Benchmarking your survey results

We are often asked about "benchmarking" or "normative" data. Normative data are data that provide a frame of reference for benchmarking an organisation's survey scores relative to the scores of others. Two types of benchmarks are commonly used in organisational surveys. External benchmarks are taken from survey data collected from outside your organisation. Internal benchmarks are taken from survey data collected from within your organisation.

External Benchmarks

External normative data can certainly help you to interpret your survey findings, and benchmark yourself against your competitors - but there are some important limitations.

The first problem is appropriateness - simply put, the need to compare like with like in order to derive valid inferences. For example, norm data representing a sample of large organisations may not be very informative or useful if your own organisation is small. You should be more interested in how you compare with organisations similar in size to your own. Industry sector, organisation size, and employee characteristics such as tenure, age, and level of education are all factors that can affect employee survey scores and that should ideally be taken into account when making normative comparisons. However, the practical difficulties in collecting sufficient normative data to control for all these factors are often prohibitive and most normative data is only an approximate match for any given organisation.

You can find out if your score is higher or lower than an external group norm, but unless the norm group is highly appropriate, you cannot assess the significance of the difference, or how to prioritize it. Resources expended based on incorrect conclusions drawn from inappropriate external norms can, at best, be wasted, distracting your organisation from efforts that would have been productive. At worst they can exacerbate a problem or create one where none previously existed.

A second problem is that comparing your results against external norms focuses attention on being better than average, rather than on improving. Knowing your organisation is above average is reassuring, but can become an excuse for complacency.

Internal Benchmarks

In contrast to external benchmarking, internal benchmarking focuses on improvement.

Internal benchmarking solves the problems of appropriateness at a stroke, allowing you to consider the variation between two scores and begin to understand why one might be better or worse than the other. This is because you know exactly who the normative participants are, and because you know that the scores you are comparing were derived using the same methodology.

Internal benchmarks may be used to compare different workgroups in your organisation, and to identify areas of best practice which can serve as targets for the rest of the organisation. It also allows you identify the low performing groups. This is of course very valuable, because your organisation can then target its change management efforts at the areas where they are most needed and where they would be most effective. Experience has shown that prioritizing spending in this way can produce a significantly higher return on investment than a one-size-fits-all program.

Secondly, comparing current survey results with historical benchmarks (same work groups - different periods) can help you identify areas of the organisation that are improving, and those that are declining, and to distinguish such changes from change that is affecting the whole organisation. Again, this can help you to develop best practice throughout your organisation, and to address specific areas of weakness cost-effectively.

Conclusions

External and internal benchmarking are useful tools for interpreting organisational surveys and planning and prioritizing follow-up actions. The wise organisation will make judicious use of both.