"It's a strange world of language in which skating on thin ice
can get you into hot water"

- Franklin P. Jones

All too often well-meaning individuals use historical language in a modern way that obscures its original meaning. This is unfortunate when the word carries with it a great image that can stick in one´s mind forever. The term "benchmark" historically defined is a surveyor´s mark made on some object that is stationary. This mark documents a previously made position and elevation against an immovable object, so that when forces of nature, such as the tides, move against the object, one can make a quantitative measurement of change. (Thank you dictionary.com)

This is a powerful image. For a benchmark to be accurate, it is placed on a stationary object, such that when change occurs, one can accurately measure it. What does that then say about benchmarking organizations? Are they immovable objects - or does the very standard against which one measures continue to be in flux? I assume the latter. Having said that, I am not an advocate of dismantling benchmark quantitative analysis in learning organizations. However, I will say that whenever we deal with social systems, such as human capital, benchmarking is very complex indeed. Can one really get a benchmark of performance enhancement when the initial measurement made at a fixed point in time can never be recreated? It is anything but an exact science.

Defining any given organization as a learning benchmark is problematic, but not impossible if certain assumptions are established up front. Of course one should look to other similar organizations, or those even more developed than one´s own to identify standards of excellence. Be very careful here-a golden elixir does not exist with social systems. There is no template that can be used as an overlay onto an organization that will fit without significant adjustments. Even when a benchmark of learning excellence to which one hopes to attain is set, the variables are immense.

So what is the solution when identifying benchmarks within social settings? Put faith back in people. If a benchmark is set too low, perhaps employees will attain it and then stop when in fact they might attain well above that mark. If it is set too high, perhaps employees will be discouraged instead of encouraged. Social systems are not a measurable tide and an organization is not an immovable object. Putting faith back in people means working with them on an individual basis to do the following:

• Define strategies and objectives for the learning organization
  • Look to other organizations for ideas and potential solutions
  • Seek out organizations to emulate their outcomes, but develop unique processes.
• Set individualized stretch objectives that align with the unique strategy.
  • Meet regularly with employees to evaluate performance and provide praise/correction
  • Reward the right behavior!
• Remain flexible.
  • Intentional agility is key with any social system.
  • It is not an exact science. Don´t pretend that it is.

For decades, social scientists have attempted to claim that their brand of science is just as legitimate as traditional hard science like biology, chemistry, etc. Within academia this is a cry for legitimacy. It failed and continues to do so. Hard science can get causal predictability rates of over 60% and up to close proximity of 100%. Social science is happily rewarded when predictions can be 15%-25% at best. It is not a lesser science. But it is a different one. Again, the variables are immense.

As learning leaders we need to be careful what we promise to the organization when we use terms such as benchmarking. Set the assumptions up front so as not to continue a half-hearted cry for legitimacy. Learning organizations are human social systems. They are not machinery. Therefore recognize up front the amount of variables impacting any given benchmark of excellence. Move forward and seek that excellence and mark your path against your previous performance so that you can analyze change. Utilize "Benchmarking" as a process verb, not a direct object outcome.