Benchmarks

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?