Benchmarks in Management Training

Abstract

Public management is experiencing re-invention, re-engineering, downsizing, cutback management, and close public and legislative scrutiny. The National Performance Review,(1) the Winter Commission Report,(2) the Contract with America,(3) and Reinventing Government,(4) all describe restructuring efforts which reflect the demand to more with less. In this world where change is the norm rather than the exception, public managers are becoming coaches rather than controllers, supporters rather than supervisors, communicators rather than commanders. These roles require targeted, supported management training, a point emphasized by the Winter Commission. Our training systems in this environment are being asked to help in re-designing organizations ... to meet contemporary realities.(5) Management training programs become tools of strategic deployment, transmitting and supporting management styles, technology and work force systems.(6) So critical is new management in this changed environment, that training programs cannot be mediocre. Programs must be monitored and scrutinized carefully to assure that they are of the highest quality. Training of public employees is rarely popular Training budgets often are the first to suffer under fiscal constraint and cutback. To meet and respond to skepticism, management training programs must be meticulously developed, tested and evaluated. The application of benchmarking, or the identification of best practices, to training programs is one way to assure that those programs are of the highest quality. Benchmarking is ongoing systematic process for measuring and comparing the work processes of one organization to those of another for the purpose of identifying best practices that can lead to improvements in operations and customer service.(7) Benchmarking provides direction and clear targets, and allows managers to answer two questions: what are we doing well now, compared to others like us, and what do we need to be doing better in a few years if we are to improve our performance? The objective measures associated with benchmarking assist a program in establishing both baseline performance data and performance targets for tracking improvement. Robert C. Camp, benchmarking pioneer, concluded that benchmarking makes a program more customer-responsive, allows it to set relevant and achievable goals, encourages the development of accurate measures of productivity, and supports the adoption of best practices of others.(8) Benchmarking also helps to overcome natural resistance to change and can lead to dramatic innovation.(9) This study developed benchmarks for management training programs in(10) areas. While these were developed based on state-level programs, they can be applied at any governmental level as a system for continuous program improvement, enhanced participant learning, and improved organizational performance. [TABULAR DATA FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Developing Benchmarks Benchmarks are best practices, the application of which can lead to improvements in operations and service. Benchmarks should be both quantitative (or metric in the language of the field) and qualitative, and oriented toward both cost-effectiveness and quality. Appropriate training benchmarks can avoid duplication in programs or services, identify and train for the right topics, train in a way which leads to transfer of learning, and establish accountability measures for training programs. Since benchmarking began in the private sector, most examples of benchmarking in the training area are either or cooperative.l In the former, the organization attempts to discover what competitors are doing. Because public organizations are not competitive in the sense that private-sector organizations are, this type of benchmarking is not appropriate for governmental settings. Cooperative benchmarking targets an organization in another industry; using this approach, governmental training programs would benchmark against private-sector organizations. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.