This month it is all about data, big data. Our HR data team now has a fancy business intelligence (BI) dashboard which connects data from our onboarding records with fields from our general HR system, along with information from our benefits platform. From this, we can see which groups, by gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and so on are taking up which benefit options. Sounds great in theory, but of course it is not that simple.
Incomplete data
The data we ask for as part of onboarding is optional, and most people elect not to share much other than their gender. So, while we might want to run reports to show that we offer equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of group, the stats that come out on the dashboard are, in fact, too incomplete to be meaningful.
And that applies to benefit take-up too. I can see that more elective benefits are taken up by Buddhists than by Atheists but given only 0.2% of people have disclosed their religion, what does really that tell me? Indeed, if they had all completed the form, what would that tell me? I mean this could be argued both ways: suppose, theoretically that 55% of staff are Atheist and we find they do not value elective healthcare benefits, do we decide to stop offering these? What is the actionable use of this data? I do believe we should look at take-up in total and consider focusing on more popular benefits overall, but that is as far as it goes. I believe we need to make sure that we offer a range of benefits to suit broad demographic of employees and be sure we are not just catering for a particular group, but I am not sure these reports are really helping there, particularly with such spotty data.
Employee encouragement
What the reports have done is highlight that we do not have enough data, so now there is a second big project to try to encourage existing employees to fill in the gaps. This might come in handy should ethnicity and disability reporting become mandatory, but until then employees do not have to tell us and so they probably still will not
I look on with amusement during a big debate between US ideas of ethnicity and more typical groupings in the EU. They are so different, the data team needs to continue to use separate groupings which makes it a very long list. There are similar issues asking about disability. Then, there is the problem that not everyone wants to make their disabilities known, particularly where these might be hidden, or not be perceived as a disability at all, such as with neurodivergence. All these transparency ideals are well meaning, but also rather impractical to implement.
In fact, the only thing I find useful in the report is looking at benefits by age groups because it seems logical that employees will want different things at various life-stages, and we do try to offer an appropriate range of benefits to attract and retain all ages. That said, we are under constant budget pressure, so we are not going to be adding any core benefits anytime soon.
Big Bad Boss has been asked to comment on the demographic reports and what actions we need to take. In other words, I have been asked to comment, Big Bad Boss will merely voice the message.
I look at what else I can refer to. Smarmy Consulting has put out one of its white papers on the demographics of benefit requirements, but it isn’t all that helpful. First of all, its ‘insights’ are all very high level, such as ‘75% of all CEOs are thinking about their wellbeing programme for different demographic groups’. I do not find that information terribly useful: CEOs can think about it all they like; but what are they actually doing about it? Secondly, any questions from a consulting firm survey are designed to produce a response that can be interpreted so it is necessary to spend more money with that consulting firm. Why else would it produce a white paper?
Benefits take up
I think we need to come at this another way. If I look at the different age groups, we have elected benefits to cater for at least some of their specific needs, and guess what, the take-up data supports that need. Similarly, for what little ethnicity and disability data we have, it broadly reflects the take-up in general. We comment that based on Smarmy’s insights, other organisations are looking at ethnicity and so are we. Take-up on benefits for minority groups are consistent with others. Given the small data set, it does not tell you anything at all but the Higher Beings, our executive leadership team, are unlikely to work that out. What we say sounds good anyway. I decide to remain silent on religion in the report. I notice that even Smarmy Consulting failed to provide any insights on that. Perhaps, like politics, some things are better left unsaid.
Big Bad Boss comes back from the meeting with the Higher Beings in high spirits. They bought my ruse to use the new demographic data and the insight reports to endorse what we already do and put the team in a good light. Of course, it is Big Bad Boss who is seen in a good light. He tells me they congratulated him on being on top of latest trends. I am a tiny bit jealous and annoyed I do not get any credit for my thinking. However, I remind myself not to be resentful, I do not really want to have to go in and do battle with the Higher Beings any more than I have to. I am happy to let Big Bad Boss be my puppet in that way and I am sure that on some level he will be grateful to me if I make him look good.
Next time…Candid looks at tax
