The strength of a group contract is not that it exists but how it is sized: a token amount stays a gesture, a well-sized cover is a real safety net. Fortunately, the design is not guesswork – it comes down to a few ratios and one clearly stated rule that everyone understands.
The yardstick: pay and purpose
For life cover the established thinking is a pay-proportionate amount: a multiple of annual income buys the family as much time as re-planning takes. How large the multiple should be is decided by the company's goal – the scale runs from a symbolic gesture to meaningful income replacement, and I show the numbers at several levels for it. A flat amount is simpler to communicate and administer, a pay-proportionate one is fairer; both can work well. What fails is the unsized "some amount" – it neither protects nor carries a message.
The centre of gravity in the accident element
In accident cover, bone fracture and the hospital daily benefit are the visible, frequently paid elements – yet the value of the package lies in the amount for permanent impairment: that is the event after which a family's income is rearranged for the long term. In sizing, therefore, this is the first number; the smaller payouts build the programme's visibility, the large benefit is the point. In physical job roles the accident risk is higher, and insurers typically follow this in premiums and conditions.
Executive and staff tiers
The established logic of tiering: one base tier covering everyone, with raised tiers above it by job role or responsibility – and enhanced amounts plus supplementary covers for key people, as the article on executive extra tiers details. The rule works when it is explicit and consistent: tied to position, salary band or job role, with everyone understanding why they belong where they do. A benefit builds loyalty when it is felt to be fair.
Two typical mistakes
The first is an amount set too small: what looks modest in the budget is insignificant in real trouble – a token payout solves nothing, yet erodes the programme's credibility. In that case fewer cover elements with larger amounts is the better trade. The second is fragmenting the budget: too many small elements, or a cover list stretched so wide that in the end no single amount is felt. Setting priorities is not stinginess but design – the budget planning checklist helps with it.
Optional tiers and maintenance
A popular solution is the multi-tier, optional package: one base for everyone, and higher tiers on a voluntary basis – even with an employee-funded top-up. It follows differing life situations well: a young single person needs something else than a parent of three; its precondition is a simple, well-communicated selection rule. Sizing is also not a one-off decision: pay growth, headcount changes, claims experience – at the review on request we adjust the tiers to these. The Packages page gives a pattern to start from; it is worth tailoring the final proportions to the company's goal.
A question about your own team? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
