Over the years, I've crafted countless EVPs, each one unique and tailored to its specific context. Recently, though, I've found myself stepping into projects where a model was already in place—pillars sketched out, evidence needing to be fit into these predefined categories.
This isn't my usual method, and I've toyed with the idea of creating my own EVP model, but none have ever fully satisfied me. So, does starting with a model help or hinder the development of a compelling EVP?
A model narrative
The closest I’ve got is more like a model narrative, which is a natural way to tell the story of your offer to employees, and that goes something like this:
What, we’re about | How we do what we do | Why we need you | Your needs we can fulfil |
1. It starts with history and education, you can’t assume everyone knows much, or indeed anything about you as an employer.
2. It goes into the culture and ways of working. Two organisations that ostensibly do the same thing can offer entirely different employee experiences.
3. Then what’s happening now and why you, with your skills and experiences, are needed and will be valued
4. And finally, on top of all of the things you now know, what is on offer to you that meet your professional an personal needs.
But even then, I find myself moving elements of that story around to make it more compelling. So, I’ve started breaking this model almost immediately!
Working with a model in place has pros and cons
Pros
The big pro is you’re working against a model that is (or should be!) designed to meet employee needs. If you have x buckets that all have potential meaning and relevance for the target audience, and you can fill each of them, then you’ll have an EVP that will draw, engage and retain the people you need – no question.
You’ll have something to say to everyone you need to speak to – employee or candidate - which will cover all of primary motivations.
Cons
You’re starting at a fixed place. It could be that you don’t have as much to say under one of the pillars as others. Now, that might well give you a good sense of where you might need to develop your proposition. But – at least at the outset - it can also leave you feeling a little inadequate, and perhaps a little unsure of the strength of your EVP.
I don’t think that needs to be the case. Everyone has weaknesses. As long as they aren’t unacceptable weaknesses, then you should still be able to lean into your superpowers. Which is the way I tend to work.
Other models: Get and Give
I’ve seen a fair few classic “Get and Give” models. Ones that spell out: This is what we demand from you as an employee / this is what you get in return. It’s the full expression of the “contract” you have between employee and employer.
To me, it always feels a little limited. It feels too transactional, and that is what I try to steer away from. After all, when we’re talking about transactions in employment, your salary is really the one that counts.
On the hierarchy of needs, salary is right at the bottom. So it’s vital, but it’s the minimum requirement. If you’re not paid enough, you can’t access higher levels of motivation. But - by definition – it doesn't provide intrinsic motivation.
I think that an EVP should be looking to elevate your offer – through the hierarchy of needs - as far as possible. So, I tend to leave remuneration out of an EVP – it’s either enough or it’s not.
That means, I don’t find the way that AIHR – and others, sorry to pick on them – talk about EVP as all that convincing.
AIHR talk about including:
Compensation
Work-life balance
Stability
Location
Respect
And for me, location falls in the same category as compensation. It’s good enough, or it’s not.
I feels like you’re only left with: Work-life balance / Stability / Respect to elevate your offering. It can be done, but each of them will need to work very hard … and you can end up trying to mix ideas, to make it fit the model. So, I think you’re in danger of missing out too much there.
Other models: Gartner
I was more taken with the other model I worked with, based on Gartner’s work:
It also has five “pillars”
· I feel understood
· I feel autonomous
· I feel valued
· I feel cared for
· I feel invested
But these immediately have more scope for moving us away from the transactional and into the realm of intrinsic motivations.
It is very focused on the needs of the employee. Not just what they need professionally, like career growth, but also what they need personally, like a sense of belonging.
My only quibble here is whether it is TOO employee focused?
Is there a natural way to include things like mission, heritage, values inot this? Yes, they will undoubtedly form part of the narrative but then they link rather than tell the story. They are the conjunctions rather than the verbs.
How I Work
I tend to collect my evidence and then create my EVP pillars in the most natural way.
The way I ensure that I don’t miss anything is to reflect on what’s important at work.
To establish this, I undertook a big programme of research. I looked at a lot of academic papers. I checked what Engage 4 Success, CIPD or SHRM had to say on the matter and the research they employed. I looked at employee engagement and other surveys. I reviewed definitions from consultancies and some of the recognised experts in their fields
And that gave me these 12 factors that – excluding pay and benefits – are most important to people at work:
Status and Reputation
Integrity and Values
Leadership and Vision
Management and Support
Expectations and Focus
Voice and Contribution
Accomplishment and Control
Recognition and Value
Learning and Progress
Time and Place
People and Teams
Environment and Process
It’s my belief that no employer can make a really strong case for all of these. I believe they can usually make a case for a maximum of a handful – maybe two really strongly, with two in support.
In my insight and research phase, I ensure that each of these is topics has been investigated. Because there will something to say on all of them.
It’s then my job to work out what comes out most strongly, to out that front and centre, and use the rest of what I find to give context and further evidence to that.
And I don’t believe it’s like placing a takeaway order: I’ll have a number 3, 7 and 11.
I always think it’s going to be more nuanced than that. Look at number 3 : Leadership & Vision – that could go many different ways. It could be that leaders are in total tune with the factory floor, it could be that they have achievements and ambitions that inspire. You need the flexibility to tell that story.
And you might be so strong in one of these factors that it demands more than one pillar, maybe ALL of them with the rest of the evidence as your back-up and proof.
Conclusion: A well-chosen model can provide structure and confidence that you're addressing all the essential elements of a strong EVP. However, a fixed model can also be restrictive.
The best approach may be to base your EVP on solid evidence and allow flexibility in telling your unique story. That way, you’re not confined by pre-established pillars but free to articulate your value proposition in a way that resonates most authentically with your audience.
Why not book a free, no-obligation chat to talk EVP?
Comments