There are few strategic tools as widely used — and as poorly understood — as benchmarking. Leaders compare costs, margins, processes, performance indicators, organisational structures, and increasingly entire business models. The practice is often presented as neutral and objective: a way of learning from the best and identifying gaps that must be closed.
And yet, many benchmarking exercises quietly disappoint. They produce impressive reports, carefully designed dashboards, and long lists of deviations — while leaving decision-makers uncertain about what actually needs to change. The problem is rarely the data. It is the logic through which comparison is interpreted.
Why does benchmarking so often fail to improve judgment?
—
At its core, benchmarking promises orientation. By comparing oneself to others, organisations hope to understand where they stand and how they might improve. This promise rests on an implicit assumption: that performance differences reveal something meaningful about cause and effect.
But comparison is only informative when the underlying contexts are comparable. This is where many benchmarking efforts begin to drift. Metrics are aligned, definitions standardised, and peer groups carefully selected — yet crucial differences remain invisible. Strategy, structure, market position, regulatory exposure, and historical path-dependence are flattened into numbers that appear precise but explain very little.
Benchmarking then starts to answer the wrong question: not why performance differs, but how much.
A difference measured is not a difference understood.
—
In its most superficial form, benchmarking becomes a catalogue of gaps. Costs are higher here, margins lower there, cycle times longer somewhere else. The implicit conclusion is often straightforward: close the gap.
What tends to be overlooked is that gaps are not explanations. They are symptoms. When benchmarking is reduced to gap-closing, it quietly assumes that what works elsewhere should work here — an assumption that is rarely examined, yet deeply consequential.
Used more thoughtfully, benchmarking serves a different purpose. It is not primarily a tool for imitation, but for questioning. Its real value lies not in identifying targets to copy, but in revealing which assumptions may be constraining one’s own thinking.
Why does another organisation operate with a fundamentally different cost structure? Why do similar processes produce dissimilar outcomes? Why does a practice that appears inefficient persist — and still succeed? These questions move benchmarking from measurement to interpretation.
—
This shift matters because strategy is never context-free. Performance emerges from the interaction between choices, constraints, and environments. When these interactions are ignored, benchmarking encourages a form of strategic mimicry that feels rational but often undermines coherence.
The most dangerous benchmarking outcome is not falling behind competitors. It is abandoning one’s own strategic logic without noticing it.
At this point, the implications become personal.
What does this mean for how you should use benchmarking?
First, resist the comfort of rankings. Benchmarks feel reassuring because they simplify reality into ordered lists. But clarity is not the same as understanding. Before acting on a benchmark, ask what had to be ignored in order for that comparison to appear meaningful.
Second, shift attention from outcomes to conditions. Instead of asking how far you are from a benchmark, ask under which conditions that benchmark became achievable elsewhere. Strategy improves not by copying results, but by understanding the choices and trade-offs that produced them.
Third, notice when benchmarking becomes avoidance. In uncertain environments, comparison can substitute for judgment. Referring to “best practice” can feel safer than taking responsibility for a context-specific decision. Intelligent benchmarking supports judgment; it should never replace it.
None of this suggests abandoning benchmarking altogether. Used well, it is a powerful thinking tool — but its value depends less on methodological sophistication than on intellectual discipline.
Good benchmarking does not tell you what to do. It tells you where your own assumptions deserve scrutiny.
Ultimately, benchmarking is not about being better than others. It is about becoming clearer about oneself. When comparison sharpens understanding rather than eroding coherence, it serves strategy. When it substitutes for thinking, it quietly undermines it.
The difference lies not in the data, but in the questions we are willing to ask of it.