People Centricity case study

Not Every Part of an EVP Has to Win

4years of voluntary leavers read for who leaves and why
6benchmark providers screened before one was chosen
2countries benchmarked against peer banks
3currencies in the value proposition

The situation

The question behind the question.

This bank had a brand its clients recognised anywhere. As an employer, it was known less well than it deserved: graduates and professionals placed it behind several peers, in one of the tightest labour markets in Europe. HR had sketched what an employee value proposition could be. Before taking it further, it needed evidence: who was leaving and why, how its offer compared with the banks it competes with for talent, and where to act first.

As it was asked

“Help us build the case for our employee value proposition.”

As we reframed it

Decide where the bank must simply be competitive, where it can be different and where it can be unique, and let the evidence on who leaves and what peers offer set the order.

How we worked

How the work unfolded.

01

Read who leaves

We started with the people the offer was failing. 4 years of voluntary leavers were read from the HR system, alongside onboarding, engagement and exit surveys: by tenure, generation, performance and talent status, with the reasons they gave and where they went next. Each pattern was tested statistically before it counted. The data stood in for the employee voice the first phase could not yet include, and it showed which segments the offer was losing, and in which currency.

02

Price the market

Then the outside view. 6 benchmark data providers were screened on depth and peer coverage; 4 qualified and one was retained. It compared benefits in the bank’s 2 largest countries against peer banks chosen with HR, and rated how well benefits were communicated as well as what they were worth. Research on expectations, engagement and quit intentions set the wider market. The result was a red, amber and green reading, benefit by benefit, against the banks that hire the same people.

03

Sort by currency

Then the structure: the People Expectations Framework™, already our lens for what people expect from an employer. 3 currencies, each with its own ambition. The transactional one, pay and benefits, security, employability and flexibility, only needs to be competitive. The relational one, well-being, fairness and voice, belonging and development, is where an employer can be different. The ideological one, meaningful work, purpose and values, is where it can be unique. Every piece of evidence was placed in a currency, so each gap came with its ambition attached.

04

Sequence and ask

Then the order, and the price of waiting. The cost of excess turnover was estimated, so leaders could weigh what the proposition was worth before what it would cost, and the turnover study became the baseline to judge it against. The sequence followed the currencies: 2 years to get the transactional one right, starting with quick wins on 2 benefit gaps, then 2 years on the relational one, careers first. The HR leadership team was asked for 4 decisions: the framework, the quick wins, the opportunities to explore, and a consultation of employees before anything was promised outside.

The instrument

Competitive, different, unique

Transactional. Pay and benefits, security, employability, flexibility. The aim is to match the market: being better here rarely attracts, being worse always repels.

Relational. Well-being, fairness and voice, belonging, development. This is where people choose one employer over another, and where an offer can differ.

Ideological. Meaningful work, purpose and values. Only what this firm can credibly claim, and no peer can copy.

Not every part of an offer has to win. Knowing where it only needs to match frees money for the currencies where it can stand out.

What moved

What changed, and what didn't.

4 of 4decisions approved by the HR leadership team, from the framework to an employee consultation
Evidence Decision taken Adopted in practice Measured impact
What moved

The HR leadership team approved 4 of 4 decisions: the framework, the quick wins on benefits, the opportunities to explore and the consultation of employees. The employer brand debate now rested on evidence: who was leaving, what it cost, and how the offer compared with peers, currency by currency.

What didn't move

Employees were heard through data, not yet in their own words: the survey and focus groups moved to the next phase. The ideological currency was named but not yet worked, and when we handed over the proposition had no statements, proof points or indicators of its own.

What we'd say to a peer

Not every part of an employee offer has to win. Decide where you only need to match the market, where you can be different and where you can be unique, then let the evidence on who leaves set the order. And price excess turnover before you price the proposition: it changes the conversation with the people who decide.

Let's talk Discover People Centricity Read more cases
Method note:

Own approach in 4 steps; 4-year voluntary turnover study with statistical tests; benefits benchmark, 6 providers screened; People Expectations Framework™; costed excess turnover.

WeAreHuman@Work

One piece of evidence on sustainable work, every Sunday. Free, and one click to leave.

Get the weekly edition