Home > Products & Services > Customisation > Benchmarking

Benchmarking For Success

Benchmarking is the process in which the competencies necessary for job success are determined by comparing the results of individual assessments of a sample of successful incumbents on a specific job with those from samples of both average and poor or struggling performers on that job.  The differences in the patterns of results among the three groups can then be used as a benchmark against which to compare the characteristics of applicants for that job on a variety of tests—a criterion-related validation process.

Benchmarking can help an organisation to better understand the requirements that make for job success.  Moreover, it is arguably the most common method of establishing the validity of an assessment process.  Despite not being generally understood as such, benchmarking clearly identifies those characteristics associated with success on a particular job and thus is criterion related. 

Benchmarking is used to compare the results obtained from a test or a test battery with the current levels of performance of job incumbents and is therefore a form of concurrent validity.  While it is not as strict a test of the predictive value of the test, most test users understand the need for some measure of validity in their organisation and benchmarking is realistically seen as a suitable alternative.  And since it does have criterion relatedness, it does provide an essential determinant of whether or not using the testing instrument or test battery is legitimate.

Conducting a Benchmarking Study

Benchmarking is a particularly useful tool in establishing both the personal/inter-personal characteristics and the level of cognitive ability associated with success on a specific job. Using benchmarks to establish which characteristics make for success provides objective data, eliminating the guesswork and speculation about what is necessary for success on the job. 

Developing the benchmark for a specific job involves the following specific steps:

(1) Conduct a job analysis by asking a panel of persons knowledgeable about a job to identify independently the knowledge, skills, and abilities each of them assumes to be important for success on the job.  This group may involve incumbents, first-line supervisors, managers, and any others with knowledge of that job.  This information can be collected through interviews, questionnaires, or e-mail. 

(2) Analyse the content of the job analysis to identify the level of knowledge, skills, and abilities required.  This analysis should identify which of these competencies are most important for success on this job, providing a foundation for understanding the characteristics associated with job success.

(3) Identify the measures, including tests, which can best measure the most critical competencies. 

(4) Identify three groups of incumbents.  One group should be composed of individuals who are top performers on the job, a second composed of average performers, and a third group of poor or struggling performers.  It should be noted that, in some organisations, there will be resistance to identifying anybody as a weak or poor performer.  We have used the device of simply identifying the three groups by number or letter to obfuscate the groupings.  How these groups have been composed, of course, should not be made public, especially to those involved.

It is important that, in order to avoid bias and favoritism, job success be clearly defined by objective performance criteria, such as monetary value of sales, amount of rework, absenteeism, disciplinary actions, and the like.  If such performance measures already exist in personnel records, it is preferable that they be used.  Using such existing records not only saves time and effort, but also these measures usually have a high degree of acceptance with the organisation’s management.

(5) Administer the selected tests to all the individuals in the three groups, ensuring that each distinctive, important competency or characteristic identified by the job analysis is tapped.  Those tested should simply be told that the testing is part of an effort by management to better understand the factors involved in success on that job—which, in fact, it is.  As we noted above, some measure of job-related personality characteristics and a measure of cognitive ability should always be included among these measures.  In many situations, these two measures, such as those included in CLUES™, will constitute a sufficient source of data for the benchmarking.

(6) Examine the three sets of data—one from the top performers, a second from the average group, and the third from the marginal or poor performers—to determine which of the test scores most clearly differentiate the most successful incumbents from the least.  

It is critical to revisit the benchmark on a regular basis as the job duties change over time.

(The above information is excerpted from the JobCLUES™ Technical Manual ©Copyright 2005 by Psichometrics International and is therefore protected by the copyright contained therein.)