ask whether the plan sees their real life, whether support is usable, and whether tradeoffs are being made honestly. I learned that inclusivity does not come from offering more categories. It comes from reducing blind spots in eligibility, communication, and access.

The most meaningful change was auditing benefits for hidden assumptions. That review exposed rules that unintentionally favored traditional households, standard work patterns, or visible needs. Once those assumptions were removed, fairness improved quickly for employees who had felt peripheral. Better perception came from smarter design, not bigger spend, which is usually where sustainable inclusion actually lives.

Replacing monolithic packages with a modular, credit-based framework is the most effective way to maintain inclusive benefits without overextending the budget. A one-size-fits-all approach inevitably neglects key demographics—younger workers often find robust family coverage irrelevant, while senior staff prioritize distinct wellness needs. By implementing a cafeteria-style model, organizations can cap their total financial exposure per head while significantly increasing the perceived value of the total rewards package.

The single most impactful change for improving perceived fairness is the introduction of flexible spending buckets that treat divergent priorities with equal financial weight. Instead of offering a standard gym membership or a childcare stipend that only serves a subset of the workforce, organizations should provide options spanning mental health support, professional certifications, and eldercare. When a single professional in their twenties and a parent in their fifties see that their specific needs are supported by the same budget allocation, the internal narrative shifts from exclusion to personalized equity.

This modular approach also solves the financial inefficiency of underutilized premiums. Forcing every employee into a high-tier, all-encompassing plan wastes capital on features the majority will never use. A choice-based system provides actionable data on what the workforce actually values, allowing leadership to negotiate favorable rates on high-demand services while trimming waste from the overall strategy. True inclusivity is defined not by giving everyone the same benefit, but by providing equal access to the support relevant to an employee’s current reality.

Our team spans Morocco, Dubai, and the US, and a single benefits menu built around one country’s assumptions was quietly leaving people out. Our health coverage defaults were built around a US style plan, which meant almost nothing for our Morocco based team members, who needed support that looked completely different: contribution toward private clinic access, not a copay structure nobody there uses.

Rather than expanding the plan to cover every possible need everywhere, which would have blown the budget, we set a fixed benefits allowance per person and let each team member apply it to what actually mattered in their location and life stage: private healthcare access in Morocco, a transport allowance in Dubai where commutes run longer, or additional parental leave days for a team member with a new child in the US.

Perceived fairness improved most among the Morocco team, who had felt like an afterthought bolted onto a US framework. The unlock was decoupling the benefit from a single default plan and giving people choice inside a fixed budget, instead of trying to design one plan that flattered everyone equally and satisfied nobody.

One change helped employees see more value in our benefits. We stopped listing each plan feature by itself. We showed how the same benefit might help people in different parts of life, such as a new parent, a caregiver, or someone close to retirement.

We did not add more benefits. We made the existing plan easier to understand. Employees asked better questions. They were also less likely to think a benefit was meant for someone else. We still reviewed how often each option was used before renewal. The new examples came first. They helped people see what was already available without promising a new benefit for every need.

For a while, I read our benefits sheet as basically fair. Everyone got the same thing, so what could be wrong with it? Then somebody pointed out that the same thing is not the same for a 24-year-old sharing a flat and a 40-year-old supporting 2 parents. We are about 60 people, fully remote, most of us in India. The change that mattered was letting people put parents on the health cover instead of only a spouse and children. It cost us more. The complaints about fairness mostly stopped, which I did not expect to happen that fast.

You would think somebody would use the wellness budget. It sits there every year, and we keep renewing it anyway.

I think inclusive benefits start with flexibility around real-life needs instead of narrow assumptions about what employees value. One change that improves fairness is organizing support by life situation, such as health, family, flexibility, development, and emergencies, rather than making everything feel designed for one type of employee. That helps people find what applies to them without overextending the plan. Fairness is not giving everyone the same benefit. It is making sure support is usable across different lives.

Start with fairness as a principle. It’s not about identical benefits. A 25-year-old, a new parent, and someone with an elderly parent all have different needs. I prefer to create a solid central benefits system that’s flexible to the needs of the employees. The most relative fairness to employees comes from the choice of benefits. A flexible benefits allowance gives the employee a choice in the benefits supporting their needs, and the company gets the benefit of perception and cost control… a win in any CFOs opinion.

One of the biggest mistakes employers make is assuming every employee values the same benefits. A package built around one life stage, such as young families or nearing retirement, can unintentionally leave others feeling overlooked. Inclusivity isn’t about offering every possible benefit; it’s about giving people meaningful choice within a sustainable budget.

A change that significantly improved perceived fairness was introducing a flexible benefits allowance. Rather than expanding the overall benefits spend, we allocated a portion that employees could direct toward options most relevant to them, whether that meant additional health and wellbeing support, professional development, childcare assistance, or extra annual leave. The investment remained predictable for the business, but employees gained greater control over what they valued most.

Transparency was equally important. We explained why certain benefits were standard across the firm, why others were optional, and how decisions were made. Employees are generally more accepting of limitations when they understand the reasoning and know the process is consistent.

In my experience, perceived fairness comes less from having the largest benefits package and more from ensuring employees have flexibility, clarity, and confidence that the programme recognises different needs without favouring one group over another.

Effective inclusive benefits programs can be described as those with a level of assistance that is similar for all employees and at the same time offers some degree of flexibility in using these benefits. An effective plan should provide a clear structure with benefits that are needed by almost all participants, such as health care and paid time off, while also providing other flexible benefits that vary according to the life stage, such as caregiving, professional training, health care, and social programs. In this way, a well-balanced plan is designed that works but is not burdensome for the organization.

In general, the most successful approach is to make changes where employees feel they received equal benefits but had a real opportunity to use them according to their expectations.

Offering flexible benefits is a more effective way to make compensation inclusive than attempting to predict the needs of each employee. A rigid system might inadvertently provide an advantage to some groups of the workforce such as the parents, but miss other groups such as caregivers, single adults, employees with special health conditions or individuals responsible for supporting extended family and other relatives. The emphasis has to be put on creating the core system designed around important segments and giving employees the opportunity to choose its components.

Replacing remote specific perks with flexible allowance of equal value would easily change perceptions of fairness among employees. By allowing them to utilize the benefit according to their needs, a company would no longer have to develop additional programs applicable to specific groups of employees. From the technological point of view, it is also very important to ensure the understanding of the structure of eligibility and the remaining balances.