⋅ X min read
Table of contents
Companies spend fortunes ensuring their benefits are “competitive.” They commission reports, hire consultants, and tweak policies by percentage points — all in the name of keeping up.
But the result, says Christina Alliak, Director of Benefits at Cohesity, isn’t competitiveness. It’s conformity.
“I’ve worked for a number of companies where, despite me having the experience, I’ve been asked to pay for a benchmark report,” she said on the Friends With Benefits podcast. “It delivers the exact same results as I would have said.”
Benchmarking began as a way to gain perspective. Now it often replaces it.
“Benchmarking gives you a data point,” Christina said. “But it’s just one data point.”
Across the industry, that single data point too often becomes the strategy.
The ease of outsourcing thought
Benchmarking thrives because it simplifies leadership’s hardest job: deciding what to do next.
“It’s easier,” Christina admitted. “Because you outsource the decision-making to some extent to consultants.”
That honesty exposes an uncomfortable truth. Benchmarking doesn’t only compare benefits; it transfers accountability. Leaders get to claim evidence-based prudence without the risk of an original idea.
For time-poor Benefits and Rewards teams, benchmarking offers a shortcut through complexity. For executives, it offers cover. But both come at a cost: curiosity.
“Benefits is still a relatively niche profession,” Christina said. “The nuanced stuff sits with people who’ve been doing it for a long time."
When you’re a leader who needs a quick decision, yes — you’d rather say, ‘Consultancy, give me your advice,’ and that’s it.”
It’s not laziness. It’s to some extent survival. But it also means Benefits and Rewards teams are outsourcing imagination.
Why sameness feels safe
Carl Chapman, Ben’s VP Benefit Design & Partnerships, captured it perfectly: “A benchmark report is a ‘that’ll do’ document. We’re broadly in line — move on.”
This, Christina argues, is how conformity becomes culture. “Every company is trying to create their own narrative,” she said. “But the whole point of benefits is to cater to the audience and the challenges they experience. How does a benchmark help you solve a problem?”
It’s a question that lands like a quiet challenge to the entire industry.
When reward leaders talk about being “competitive,” what they often mean is “comparable.” The benchmark becomes the fence between them and their peers — something to peek over, not to climb.
As Carl added,
“I hate this notion of peering over the fence and seeing what others are up to. I want to mould what my house looks like based on my needs, not based on what the Joneses are doing down the street.”
Yet this sideways glance has become orthodoxy. Everyone’s waiting for someone else to move first — and everyone ends up standing still.
When “best practice” blocks progress
Christina has seen how benchmarking stifles innovation in real time. “Everyone is starting to scratch their heads as medical premiums rise,” she said. “We’re all guided by the benchmark, but employees can’t get the same healthcare cover as they did five years ago for the same premium.”
The logic is circular: companies justify rising costs because “the market’s moving,” even when the market’s moving in the wrong direction.
In her view, benchmarking encourages a that’ll-do mentality — not just in benefits, but in how we thinks about progress.
“We all wait because that’s the rule of the benchmark,” she said. “So in the end, you’re not doing right by the employee. You’re just staying in your lane.”
Carl agreed. “Nobody’s really taking the opportunity to improve or enhance,” he said. “If everyone’s just keeping balance, no one leads.”
And yet, those who do lead — often in tech — find themselves setting new benchmarks that others dutifully copy. The cycle renews itself.
A better way to think
For Christina, the alternative begins with a shift in question: not What does the market offer? but What do our people need?
She believes benefits should be treated more like products, designed for specific audiences and problems.
“Eighty per cent of benefits are pretty much the same,” she explained. “We’re talking insurances, pensions, risk — that’s it. The differentiation lies in the 20 per cent where you really understand your demographic.”
That 20 per cent, she says, is where emotion lives. “What touches them emotionally? What challenges do they have? How can we, as the employer, help?”
Instead of benchmarking against the industry, Christina imagines a world where data enables empathy — not imitation. “Why isn’t there a place where I can go in and see every company’s benefits laid out?” she asked. “Encrypted, anonymised, open-source. It would let us see trends but translate them into something meaningful.”
Her vision is one of transparency, not templating.
The real benchmark
The conversation turned philosophical when Carl suggested rewards leaders should “benchmark inward.” What if companies compared themselves not to peers, but to their own people’s realities — their debt levels, their childcare pressures, their health anxieties?
“That’s the challenge,” Christina said.
“When you reach out and ask employees what they need, expectations rise — and people assume something will happen straight away.”
It’s a delicate balance. True listening takes time; benchmarking takes an invoice.
But the hardest truth is that innovation requires discomfort. “You need time to innovate,” she said. “Normally it happens backwards. You get your report, someone says, ‘We need to match this competitor,’ and HR starts scrambling to add a gym membership or whatever else.”
The result? Clutter. Companies end up offering a patchwork of perks that look progressive on paper but dilute their proposition in practice.
Why this matters
Benchmarking isn’t bad per se. It’s just overused. It offers context, not direction; inspiration, not instruction. Christina is the first to acknowledge that it still has value — “as a reference point, as inspiration… a thought-provoking point rather than the final decision driver.”
But the line between reference and reliance has blurred.
As Carl observed, benchmarking “is a that’ll-do document.” It reassures but rarely reveals. And in a world where employee expectations, health inflation, and wellbeing costs are rising fast, reassurance isn’t strategy.
The real benchmark, Christina suggests, isn’t what the market pays. It’s what your people feel.
“Benefits should solve problems,” she said simply. “They should reflect who your people are — not just what everyone else is doing.”
Benchmarks can inform, but they can’t inspire. That still requires leadership — and listening.
.png)
.png)