Many of my professional colleagues for whom I hold the deepest respect are continually involved in this concept called “benchmarking”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, or maybe you’ve even partaken in one of these sessions.
So, what is benchmarking?
According to Fallon (2023):
“Benchmarking in business means measuring your company’s quality, performance and growth by analyzing the processes and procedures of others.”
Basically, I want to figure out if my business is doing well or poorly, and to do so, I need to know what other people are doing and if I’m doing it better or worse than they are. Maybe I can even identify why they are doing better or worse and make adjustments accordingly.
From a production, operations, and sales standpoint, benchmarking can be incredibly useful for painting the picture of the competitive landscape. Sometimes, third-party research firms are hired by an organization to do this benchmarking work without bringing anyone else to the table. Other times, businesses within the same industry may gather as “frenemies” in one room and compare notes.
We do this in occupational health and safety, as safety professionals, as well. I mean, let’s face it; we all know we can do better.
The difference with benchmarking safety, supposedly, is that there is no competition involved. We benchmark in the name of altruism, with the goal to improve workplace safety across organizations and industries. To encourage safety leaders to speak up, we often do these benchmarking sessions under Chatham House rules, where everyone can use the information, but all names and affiliations are kept secret. Then, everyone in the room proceeds to walk through different topics, sharing their struggles, their qualms, and, sometimes, their successes, trying to figure out who has done it best and how we can translate that to other workplace settings.
There’s an inherent reality to these benchmarking sessions, though, that is probably best described by John Goodman’s character, Lawrence Woosley, in the movie Matinee (1993):
“You think grown-ups know what they’re doing? That’s just a hustle, kid. Grown-ups are making it up as they go along, just like you. You remember that, and you’ll do fine.”
That’s why we’re here, isn’t it? We are all just making it up as we go along, and we’re trying to figure out who has made it up in a way that makes it look like they know what they are doing.
But there’s a fatal flaw in benchmarking safety. Remember what Fallon (2023) said?
“Benchmarking…means measuring…”
If we are making it up as we go, we need to also be measuring as we go.
If we are comparing notes, we need to be measuring inputs and outputs.
If we are benchmarking, we need to be measuring the same inputs and outputs.
That brings us to the current crisis within occupational safety and health: We simply are not measuring the same things because we don’t all agree on what those things should be. If that’s not clear, yet, go back and read Chapter 3.
The safety profession has seen much volatility throughout its short existence. Remember, true professional safety efforts really didn’t become prominent until the early 20th century. The OSH Act did not go into effect until April 1971. We’ve had just over a century to try to figure this out, and for only half of that time have we had any kind of federal regulation in the United States. Compared to professions such as medicine, engineering, and law, safety is still in its infancy. Let’s not be surprised, then, that we haven’t yet come to consensus.
But if we want this benchmarking thing to actually produce something useful, we need that consensus, and we need it on two things, specifically:
What does “safety” actually mean?
Why do safety interventions work?
According to a recent technical report published by the Lloyd’s Register Foundation Global Safety Evidence Centre, we have consensus on neither.