Benchmarking HR Practices:

Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Jean M. Hiltrop
Charles Despres

IMD: The International Institute for Management Development

Chemin de Bellerive, 23
Lausanne, Switzerland

1 March 1994

Publication information

Contact information

Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches,

rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in D.E. Hussey (Ed.),
Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance.
Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.
Charles Despres
Graduate School of Business, Marseille-Provence (Groupe Ecole Superieure de
Commerce, Marseille-Provence) / Domaine de Luminy / 13288 Marseille,
France
tel +33 4 91 82 79 00 / fax +33 4 91 82 79 01
despres@esc-marseille.fr / charles.despres@online.fr

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Introduction
The 1990's have become a period of
global
competition,
streamlined
organizations and efficient work processes
aimed at delivering high quality outputs.
The decade is also characterized by
sociopolitical fragmentation, troubled new
market economies, toppling corporate
giants and unprecedented levels of
redundant, technologically-displaced and
jobless individuals.
Executives in the
midst of this swirling confusion are
anxious to maintain or improve their
company's competitiveness, and most
recognize that the effective management
of human assets is a key to success.
Experienced managers also know that
measuring an event draws attention to
that event, and that tying rewards to the
measurement process will both magnify
the event and sharpen attention.
Traditionally, both the object of a
performance management system and the
measurements employed have been
financial in nature. This is no longer the
case.
Managers now realize that an
exclusive focus on such measures as
return on equity and cash flow ignores
other key success factors in an enterprise
which may prove critical to long-term
success. Geanuracos (1994: 18) writes,
At the heart of this new thinking is
an understanding that reliance on
financial measures alone often
undermines the strategies the
company must pursue to survive
long term. Today's smart firms are
searching for ways to incorporate
into their regular performance
evaluation non-financial measures
such as quality, market share,
customer
satisfaction,
human
resources, innovation and learning.
Thus, the danger in traditional methods is
that performance management may
become finance-driven and myopic,
resulting
in
some
organizational
factorsCless important ones, we would
argueCbeing optimised at the expense of
others. Furthermore, when rewards are
tied to financial targets the organization
often alienates employees who have little
understanding of how their everyday
transactions connect to overall corporate
performance
objectives
which,

consequently, produces little perceived

ability to affect the "bottom line". One
recent
study
(Geanuracos,
1994)
determined that only 30% of executives
surveyed expressed satisfaction with their
companies' performance management
systems: the majority believed that
performance measures were, among other
faults, still too financially oriented.
Recognition of these problems, and in
particular the third, has led to a flurry of
writing on the need to move toward a new
paradigm of performance management.
The call is to supplement the traditional
and small set of financial performance
measures with non-financial indicators of
the processes that lie behind them (Eccles
and Nohria, 1992).
Authors such as
Kaplan and Norton (1992) have even
argued for placing non-financial measures
(i.e., customer satisfaction, innovativeness
and the development of human resources)
on an equal footing with financial criteria
when determining strategy, promotions
and the allocation of organizational
resources.
The European Foundation for Quality
Management (EFQM), formed by fourteen
leading Western European companies in
1988, agrees on this matter. In 1991
EFQM established the European Quality
Award which is "...awarded [yearly] to the
most successful exponent of Total Quality
Management in Western Europe" (EFQM,
1993: 2), and the criteria for this award
are pertinent. EFQM developed the model
in Figure 1 to depict the performance
categories that are deemed critical to
excellence in organizational performance.
Insert Figure 1
It would appear that financial measures
are rather sparse among the EQFM
performance criteria, and so they are.
Figure 2 excerpts certain of these criteria
in the first four performance categories:
Insert Figure 2
According to Eccles and Nohria (1992), the
justifications for this new paradigm are
founded in three fundamental truths about
performance management:
1. The use of non-financial measures
encourages managers to adopt a
broad and long-term view of
organisational performance.

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 2 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

2. Measures of non-financial variables
target events that are meaningful and
actionable in managerial experience,
e.g. delivery times, market position,
the development of organizational
competence and employee turnover .
3. Non-financial measures can serve as
leading indicators of financial results
and thus be made legitimate even to
those for whom the bottom line is
everything.
But the task of extending the traditional
approach to performance management
beyond common financial measures poses
significant problems. One of the most
difficult facing both academics and
practising managers is the development of
non-financial measures that deliver
realistic data on a company's current
position, and which serve well as leading
indicators of future financial performance.
Human
Practices

Resource

Management

The human resource management (HRM)

function is, at root, a range of activities
and approaches that allow a firm to
attract, retain and mobilise a critical mass
of human talent. Most efforts to assess
HR performance have been limited to (a)
general measures of limited value, such as
headcount or payroll costs, or (b)
sophisticated measures that managers are
sometimes unable or unwilling to use.
Moreover,
experience
shows
that
managers seldom review in a systematic
way the intent, impact or results of an HR
action or policy. As a result, adjustments
in human resource policies and practices
tend to be based on intuition rather than
methodical assessment of concrete and
specifiable effects.
Like their counterparts in production,
marketing and financial management
many
HR
managers
are
being
(understandably) forced to justify in a
systematic way the costs of their activities,
and to compare their activities and overall
performance measures with those of other
organisations (Mackay and Torrington,
1986). This need to evaluate the valueadded effects of HR practices on
organizational products and processes
began in earnest during the late 1980s
and is becoming critical in this, the age of
performance management.

United
Technologies,
for
example,
convened a task force with just this issue
in mind during the early 1990s (Dailey,
1992).
The group surveyed "internal
customers" of the HR function in each of
United Technologies' six major businesses
(Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky Aircraft,
Carrier, UT Automotive, Otis and Nordon
Systems)
with
the
straightforward
objective of comparing perceptions of
performance between HR and line
managers. The eighteen-item instrument
used is presented in Figure 3.
Insert Figure 3
The performance categories in this
instrument are instructive and, generally,
the task force found that HR professionals
perceived the quality of their services to
be higher than did line managers. More
worrisome, HR managers were viewed as
competent but disconnected from the
company's strategic direction:
HR professionals stood up for the HR
perspective, which is good, but did it quite
traditionally. They were fairly competent,
but didn't measure themselves very
rigorously. They did their homework and
came to meetings prepared, but were not
seen as very innovative or risk taking. In
short, the message from this survey was,
'You're not really a strategic partner.' "
(Dailey, 1992: 15-18)
The results of this effort included a twoday conference where 100 HR and 20 line
managers discussed the findings, set
priorities, charted a new direction, and
cascaded the process to corporate and
business units.
As United Technologies illustrates, the
competitive environment is intensifying
and the development of key HR
performance indicators together with their
associated
monitoring
systems
is
becoming increasingly important. In fact,
given the increasing emphasis on cost
reduction, quality and excellence in many
organisations, it is surprising that human
resource management has escaped
scrutiny for so long.
Approaches
Performance

to

Measuring

HR

How can a forward-thinking organisation

develop
an
effective
performance
monitoring system in the area of human

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 3 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

resource management?
According to
Morgan
(1992),
there
are
three
approaches.
One is to adopt a stepwise procedure,
similar to the scientific method, in which
meaningful and reliable variables are
identified.
The process begins by
developing as many measures as possible,
particularly in the HR areas of greatest
concern.
Second, measures whose
potential benefit is outweighed by the
expense or difficulty of data collection are
eliminated. Third, systems are developed
which regularly collect the necessary
information, preferably devolved to line
management, and a commitment is made
to the time and effort needed for
analysing the data and interpreting its
meaning in the realm of HR strategy.
After two or three years (often the time
required to realise the impact of an HR
activity) it becomes possible to reduce the
number of measures to four or five key
indicators by eliminating those which only
confirm the results of others.
For
example, if employee turnover, job
satisfaction, absenteeism and so forth
were all perfectly correlated with one
another, only one of the measures is
necessary; by examining this single
measure a manager would know the
company's performance for all the others.
The relationship between performance
measures is often complicated and nonlinear, however, making multiple measures
a virtual necessity.
Although this approach is laudable in its
attempt to capture all measurable aspects
of HR performance, there is the risk that
the task of collecting data, analysing them
and interpreting the results will be costly,
time-consuming and result in no clear
guidelines for action. There is also the
danger of what Eccles and Nohria (1992:
160) called creeping numeration, which
refers to "the temptation to turn every
measure deemed relevant into a crucial
part of an official measurement system".
Indeed, once the decision is made to
expand the class of measures from a
single (financial) category to three or four,
and four or five measures are developed
for each category, a company can quickly
have twenty or more 'key' performance
indicators.

Second, a recent approach to performance

management involves the identification of
key performance indicators that are
associated with a specific HR practice,
such as recruitment and selection. From
this perspective the wisdom lies in keeping
things simple and avoiding information
overload, and the implication is that only a
few measures are needed to help line
managers or HR professionals gauge the
current state of affairs.
This second approach offers an appealing
logic: if objectives have been defined in
advance, there should be associated
measures and thus no difficulty in
collecting and interpreting the data. Most
managers simply cannot attend to twenty
measures at onceClet alone optimise
themCdespite company rhetoric that may
implore them to do so. In fact, imputing
significance to each of these measures
may only push the problem of devising a
meaningful performance measurement
system down to the level of each
frustrated individual (Eccles and Nohria,
1992). But as Morgan (1992) points out,
this method also runs the risk of being too
superficial. It is not enough to know that
a specific practice or activity has worked
to a greater or lesser extent. To be of real
benefit there must be enough information
to understand why the specific outcome
has occurred, and to incorporate the
lessons learned.
A third approach to HR performance
monitoring, one which is currently the
vogue, is through the process now known
as Benchmarking. Benchmarking denotes
a comparison with selected performance
indicators from different organisations,
typically in the same industry, or with
comparable
organisations
that
are
considered to be "best in class". The most
obvious points of comparison are with
close competitors, but some organizations
have gone beyond their industry group to
identify best practice wherever it can be
found.
Xerox, for example, where
benchmarking has been credited as one of
the main factors in its 1980s revival, has
benchmarked
railways,
insurance
companies and facilities that generate
electric power.
Successful benchmarking requires careful
selection and manipulation of comparison
measures. A recent study (Geanuracos,

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 4 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

1994) found that while 70% of the
executives surveyed reported using
benchmarking to evaluate performance,
nearly 60% were benchmarking against
their own company's historical record as
opposed to competitors or industry
leaders. Clearly, the greatest gain to be
had from a benchmarking exercise is
provided through comparisons with other
firms and different ways of thinking.
Indeed, as a programmatic effort
benchmarking serves a number of
purposes (Glanz and Daily, 1992). First, it
enables a company to calibrate how it is
delivering HR practices. By examining the
way other organisations accomplish tasks
and responsibilities, a company can audit
itself and identify areas where practices
are within or outside a given norm.
Second, benchmarking enables a company
to learn from others' successes and
mistakes.
Building
a
continuous
improvement mentality has become an
important goal for many organisations in
the last decade; benchmarking can open
minds and create a climate in which active
learning is encouraged.
Third, benchmarking can be used as a tool
for creating the motivation to change. By
learning what other companies are doing,
line managers and HR professionals can
build a stronger case for allocating
resources to HRM activities in ways similar
to those of successful companies. Finally,
benchmarking can be used to help set
direction and priorities for an HR manager.
Rather than fall into the trap of trying to
do everything well and please everyone
with limited resources (which typically
results in no one being satisfied), HR
managers can use benchmarking to focus
on critical activities (Ulrich, Brockbank and
Yeung, 1989).
Questions which may
indicate a need for benchmarking HR
practices in an organization include the
following:
1. What is most critical to business
success: Cost reduction? Innovation?
Quality improvement?
2. What areas are causing the most
trouble?
3. Which employees contribute most to
the critical success factors?

4. Which attitudes and behaviours are

currently
displayed
by
these
employees?
5. Which attitudes and behaviours are
responsible for the trouble areas
identified above?
6. What HR policies and practices are
contributing to the current attitudes
and behaviours?
7. Which HR policies and practices need
to be changed as a result of the above
in order to build on strengths or
correct weaknesses in our approach to
HR management?
8. What are the performance measures
to determine the effect of our actions?
What are the major cost components of
the change program? Currently, the most
common form of HR benchmarking
involves salary surveys. It is the rare HR
manager who steps beyond this, for two
principal reasons: (1) the difficulty of
finding
standard
and
acceptable
performance indicators similar to those
used in financial management, such as
return on capital and cash flow ratios, and
(2) the reluctance of companies to divulge
sensitive information about their employee
retention, employment costs, and so on.
There are other reasons for the lack of HR
benchmarking
in
contemporary
organizations, the most prevalent perhaps
being the mythology that has developed
around personnel work. As Jac Fitz-Enz
(1984: 7) observes:
The fundamental belief is that personnel is
something of a complex and mysterious
art. Allegedly, the true and full value of
the work can only be judged by those who
perform it. Even then, the appraisal is
bounded by subjective criteria. Many of
the faithful believe that, like virtue,
personnel work is its own reward. Terms
used to describe results are satisfied,
quick, better, interesting, good, important,
creative, and other similar non-specific
terms .
There are also people who believe that
measuring the effectiveness of human
resource
management
is
simply
inappropriate.
In their eyes, HRM is
devoted to stimulating and supporting
human happiness and development, and

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 5 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

they see no reason to evaluate outcomes
in other than humanistic terms.

EFFECTIVENESS
ACTIVITIES

Benchmarking has its limitations. When

used solely to emulate rather than
improve performance, advantages may be
short-lived,
time
consuming
and
expensive. Moreover, the most valuable
information is generally not derived from
the actual data, but rather the qualitative
information on how and why the data
outcomes were achieved. Nevertheless, a
well established benchmarking process
can help managers set goals and targets
designed to make the company the best in
its competitive field, and to initiate
focused programs that move the company
from its current position.
Many firms
strive for performance improvements by
benchmarking standards of excellence
from other firms in such areas as
production, research and development,
and marketing. HR can be employed to
similar competitive advantage, and it is
sensible to unearth those HR indicators
that contribute relatively more to overall
performance than others.

As noted earlier, developing the specific

criteria which define effectiveness for HR
activities is one of the most difficult
challenges facing line managers and HR
professionals alike. In this regard there
are two schools of thought. The first
school advocates monitoring the costs and
benefits
of
human
resource
activitiesCthose associated with the
attraction,
selection,
retention,
development, and utilisation of people in
organisationsCin economic terms.
The
underlying assumption is that the ultimate
single measure of HR effectiveness is
financial ...the "bottom line". To illustrate
this point, consider a comment by Cascio
(1991) in his book entitled "Costing
Human Resources":

Janssen Pharmaceutica, a wholly owned

subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson,
undertook just such a benchmarking
project in late 1989 (Liebfried and McNair,
1992) as a response to competitive
pressures rocking the pharmaceutical
industry. Janssen examined in detail the
internal components of its administrative
overhead and, by comparing benchmarks
with a select group of peer companies,
addressed what was considered a
"burgeoning problem that is difficult to
analyze and control" (Liebfried and
McNair, 1992: 143).
To begin, the
company determined that administrative
(white-collar) productivity could be defined
through four key elements (Figure 4).
Insert Figure 4
Management then compared Janssen's
performance with that of other companies
participating in the project.
Janssen's
managers soon determined that achieving
white-collar productivity improvements
would be impossible unless appropriate
performance measures were developed
and installed. Figure 5 displays four such
measures that Janssen now uses to
monitor its performance in this area.
Insert Figure 5

CRITERIA

FOR

HR

For some time now, I have had the

uneasy feeling that a lot of what
we do in human resource
management field is largely
misunderstood and underestimated
by the organisations we serve. In
part, we in the field are responsible
for this state of affairs because
much of what we do is evaluated
only in statistical and behavioural
terms. Like it or not, the language
of business is dollars, not
correlation coefficients.
Although methods for estimating the costs
and benefits of HR activities have been
available for many years (e.g., Brogden,
1946; Cronbach and Gleser, 1965), they
are only beginning to appeared through
the recent writing of academics such as
Flamholtz (1985), Cascio (1991) and FitzEnz (1990), and in the form of formulas
and accounting procedures for measuring
the economic worth of the organisation's
human assets.
Figure 6 gives an
illustrative example of conducting simple
exit
interviews
with
terminating
employees.
Insert Figure 6
This economic approach to measuring HR
performance has the advantage of being
simple and understandable, but it fails to
provide guidance when implementing
effective HR management programs.
Many
HR
managers
(and
their
organisations) understandably feel a need

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 6 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

for more detailed and comprehensive
means of assessing their performance,
and how their performance compares with
other companies over time.
The
second
school,
espoused
by
academics such as Ulrich (1989) and
Kravetz (1988), is to measure the set of
HR
practices
delivered
within
an
organisation,
and
measure
the
contribution of each practice to the overall
competitive advantage of the organisation.
A great deal of recent work has appeared
which attempts to capture in a single
conceptual model the variety of HR
practices deployed by organisations to
augment innovation, improve quality, and
be the lowest-cost producer of goods and
services.
In 1984, Schuler introduced
such a model which identified six
categories of HR practices: planning,
staffing, training and development,
appraisal, compensation and unionmanagement relations. He suggests that
competitive
advantage
accrues
to
companies that identify and develop
specific activities in each of these six areas
(Schuler, 1984), and that specific activities
(such as internal staffing and flexible
compensation) become important and
advantageous internal competencies. In
addition, selection of HR practices should
support overall corporate strategy and
lead to employee behaviours that are
felicitous of it.
After a decade of conceptual and empirical
research by Tsui (1984), Kravetz (1988)
and others, it is now possible to define key
performance indicators in most of the six
categories identified by Schuler (Figure 7).
Insert Figure 7
These indicators can help managers
evaluate how their HR practices relate to
both the operational and strategic level of
the enterprise, and lay the foundation for
comparing (longitudinally, or sectorially)
the effectiveness of HR practices and
policies between companies, divisions or
business units. Another conceptualisation
evaluates the effectiveness of HR practices
according to six performance criteria
(Bernardin and Kane, 1993): quality of
delivery (in terms of conforming to some
practice ideal, or fulfilling the intended
purpose), quantity (expressed in terms
such as dollar value, number of units, or

number of completed HR activity cycles),

timeliness (the degree to which an HR
practice is completed, or a result
produced, at the earliest time desirable),
cost effectiveness (in the sense of
optimizing the gain or minimizing the loss
from each unit or instance of use of
human and financial resources), need for
supervision (the degree to which a person
or unit can carry out an HR practice
without requesting assistance, or requiring
intervention to prevent an adverse
outcome), and positive impact (the degree
to which an HR practice promotes feelings
of self-esteem, goodwill, commitment,
satisfaction, and co-operation among coworkers and subordinates). Based on this
model, the most effective managers or HR
professionals are those providing the
highest possible quantity and quality of HR
practices at the lowest cost and in the
most timely fashion, with a minimum of
supervision and with a maximum of
positive
impact
on
co-workers,
organisational
units,
and
the
client/customer population.
Ideally, the relative weights to be applied
to these six criteria are directly linked to
organisational
objectives
such
as
increased sales, improved productivity
and, of course, return on investment.
Strong linkages in this regard are
extremely rare, however. As Ulrich (1989)
points out, most organisations have
difficulty
even
measuring
overall
performance in a reliable manner, and few
systematically
relate
individual
performance to unit or corporate
performance.
Moreover, organisations
rarely get down to specifics on all six
criteria and seldom relate them effectively
to the objectives of the firm. Nonetheless,
it is widely understood that the linkage is a
necessary one if line managers are to be
convinced that HR activities are integral to
organisational objectives, and that they
create and sustain a competitive edge.
In addition to HR practices, Ulrich et al.
(1989) suggest that benchmarks may also
be developed for the HR competencies of
individual managers in the organisation.
Questions that may indicate a need to
benchmark HR functions include the
following:
1. Who are the major customers of the
HR function: Line managers? Other

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 7 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

staff or support functions? Employee
organizations? External clients?
2. What services are provided to these
customers? Is there a reason for their
existence?
3. What are the major cost components
of these services?
4. What factors are responsible
customer satisfaction?

for

5. What problems have been identified in

the operation?
6. What performance measurements are
being used to determine the
effectiveness and efficiency of the HR
function?
7. What are the performance gaps and
what action is needed to close these
gaps?
Under the umbrella of strategic human
resource management, three sets of HR
competencies
may
be
identified:
knowledge of the business, quality of
service, and the management of change.
Knowledge of the business refers to the
extent to which an HR professional (or a
line manager with HR responsibilities)
understands the financial, strategic and
technological
capabilities
of
the
organisation. Quality of service refers to
the extent to which the HR or line
manager provides high quality HR policies
and services (such as training and
development) to the other members of the
organisation.
Management of change
refers to the extent to which an HR
professional or line manager is able to
increase the organisation's capability for
change
through
creating
meaning,
problem solving, relationship influence,
innovation, transformation, and role
influence.
According to Ulrich (1989), measures may
be established for specific behaviours in
each of these three domains of HR
competencies. However, these measures
and behaviours have not been as well
developed and researched as the
performance indicators for HR practices
discussed perviously. Figure 8 outlines a
felicitous approach discussed by Burn and
Thompson
(1993),
in
which
the
organization defines an indigenous set of
indicators,
installs
measurement

standards, and monitors performance over

time.
Insert Figure 8
In a similar vein, Storey and Sissons
(1993) recently proposed a set of activities
for benchmarking the organization's HR
department. Their intention is to outline a
possible approach to auditing the role and
performance of the function. According to
these authors, a number of steps are
involved:
Step 1: Decide the composition of the
audit team.
There has to be a representative from the
HR function and from among senior line
managers if the exercise is to have any
credibility. But it is not essential (or even
desirable) that the team is led by the head
of the senior HR manager.
Step 2: Identify the function's main
customers.
The key decision is to clarify who makes
the final decision to buy the services
provided by the function.
In a
decentralized multi-divisional organization,
this is likely to be the general managers of
the strategic business units.
Step 3: Review the HR function's mission
statement.
This statement describes the reason for
the HR function's existence, its principal
activities and its most important values.
For instance: "To be the HR/Personnel
consultant of choice for the firm's line
managers by achieving superior levels of
customer satisfaction at lowest costs and
highest speed in the area of employee
attraction, retention and motivation."
Step 4: Review the function's role in
formulating
and
implementing
the
organization's strategy.
The list of questions in Figure 3 above are
relevant here.
This step will also be
critical to establishing the link between HR
policy and practices, on the one hand, and
the
organization's
overall
business
strategy, on the other.
Step 5: Review the HR function's role in
developing relevant HR policies and
practices.

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 8 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

For example, what is the firm's policy with
regard to recruitment?
Is there a
preference for internal or external
recruitment? Is this policy sustainable and
desirable in the new competitive
environment? Does it support the need
for high quality human talent? Is this
policy consistent with other HR policies
and practices, such as rewards, training
and
development,
performance
management, succession and promotion.
Do these policies and practices focus on
improving individual and organizational
performance?
Step 6: Review the delivery of HR policies
and practices.
Questions need to be asked here in
relation to all the HR activities currently
being undertaken by HR or personnel staff
which could perhaps be done as well or
better by line managers, by computers, or
by external agencies and consultants. For
example, one recent survey identified an
increasing
number
of
European
organizations that have decided to
outsource some of their traditional HR
services to completely independent
businesses. An alternative option is to
establish an 'internal consultancy or
business unit' in which the HR function
sells its services both inside and outside
the organization (Adams, 1991).
The
advantage of this approach is that line
managers can go elsewhere if they are not
happy with the service they receive from
the HR function within the organization.
Step 7: Make external comparisons to
establish 'best' practice.As Humble (1988)
points out, it does not require an
'espionage' network to get the data.
Articles in such magazines and journals as
Personnel Management, Personnel Today,
and Human Resource Management carry a
great deal of useful information about
what other companies in Europe, Asia and
the United States are doing in order to
deal with the contemporary HR issues. In
addition, a considerable amount of
research conferences and workshops are
currently being organized by business
schools and consultancy agencies that
allows progressive HR managers to inform
themselves and compare their own
practices
with
those
of
other
organizations.
At IMD, we are also
building and constantly updating a unique

database of HR practices that gives an

overview of developments within the
world's largest organizations today.
Step 8: Review the outcomes of the
analysis.
Look for performance gaps and discuss
the policy implications with the main
customers. Gain their commitment for
implementing
the
necessary
improvements. This implies that those
ultimately responsible for implementing
the changes, (1) acknowledge the need
for improving HR policies and practices,
(2) understand the differences between
current HR practices and what is desired,
and (3) accept and retain full ownership of
the practical steps toward implementation.
Step
9:
Implement
the
agreed
improvements and measure the progress
against pre-set targets.
The metrics selected should be the agreed
upon true indicators of the HR function's
performance and compare the results with
industry averages, competitors, 'best
practice' firms, and/or with set targets or
previous performance ratings. As shown
in Figure 8, it is usually feasible to produce
relevant ratios of HR performance data.
The most likely ratios should cover unit
costs
and
appropriate
customer
satisfaction measures. If measurements
are not clear or difficult to obtain, two
alternatives are possible (Camp, 1989).
One,
the
process
of
determining
appropriate HR performance measures
becomes a key step in the benchmarking
process itself. Or, there are approximate
measures available from other functional
areas that give an indication of how the
HR function is performing. For example,
lead-times may be used as a proxy for the
effectiveness of a new delivery-oriented
incentive scheme.
LINKING
KEY
HR
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
WITH
ORGANISATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS
Obviously, many managers and investors
are interested in knowing if a certain
activity or practice can serve as a leading
indicator or determinant of financial
performance. When such an indicator
goes up or down, an organisation can take
actions to minimise or maximise the
impact by changing the relevant practice.

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 9 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Consequently, over the past few years, a
number of studies have tried to link
specific HR practices and organisational
effectiveness in terms of financial
performance, productivity, product quality,
innovation, and so on. One such study
was conducted by Kravetz (1988). In a
book entitled The Human Resources
Revolution Kravetz looked for the
correlation between financial results and
what he termed human resources
progressiveness (HRP) in 150 US
companies.
HRP was defined as the
extent to which an organisation is:
...operating in concert with the
current and future workplace,
rather than experimenting with
radical programs or spending
exorbitant amounts of money on
human resources programs.
A
company high in HRP understands
the critical importance of people to
the bottom line and operates with
this in mind. (1988: 36)
A firm's score on the HRP index was
measured
through
a
fifty-item
questionnaire pertaining to HR practices
and policies in the following nine areas:
1. Degree of openness of communication
2. Degree of emphasis on people in the
company culture
3. Degree to which
participative

management

is

4. Emphasis on creativity and excellence

in the workplace
5. Extensiveness of career development
and training
6. Effectiveness in maximising employee
job satisfaction
7. Degree of recognition and reward for
good performance
8. Usage of flexitime
employment

and

part-time

9. Degree
of
decentralisation
and
flattened management hierarchy.
The results showed that human resource
progressiveness in these nine areas was
significantly correlated with financial
success over a five year period.
In
particular, Kravetz concluded that highly
progressive
companies
enjoyed

significantly higher sales growth, profit

margins, equity growth and earnings per
share growth than the less progressive
ones. For instance, the annualized sales
growth (five year trend) of high HRP
companies was 17.5 percent, compared to
10.7 percent for low HRP companies; and
the annualized profit growth of high HRP
firms was 10.8 percent, compared to only
2.6 percent for those low in HRP.
In a second study on the same subject
Frederick Schuster (1986) examined the
relationship between human resource
management performance as measured by
the Human Resources Index (HRI) and
organisational effectiveness. His intent
was to lay the foundation for the
development of a reliable and practical
instrument, which could be used as a
benchmarking
tool
by
companies
representing a wide range of industries
and sizes. The HRI survey contained 64
measures of human resource practices, six
of which were the focus of this research:
1. The assessment centre approach to
personnel selection
2. Flexible or cafeteria
reward systems

approach

in

3. Productivity bonus plans

4. Goal-oriented performance appraisal
5. Alternative work schedules
6. Organisational development
These six practices were chosen because
they were though to be related to the
general management philosophy which
Peters and Waterman (1982) termed
attention to employee needs, and could
therefore serve as an operational
definition of this philosophy. Schuster's
hypothesis and findings were consistent
with Kravetz in that he expected and
found a small but meaningful relationship
between the six HR practices and financial
performance (as measured by return on
equity and total return to investors). In
particular, the total utility of the six HR
practices for the average Fortune 1000
company was estimated at $7.5 million per
year.
These two studies represent a small
sample of the work currently being done
in this field.
Their formulations and
findings have helped to explore the link

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 10 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

between HR practices and overall
organisational effectiveness. Of course, it
can be argued that better financial
performance leads to effective human
resource practices (rather than the
reverse).
While this causal effect is
possible, at this point the data indicate
that the two types of performance go
hand in hand. As Kravetz (1988: 43)
argues,
It is difficult to envision why a
company
would
change
its
management style, have more
employees work out of their
homes, or change the company
culture to one strongly oriented
toward people. Many companies,
if they are enjoying great financial
success, are not likely to change,
figuring that you shouldn't fix
things that don't need fixing. They
retain their same successful
practices until these need to be
abandoned to address a static or
declining market position. Success
is not likely to breed this type of
change.
PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ACTION
This final section of the chapter provides
guidelines for installing an effective HR
measurement system and is an attempt to
offer practical guidance rather than facile
prescriptions, since cookbook approaches
to the matter are inappropriate and
ineffective. Based on the lessons we and
others have learned, HR managers should
consider carefully the following factors
when
establishing
a
system
for
determining the effectiveness of their
activities or departments.
First, it is important to recognise that the
underlying purpose of a performance
management system is change and
organizational change of any type requires
the
active
support,
preferably
involvement, of topmost management. At
a minimum, HR managers should have (a)
a clear understanding of what the
company's principal strategic objectives
are, (b) which proposed or actual HR
practices and policies contribute to their
achievement, and in what ways, and (c)
the measures that are or will be linked to
these HR policies or practices.

Change programs require clarity of

purpose and a good measure of initial
momentum in order to achieve success. It
is therefore advantageous to focus initial
efforts on those HR practices which can be
affected by individuals who will be subject
to the measurement system. The least
desirable course of action is to install
monitoring activities that cannot be
influenced by the persons involved. By
this token, corporate training and
development costs should not be allocated
to division managers if these individuals
have no control over training and
development activities in their units.
The performance management systems'
measurements should be robust. By this
we mean that no single measure perfectly
captures all aspects of HR performance,
even allowing for time lags (Eccles and
Nohria, 1992), and an array of different
qualitative and quantitative performance
measures increases the dimensions along
which change can be guided.
This
principle of triangulationCthe use of
multiple measures to bring a target issue
or event under controlCalso permits
managers to gain a broader sense of the
HR practices that contribute to company
goals, since the likelihood is greater that
one measure among the set will relate
effectively to their issues and concerns.
HR managers can avoid the measurement
trap by monitoring key performance
indicators, and only key performance
indicators. The measurement trap springs
shut when HR managers are busily
occupied monitoring sundry measures
which have little impact in the
organization. As one counter to this we
find it helpful to encourage an open,
questioning, even dissenting work culture
which challenges the last best idea set
forth. Ideally, line and HR managers will
feel free to challenge traditional measures
(e.g., employee turnover and direct labour
costs) since in today's rapidly changing
world, the indicators in use may be
irrelevant and focusing attention on the
wrong activities (Hora and Schiller, 1991).
It should go without saying the line
managers need to be actively involved
when developing and monitoring an HR
performance measurement system; in
practice, however, it becomes convenient
and easy for HR managers to stay within

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 11 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

their function and work with managers of
their own stripe. One of the great pitfalls
of HR performance measurement systems
is opened when HR managers begin argue
that their actions are undiscussable so
long as their performance targets are met.
For HR measures to have real impact in
the organization, dialogue about the
meaning and relevance of programs,
activities and measures must remain open.
Some organizations have enforced this
dialogue through the use of a crossfunctional team which monitors the
system and ensures that relevant
measures are being used and understood.

unless some existing ones are eliminated

creeping numeration will be the result.

Communication is the sine qua non of

effective change efforts.
In this
connection HR managers must be
prepared to regularly communicate, with a
proactive attitude, the purpose and
specifics of the performance management
system to all involved employees, and be
prepared to clarify repeatedly the
measures in use. The assumption that
managers and employees understand or
accept the new system is dangerous and
constitutes a serious design flaw.
Analyze the data regularly, at a rate
compatible with their impact on decisionmaking, and draw appropriate conclusions
by comparing the key performance
indicators over time. These comparisons
may be made between business units,
and/or against predetermined targets.
Current benchmarking efforts assess the
HR performance of business units against
comparable units within the same
industry,
or
against
units
and
organisations that are considered best in
class.
Finally, be ready to change the
measurement system if a particular
indicator fails to achieve business goals, or
if the costs of collecting and analysing the
data exceed the potential benefits of their
use. As Eccles and Nohria (1992) point
out, the discipline needed to discontinue
irrelevant performance measures should
not be underestimated. The benefit of
keeping the same measures for a period
of time lies in the historical comparability
thus afforded, and perhaps in longitudinal
evaluation of the impact anticipated by the
HR practice. The risk is that attractive
new measures can always be found, and

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 12 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Figure 1

Figure 2
EFQM Performance Criteria
Leadership ...how managers take positive steps to:
1. communicate with staff
2. give and receive training
3. assess the awareness of Total Quality
4. establish and participate in joint improvement teams with customers and suppliers
People Management ...how the organization releases the full potential of its people by:
1. integrating corporate and HR strategy
2. assessing the match between peoples' skills and organizational needs
3. establishing and implementing training programs
4. achieving effective top-down and bottom-up communication
Policy and Strategy ...how the organizations' policies:
1. reflect the fundamentals of Total Quality
2. test, improve and align business plans with desired direction
3. are communicated and instilled in the organization
4. account for feedback from internal and external feedback
Resources ...how resources are deployed in support of strategy, including:
1. financial
2. informational
3. technological
4. material

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 13 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Figure 3
United Technologies
Human Resources Practices Survey
Always: 1

Usually: 2

Sometimes: 3

Rarely: 4

To what extent does the Human Resource organization ...

___ 1. Understand business direction and what management is trying to accomplish?
___ 2. Stand up for the human resource perspective on business issues?
___ 3. Staff the HR organization with competent professionals?
___ 4. Participate actively in the business planning process?
___ 5. Take appropriate risks?
___ 6. Respond in a timely manner?
___ 7. Develop human resource objectives in the context of business priorities?
___ 8. Do its homework?
___ 9. Provide competent advice and support?
___ 10. Explore alternative solutions to problems?
___ 11. Find ways to balance its functional interests with other needs of the business?
___ 12. React quickly to changes in the needs of the business?
___ 13. Anticipate business problems?
___ 14. Help more than hinder the organization in attaining its business objectives?
___ 15. Have people seek its advice?
___ 16. Set high standards for evaluating its own effectiveness?
___ 17. Bring a competitive global perspective to the HR function?
___ 18. Design solutions to business problems that meet the needs of the business?

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 14 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Figure 4
Elements of White-Collar Productivity
(Janssen Pharmaceutica)
Effectiveness
1. A strong, clear connection between corporate strategy and work activities
Organization
1. Overlap / duplication
2. Fragmentation
3. Inappropriate groupings or functions or alignments of functions
4. Inefficient reporting relationships
5. Excessive management layers
6. Clarity of mission
7. Appropriateness of job design
Motivation
1. Turnover
2. Performance feedback
3. Contribution visibility and recognition
4. Group identity
5. Teamwork
6. Management style
7. Career planning and development
8. Training
9. Communication
Process
1.
2.
3.
4.

Value-added activities, operations, and steps

Scheduling and backlog control
Degree of automation
Control and transfer points

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 15 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Figure 5
White-Collar Performance Measures
(Janssen Pharmaceutica)
Productivity
1. Units of output / Number of employees
2. Units of output / Cost to produce
3. Value-added work operations / Non-value-added operations
4. Costs to manage / Number of subordinates
Throughput Time
1. Time required to process work or complete work products
Quality

1. Number of errors / Unit of time

2. Error-Free work product transactions / Work product transactions with errors

Others
1. Deadline accomplishments percentage
2. Customer satisfaction index
3. Degree of employee commitment / involvement (organizational climate)

Figure 6
Measuring the Costs of Exit Interviews

Total cost of exit interviews during a given

period = costs of interviewer and interviewee time.

Cost of interviewer time = (time required prior to interview + time required for interview)
X (interviewer's pay rate per period) X (number of turnovers per period)

Cost of terminating employee's time = (time required for the interview) X (weighted
average pay rate for terminating employees) X (number of turnovers per period)

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 16 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Figure 7
Key HR Performance Indicators
Recruitment and Selection
1. Number of long-term vacancies (over 6 months) / total number of jobs
2. Average length of time to fill vacancies
3. Proportion of vacancies filled internally through promotion, demotion or lateral
movements of personnel
4. Average time spent in a job or function per employee
Training and Development
1. Number of trainee days / number of employees
2. Total training budget / total employment expenditure
Compensation and Rewards
1. Total compensation cost / total revenues
2. Basic salary / total remuneration
3. Number of salary grades / employees
Employee Relations
1. Number of resignations / Total headcount per year
2. Average length of service per employee
3. Rate of absenteeism
4. Average length of absence per employee
5. Number of supervisors and managers per employee

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 17 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Figure 8
A Three-Tier Approach for
Assessing Performance in the HR Function
Phase 1: Gather Fundamental Data
1. Specify current activities in the HR department
2. Identify the structure of the HR department
3. Determine the costs of providing HR services in seven key functional areas:
a. staffing
b. development
c. employee relations
d. organizational evaluation
e. reward systems
f. administration
g. health and safety
4. Determine HR contribution to the "bottom line"
Phase II: Assess HR Service Delivery
1. Determine internal clients' needs for services in each of the key functional areas
2. Determine internal clients' reactions to services delivered in each of the seven
functional areas
Phase III: Establish Standards
1. Set acceptable standards in each of the seven functional areas
2. Audit HR performance in each functional area over time, and make necessary
adjustments

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 18 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

References
Adams, K. (1991) "Externalisation vs. specialisation", Human Resources Management Journal, 1(4),
Summer, 40-54.
Bernardin, H. and J. Kane. (1993) Performance Appraisal: A Contingency Approach to System
Development and Evaluation (2nd ed.), Boston: PWS-Kent.
Brogden, H. (1949) "When Testing Pays Off." Personnel Psychology, 2, 171-183.
Cascio, W. (1991) Costing Human Resources, third edition, Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.
Burn, D. and L. Thompson. (1993) "When Personnel Calls in the Auditors." Personnel Management,
January 1993, 21-23.
Camp, R.. (1989) Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead To Superior
Performance, Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press.
Cronbach, L. and G. Gleser. (1965) Psychological Tests and Personnel Decisions (2nd ed.), Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.
Dailey, L. (1992) "United Technologies Corporation."
Summer, 15-17.

Human Resource Management, Spring &

Eccles, R. and N. Nohria. (1992) Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management,
Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Eccles, R. (1991) "The Performance Measurement Manifesto", Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary, 131-137.
European Foundation for Quality Management. (1993) Total Quality Management: The European
Model for Self-Appraisal 1993. Eindhoven, The Netherlands: The European Foundation for Quality
Management.
Fitz-Enz, J. (1984) How to Measure Human Resource Management, New York: McGraw Hill.
Fitz-Enz, J. (1990) Human Value Management: The Value-Adding Human Resource Management
Strategy for the 1990s, Oxford: Jossey - Bass.
Flamholtz, E. (1985) Human Resource Accounting, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Glanz, E. and L. Daily. (1992) "Benchmarking", Human Resource Management, Spring, 31, 9-20.
Geanuracos, J. (1994) "The Global Performance Game." Crossborder. Winter, 18-21.
Hora, M., and M. Schiller. (1991) "Performance Measurement". In Rock, M. and Berger, L., (Ed.), The
Compensation Handbook, New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Humble, J. (1988) "How to improve the personnel service", Personnel Management, February, 30-3.
Kaplan, R. and D. Norton. (1992) "The Balanced Scorecard-Measures that Drive Performance",
Harvard Business Review, 70, January-February, 71-79.
Kravetz, D. (1988) The Human Resources Revolution: Implementing Progressive Management
Practices for Bottom-Line Success, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Liebfried, K. and C. McNair. (1992) Benchmarking: A Tool for Continuous Improvement. New York:
Harper Business.
Mackay, L., and D. Torrington. (1986) The Changing Nature of Personnel Management, London: IPM.
Morgan, J. (1992) "Human Resource Information: A Strategic Tool", In M. Armstrong (ed.), Strategies
for Human Resource Management, London: Kegan Page.
.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 19 of 20

Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, Rationales and Prescriptions for Action

Schuler, R. (1984) "Gaining Competitive Advantage through Human Resource Management Practices".
Human Resource Management, Fall, 23 (3), 241-255.
Schuster, F. (1986) The Schuster Report: The Proven Connection Between People and Profits. New
York: Wiley.
Storey, J. and Sissons, K. (1993) Managing Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Tsui, A. (1984) "Personnel Department Effectiveness: A Tripartite Approach". Industrial Relations, 23,
184-197.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W. and A. Yeung. (1989) "Beyond Belief: A Benchmark for Human Resources".
Human Resource Management. Fall, 28 (3), 311-335.

.
Hlltrop, J. & Despres, C. 1995. Benchmarking HR Practices: Approaches, rationales and prescriptions for action. Chapter 9 in
D.E. Hussey (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management: Ways to Improve Competitive Performance. Wiley (1995), pp. 197 - 220.

Page 20 of 20