'Investments in human resources don't often get the same level of scrutiny as other investments do,' says Dialogue's Navaid Mansuri
When organizations resist updating outdated benefits programs, the impact goes far beyond line-item savings, particularly as hidden cost - from lost productivity and engagement to talent attrition and reputational erosion - can quietly erode an organization’s bottom line.
This was one of the core takeaways delivered at Dialogue’s Sparking Dialogues symposium on Tuesday.
Monika Mielnik, Darren Steeves and moderator Navaid Mansuri explored how inaction in workforce investment is often the costliest decision of all.
“While new investments may seem expensive up front, the right ones can not only deliver strong ROI but reduce long-term expenses by creating a healthier and more engaged workforce,” said Mansuri, chief financial officer at Dialogue. “We often say that employees are our most valuable asset, however in a lot of cases, investments in human resources don't often get the same level of scrutiny as other investments do.”
Mielnik urged organizations to reframe how they view employee benefits. Not as a cost, but as a long-term investment in workplace culture and performance, adding that productivity gains come from supporting employees as whole people, not just workers.
“People don't leave their challenges and their issues at the door. They bring that into the workplace,” noted Mielnik, managing director, equity, diversity & inclusion at CPP Investments.
“Inaction itself is a decision,” Mielnik added, warning that failure to invest now leads to more expensive, reactive interventions later. From her perspective, investing in employee well-being isn't just beneficial. It's arguably essential for fostering engagement, resilience, and adaptability across the organization.
Mielnik highlighted three critical risks that come with failing to update workplace programs: diminished innovation, reputational decline, and widening equity gaps.
“If there is homogenous thinking... we're reducing any creativity and agility that we are able to tap into,” she said, adding that this kind of flexibility is essential for businesses operating in today’s fast-moving and high-performance environment.
She also underscored the shifting expectations of a younger workforce, shaped by education and evolving societal values.
“For those who do not lean into that, I think that the consequence is losing really amazing talent,” she added.
Her final point focused on the structural inequities baked into legacy benefit programs. Without modernization, she warned, those gaps are going to continue to exist and “those inequities are going to be felt by those individuals within the organization.”
Steeves, director of consulting services at CGI, emphasized the importance of tracking discretionary effort as a measurable link to productivity, something he believes is often discussed in vague terms.
Instead of treating productivity as an abstract goal, his team quantified it by measuring how much time employees were actually focused on work. For example, Canadian employees around the age of 70 spent thirty per cent of their time disengaged or distracted.
By aiming to raise that discretionary effort even marginally, even from 69 per cent to 75 per cent, Steeves believes organizations can realize significant gains at scale.
Mielnik emphasized the need to strike a balance between hard metrics and the lived experiences of employees when evaluating the impact of workplace programs. While quantitative data like disability claims, relapse rates, and benefit utilization is essential, she argued it's just one part of the picture.
She also stressed the importance of categorizing support programs into proactive and reactive streams, then analyzing their effectiveness accordingly, pointing to a past example where ensuring more visibility around caregiver and parenting support significantly boosted program usage.
“We actually saw our EFAP utilization drastically increase. It was four times the increase because we started actually showcasing what specific services could be leveraged,” she said.
Looking ahead, Steeves predicted a major shift in how organizations deliver benefits, moving away from passive, self-directed models toward proactive, personalized solutions. He believes the future lies in predictive technology that anticipates employee needs before they arise.
He also advocated for stepped care models that match the intensity of support to the individual’s needs. Rather than defaulting to expensive clinical solutions, employees could benefit from scalable alternatives like peer counseling, which Steeves noted can sometimes be more effective.
“We need more tools and groups that are doing stepped care so it’s the right help at the right time at the right intensity,” he said, emphasizing that personalization and customization are key to improving outcomes and maximizing value.
Yet, Mielnik acknowledged that while long-term innovation is valuable, she believes many employers are still falling short in helping employees navigate what’s already available, pointing out that programs, no matter how well designed, are ineffective if people don’t know about them or feel uncertain about how to access them, particularly mental health support.
Ultimately, Steeves underscored flexible, personalized benefits will often lead to stronger engagement and better utilization.
“When it’s flexible and you can make the right choices for you, you get more engagement,” he said, pointing to data that supports the connection between customization and employee uptake.
“Personalize it and make sure people can choose what the great plan is for them.”
