At the end of my last blog,
I gave the strong impression that I didn’t value benchmarks. And I think
that I’ve always felt very wary of them, but I don’t think that I’ve ever
really examined why.
Let me be clear though, my
reservations aren’t about uncovering best practice, or understanding how you
are perceived in the wider market. There’s always a case for seeing how other
people do things, and there’s as strong a case for ensuring that you carefully
apply and adapt only that which will work for you. The school for which I am a
Governor has made great strides by taking just this approach. And you’d be well
advised to understand what the people that you might want to work for you think
of you. Undoubtedly you’ll have something to offer many of them, undoubtedly
some just won’t ever consider you and just as surely, some won’t understand all
that you offer. That is all valuable insight.
So I suppose it’s a
different type of benchmark that raises my hackles (or as a former colleague
used to memorably put it “gets up my goat”). What’s employee turnover like at
our competitors? What budget do they give to training and development? How does
our engagement score compare? You’ll get some numbers, but for me they’re just
too abstract to do anything useful with. Unless they talk candidly about each
issue, you won’t get the context behind it. You won’t understand why the
numbers are what they are, you just know their values. And there’s little value
in that.
And what will you do with
that number? You’re going to be under or over the number, so do you redouble
your efforts, or do you rest on your laurels? Are you really just salving your curiosity,
or ticking a box? I take the view that you should try to constantly improve,
this kind of external stimulus seems irrelevant to that ambition.
So, next time the topic
comes up think: is it a bench-mark, or a box-tick?
