This is the third in a series of articles in which the authors explore their reflections on the future of learning, given the tumult and chaos of the past year, and how learning needs to evolve to serve organizations differently. Read part 1 and part 2.
Various apps are available that enable users to compare gas prices among different gas stations near where they live; this is an example of good benchmarking.
Etymologically, “benchmarking” emerged in the 19th century. It was an adaptation of a surveyor’s point of reference — an angle iron stuck in the ground as a support to create a common reference point for a leveling staff. The word emerged as a way to compare common things from one point of view.
Modern benchmarking works great for certain things in organizations: It is perfect for comparing like-for-like commodities in a transparent market, like cost base and procurement processes. However, when benchmarking goes rogue — when it starts to homogenize strategic and distinctively unique domains of a business — it becomes dangerous.
Just as strengths, when overused, become weaknesses, so we have seen a useful and practical approach to benchmarking in corporate learning become a value-destroying practice. Increasingly, we have observed management consultancies using benchmarking frameworks that are counterproductive to good, strategic learning in organizations. Like its etymological roots, this type of benchmarking views learning from one point of view, but mistakenly tries to create a “like-for-like” comparison when there is none.
We believe there are three reasons that benchmarking is bad for corporate learning:
- Benchmarking of corporate learning forces the loss of organizational context.
- The focus of benchmarking is on inputs, not outcomes.
- By framing learning as a replicable commodity, the entire learning ecosystem loses much-needed innovation.
First, when organizational learning is great, it is highly contextual. Despite the increases in digitization and e-learning, when learning drives real change, it is built around the legacy and nuance of a discrete, individual business and deeply tied to organizational realities. We have worked in a range of different companies, and the ways that people learn in each is distinctive, what they need to learn is differentiated, and the cadence of learning needs to be reflective of the operational realities of each organization.
Take mining, for example: Due to its employee base and the operational cadence of a work day, these companies have different learning requirements and avenues than other industries. People in the mining environment tend to learn better through discussions in pre-start meetings and one-on-one discussions during time-in-field with supervisors that are more akin to apprenticeships and mentoring than traditional learning. These real, operational elements shape learning and erode the like-for-like requirements that productive uses of benchmarking require.
By benchmarking learning, we risk losing this nuance and the local needs of a business. In our experience, each business has its own unique legacy and status quo that it is trying to work its way out of — in healthy learning functions, this is the dominion of learning, but when learning functions are driven by looking like everyone else, they lose the nuance and business focus that is so vital to impact.
In an earlier article, we wrote about developing a real strategy for on-the-job learning; that article underscores the nuance and variance that is vital to informing good on-the-job learning and highlights how dangerous it is to attempt benchmarking within corporate learning. By adhering to the benchmarking of learning, we remove the ability of organizations to do the truly unique things with learning that accrete the most value.
Organizations don’t copy their way to greatness. We maintain that learning should be strategic both in what we teach and how we teach it. While there is value in benchmarking stock levels and absenteeism, benchmarking in learning loses the vital understanding of organizational context, intentionality and distinctive strategies.
Second, benchmarking is limited because it looks at the parts, not at the whole — with a strong bias toward looking at inputs, not outcomes. It is possible for learning functions to benchmark well and to perform poorly. While you can understand facets of the “plumbing” of learning through benchmarking, it is often difficult to understand the whole system — in other words, the plumbing might be good, but how’s the house? Benchmarking can effectively measure facets of learning operations and finances, but it is much less effective at creating meaningful comparisons between the impact and performance shifts that occur.
While there may be some minimal value in benchmarking the “unit costs of learning” or the “learning offerings available,” these benchmarks don’t translate to impact and the behavioral shifts that learning functions need to deliver on.
For organizations that view learning as a commodity and a cost center that they need merely to pump out content and eek out increasing efficiency, benchmarking is a dream come true. For those of us who believe that learning is strategic and transformative to organizational performance, benchmarking is a waste of time. By comparing things that shouldn’t be compared and focusing on metrics that are disconnected from learning impact, we create efficient learning functions that risk being viewed as bad. Benchmarking of learning creates a false narrative that there is one “right” approach and standard for learning and that the world would be a better place if we all just did the same thing. From our experience, nothing is further from the truth when it comes to effective and impactful learning functions.
The third way that benchmarking is bad for corporate learning is that it erodes innovation in the broader learning ecosystem in exchange for the pursuit of the lowest common denominator. By benchmarking learning, we are creating an artificial expectation that all learning should look the same and that learning departments should operate in the same ways. This is a hugely problematic assumption, as most organizations are still infantile in their ability to affect their employee’s behaviors at scale. For us to hit the pause button on innovation, here, and try merely to reduce costs and look like everyone else, risks the innovations in learning and behavioral change that are not only vital to individual organizations, but to broader approaches to learning and behavioral change. The damage that benchmarking inflicts, then, is not merely on an isolated company, but on the biodiversity that is vital for innovation and growth in approaches and methodologies.
Benchmarking risks turning organizational learning into a “Walmart function,” in which everything looks the same from organization to organization. The reality is that we would be much better served nurturing a rich biodiversity in approaches to learning so that organizations in all sectors can innovate on their abilities to shape local behaviors.
We both recognize that learning leaders are seeking mechanisms to justify and explain their activities and their budget; they are looking for external validation of their work in the face of increasing scrutiny and critiques from internal stakeholders. The answer is not to benchmark; it is to move in the other direction and become deeply unique to the operational realities of your business. Where benchmarking leads learning functions down the slippery slope of replication and comparison of operational drivers, focusing on points of distinction and impact within the context of the operating realities of your business moves you in the other direction. We believe that this fissure represents a breaking point for learning functions, with commoditized warehouses of learning “stuff” being benchmarked on one side, and highly customized, targeted and bespoke interventions transforming how people really work on the other. We know which side we’d like to be standing on.
