the use of benchmarking in public relations

Daniel ªERBÃNICÃ, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE28

Benchmarking în domeniul relaþiilor publice

Daniel ªERBÃNICÃAcademia de Studii Economice Bucureºti

Gheorghe MILITARUUniversitatea Politehnica Bucureºti

Daniel MOISEAcademia de Studii Economice Bucureºti

Rezumat

Scopul principal al activitãþii de benchmarking în domeniul relaþiilor publice este acelade a genera informaþii utile în efortul organizaþiei de a-ºi îmbunãtãþi performanþa. Esteimportant sã se verifice dacã promovarea în benchmarking este o acþiune necesarã saurelevantã, ca urmare a cercetãrii atente a necesarului de informaþii ºi a provocãrilor cucare se confruntã departamentul de relaþii publice al organizaþiei. Nevoia debenchmarking în relaþii publice pare sã fie asociatã, în mod fericit, cu dorinþa lideruluiorganizaþiei de a opera schimbãri strategice sau operative, de a oferi dovezi categoricecu privire la efectele sale asupra performanþei în relaþii publice ºi-sau cu privire ladimensiunea diferenþelor de performanþã percepute, la nivelul departamentelor de relaþiipublice, între diferite organizaþii din aceeaºi ramurã industrialã.

Cuvinte-cheie: modelele procesului de benchmarking, cele mai bune practici, tacticaplanificãrii strategice

Clasificare JEL: L25, M30

Atunci când oamenii sunt atenþi unii la alþii, existã întotdeauna potenþial pentruîndeplinirea þintelor importante. Dacã nu ajung la o înþelegere, ei creeazã bariere încalea înþelegerii eficiente. Atunci când se vorbeºte despre relaþii publice, mulþi suntaceia care cred cã publice este cuvântul magic. Lucrurile stau cu totul altfel. Cuvântulcheie este relaþii. Dacã orice formã de comunicare se bazeazã pe ascultare, atuncirelaþiile reprezintã fundamentul relaþiilor publice. Calitatea de bun ascultãtor solicitãeforturi considerabile începând cu a înþelege cât de important este sã fii atent la ce sepetrece în jurul tãu. Pe lângã informaþiile de o valoare inestimabilã, dobândite prinascultare, managerii de relaþii publice care doresc sã înþeleagã lumea în care îºi

RRM 2-2007 29

The Use of Benchmarking in Public Relations

Daniel ªERBÃNICÃAcademy of Economic Studies (A.S.E.), Bucharest

Gheorghe MILITARUPolitehnica Bucharest University

Daniel MOISEAcademy of Economic Studies (A.S.E.), Bucharest

Abstract

The prime purpose of PR benchmarking is to generate information which can be used toassist the unit in improving its performance. It is important to assess whether PRbenchmarking is a necessary or relevant course of action given a careful considerationof a PR unit’s information needs and challenges. The need to benchmark PR appears tobe positively associated with the unit leader’s desire to pursue strategic or operationalchanges in the function, to demonstrate quantifiable PR performance comparisons, and/or the magnitude of the perceived gap of PR performance between organizations in anindustry.

Key words: benchmarking process models, best practice, strategic planning tactic

JEL classification: L25, M30

When people listen to each other, the potential to accomplish important goals isalways there. If they tune out, they create barriers to productive relationships. In the useof the term public relations, many people believe the operative word is public. That isincorrect. The key word is relations. If listening is the cornerstone of communications,then relationships represent the foundation public relations. Listening skills require seriouseffort, starting with a commitment to the importance of paying attention to what isgoing on around you. Aside from the invaluable information that listening provides, PRmanagers who want to understand the word in which their organizations do businesswill find that many ways of listening are free or have little associated cost.



desfãºoarã afacerile organizaþiile lor vor constata cã multe dintre formele de ascultarenu îi costã nimic, sau au costuri asociate foarte reduse.

O unealtã folositã adesea de cãtre specialiºtii în management ai sfârºitului de secolXX este benchmarkingul (Bogan ºi English, 1994; Greengard, 1995). Deºi definiþiiletermenului de benchmarking pot fi uºor diferite, un lucru este cert: benchmarkinguleste procesul prin care ai posibilitatea de a te compara cu cei mai importanþi competitoripe piaþã. De exemplu, Overman (1993) defineºte benchmarkingul ca formã prin carese mãsoarã valoarea practicilor propriei companii în comparaþie cu sistemul practicatde competitori. În mod similar, Camp (1989) sugereazã cã procesul de benchmarkingnecesitã stabilirea unor þinte operative bazate pe cele mai bune practici din industriade profil.

Benchmark este un termen împrumutat de la sistemul de mãsurãtori cadastrale. Dacãse poate marca poziþia ºi altitudinea pe suprafeþe teritoriale, aceste mãsurãtori pot servidrept puncte de referinþã ºi pentru alte mãsurãtori, în alte puncte. Cam în acelaºi mod,benchmarkingul – aºa cum este folosit acest termen în management – reprezintãidentificarea unui punct de referinþã, pentru comparaþie sau mãsurãtori. Prin benchmark,managerii pot mãsura diferenþa de performanþã între punctul în care se aflã ºi cel încare doresc sã ajungã ºi îºi pot trasa evoluþia menitã sã anuleze acea diferenþã.

Originile ºi tendinþele benchmarkingului

Comparaþiile sunt, de multe decenii, fundamentul pentru afaceri în general ºi pentrurelaþiile industriale în special. Abordarea mai sistematicã a domeniului de benchmarkingîºi are originile în anii 1950 în Statele Unite ºi Japonia. În Statele Unite, companii caGeneral Electric au început sã foloseascã atât controlul valorii cât ºi exerciþiile statisticecomparative pentru evaluarea abordãrilor alternative asupra activitãþilor lor de bazã. ÎnJaponia, „ingineria inversã” reprezenta o activitate majorã, pe care Toyoda de la Toyotaºi-a dezvoltat ideile legate de kaizen - sau îmbunãtãþirea continuã a activitãþii, pe bazastudiului pe care tot el îl fãcuse asupra modului în care firma Ford aborda manevrareamaterialelor în 1950. Totuºi, dezvoltarea becnhmarkingului, aºa cum a fost denumitãaceastã activitate, este legatã în mare mãsurã de firma Xerox din SUA ºi a dus la apariþiaprimei cãrþi din domeniu, scrisã de ºeful compartimentului de benchmarking al firmeiîn anii 1980 (Camp, 1989). Iniþial, spre sfârºitul anilor 1970 ºi la începutul anilor 1980,Xerox s-a concentrat asupra activitãþii competitorilor sãi japonezi. Acest „benchmarkingcompetitiv” a fost curând dublat de „benchmarkingul generic” prin care Xerox a trecutde la competitorii imediaþi la companiile cu modele de practicã puternice, oriunde s-arfi aflat acestea – de exemplu în domeniul cãilor ferate, al asigurãrilor ºi generãrii deelectricitate.

Benchmarkingul strategic, apãrut în anii 1990, este puternic legat de concepteleînvãþãrii organizaþionale ºi de „organizaþie de învãþare”, pe care mulþi comentatori leconsiderã drept cheia realã în direcþia obþinerii unui avantaj competitiv într-un mediuîn permanentã schimbare. Capacitãþile forþei de muncã privite colectiv, dar ºi individual,


RRM 1-2007 31

A commonly used tool of management practitioners in the late twentieth century isthe tool of benchmarking (Bogan and English, 1994; Greengard, 1995). Althoughdefinitions of benchmarking may vary slightly, the key aspect is generally accepted:benchmarking is the process of comparing oneself to the best relevant competitors. Forexample, Overman (1993) defines benchmarking as measuring the practices of one’sown company against the best practices of the competition. Similarly, Camp (1989)proposes that the process of benchmarking requires establishing operating targets basedon the industry best practices.

Benchmark is a term we have borrowed from surveyors. If a surveyor can mark aknown position and altitude on a permanent landmark, it can serve as a reference pointfor other measurements and other points. In much the same way, benchmarking, asmanagers use that term, features the identification of a point of reference for comparisonor measurement purposes. With a benchmark, they can measure the performance gapbetween where they are and where they want to be and can track their progress inclosing that gap.

The origins and tendencies of benchmarking

Comparisons have been the lifeblood of business in general and industrial relationsin particular for decades. The more systematic approach involved in benchmarkinghad its origins in the 1950s in the US and Japan. In the USA, companies such as GeneralElectric began to use value control and comparative statistical exercises to evaluatealternative approaches to basic functional activities. In Japan, ‘reverse engineering’was a major activity, with Toyoda of Toyota developing his ideas on kaizen or continuousimprovement on the basis of his study of the Ford materials handling process in 1950.However, the development of benchmarking as it has come to be known is very muchassociated with Xerox in the USA, leading to the first book on the subject by thecompany’s head of benchmarking in the 1980s (Camp, 1989). Initially, in the late 1970sand early l980s, Xerox focused on the activities of its Japanese competitors. This‘competitive benchmarking’ was quickly joined by ‘generic benchmarking’, in whichXerox looked beyond immediate competitors, to include companies with strong practiceswherever they were to be found – railways, insurance and electricity generation, forexample.

Strategic benchmarking, which emerged in the 1990s, is closely associated with theconcepts of organizational learning and the ‘learning organization’, which manycommentators see as the real key to developing competitive advantage in a rapidlychanging environment. The skills of the workforce viewed collectively as well as



formeazã competenþele de bazã ale organizaþiei. Pentru dezvoltarea ºi amplificareaacestor competenþe, organizaþiile trebuie sã depãºeascã stadiul în care specializareaeste vãzutã doar la nivelul indivizilor care învaþã ceva. Þelul final este câºtigulorganizaþiei, atunci când organizaþia, privitã ca o entitate, începe sã dezvolte modalitãþide învãþare colectivã, devenind o „organizaþie de învãþare”, al cãrei scop organizaþionalcentral este învãþarea sistematicã. Dupã cum afirmã Keep ºi Rainbird (1999), „În loc sãconsiderãm cã pregãtirea ºi competenþele sunt un plus deosebit, învãþarea ocupã loculcentral ºi devine principiul organizaþional principal, în jurul cãruia pot fi dezvoltatestrategia de afaceri ºi avantajul competitiv” (vezi ºi Mabey et al, 1998: 310-5) ºi, înacelaºi timp, se poate atinge „idealul” perfecþionãrii continue.

Despre benchmarking s-a scris foarte mult în ultimii ani, dupã ce conceptul a devenitcunoscut prin intermediul Internetului, find promovat de consultanþi ºi guverne naþionale.Într-adevãr, acum existã reviste specializate care se ocupã de acest subiect, de exempluBenchmarking for Quality Management and Technology and Benchmarking: anInternational Journal. Deºi existã ºi unele voci care pun sub semnul întrebãrii justeþeaconceptului de “cea mai bunã practicã”, argumentând cã nu respectã dovezile venitedin cercetare, conform cãrora abordarea incidenþialã ºi configuraþionalã duc la rezultatesuperioare (vezi, de exemplu, Martin ºi Beaumont, 1998), marea majoritate acomentatorilor recunosc logica evidentã a acestui concept.

Cercetãrile s-au axat în principal asupra laturii practice a benchmarkingului, abordândîndeosebi subiecte ca definirea „celei mai bune practici”, alegerea comparaþiilor ºicircumstanþele în care poate avea loc acest transfer.

Benchmarkingul contribuie la creºterea capacitãþii organizaþiei de a obþine o poziþiecompetitivã prin monitorizarea celor mai bune practici din domeniul indutrial respectivºi prin determinarea unitãþilor de mãsurã a performanþei (Camp, 1989; Fitz-enz, 1993).Un alt beneficiu este faptul cã autoanaliza obligatorie pentru benchmarking încurajeazãidentificarea unor modalitãþi mai eficiente de acþiune. Prin monitorizarea sistemului delucru din alte organizaþii, benchmarkingul oferã alternative pentru practicile la zi înafaceri ale organizaþiei ºi astfel poate ajuta la creºterea performanþei organizaþiei(Fitz-enz, 1993). Totuºi, benchmarkingul are ºi dezavantaje. Schimbãrile necesare pentruimplementarea benchmarkingului solicitã mult lucru în echipã, angajament, oconcentrare obiectivã asupra problemelor implicate, alãturi de dorinþa ºi capacitateaorganizaþiei ºi a indivizilor de a se schimba (Fitz-enz, 1993; Greengard, 1995).Introducerea schimbãrilor poate fi costisitoare ºi dificilã (Overman, 1993). În plus, oabordare greºitã a bechmarkingului se poate dovedi contraproductivã pentru organizaþiasau organizaþiile implicate, subminând, în cele din urmã, eforturile organizaþiei deaplicare a benchmarkingului (Wolfram-Cox et al, 1997). Este important de menþionatcã Hamel ºi Pralahad (1994) sunt de pãrere cã benchmarkingul poate fi doar un modde a se menþine „la acelaºi nivel” cu practicile adoptate de alte organizaþii, acolo undeele sunt necesare, nefiind însã suficient pentru creºterea performanþei organizaþiei(Vedder, 1992). Cu alte cuvinte, este posibil ca „benchmarkingul sã scoatã în evidenþã


RRM 1-2007 33

individually, form the organization’s core competences. In order to develop and enhancethese competences, organizations need to go beyond seeing training as individualslearning things. The goals are organizational earning, where the organization as anentity starts to develop ways in which it can learn lessons collectively, and the ‘learningorganization’, where the central organizational goal is systemic learning. In Keep andRainbird’s (1999) words, ‘Instead of training and skills being a bolt-on extra, learningmoves to centre stage and becomes the chief organizational principle around whichbusiness strategy and competitive advantage can be developed’ (see also Mabey et al.,1998: 310-5), but also of achieving the ‘holy grail’ of continuous improvement.

Benchmarking has spawned a voluminous literature in recent years as it has spreadits net and been promoted by consultants and national governments. Indeed, there arenow specialist journals dealing with the topic, for example Benchmarking for QualityManagement and Technology and Benchmarking: an International Journal. Although acritical strand has questioned the appropriateness of the concept of ‘best practice’,arguing it is at odds with the evidence of research suggesting that contingency andconfigurationally approaches bring superior results (see, for example, Martin andBeaumont, 1998), the great bulk has assumed the logic is self evident.

The main focus has been on the practicalities of benchmarking, with issues such asthe definition of ‘best practice’, the choice of comparisons and the circumstances oftransferability being especially prominent.

Benchmarking contributes to an organization’s ability to attain a competitive positionby monitoring industry best practices and determining measures of productivity (Camp,1989; Fitz-enz, 1993). A further benefit is that the self-analysis required by benchmarkingencourages the identification of more efficient ways of operating. Benchmarking, bymonitoring how other organizations function, offers alternatives to an organization’scurrent business practices and, thus, can assist the performance of the organization(Fitz-enz, 1993). However, benchmarking is not without disadvantages. The changesneeded to implement benchmarking require a great deal of teamwork, commitment, anobjective focus on the issues concerned, and the willingness and ability on the part ofthe organization, and individuals, to change (Fitz-enz, 1993; Greengard, 1995). It canalso be expensive and difficult to implement (Overman, 1993). Further, the use of thewrong approach to benchmarking can be counter productive for the organization ororganizations involved and can ultimately undermine an organization’s benchmarkingefforts (Wolfram-Cox et al, 1997). Importantly, Hamel and Prahalad (1994) suggest thatbenchmarking may only be a way of remaining “on par” with the practices adopted byother organizations, where such practices are necessary, but not sufficient, for enhanced



numai practicile industriale adoptate deja pe scarã largã de cãtre organizaþii, dar nu ºisã le identifice pe acelea care determinã avantajul competitiv. S-ar pãrea cã însuºibenchmarkingul trebuie sã fie supus procedurii de benchmarking. Beneficiile neclareºi nesigure ale benchmarking-ului în practicã sunt studiate în acest articol, prinintermediul unui benchmarking al însuºi benchmarkingului, pentru a stabili dacãbenchmarkingul este cu adevãrat soluþia cea mai bunã în practicã ºi, dacã da, pentru avedea care anume practici ar trebui supuse benchmarkingului în AFI. Practicile carefac deosebirea între grupuri, pe baza nivelului de performanþã, sunt deci necesare pentruobþinerea succesului” (Vedder, 1992). Adicã, practicile care pot fi descrise ca fiind„cele mai bune” sunt acelea care fac diferenþa între performerii buni ºi rãi.

Prin procesul de benchmarking, se pot identifica cele mai bune practici la locul demuncã (Camp, 1989; Fitz-enz 1993). În general, cea mai bunã practicã este consideratãa fi aceea care „implicã procedeele utilizate de firmele, industriile sau competitorii ceimai buni din domeniul lor, considerate ca jaloane în comparaþie cu care organizaþiileîºi pot alinia practicile, în încercarea de a deveni mai competitive ºi de a anula diferenþelede performanþã” (Camp, 1989; Mohrman et al, 1995). Gama de practici studiate poateduce la descoperirea metodelor celor mai potrivite, cu un impact direct asupraperformanþei ºi/sau a celor mai bune practici, indicatori ai unor forþe mai profunde.

Componentele caracteristice celei mai bune practici includ adoptarea unor programede calitate, de pildã managementul de calitate, structurarea organizaþiei pe baza lucruluiîn echipã, o filosofie de îmbunãtãþire continuã a activitãþii, aplicarea sistemului derezolvare „la timpul potrivit” a situaþiilor ºi dezvoltarea ºi aplicarea unei relaþii strânseofertant-client (Dertouzos et al, 1989; Oliver ºi Wilkinson, 1992).

Analiza „noului instituþionalism” este cea care ne permite sã înþelegem mai binelogica extrem de solidã, care îi determinã pe manageri sã foloseascã benchmarkingulîn cãutarea unor soluþii pentru „cea mai bunã practicã”. În exprimarea lui DiMaggio ºiPowell (1983), procesul acesta reflectã adaptarea, în egalã mãsurã, la forme „mimetice”ºi „coercitive” de izomorfism. De menþionat cã termenul de „cea mai bunã practicã”oferã soluþiilor legitimitate deplinã, mai ales dacã ele ajung sã fie incluse în recomandãrileorganizaþiilor profesionale ºi de consultanþã, atingând astfel statutul pe care DiMaggioºi Powell îl asociazã cu al treilea mecanism instituþional, adicã izomorfismul „normativ”.În acest context legitimitatea poate fi deosebit de importantã, mai ales pentru a-i ajutape manageri sã convingã reprezentanþii angajaþilor lor cu privire la acþiunile propuse,dar ºi sã câºtige de partea lor pe acei colegi manageri care sunt încã nehotãrâþi.

Acest lucru ne aminteºte ºi de faptul cã benchmarkingul a ajuns sã joace un rolimportant în funcþionarea sistemelor de control în management (Ferner ºi Edwards,1995). În ultimii ani, în corporaþiile mari s-a putut observa funcþionarea unui modellarg rãspândit de decentralizare coordonatã a responsabilitãþilor manageriale – pe scurt,marea corporaþie este „descentralizatã din punct de vedere funcþional, dar centralizatãdin punct de vedere strategic” (Whittington ºi Mayer, 1994). Pe lângã rolul sãu îndescentralizarea bugetelor, benchmarkingul este considerat drept unul din mijloacele


RRM 1-2007 35

organizational performance (Vedder, 1992). That is, benchmarking ‘ may only revealindustry practices that have been widely adopted by organizations, but not necessarilyidentify those that make for competitive advantage. It appears then that benchmarkingitself may need to be benchmarked. The unclear and uncertain benefits of benchmarkingas a practice are examined here by the benchmarking of benchmarking itself, todetermine if benchmarking is a best practice and, if so, what practices should bebenchmarked in the AFI. Practices that can distinguish groups by level of performanceare then necessary for success (Vedder, 1992). That is, the practices that can be describedas the “best” practices are those that differentiate between good and bad performers.

Through the process of benchmarking, the best workplace practices may be identified(Camp, 1989; Fitz-enz, 1993). Best practice is generally accepted to ‘ involve the internalprocesses of best-in-class firms, industries, or competitors as benchmarks towards whichother organizations may align their own practices in a bid to become more competitiveand close the performance gap (Camp, 1989; Mohrman et al, 1995). The range ofpractices examined may surface best practices that have a direct impact on performanceand/or best practices that are indicators of deeper forces.

The typical components of best practice include the adoption of quality programssuch as total quality management, the implementation of teamwork-based organization,a continuous improvement philosophy, the adoption of just-in-time systems and thedevelopment and implementation of close supplier-customer relationships (Dertouzoset al, 1989; Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992).

It is ‘new institutionalism’ analysis that enables us to understand better the verypowerful logic underpinning managers’ use of benchmarking to pursue ‘best practice’solutions. In the language of DiMaggio and Powell (1983), the process reflects the settingin train of both ‘mimetic’ and ‘coercive’ forms of isomorphism. Crucially, the designation‘best practice’ gives solutions great legitimacy, especially if they come to be incorporatedinto the prescriptions of consultancy and professional organizations, thereby attainingthe status associated with Dimaggio and Powell’s third institutional mechanism, i.e.‘normative’ isomorphism. Legitimacy in this context can be especially important inhelping managers not only to persuade employee representatives of the course of actionbeing proposed, but also to win over uncertain management colleagues.

This also serves as a reminder that benchmarking has come to play a key role in theoperation of management control systems (Ferner and Edwards, 1995). In recent years,a widespread pattern of co-ordinate devolution of managerial responsibilities has takenplace within large corporations - in a phrase, the large corporation is decentralized



prin care se poate realiza un echilibru între heteronomie ºi autonomie, adicãreglementarea de la centru, pe de o parte, ºi responsabilitatea localã, pe de altã parte.Principala sa valoare, aºa cum s-a arãtat mai sus, constã în faptul cã pare sã eviteimpunerea, de cãtre managerii generali, a unor soluþii venite „de sus”. Din contrã,managerii locali sunt încurajaþi sã-ºi gãseascã propriul drum spre perfecþioanrea continuã.

Caracteristici specifice benchmarkingului

Benchmarking-ul poate fi definit ca unealtã pentru perfecþionarea continuã, prinintermediul identificãrii ºi împãrtãºirii informaþiilor despre cea mai bunã practicã.Caracterul ºi eficienþa activitãþilor de benchmarking sunt determinate de procedeulcãruia i se aplicã benchmarkingul, faþã de cine ºi în ce mãsurã învãþarea este incorporatãîn practicile organizaþiei. Catacterul ºi aplicarea unei game largi de activitãþi debenchmarking – benchmarking de date; benchmarking procesual; benchmarkingfuncþional; în sfârºit, benchmarking strategic – sunt bine documentate în literatura despecialitate existentã. Astãzi este un fapt general acceptat cã benchmarkingul trebuiesã facã mult mai mult decât simpla relevare comparativã a locului pe care îl ocupãperformanþa unei organizaþii, în termeni cantitativi (adicã benchmarking de date).Benchmarkingul procesual este considerat mai valoros, deoarece el relevã informaþiidespre procesele care stau la baza cifrelor de performanþã, oferind astfel ºi sugestiidespre modul în care deficienþele de performanþã pot fi anulate (vezi Phillips ºiAppiah-Adu 1998). Deficienþele de performanþã pot fi legate de deficienþele de cost,dar, din ce în ce mai mult, benchmarkingul este considerat drept un mijloc de anularea deficienþelor de calitate a serviciilor.

Mulþi dintre autorii unor studii de benchmarking au recunoscut cã principiul debazã pentru folosirea acestuia este inovaþia în domeniul serviciilor. De exemplu, Zairi(1994) considerã inovaþia în domeniul serviciilor drept „un nou mod de a oferi clientuluicalitate sigurã ºi orientatã spre viabilitatea economicã”. Inovaþia în domeniul serviciilorpoate fi împãrþitã în douã tipuri – de proces ºi de produs. Chan et al. (1998) definescinovaþiile legate de procesul de producþie drept cele legate de dezvoltarea unor procedeemai eficiente de asigurare a serviciilor, de exemplu sistemele de împãrþire a bugetului,sistemele de comunicare cu angajaþii.

Inovaþiile din sfera produsului, pe de altã parte, sunt legate de dezvoltarea unorservicii noi. Este important ca organizaþiile sã-ºi selecteze cu atenþie prioritãþile debenchmarketing, astfel încât sã nu iroseascã resurse valoroase în benchmarking, unproces a cãrui îmbunãtãþire are un impact redus asupra eficienþei sau a rezultatelorobþinute per total de organizaþie. Hutton ºi Zairi sunt de pãrere cã, în general, proceselestudiate în scopuri de benchmarking trebuie sã fie prioritare în funcþie de „importanþalor strategicã viitoare (adicã de nivelul potenþial la care va ajunge afacerea), de importanþaeconomicã, de incapacitatea de schimbare perceputã ºi de uºurinþa cu care proceselepot fi supuse unui benchmarking eficient” (1995: 403).


RRM 1-2007 37

operationally, but centralized strategically. Along with devolved budgets, benchmarkingis to be seen as one of the devices used to help strike a balance between heteronomyand autonomy, i.e. central regulation, on the one hand, and local responsibility, on theother. Its great value, as indicated above, is that it supposedly avoids senior managershaving to impose particular solutions from above. Instead, local managers are encouragedto find their own paths to continuous improvement.

The nature of benchmarking

Benchmarking can be defined as a tool for continuous improvement via theidentification and sharing of best practice. The nature and effectiveness of benchmarkingactivities is governed by what you benchmark, against whom and the extent to whichlearning is incorporated into the organization. The nature and application of a range ofbenchmarking activities – data benchmarking; process benchmarking; functionalbenchmarking; and strategic benchmarking – is well documented in existing literature.It is now accepted that benchmarking should go beyond revealing the relative positionof the performance of an organization in quantitative terms (i.e. data benchmarking).Process benchmarking is regarded as more valuable in that it reveals information aboutthe underlying processes which lie behind the performance figures, thus offeringsuggestions as to how performance gaps can be closed (see Phillips and Appiah-Adu1998). Performance gaps may relate to cost gaps, but increasingly benchmarking isbeing advocated as a means of closing service quality gaps.

Many writers on benchmarking have recognized that a key rationale for its use is toachieve service innovation. For example, Zairi (1994) views service innovation as ‘thenew way of delivering quality to the customer both consistently and with economicviability in mind’. Service innovation can be broken down into two types – process andproduct. Chan et al. (1998) define process innovations as those relating to thedevelopment of more efficient procedures in the delivery of the services, e.g. budgetingsystems, customer service procedures, employee communication systems.

Product innovations, on the other hand, relate to the development of new services.It is important that organizations carefully select benchmarking priorities in order toensure valuable resources are not wasted in benchmarking, a process whoseimprovement has little impact on the organization’s overall efficiency or effectiveness.Hutton and Zairi suggest that, in general, processes under consideration for benchmarkingshould be prioritized according to ‘their future strategic importance (i.e. potential businessleverage), economic importance, perceived inability to change and the ease with whichthe processes can be benchmarked effectively’ (1995: 403).



Tot mai multe lucrãri încearcã sã descrie natura valorii adãugate a benchmarkinguluiprivit ca abordare managerialã. Cum sunt puþini acei teoreticieni care ºi-au pus întrebãricu privire la aplicarea benchmarking-ului în managementul de relaþii publice, amîncercat sã evaluãm mãsura în care motivele menþionate de nespecialiºti pentru utilizareabenchmarking-ului ca sursã de îmbunãtãþire a activitãþii manageriale pot fi aplicateprofesioniºtilor în relaþiile publice. Motivele au fost împãrþite în categorii, ca rezultat fieal benchmarkingului procesual, de produs sau al amândurora. Aceste motive ºi modulîn care s-a constatat cã ele au fost respectate în benchmarkingul relaþiilor publice, potfi prezentate astfel:

1. Îmbunãtãþirea comunicaþiilor ºi a motivãrii. Activitãþile de benchmarking sunt îngeneral desfãºurate de cãtre echipe alcãtuite de specialiºti asistaþi de experþi din altediscipline funcþionale/operative. Aceastã situaþie poate duce la îmbunãtãþirea relaþiilorîntre relaþiile publice ºi alte departamente organizaþionale sau indivizi.

2. Armonizarea cu trendul de mãsurare a calitãþii managementului. Benchmarkingulface parte dintr-un trend recent în marketing, care se orienteazã spre folosirea datelorempirice pentru mãsurarea performanþei. Aceastã abordare aparent „mai ºtiinþificã” amanagementului pare sã fie preferabilã, în management, tendinþei de folosire a intuiþieiºi judecãþii. Adeseori, benchmarkingul este o componentã necesarã în cadrul multorprograme organizaþionale de evaluare a calitãþii managementului (TQM). Performanþaefectivã a acestei abordãri se bazeazã pe evaluarea constantã, cantitativã ºi calitativã,a activitãþii depuse de cãtre profesioniºti.

3. Obþinerea unui avans tehnologic. Benchmarkingul asupra organizaþiilor din afaramediului industrial în cauzã duce adesea la identificarea ºi incorporarea avansuluitehnologic nerecunoscut în industria proprie. De exemplu, folosirea codurilor de barepentru catalogarea informaþiilor companiei, aºa cum se face în magazinele alimentare,a fost folositã de cãtre un birou de relaþii publice pentru acumularea mai rapidã ºieficientã de informaþii necesare pentru publicaþii importante.

4. Obþinerea unor informaþii manageriale corecte. Un benchmarking eficient sebazeazã pe analiza sistematicã, de cãtre specialiºtii de relaþii publice, a dovezilorobiective de performanþã a departamentului respectiv (de exemplu, folosirea valorilorcifrice pentru comparaþii).

5. Identificarea zonelor de oportunitate. Benchmarkingul relaþiilor publice poate fifolosit pentru identificarea circumstanþelor în care resursele de relaþii publice (adicãcele financiare, umane, de timp ºi materiale) se folosesc ineficient (adicã nu se folosescîn scopurile potrivite). În termeni de evaluarea calitãþii managementului, informaþiilede benchmarking s-au folosit în diferite moduri pentru a evalua mãsura în care resurselede relaþii publice se folosesc „în cantitatea necesarã pentru a face mereu lucrul potrivitla timpul potrivit”.

6. Evaluarea performanþei/capabilitãþii funcþionale. Benchmarkingul de relaþii publiceeficient, aplicat ca atare, poate duce la realizarea unei evaluãri corecte a pregãtiriifiecãrui profesionist în relaþii publice ºi a nevoilor de dezvoltare. Tot astfel se obþin ºi


RRM 1-2007 39

There is a growing volume of literature which purports to describe the value addednature of benchmarking as a management approach. Since very few scholars haveaddressed questions about the application of benchmarking to the management of PR,we attempted to assess whether the reasons commonly mentioned by non-PRprofessionals for using benchmarking as a management improvement approach wereapplicable to PR professionals. The reasons have been categorized as resulting frombenchmarking processes, products or both. These reasons, and the ways in which theyhave been observed in use in PR, include the following:

1. To improve communications and motivation. Benchmarking processes aregenerally performed by teams consisting of PR professionals who are assisted by expertsfrom other functional/operational disciplines. This can lead to improved relationshipsbetween PR and other organizational departments or individuals.

2. To coaling with the TQM/measurement trend. Benchmarking is part of a recenttrend in management towards utilizing empirical data for performance measurement.This seemingly more “scientific” approach to management is viewed as being preferableto a predisposition for using intuition and judgment. Benchmarking is often a requiredcomponent of many organizational TQM programs. Effective performance of theapproach requires professionals to constantly quantify and qualify their activities.

3. To obtain technological advances. Benchmarking organizations outside one’sown industry often leads to the identification and incorporation of technological advancesnot recognized in one’s own industry. For example, the use of bar coding for cataloguingcompany information, such as that done in grocery stores, has been used by one PRfunction to more quickly and efficiently gather information to be used in importantpublications.

4. To obtain unbiased management information. Effective benchmarking requiresPR practitioners to systematically analyze objective evidence of the function’sperformance (i.e., using metrics for comparison).

5. To identify areas of opportunity. PR benchmarking can be used to identify thecircumstances under which PR resources (i.e., financial, human, time, materials) areused inefficiently (i.e., they are unproductive or less productive than the benchmark)and ineffectively (i.e., they are not used for those right purposes). In TQM terms,benchmarking information has been used in various ways to assess whether PR resourcesare being used in “the right amount to do the right things at the right times all the time.

6. To assess functional performance/capability. Effective PR benchmarking, whenfocused as such, can be used to generate unbiased assessments of each PR professional’s



datele normative care permit compararea performanþei comportamentale a indivizilordin diferite organizaþii. S-a demonstrat cã aceasta este deosebit de utilã, date fiind maiales provocãrile dificile, din zona comportamentalã, cu care se confruntã manageriidin relaþiile publice atunci când trebuie sã evalueze performanþa subordonaþilor lor.

7. Susþinerea schimbãrilor manageriale din organizaþie ºi asigurarea supravieþuiriiacesteia. Rezultatele din benchmarkingul de relaþii publice pot fi folosite pentru a semnalanevoia de schimbare în cadrul organizaþiei de relaþii publice. O abordare eficientã înbenchmarking poate ajuta la detectarea la timp a problemelor, înainte ca acestea sãdevinã prea complicate ºi grave.

8. Folosirea în planificare ºi evaluare. Procedeele de benchmarking ºi rezultatelelor au fost folosite pentru planificarea relaþiilor publice, în ceea ce priveºte stabilireaprioritãþilor de alocare a resurselor pentru diferite programe ºi/sau profesioniºti. În ceeace priveºte evaluarea, studiile de benchmarking au fost folosite înainte de a decideschimbãrile majore, iar ulterior, într-un anumit moment, pentru evaluarea eficienþeiiniþiativei respective.

9. Îmbunãtãþirea sistemului de luare a deciziilor. Ca activitate de constatare a faptelor,benchmarkingul genereazã dovezi obiective într-un mod nepreferenþial. Informaþiilevalabile sunt o sursã esenþialã pentru luarea deciziilor pentru ca problemele sã fieevitate, pentru ca riscurile ºi irosirea resurselor (de exemplu resurse de timp, materiale,umane) sã fie minimizate. Datele de benchmarking se dovedesc o sursã valabilã ºi deîncredere, pe baza cãreia se pot face planuri ºi se pot lua decizii.

Teme ºi probleme

Aparent, existã multe similaritãþi în practica de benchmarking la diferite niveluri.Între acestea se numãrã accentul pe învãþare, pe identificarea „celei mai bune practici”sau a „practicii preferate” ºi pe stabilirea anumitor þeluri. Multe dintre temele ºiproblemele ridicate de benchmarking par sã fie similare. Astfel, mulþi cercetãtori afirmãla unison cã, atât la nivel micro, cât ºi la cel macro, benchmarkingul este mai dificildecât pare (Delbridge et al.,. 1995; Tronti, 1998; Schmid et al., 1999; Arrowsmith ºiSisson, 2001). Definirea „celei mai bune practici” nu e uºoarã, mai ales atunci cândexistã mai multe politici, potenþial conflictuale, cu privire la þelurile finale. Ca urmare,benchmarkingul de performanþã ajunge rareori benchmarking procesual, ºi cu atât maipuþin benchmarking strategic. Cu alte cuvinte, în loc sã se concentreze asupra învãþãriiºi perfecþionãrii continue, benchmarkingul tinde sã se ocupe exclusiv de mãsurãtoricantitative.

„Concentrarea asupra numerelor”, aºa cum o numesc Elmuti ºi Kathawala (1997:236) este mult mai simplã decât analiza motivelor pentru care apar diferenþe între ele.Din acelaºi motiv, în loc sã fie o forþã de schimbare, benchmarkingul nu face marelucru în afarã de copierea celor mai bune practici (deja depãºite), lucru care s-ar puteadovedi nepotrivit în funcþie de situaþie ºi de moment. Jocul de-a prinselea prin


RRM 1-2007 41

training and development needs. It also yields normative data enabling comparisonbehave the performance of individuals between organizations. This has been shown tobe especially useful in light of the often difficult behavioral challenges faced by PRmanagers in having to judge the work performance of their subordinates.

7. To assist with the management of change in the function and to ensure its survival.PR benchmarking results can be used to signal that adjustments are needed within thePR organization. An effective benchmarking approach can be a helpful distant earlywarning system of problems before they become too complicated and large.

8. To use for planning and evaluation. Benchmarking processes and results havebeen used for PR planning with respect to establishing priorities for resource allocationacross programs and/or professionals. For evaluation purposes, benchmarking studieshave been used before undertaking major change initiatives and then again at apredetermined subsequent point in time to assess the effectiveness of the initiative.

9. To improve decision making. As a fact-finding activity, benchmarking generatesobjective evidence in an unbiased manner. Valid information is an essential input tothe decision making process so that problems can be avoided, risks and resources waste(i.e., time, materials, human) can be minimized. Benchmark data provides valid andreliable input on which to plan and make decisions.

Issues and problems

Superficially, there are many similarities in the practice of benchmarking at thedifferent levels. These include the emphases on learning, identifying ‘best practice’ or‘preferred practice’ and target setting. Many of the issues and problems that benchmarkingraises also appear to be similar. Thus, a common refrain of commentators at both themicro and macro levels is that benchmarking is more difficult than it seems (Delbridgeet al.,. 1995; Tronti, 1998; Schmid et al., 1999; Arrowsmith and Sisson, 2001). Defining‘best practice’ is no easy matter, especially when there are several and potentiallyconflicting policy goals. The result is that performance benchmarking rarely becomesprocess benchmarking, let alone strategic benchmarking. Instead of being about learningand continuous improvement, in other words, benchmarking tends to be concernedexclusively with quantitative measures.

‘Focusing on the numbers’, as Elmuti and Kathawala (1997: 236) put it, is so mucheasier than analyzing the reasons for the differences behind them. For the same reason,instead of being a force for change, benchmarking can amount to little more that alemming-like copying of (yesterday’s) best practice, which may be unsuited to differentcircumstances or times. The playing of catch-up benchmarking encourages can put a



benchmarking riscã sã punã o frânã în calea unei analize serioase a problemelor ºi/sauexperimentãrii soluþiilor pentru acestea (vezi, de exemplu, sinteza realizatã deLongbottom, 2000).

Deºi formele mai complexe de benchmarking pot minimiza unele dintre acesteprobleme, rãmân totuºi dificultãþi fundamentale prin deplasarea de la nivelul micro lacel macro, unde apar diferenþe majore. Este extrem de important ca relaþia dintre ceiimplicaþi sã fie foarte diferitã la nivel micro, faþã de nivelul macro. Evident,benchmarkingul le poate acoperi pe amândouã ºi, în plus, poate funcþiona ºi îndimensiunea externã. Totuºi, în funcþie de nivel, echilibrul dintre ele este foarte diferit,cu implicaþii profunde pentru alegerea comparaþiilor ºi pentru implementare. La nivelulmicro, benchmarkingul are loc în cadrul structurii verticale, adicã iararhice, specificepentru organizaþiile de afaceri. Fundamental, benchmarkingul are o dimensiune internã.Compania poate cãuta în afarã „cea mai bunã practicã”, dar problema implementãriieste strict internã. Întâmplãtor sau nu, acest lucru este caracteristic ºi pentru „cluburile”de benchmarking, în care participã mai multe companii – apar probleme serioase deîncredere ºi negociere, însã nu legate de implementare, care rãmâne prerogativa fiecãreicompanii în parte.

Benchmarkingul joacã un rol important în legitimare, dar marile companii deþin unsistem complex de control, formal ºi informal, prin care asigurã conformarea managerilorlocali (vezi, de exemplu, Ferner ºi Edwards, 1995).

În practicã, ce poate face conducerea firmei pentru ca benchmarking-ul sã fie ostrategie eficientã, pozitivã? Rãspunsul se aflã în „modelare”, o tehnicã de schimbarecomportamentalã care promoveazã creºterea gradatã de la un comportament iniþial laþelul dorit (Grant ºi Evans, 1994). În modelare, consolidarea sau rãsplata depind decomportamente care sunt din ce în ce mai apropiate de rãspunsul final sau þintã, adicãde benchmark. Ideea centralã este încurajarea apropierii treptate de scopul final.Modelarea aminteºte, prin caracteristicile ei, de jocul „cald sau rece” din vremeacopilãriei (Morgan, 1974). În general, consolidarea, mai „fierbinte”, apare numai atuncicând miºcarea se apropie de obiectiv mai mult decât miºcãrile precedente. În acestmod, se consolideazã numai acele rãspunsuri care sunt din ce în ce mai apropiate deþelul final.

Modelarea cu succes cere cunoaºtere, îndemânare ºi rãbdare: cunoaºtereacomportamentelor potrivite ºi a secvenþei comportamentale care constituie performanþadoritã; rãbdarea de a-i urmãri pe alþii greºind ceva ce tu faci foarte bine; ºi îndemânareade a recunoaºte ºi de a consolida chiar ºi cele mai mici îmbunãtãþiri. Cei mai mulþidintre noi nu suntem înalþi specialiºti în identificarea micilor schimbãri. ªi totuºi, aceastãabilitate este esenþialã pentru managerii cei mai eficienþi ºi de succes, la fel ºi pentruprofesori, consilieri sau traineri ºi ea poate fi învãþatã. Atunci când se aplicã aºa cumtrebuie, modelarea este cea mai eficientã ºi mai rapidã cale spre marea performanþã(Daniels, 1989). Un obiectiv despre care se credea cã nu poate fi atins devine posibilprintr-o serie de mici schimbãri progresive (Quinn, 1980).


RRM 1-2007 43

stop to serious analysis of problems and/or experimentation with their solutions (see,for example, the review in Longbottom, 2000).

Though more sophisticated forms of benchmarking can minimize some of theseproblems, fundamental difficulties still remain as its use moves from the micro to themacro levels, with significant differences emerging. Critically important is that therelationships of those involved are very different at the micro and macro levels. Evidently,benchmarking can have both an internal and external dimension. Depending on thelevel, however, the balance between them is very different, with profound implicationsfor the choice of comparisons and for implementation. At the micro level, benchmarkingtakes place within the vertical or hierarchical structure that typifies the businessorganization. Benchmarking has an essentially internal dimension. The company maylook externally for ‘best practice’, but the issue of implementation is purely internal.Incidentally, this is also true of benchmark ‘clubs’ involving a number of companies –these raise significant issues of trust and negotiation, 17 but not about implementation,which remains the prerogative of the individual company.

Benchmarking plays an important legitimating role, but large companies also havea range of controls, formal and informal, to ensure that local managers come into line(see, for example, Ferner and Edwards, 1995).

From a practical standpoint, what can management do to help ensure thatbenchmarking will be an effective, positive strategy? The answer lies in “shaping,” abehavior change technique that promotes gradual improvement from a known, initialbehavior to the desired goal (Grant & Evans, 1994). In shaping, reinforcement or rewarddepends on behaviors that are increasingly similar to the terminal or goal response, i.e.,the benchmark. The key idea is to encourage gradual approximations to the end goal.Shaping shares certain features of the children’s game of “hot and cold” (Morgan, 1974).In general, the reinforcing consequence, saying “hotter,” occurs only when movementis closer to the object than previous movements. In this way, only responses that areincreasingly similar to the goal are reinforced.

Successful shaping requires knowledge, skill, and patience: knowledge of the properbehaviors and the sequence of behaviors that constitute the desirable performance; thepatience to watch others make mistakes at something you do well; and the skill torecognize and reinforce even small improvement. Most of us are not highly skilled atidentifying small improvements in performance and reinforcing them. We tend to lookfor “all or nothing” changes. Yet this ability is essential for the most effective and efficientmanagers, teachers, counselors, and coaches and can be learned. When done properly,shaping is the most efficient and quickest route to high performance (Daniels, 1989).What was believed to be unattainable becomes reachable through a series of smallincremental changes (Quinn, 1980).



Pentru implementarea unei strategii de modelare eficiente, sunt necesare câtevaetape importante (Luthans ºi Kreitner, 1975):

1. Definirea precisã sau evidenþierea þelului sau a comportamentului þintã. Acestcomportament þintã trebuie întotdeauna sã fie legat de performanþã.

2. Dacã acest comportament þintã este un lanþ comportamental complex, el trebuieredus la o secvenþã de paºi comportamentali sau evenimente distincte, uºor de observatºi, deci, uºor de cuantificat.

3. Membrii organizaþiei trebuie sã fie capabili sã îndeplineascã cerinþele ºi abilitãþilenecesare pentru noul þel. Dacã este necesar, ei trebuie pregãtiþi pentru comportamentulcorespunzãtor.

4. Selectarea modalitãþilor cu potenþial pozitiv de eficienþã în consolidare, pe bazaistoriei organizaþiei ºi percepþiei membrilor.

5. Toate consolidãrile pozitive trebuie sã se realizeze printr-o apropiere treptatã deþelul sau scopul final. Lanþul comportamental trebuie clãdit pas cu pas.

6. Menþinerea ºi întãrirea comportamentului þintã. Odatã ce se atinge þelul dorit eltrebuie monitorizat, coordonat ºi consolidat continuu.

Bugete ºi benchmarkuri în relaþiile publice

Prevederea activitãþilor aºteptate a fost întotdeauna una din cele mai nesigure sarcinidin relaþiile publice, afacerile publice ºi comunicaþiile corporatiste. Ca urmare, multeoperaþiuni de relaþii publice depãºesc, aproape firesc, bugetele þintã alocate. Acestedefecte apar cu precãdere în marile organizaþii de relaþii publice cu multe unitãþidescentralizate. Unii directori executivi de relaþii publice cred cã aceste problemeîmpiedicã acceptarea profesionalã de cãtre alþi profesioniºti la acelaºi nivel, în cadrulorganizaþiilor lor. Dincolo de asta, presiunea costurilor în creºtere necesitã justificãrimai mari din partea tuturor unitãþilor din cadrul organizaþiei.

Din cauza naturii activitãþii pe care o implicã, relaþiile publice ajung uneori sã numai poatã face o planificare detaliatã. Mulþi oameni cu experienþã afirmã cã nu ar avearost sã pretindem de la relaþiile publice sã-ºi justifice cheltuielile aºa cum se întâmplãîn mediul ingineresc, de producþie, de vânzãri sau de personal. Managerii cu experienþãîn relaþiile publice cunosc realitatea ce decurge din existenþa costurilor aºa-numite„sub linie”: alþi directori de departamente sunt nemulþumiþi de aceastã ficþiune contabilã;performanþa anualã a directorilor executivi de relaþii publice poate fi afectatã; maimult, cauzele depãºirilor de costuri se uitã cu timpul.

Benchmarkingul ca planificare strategicã are categoric un viitor. Profesioniºtii relaþiilorpublice au ºansa de a se afirma în cadrul echipelor de management strategic, înþelegândprincipiile benchmarkingului strategic ºi ajutându-ºi organizaþiile sau clienþii sã le aplicepentru soluþionarea problemelor din domeniul de afaceri respectiv. Benchmarkingulnu defineºte numai ceea ce produce o organizaþie, ci ºi modul în care produsele ºiserviciile sunt proiectate, fabricate ºi lansate pe piaþã. În loc sã se bazeze doar pe


RRM 1-2007 45

To implement an effective shaping strategy, several steps should be followed (Luthans& Kreitner, 1975):

1. Precisely define or pinpoint the goal or target behavior. This target behavior shouldalways be related to performance.

2. If the target behavior is a complex chain of behavior, reduce it to a discrete,observable, and thus measurable sequence of specific behavioral events or steps.

3. Make sure organizational members are capable of meeting the skill or abilityrequirements for the new goal. Train them in appropriate behaviors if needed.

4. Select potentially effective positive reinforces on the basis of the organization’shistory & members’ perceptions.

5. Make all positive reinforcement contingent upon successively closerapproximations to the target or goal. The behavioral chain must be built link by link.

6. Maintain and strengthen target behavior. Once the desired target response isachieved, it must be continually monitored, managed, and reinforced.

Budgets and benchmarks in PR

Forecasting expected activities has always been one of the most uncertain tasks inpublic relations, public affairs and corporate communications. As a consequence, manyPR operations almost routinely overrun planned budget targets. These shortcomings areespecially prevalent in large PR organizations with many decentralized units. Some PRexecutives believe these problems are preventing professional acceptance by peerswithin their organizations. Beyond this, increased cost pressures demand greateraccountability from all organizational units.

Because of the nature of its work, public relations are sometimes unable to do detailplanning. And many experienced people say it is unreasonable to expect PR to matchthe accountability of engineering, manufacturing, sales or personnel. Experiencedmanagers in public relations know the realities flowing from having a portion of costscarried “below-the-line”: other departmental peers resent this accounting fiction; annualperformance ratings for PR executives can be affected; and the causes of the overrunscan get lost with time.

Benchmarking as a strategic planning tactic is definitely here to stay. Public relationsprofessionals can earn a spot on the strategic management team by understanding



comparaþia cu competitorii direcþi, benchmarking-ul foloseºte date ºi din alte domeniiindustriale. Totuºi, costurile de benchmarking pot fi foarte ridicate. Profesioniºtii dindomeniul relaþiilor publice au ºansa de a se afirma în cadrul echipei de managementstrategic prin înþelegerea principiilor de benchmarking, ajutându-ºi astfel organizaþiilesau clienþii sã le aplice, pentru soluþionarea problemelor de resort.

Benchmarkingul se deosebeºte de analiza competitivã prin douã aspecte. El nudefineºte numai ceea ce produce o organizaþie, ci ºi modul în care produsele ºi serviciilesunt proiectate, fabricate ºi lansate pe piaþã. În plus, în loc sã se bazeze doar pecomparaþia cu competitorii direcþi, el foloseºte date ºi din alte domenii industriale. Înconcluzie, benchmarkingul poate facilita o performanþã îmbunãtãþitã, dar asta nu seîntâmplã întotdeauna. El poate avea efecte atunci când are drept rezultat þeluri dedificultate moderatã pentru organizaþie, dar atunci când þelurile sunt considerate radicaldiferite de activitatea trecutã a organizaþiei, angajaþii fie nu reuºesc sã înþeleagãschimbarea, fie o considerã inacceptabilã sau imposibil de îndeplinit (Reger, Gustafson,DeMarie ºi Mullane, 1994). În aceste situaþii, încercãrile radicale de înlocuire a vechilorþeluri ale organizaþiei cu altele noi, rezultate din benchmarking, au mai multe ºanse dea fi primite cu suspiciune.

Se prea poate ca benchmarkingul sã fi fost acela care i-a obligat pe manageri sãrecunoascã modul eronat în care au înþeles performanþa potenþialã a organizaþiei(Munroe-Faure ºi Munroe-Faure, 1992). Pe de altã parte, e posibil ca mulþi dintre cei cuperformanþe medii ºi slabe sã fi fost copleºiþi de discrepanþa dintre performanþa lor ºicea din benchmark, fapt pentru care sã considere cã atingerea þelului este imposibilã.Un mare numãr de cercetãri au demonstrat cã þelurile imposibile nu duc la creºtereaperformanþei (Locke ºi Latham, 1990).

Situaþia optimã este cea în care diferenþa dintre actual ºi ideal este suficient de marepentru a crea tensiunea necesarã ca motivaþie a schimbãrii (Huff, Huff ºi Thomas, 1992),dar nu atât de mare încât þelul sã fie perceput ca fiind imposibil de atins (Osgood ºiTannenbaum, 1995).

Tipuri ºi þeluri ale benchmarketingului de relaþii publice

Benchmarkingul se poate orienta spre procedurile, practicile, rolurile, produsele/serviciile de relaþii publice sau spre problemele strategice. De exemplu, el poate fifolosit pentru studiul practicilor existente, prin verificarea modului în care diferite practicide relaþii publice susþin cele mai importante procedee sau obiectivele esenþiale dinprogram. Cu privire la roluri, benchmarkingul are rolul de a identifica tocmai ce faceun profesionist sau departament de PR pentru organizaþie. Din acest punct de vedere,benchmarkingul se foloseºte pentru evaluarea misiunii departamentului de relaþii publiceºi a modului în care se traduce aceasta în termenii serviciilor ºi operaþiunilor din cadrulorganizaþiei ºi într-un sens organizaþional mai larg.


RRM 1-2007 47

benchmarking principles and helping their organizations or clients apply them to solvebusiness problems. Benchmarking not only defines what an organization produces, buthow it designs, manufactures, and markets its products or services. Rather than relyingsolely on comparisons with direct competitors, it uses data from other industries.However, benchmarking can be expensive. Public relations professionals can earn spotson the strategic management team by understanding benchmarking principles andhelping their organizations or clients apply them to solve business problems.

Benchmarking differs from competitive analysis on two counts. It not only defineswhat an organization produces but how it designs, manufactures and markets its productsor services. And, rather than relying solely on comparisons with direct competitors, ituses data from other industries. In summary, benchmarking may facilitate improvedperformance, but not always. Benchmarking can be effective when it results inmoderately difficult goals for an organization, but when the goals are seen as radicaldepartures from the organization’s past, employees either fail to understand the changeor perceive it to be unacceptable or impossible to reach (Reger, Gustafson, DeMarie, &Mullane, 1994). In these situations, radical attempts to replace old organizational goalswith new benchmarked ones are much more likely to be met with resistance.

Benchmarking also may have forced management to admit that their current beliefsabout potential organizational performance were inaccurate (Munroe-Faure &Munroe-Faure, 1992). Conversely, many of the medium- and low-performers may havebeen overwhelmed by the discrepancy between their performance and that of thebenchmark, therefore viewing the goal as impossible. A large body of research hasdemonstrated that impossible goals do not lead to performance enhancement (Locke &Latham, 1990).

The optimum situation is when the difference between current and ideal is largeenough to create the stress necessary to motivate change (Huff, Huff, & Thomas, 1992),but is not so great that the goal is perceived as unreachable (Osgood & Tannenbaum,1955).

Types and targets of PR benchmarking

Benchmarking can focus on PR processes, practices, roles, products/services, orstrategic issues. For example, it can be used to examine existing practices by examininghow various PR practices support major processes or critical program objectives. Withrespect to roles, benchmarking is done to identify what a PR professional or functiondoes for the organization. In this focus, benchmarking is employed to assess on themission of the PR unit and how this is translated in terms of services and operationswithin the organization and with respect to the broader organizational environment.



Obiectivul temelor strategice de benchmarking este acela de a identifica acei factoride importanþã majorã pentru obþinerea avantajului competitiv, definind elementele deexcelenþã specifice pentru aceste probleme, dar ºi de a identifica organizaþiile cunoscuteca performere de top pe aceste probleme. Dincolo de cunoaºterea elementelor cãroratrebuie sã li se acorde atenþie maximã, identificarea organizaþiilor cãrora urmeazã sã lise facã benchmarkingul este ºi ea utilã. În general, benchmarkingul de relaþii publicese concentreazã pe trei niveluri þintã, dupã cum urmeazã:

1. Benchmarkingul intern se referã la analiza practicilor de relaþii publice existenteîn diferite departamente sau divizii ale aceleiaºi organizaþii; analiza celei mai buneperformanþe a acestora este dublatã de identificarea determinanþilor sau a cauzelor lor.Analiza benchmarkingului intern se orienteazã, adeseori, spre cercetarea lanþurilorspecifice de valori, sau a secvenþei activitãþilor determinante din cadrul departamentuluirespectiv.

Determinanþii de performanþã grãbesc o serie de acþiuni sau activitãþi care rãspundcerinþelor sau solicitãrilor comunitãþii organizaþionale sau ale acþionarilor. Determinanþiipot fi interni sau externi. Între determinanþii interni se numãrã elemente cum sunt culturaorganizaþionalã, structura organizaþiei, sistemele, viziunea, resursele, produsele,serviciile, creºterea sau conducerea acesteia. Între determinanþii externi se numãrã:contextul industrial al organizaþiei, locaþia activitãþilor ei, regulamentele cu care seconfruntã, tehnologia folositã în pentru plasarea pe piaþã a produselor/serviciilor ºigradul de rivalitate competitivã prezentã pe piaþa clienþilor organizaþiei. Multe organizaþiiºi-au început activitãþile de benchmarking prin benchmarking-ul intern.

2. Benchmarkingul competitorilor apare atunci când organizaþia îºi comparãpracticile ºi funcþionarea departamentelor proprii de relaþii publice cu un produs/serviciuoferit de un competitor de pe piaþã. În acelaºi mod, organizaþiile guvernamentale pot fisupuse ºi ele unui proces de benchmarking. Un avantaj al acestui tip relativ restrâns debenchmarking este acela cã el ajutã la susþinerea strategiei organizaþionale, prinidentificarea slãbiciunilor ºi elementelor de forþã ale activitãþilor de PR ale competitorilorde pe piaþã ºi, înainte de orice, prin încercarea de a obþine avantaje de pe urma acestorfactori. Un alt avantaj este cã e mai uºor sã compari procedurile ºi performanþele pe osingurã piaþã de produse/servicii, decât pe pieþe diferite.

3. Benchmarkingul funcþional/generic/al celor mai bune practici are scopul celmai larg. Organizaþiile care realizeazã un benchmarking generic studiazã mai multedomenii sau sectoare industriale, în cãutarea unor practici noi sau perfecþionate, carepot fi folosite pentru îmbunãtãþirea performanþei lor. O problemã obiºnuitã legatã deaceastã formã de benchmarking este cea a „efectului de aurã”. Acest efect sugereazãcã o organizaþie cu practici binecunoscute într-un domeniu (de exemplu mult lãudatelecapacitãþi de coordonare a comunicaþiilor în situaþii de crizã, ale firmei Johnson andJohnson) va fi tot „cea mai tare” sau aproape de perfecþiune în toate celelalte tipuri decomunicare (de exemplu, la firma Johnson and Johnson, comunicarea între angajaþi,programele de comunicare cu investitorii sau la nielul întregii comunitãþi). Companiile


RRM 1-2007 49

The objective of benchmarking strategic issues is to identify those factors of criticalimportance to competitive advantage, defining measures of excellence which capturethese issues, and to identify organizations that are known to be top performers on thesemeasured attributes. Beyond knowing on what to focus, it is also instructive to identifythe parties that should be benchmarked. In general, PR benchmarking is focused atthree different target levels, including the following:

1. Internal benchmarking refers to the analysis of existing PR practices within variousdepartments or divisions of the same organization, examining for best performance aswell as identifying drivers or causes of work. Internal benchmarking analysis often looksat the specific value chains or sequences of driver-activity combinations of the function.

Performance drivers act as precipitators of a series of actions or activities that respondto the requests or demands of organizational publics or stakeholders. Drivers can beinternal or external. Internal drivers include such matters as the organization’s culture,structure, systems, vision, resources, products, services, growth, or leadership. Externaldrivers include factors such as the organization’s industry context, location oforganizational activities, regulations facing the organization, technology utilized inproducing product/service market outputs, and the degree of competitive rivalry presentin the organization’s customer marketplace. Many organizations have begun an ongoingbenchmarking initiative by doing internal benchmarking.

2. Competitor benchmarking occurs when one organization compares its PR practicesand functions with a product/service market competitor. Governmental organizationscan also be benchmarked in similar ways. An advantage of this relatively narrow typeof benchmarking is that it helps to support organizational strategy in that the weaknessesand strengths of a product market competitor’s PR activities can be identified andprioritized plans made to capitalize on these factors. Another advantage is that it iseasier to compare processes and performance within a similar product/service marketthan across dissimilar ones.

3. Functional/Generic/Best Practices is the broadest form of benchmarking in scope.Organizations which perform generic benchmarking look across multiple industries orsectors for innovative new and/or state of the art practices that can be used to improvetheir PR performance. A common problem associated with this form of benchmarkingis associated with the “halo effect.” This effect suggests that an organization with wellknown practices in one area (for example, Johnson and Johnson’s well-regarded crisiscommunications management abilities) will also be “best in class” or state of the art inall other communications areas (for example, Johnson and Johnson’s employeecommunications, investor communications, or community communications programs).



considerate a fi „cele mai tari” într-unul sau mai multe domenii nu sunt în mod necesarperfecte ºi în alte domenii.

Modelul procesual al benchmarkingului de relaþii publice

Existã mai multe modele procesuale comune de benchmarking, folosite dedepartamentele de relaþii publice, fiecare dintre aceste modele având între 4 ºi 10etape. Acestea sunt, în general, o adaptare a modelelor folosite de AT&T, Alcoa, DuPont,Xerox sau a eforturilor altor companii mari, în mãsura în care aceste eforturi sunt fãcutepublice. Modelul în 10 paºi, aparþinând lui Robert C. Camp este cel folosit de Xerox ºicare a ajutat firma sã realizeze cunoscuta revenire din anii 1980.

Pentru a realiza beneficii din benchmarking, Camp (1989) propune sã se urmezeurmãtoarele faze ale procesului de benchmarking:

1. planificare (adicã, pentru ce se face ºi pentru ce nu se face benchmarking);2. analizã (adicã, determinarea deficitului de performanþã);3. integrare (adicã, o corelare a deficitelor cu þelurile organizaþiei);4. acþiune (adicã, îmbunãtãþirea etapelor în afaceri); ºi5. maturitate (incorporarea celei mai bune practici în desfãºurarea de zi cu zi a

afacerilor).Complexitatea coordonãrii acestui proces este parþial determinatã de realizarea

exerciþiului de benchmarking la nivel intern, într-un sector, cu competitorii direcþi, saucu cei mai buni din domeniu (Camp, 1989). Evident, încrederea între organizaþii este odimensiune importantã a succesului în benchmarking, mai ales atunci când parteneriiîn benchmarking fac parte din acelaºi sector, sau rivalizeazã pentru clienþi ºi/sau resurse.La fel de importantã, aºa cum aratã Ammons (1999: 105), este „ starea mentalã potrivitã,pentru a învãþa din benchmarking.”

În forma sa cea mai simplã, benchmarkingul include 4 paºi (Weisendanger, 1993) ºieste de tip generic, fiind folosit de mai multe companii mari, deoarece se poate adaptauºor în funcþie de preferinþe: 1. înþelegerea ºi analiza procedeelor ºi performanþelorcompaniei într-un domeniu dat; 2. studierea altor departamente din companie, dar ºi aaltor companii, pentru a vedea cine este cel mai bun; 3. colectarea ºi rãspândireainformaþiilor prin sondaje, vizite de lucru, sau cu ajutorul unor consultanþi, ºi 4. analizadatelor, pentru a vedea ce pãrþi din metodele celorlalþi ar putea funcþiona în cadrulcompaniei.

Primul pas al procesului de benchmarking, identificarea acelor elemente cãrora artrebui sã li se aplice benchmarkingul, este adesea cel mai important în iniþierea unuibenchmarking de succes. În relaþii publice, benchmarkingul se poate aplica unorprocedee, practici, produse/servicii, roluri sau probleme strategice. Pentru ca acest passã se încheie cu succes, este esenþial ca echipa de benchmarking în relaþii publice sãidentifice urmãtoarele elemente: factorii esenþiali de succes în relaþii publice,


RRM 1-2007 51

Companies which are “best in class” in one or some areas are not necessarily state ofthe art in all others.

Process model of PR benchmarking

There are several common benchmarking process models in use by PR units, eachmodel having from between 4-10 steps. These are generally adaptations of the modelsused by AT&T, Alcoa, DuPont, Xerox or the publicized efforts of other large companies.Robert C. Camp’s ten step model is the one used by Xerox which helped them to achievetheir well known comeback during the 1980.

In order to realize the benefits from benchmarking, Camp (1989) suggests that thefollowing phases of the benchmarking process should be followed:

1. planning (e.g. what to benchmark and whom to benchmark against);2. analysis (e.g. ascertaining the performance gap);3. integration (e.g. relating gaps to organizational goals);4. action (e.g. improvement of business processes); and5. maturity (incorporating best practice into everyday business processes).

The complexity of managing this process will be partly determined by whether thebenchmarking exercise is carried out internally, within a sector, with direct competitors,or with the best-in-class (Camp 1989). Clearly, inter-organizational trust is an importantdimension of the success of benchmarking, particularly where benchmarking ‘partners’are within the same sector or are competing for customers and/or resources. Alsoimportant, as Ammons (1999: 105) points out, is ‘a proper frame of mind for receivingthe lessons of benchmarking’.

In its simplest form, benchmarking entails 4 steps (Weisendanger, 1993) and is ageneric one used by several large companies which is easily adaptable to customizedapproaches: 1. understanding and analyzing the company’s processes and performancein a given area, 2. looking at other departments within the company and other companiesto see who excels, 3. collecting and sharing information through surveys, site visits, orconsultants, and 4. analyzing the data to see what portions of others’ methods mightwork for the company.

The first step of the benchmarking process, identifying what it is that should bebenchmarked, is often the most important with respect to carrying out a successfulbenchmarking initiative. It is possible to benchmark PR processes, practices, products/services, roles, or strategic issues. For this step to be accomplished successfully, it iscritical that the PR benchmarking team identify the following items: critical PR success



competenþele distinctive, nivelul analizei, procedeele cheie în relaþii publice ºi rezultatelelor mãsurabile în cadrul organizaþiei care iniþiazã benchmarking-ul.

Cum benchmarkingul tuturor aspectelor care þin de relaþii publice se poate dovediatât dificil, cât ºi foarte scump, este important sã fie supuse acþiunii de benchmarkingnumai acele zone de relaþii publice care au cele mai multe ºanse de succes pentruorganizaþie. Factorii principali de succes includ acel numãr limitat de domenii în carerezultatele satisfãcãtoare de performanþã asigurã menþinerea funcþiei respective. Uncriteriu extrem de important în aceastã fazã de debut este acela de a stabili care suntcele mai importante procedee, roluri, practici, produse/servicii sau domenii de studiu.Adesea, acest lucru se realizeazã prin sesiuni de discuþii sau brainstorming, la careparticipã specialiºtii în relaþii publice ºi alþii, din alte departamente ale organizaþiei,care folosesc produsele sau serviciile de relaþii publice.

Zonele care definesc componenta cea mai semnificativã din punctul de vedere albugetului sunt primele care ar trebui supuse studiului. Alþi candidaþi potriviþi includacei factori de la care se aºteaptã, în mod normal, un impact de „maximã satisfacþie”din partea clienþilor, cei la care existã suficiente detalii care trebuie corectate, sauacele competenþe distinctive de PR prin care organizaþia respectivã se diferenþiazã dealþi competitori, sau de alte organizaþii din industria de profil, ºi care reprezintã singurasursã de avantaj competitiv a companiei pe piaþã.

Un alt pas important este specificarea nivelului potrivit de analizã. Existã mai multeniveluri pe care se axeazã în general cercetãrile asupra benchmarkingului în domeniulrelaþiilor publice, printre care:

a. nivelul organizaþional, prin care unitatea de analizã este chiar organizaþia, iarcriteriile de performanþã studiate sunt acei factori de relaþii publice asociaþi cupoziþionarea favorabilã a organizaþiei, conform pãrerii publicului extern;

b. nivelul departamentului de relaþii publice; de exemplu, un studiu s-a ocupat derolurile strategice ale departamentului în cadrul organizaþiei;

c. nivelul practicii de relaþii publice; un studiu s-a axat pe practica publicaþiilorinterne în cazul unui mare numãr de companii multinaþionale din diferite domeniiindustriale; ºi/sau

d. nivelul specialistului sau al profesionistului în relaþii publice, aici realizându-seun studiu prin care s-au comparat abilitãþile individuale, nivelul academic ºi de carierã,pregãtirea pentru aceastã funcþie, dar ºi experienþele legate de dezvoltarea profesionalã,ale specialiºtilor în relaþii publice din mai multe companii aparþinând aceluiaºi sectorindustrial.

Prin definirea principalilor factori de succes ai organizaþiei din domeniul relaþiilorpublice, a competenþelor distinctive, a nivelului de analizã ºi a procedurilor cheie derelaþii publice, alãturi de definirea cât mai precisã a rezultatelor lor mãsurabile, seîmbunãtãþeºte ºi calitatea performanþei datelor cãutate ºi adunate. Încheierea cu succesa acestei etape permite echipei de benchmarking trecerea la pasul urmãtor, în caresunt identificate organizaþiile participante.


RRM 1-2007 53

factors, distinctive competencies, level of analysis, key PR processes, and theirmeasurable outputs within the benchmark initiating organization.

Since benchmarking all aspects of a PR operation can be both costs prohibitive anddifficult, it is important to benchmark only those PR areas that will add the most valueto the organization’s success. Critical success factors include those limited number ofareas in which satisfactory performance results will ensure the continued survival of thefunction. A most important criterion at this early step in the process is to establish thosemost important processes, roles, practices, products/services, or issues for study. This isoften done through the means of a brainstorming or focus group session of PR practitionersand others from different parts of the organization who utilize PR products or services.

Areas which compose the largest component of the area’s budget tend to be goodcandidates for early studies. Other suitable candidates are those factors which areassociated with delivering the greatest “customer satisfaction” impact, those which havethe most room for improvement, or those distinctive PR competencies which serve todifferentiate the organization from competitors or others in the industry and whichprovide the company a unique source of competitive advantage in the marketplace.

It is also critical in step one to specify the appropriate level of analysis. There areseveral levels that have been focused on in PR benchmarking research, including:

a. the organizational level, whereby the unit of analysis was the organization andthe performance criteria under study were those PR factors associated with positioningthe organization favorably with its external publics;

b. the PR unit level, for example, one study was done of the strategic roles of the unitwithin the organization;

c. the PR practice level, one focus was of the internal publications practices ofnumerous multinational companies across multiple industries; and/or

d. the PR practitioner or professional level, whereby a study was done comparingthe skills, academic and career backgrounds, on the job training, and professionaldevelopment experiences of PR professionals across companies within a particularindustry.

By defining the organization’s critical PR success factors, distinctive competencies,level of analysis, and key PR processes and their measurable outputs as precisely aspossible, the quality of performance data sought and collected will be improved. Thesuccessful completion of this step allows the benchmarking team to move to the secondstep, whereby target participant organizations are identified.



Urmãtorul pas important al acestei faze necesitã o identificare a organizaþiilor þintãcare vor fi invitate sã participe la studiu. Acþiunea are în vedere practici de benchmarkingintern, industrial, al competitorilor, sau al practicilor generice, în funcþie de ce considerãfiecare organizaþie cã este cel mai important.

Identificarea þintelor efortului de benchmarking este mai uºoarã pentru aceiprofesioniºti care ºtiu ce surse de informaþii sã sondeze pentru a reduce factoruldemografic la dimensiunea unui eºantion potrivit de lucru. O tipologie utilã, pe douãaxe, pentru clasificarea surselor de informaþii include canalul de comunicare, care sereferã la modul în care sunt colectate datele, adicã direct sau prin surse secundare, ºi lasursa de comunicare, aceasta din urmã referindu-se la modul în care au fost obþinutedatele – direct sau indirect.

Echipa de benchmarking poate deduce, din discuþii, care sunt acele companii aflatepe poziþie de lideri în eforturile de benchmarking. Dupã alcãtuirea unei liste iniþiale decandidaþi, e bine în general sã se caute câteva informaþii de bazã despre aceste þinte,sub forma unui raport de recunoaºtere. Rapoartele de recunoaºtere sunt rezumate scurterealizate de companii, în care sunt incluse statistici despre dimensiunea organizaþiei,produsele/pieþele sale cheie, mãrimea estimatã a activitãþii sale de relaþii publice,calculatã dupã buget ºi numãrul de angajaþi ºi competenþele sale distinctive, aºa cumsunt percepute dinafarã.

O altã activitate utilã ce trebuie desfãºuratã în acest punct este colaborarea cu clienþiiºi furnizorii companiei, pentru a stabili domeniile în care sunt necesare îmbunãtãþiri,factorii principali de succes ºi competenþele distinctive. Ar fi de dorit ca, dacã esteposibil, companiile asupra cãrora se orienteazã benchmarkingul sã aibã competenþedistinctive care sã se conformeze în cât mai mare mãsurã factorilor principali de succesai organizaþiei care realizeazã benchmarkingul.

Decizii esenþiale cu privire la benchmarkingul din domeniul relaþiilor publice

Scopul fundamental al benchmarkingului din relaþii publice este acela de a generainformaþii care pot fi folosite la îmbunãtãþirea performanþei unitãþii. Aºadar este esenþialca managerii companiei sã stabileascã parametrii de informaþii pe care iniþiativa debenchmarking trebuie sã îi îndeplineascã. Un efort prea mare de benchmarking aretoate ºansele de a eºua de la bun început, dacã directorii de relaþii publice nu au habarce anume sã caute. Astfel se ajunge la situaþii în care un director nu e în stare sãrecunoascã practicile mai bune, nici chiar dacã le are în faþa ochilor.

Este important sã se decidã dacã benchmarkingul este acþiunea corectã sau necesarã,dupã o cercetare atentã a nevoilor de infrmaþii ºi provocãrilor cu care se confruntãdepartamentul respectiv de relaþii publice. Managerii departamentului trebuie sã decidãcât efort doresc sã dedice, privind realist, activitãþii de benchmarking. Pentru multedepartamente de relaþii publice, nevoia de benchmarking este depãºitã în importanþãde nevoia de a se lupta cu vreunul din momentele „arzãtoare” sau de „crizã” cu care


RRM 1-2007 55

The next important step of this phase requires an identification of target organizationswho will be asked to participate in the study. It addresses targets such as internal,industry, competitor, or generic practices benchmarking who will be most important toorganization.

Identifying the targets of the benchmarking effort is easier for those professionalswho know what information sources to scan in order to whittle down the population toa workable sample size. A useful two axis typology used to classify information sourceswould be channel of communication, referring to whether the data is collected firsthand or through secondary sources, and source of communication which refers towhether the information was obtained from direct or indirect sources.

The benchmarking team can brainstorm an initial guess of those companies whomay be the leaders with respect to focus of the benchmarking effort. After an initial listof candidates is developed, it is usually wise to capture some basic information abouttargets in the form of a scouting report. Scouting reports are quick company summariesthat include statistics on such things as an organization’s size, its key product/markets,the estimated size of its PR area in terms of staff and budget, and its perceived distinctivecompetencies. Another helpful activity to pursue at this point is to work with theorganization’s customers and suppliers) to validate areas for improvement, critical successfactors, and distinctive competencies. Companies targeted for benchmarking should,whenever possible, have distinctive competencies that match, to the greatest extentpossible, the benchmarking organization’s critical success factors.

Critical decisions about PR Benchmarking

The prime purpose of PR benchmarking is to generate information which can beused to assist the unit in improving its performance. Therefore it is critical thatmanagement pre-establish the information parameters that they expect the benchmarkinginitiative to accomplish. Too many PR benchmarking efforts have gone awry right fromthe start because a PR management had only a fuzzy idea of what to look for. This leadsto situations in which a manager may not recognize better practices even when theywere right in front of them.

It is important to assess whether PR benchmarking is a necessary or relevant courseof action given a careful consideration of a PR unit’s information needs and challenges.PR unit managers must decide how much effort they want and realistically can devoteto benchmarking. For many PR units, the need to benchmark may be outweighed bythe need to fight any one of the number of PR “fires” or “crises” which seem to constantlyface these professionals, or it may be outweighed by a need to do a preliminarymanagement assessment audit associated with the TQM paradigm. Our observations



sunt obiºnuiþi acest gen de oameni, sau ar putea fi depãºitã de nevoia realizãrii unuiaudit de evaluare preliminarã a managementului în cadrul paradigmei de testare acalitãþii managementului (TQM). Observaþiile noastre ne fac sã credem cã nevoia de aface benchmarking în relaþii publice depinde de dorinþa ºefului de a aplica schimbãristrategice sau operaþionale în funcþia respectivã, de nivelul de interes exprimat dedirectorii executivi, care doresc sã demonstreze cã se poate cuantifica performanþa dinrelaþii publice prin comparaþie, ºi/sau de dimensiunea deficitului de performanþã înrelaþii publice, perceput între organizaþiile dintr-un domeniu industrial anume.

Decizia asupra tipului de benchmarking urmeazã sã fie iniþiat depinde de mai mulþifactori, între care se numãrã resursele existente, datele limitã, numãrul surselor alternativece pot fi identificate ºi obiectivele stabilite pentru desfãºurarea acestui proces. Testulmartor al necesarului de inteligenþã specificã este întotdeauna utilã în primele faze deacþiune, deoarece permite cunoaºterea dimensiunii eforturilor necesare. Cât despreprofunzime, trebuie negociatã cantitatea de informaþii necesarã pentru a asigura uncontext practic pentru cifrele rezultate. Rãspunzând la aceastã întrebare, este cel maibine sã ne amintim cã ghidul ideal pentru aceste probleme este judecata ºi sondareaposibilitãþilor organizaþiei, pentru a decide ce se câºtigã din practicã ºi experienþã.

Trebuie evidenþiatã ºi importanþa factorului de timp în efortul de benchmarking.Oriunde este posibil, iniþiativele de benchmarking în relaþii publice trebuie lansate cumult timp înainte ca nevoia sã determine deciziile strategice sau schimbarea. Un avansrealizat în timp util ar putea permite implementarea corespunzãtoare a oricãror ajustãricorectoare, care prin benchmarking se dovedesc necesare.

S-au fãcut mai multe încercãri de catalogare a factorilor necesari pentru succesulbenchmarking-ului în cadrul organizaþiei. Câteva elemente se regãsesc, în general, peaceste liste:

a) conducerea superioarã a firmei trebuie sã susþinã material efortul;b) el trebuie sã reprezinte o parte flexibilã a strategiei unitãþii;c) trebuie sã fie o activitate de echipã, iar în echipã trebuie sã facã parte acele

persoane care urmeazã sã fie responsabile de aplicarea schimbãrilor rezultate din analizade benchmarking;

d) trebuie sã fie bine planificat, organizat ºi coordonat, cu accentul pe pregãtireacorespunzãtoare înainte de acþiune;

e) fiecare trebuie sã înþeleagã ce rol, proceduri sau practici îi revin, înainte deînceperea activitãþii.

Procesul de benchmarking trebuie condus întotdeauna de cãtre acei indivizi careau responsabilitatea implementãrii rezultatelor benchmarkingului. Deºi eforturile suntîn parte uºurate de ajutorul acordat de un consultant extern, în fapt cei care sunt ceimai apropiaþi de activitãþile ºi practicile organizaþiei sunt ei înºiºi capabili sã înþeleagãvaloarea cantitãþii imense de date rezultate adesea din efortul acestor persoane.

Dacã performanþa în relaþii publice trebuie mãsuratã corect, aºa cum susþin mulþiprofesioniºti, în scopul punerii în valoare a potenþialului de management rezultat, este


RRM 1-2007 57

has led us to tentatively conclude that the need to benchmark PR appears to be positivelyassociated with the unit leader’s desire to pursue strategic or operational changes in thefunction, the level of interest expressed by senior organizational executives todemonstrate quantifiable PR performance comparisons, and/or the magnitude of theperceived gap of PR performance between organizations in an industry.

The type of benchmarking initiative to pursue appears to be dependent on severalfactors, including available resources, deadlines, the number of alternative sources thatcan be identified, and the objectives established for the approach. Pilot testing theapproach on a specific intelligence need is always useful in the early stages as it oftenallows for knowledge of whether larger scale efforts are needed. In terms of depth,there are trade-offs that must be taken into account in terms of the amount of informationneeded to provide a practice context to the metrics generated. In answering this question,it is best to remember that the best guide to these queries is judgment and insight whichis gained through practice and experience.

Must points out the importance of timing the benchmarking effort. Wherever possible,PR benchmarking initiatives should be launched far in advance of the need to makekey strategic decisions or changes. Sensible advance timing should allow for the properimplementation of any corrective adjustments that the benchmarking effort reveals aredesirable.

There are several attempts to list the factors necessary for organizationalbenchmarking to succeed. These lists tend to have several common factors:

a) senior management must support the effort;b) it must be a flexible part of the function’s strategy;c) it must be a team activity and the team must include those persons who will be

responsible for making the changes which emanate from the benchmarking analyses;d) it must be well-planned, organized and managed, with a premium placed on

appropriate up-front preparation;e) one’s own processes, roles, or practices must be understood before embarking on

the approach.

The benchmarking process should always be conducted by those individuals whowill be responsible for implementing the benchmarking results. Although many effortsare facilitated through the assistance of an external consultant, in the long run, it isthose persons who are closest to the organization’s practices and processes that arebest able to make sense of the wealth of data that these efforts often generate.

If PR performance is ever going to be properly measured, as many professionalsclaim must eventually occur if the profession is to achieve its management potential, it



nevoie de calcule pentru comparaþii. Totuºi, pe lângã cifre, la fel de important este ºi sãse descopere factorii asociaþi cu obþinerea cifrelor. Pentru aceasta este nevoie de unbenchmarker (adicã persoana care realizeazã benchmarking-ul) care sã studiezeprocedeele ºi contextul de la baza calculelor.

Datele de benchmarking au fost întotdeauna utilizate ca justificare pentru reducerilede personal în departamentele de relaþii publice. Asta se întâmplã atunci când cifrelerezultate din benchmarking demonstreazã cã unitatea foloseºte ineficient resursele ºicosturile sunt mai mari decât sumele obþinute în schimb; totuºi, se poate întâmpla ºiinvers, când datele aratã cã unitatea este grav afectatã de lipsa de resurse ºi are nevoiede resurse suplimentare pentru o mai mare eficienþã.

Înainte ca organizaþiile sã încerce sã aplice benchmarkingul, ele trebuie sã facãexerciþii de pregãtire, prin intermediul cãrora sã afle natura problemelor existente.Experienþa unor activitãþi de benchmarking în parteneriat a demonstrat cã este absolutnecesar sã se realizeze un benchmarking intern, înainte de a face comparaþii în exterior.

Concluzii

Aplicarea benchmarking-ului în relaþiile publice nu este suficientã pentru camanagerii sã rezolve problemele de producþie ale organizaþiei, ca de pildã slaba calitate/necompetitivitatea produselor sau a serviciilor. Benchmarkingul în relaþii publice poateajuta profesioniºtii din departamentul de relaþii publice al organizaþiei sã-ºiîmbunãtãþeascã performanþa ºi abilitãþile, pentru a oferi clienþilor firmei servicii ºi produsede calitate. Este o unealtã de înaltã calitate dar, ca orice unealtã, nu funcþioneazã pestetot la fel.

Benchmarking-ul în relaþii publice nu oferã „soluþii magice”, nu excludeimplementarea ºi nu determinã prioritãþile în planificare. Dacã se realizeazã corect,benchmarking-ul oferã profesioniºtilor informaþii cu privire la rolurile, subiectele,unitãþile, procedurile sau practicile specifice. El îi poate ajuta pe profesioniºtii dindomeniul relaþiilor publice sã afle cauzele problemelor lor ºi îi ajutã sã profite deoportunitãþile apãrute. În sfârºit, le oferã managerilor de relaþii publice un mod radicaldiferit de abordare a muncii lor.

Dar, în lipsa unui studiu longitudinal despre benchmarking în general, nu e suficientde clar dacã benchmarkingul va deveni, într-o zi, o practicã instituþionalizatã, folositãde profesioniºtii din relaþii publice.

Studiul de benchmarking este o unealtã prea puþin pusã în valoare. Odatã cu creºtereacomplexitãþii problemelor, cu schimbarea rapidã a acestora, benchmarkingul a devenito unealtã nepreþuitã în crearea schimbãrilor din cadrul unei organizaþii. Nicãieri nueste mai clar acest lucru decât dacã apar probleme, acolo unde necazul unui gruppoate fi o sursã nouã de cunoaºtere pentru altul.


RRM 1-2007 59

will require the generation of metrics for comparison. Yet, in addition to the numbers, itis just as important to discover the factors associated with the attainment of the numbers.This requires the PR benchmarker (i.e., the person doing the benchmarking) to look atthe processes and contexts behind the metrics.

Benchmarking data has been used as a justification for staff cutbacks to a PR function.This will occur when benchmarking metrics demonstrate that the function is inefficientlyusing its resources and costs more than it should for the return it generates; however, itcan also serve the reverse role in which the data shows that the function is severelyunder-resourced and requires additional resources in order to achieve greatereffectiveness.

Before organizations attempt to perform PR benchmarking, they should undertakepreparatory exercises designed to address the nature of the questions or problems toaddress. Several benchmarking partnership experiences have demonstrated that it is arequired prerequisite to do internal benchmarking prior to making external comparisons.

Summary

Benchmarking PR will not enable managers to solve the organization’s productionproblems such as poor quality/uncompetitive products or services. PR benchmarkingcan help the organization’s PR professionals improve their performance and abilities todeliver quality services and products to the function’s customers. It is a great qualitytool, but like any tool, it doesn’t work for every job.

PR benchmarking will not provide “magic bullet” answers, prescribe implementation,or determine planning priorities. If done successfully, PR benchmarking will provideprofessionals with information regarding specific roles, issues, functions, processes, orpractices. It can help PR professionals uncover the root causes of their problems andhelp them to exploit environmental opportunities. Finally, it can provide PR managersa dramatically different way in which to approach their work.

But, without the benefit of any longitudinal research on benchmarking in general,the jury remains out as to whether benchmarking will someday become aninstitutionalized practice used by PR practitioners.

The benchmark study is a greatly underused PR tool. As the complexity and volatilityof issues increase, benchmarking others is an often priceless tool to create changes inan organization. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of adversity, where one group’smisfortune can be another’s cache of new knowledge.



La nivel general, benchmarkingul este un proces relativ simplu, orientat spre practicilecelor mai bune organizaþii din domeniu. Dacã o organizaþie de relaþii publiceintenþioneazã sã se restructureze, de ce sã nu încerce sã afle cât de bine sunt structuratealte organizaþii de acelaºi fel? Dacã accentul principal este pus pe îmbunãtãþireacomunicãrii cu investitorii, de ce sã nu înveþe de la cei care face cel mai bine acestlucru? ªi dacã studiul implicã momente dificile, de ce ar fi nevoie sã trecem noi înºineprin necazuri, dacã putem învãþa din experienþa altora?

Oricare ar fi metoda aleasã, obiectivul este totuºi acelaºi: sã învãþãm ce s-a întâmplat.Ce a mers bine ºi ce nu a mers aºa de bine? Ce sfaturi a primit directorul executiv? Cums-a descurcat el în situaþia respectivã? Care au fost punctele de conflict cu organizaþia?

La fel de utile pentru programele de relaþii publice sunt ºi sondajele de iniþiere, carerealizeazã un benchmarking al percepþiei la zi despre o anumitã organizaþie. Acesteinformaþii sunt importante mai ales la începutul programului, ºi ºtim cã în final trebuiesã respecte standardele de motivare. Benchmarkingul oferã un mod util, cuantificabilde mãsurare a progresului în timp.

Punctul de început al programelor de relaþii publice se aflã la celãlalt capãt aldrumului, acolo unde are loc aºa-numitul audit de comunicare: un sumar calitativ alpãrerilor acþionarilor despre modul în care comunicaþi cu ei. Pe baza unei serii deinterviuri cu diferiþi acþionari – de exemplu angajaþi, lideri ai comunitãþii, demnitariguvernamentali ºi reporteri, auditul de comunicare dezvãluie dacã primesc prea puþinesau prea multe informaþii despre organizaþie, sau dacã ei considerã cã informaþiile suntcorecte ºi vin la timp. Rãspunsurile la aceste întrebãri sunt foarte valoroase pentrudezvoltarea unor programe de relaþii publice eficiente, dar nu de ele depinde reputaþiaconducerii.

Adesea, programele de relaþii publice se bazeazã pe o combinaþie între auditul decomunicare ºi benchmarking. Acestea sunt abordãri utile, deºi, de multe ori, astfel deprograme se pun în miºcare fãrã sã se þinã cont de una sau de amândouã aceste unelteimportante pentru elementul factual. Dacã doriþi sã realizaþi un program serios de relaþiipublice, faceþi un audit de comunicare ºi un pic de benchmarking.

Bibliografie

Ammons, D. N. (1999), A Proper Mentality for Benchmarking. Public AdministrationReview, 59:2, 105–109

Arrowsmith, J., & Sisson, K. (2001), International competition and pay, working timeand employment: exploring the processes of adjustment, Industrial Relations Journal,32:2,136-53


RRM 1-2007 61

Generic benchmarking is a relatively simple process that focuses on best-in-classpractices of other organizations. If a public relations organization is contemplating arestructuring, why not investigate how highly regarded peer organizations are structured?If the focus is on improving investor-related communication, why not learn from thosewho do it best? And, if the study involves adversity, why is it necessary for us to experiencepain personally when we can learn from the experiences of others?

Whatever the method, though, the objective is usually the same: Learn whathappened. What went well and not-so-well? Where did they encounter obstacles? Whotook the lead internally? What kind of counsel was the CEO receiving? How did theCEO engage the situation? Where were the points of conflict within the organization?

Also useful to public relations programs are baseline surveys that benchmark currentperceptions about an organization. This information is especially important as a programstarts, and you know it will ultimately be necessary for it to meet rigorous standards ofaccountability. Benchmarking provides a helpful, quantifiable way to measure progressalong the way.

The starting point for public relations programs are on the other hand of the spectrum,at what is known as a communications audit: a qualitative summary of what stakeholdersthink about how you are communicating with them. Based on a series of interviewswith various stakeholders – employees, community leaders, government officials, andreporters, for example, a communications audit asks if they are receiving too little ortoo much information about your organization, or if they feel information you provideis accurate and timely. The answers to these questions are valuable to the developmentof effective public relations programs, but they are not at the heart of reputationmanagement.

Frequently, public relations programs are based on a combination of acommunications audit and benchmarking. These are useful approaches, though oftensuch programs are launched in the absence of either or both of these valid fact-findingtools. If you want to undertake a serious public relations program, do a communicationaudit and some benchmarking.

References

Ammons, D. N. (1999), A Proper Mentality for Benchmarking. Public AdministrationReview, 59:2, 105–109

Arrowsmith, J., & Sisson, K. (2001), International competition and pay, working timeand employment: exploring the processes of adjustment, Industrial Relations Journal,32:2,136-53



Bogan, C.E. & English, M.J. (1994), Benchmarking for Best Practice: Winning throughCamp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to

Superior Performance, Milwaukee, ASQC Quality PressChan, A., Go, F. M., & Pine, R. (1998), Service Innovation in Hong Kong: Attitudes and

Practice, The Service Industries Journal, 18:2,112–124Daniels, A. C. (1994), Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing

power of positive reinforcement, New York, McGraw-HillDelbridge, R., Lowe, J., & Oliver, N. (1995), The process of benchmarking. A study

from the automotive industry, International Journal of Operations and Productionmanagement, Vol.15, No. 4, 50-62.

Dertouzos, M.L., Lester, R.K., & Solow, R.M. (1989), Made in America: Regaining theProductive Edge, New York, Harper Perennial

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphismand Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review,48, 161-173.

Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (1997), An overview of benchmarking process: a tool forcontinuous improvement and competitive advantage, Benchmarking for QualityManagement and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4, 229-243

Ferner, A., & Edwards, P.K. (1995), Power and Diffusion of organisational Change withinMultinational Enterprises, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2,229-257

Fitz-enz, J. (1993), Benchmarking Staff Performance,(San Francisco, Jossey BassFleisher, C.S., (1995), Tacking Stock of Corporate Benchmarking Practices: Panacea or

Pandora’s Box?, Public Relations Review, 21(1). 1-20Grant, L., & Evans, E. (1994), Principles of behavior analysis, New York, Harper CollinsGreengard, S. (1995), Discover best practice through benchmarking, Personnel Journal,

Vol. 74, No. 11, 62-73Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Boston, Harvard Business

School PressHiggins, E. T. (1989), Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative

processes: A developmental theory relating self and affect, Journal of Personality,57, 407-444

Huff, J. O., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. (1992), Strategic renewal and the interaction ofcumulative stress and inertia, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 55-75

Hutton, R., & Zairi, M. (1995), Effective Benchmarking through a PrioritizationMethodology, Total Quality Management, 6:4, 399–411

Innovative Adaptation, New York, McGraw-HillKeep, E. and Rainbird, H. (1999), Towards the learning organization? In Bach, S. and

Sisson, K. (eds) Personnel Management. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory andPractice, Oxford, Blackwell


RRM 1-2007 63

Bogan, C.E. & English, M.J. (1994), Benchmarking for Best Practice: Winning throughCamp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to

Superior Performance, Milwaukee, ASQC Quality PressChan, A., Go, F. M., & Pine, R. (1998), Service Innovation in Hong Kong: Attitudes and

Practice, The Service Industries Journal, 18:2,112–124Daniels, A. C. (1994), Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing

power of positive reinforcement, New York, McGraw-HillDelbridge, R., Lowe, J., & Oliver, N. (1995), The process of benchmarking. A study

from the automotive industry, International Journal of Operations and Productionmanagement, Vol.15, No. 4, 50-62.

Dertouzos, M.L., Lester, R.K., & Solow, R.M. (1989), Made in America: Regaining theProductive Edge, New York, Harper Perennial

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphismand Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review,48, 161-173.

Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (1997), An overview of benchmarking process: a tool forcontinuous improvement and competitive advantage, Benchmarking for QualityManagement and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4, 229-243

Ferner, A., & Edwards, P.K. (1995), Power and Diffusion of organisational Change withinMultinational Enterprises, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2,229-257

Fitz-enz, J. (1993), Benchmarking Staff Performance,(San Francisco, Jossey BassFleisher, C.S., (1995), Tacking Stock of Corporate Benchmarking Practices: Panacea or

Pandora’s Box?, Public Relations Review, 21(1). 1-20Grant, L., & Evans, E. (1994), Principles of behavior analysis, New York, Harper CollinsGreengard, S. (1995), Discover best practice through benchmarking, Personnel Journal,

Vol. 74, No. 11, 62-73Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Boston, Harvard Business

School PressHiggins, E. T. (1989), Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative

processes: A developmental theory relating self and affect, Journal of Personality,57, 407-444

Huff, J. O., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. (1992), Strategic renewal and the interaction ofcumulative stress and inertia, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 55-75

Hutton, R., & Zairi, M. (1995), Effective Benchmarking through a PrioritizationMethodology, Total Quality Management, 6:4, 399–411

Innovative Adaptation, New York, McGraw-HillKeep, E. and Rainbird, H. (1999), Towards the learning organization? In Bach, S. and

Sisson, K. (eds) Personnel Management. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory andPractice, Oxford, Blackwell



Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Longbottom, D. (2000), Benchmarking in the UK: an empirical study of practitionersand Academics, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No.2, 98-117

Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1975), Organizational Behavior Modification. Glenview,Scott Foresman.

Mabey, C., Salaman, G., & Storey, J. (1998), Strategic Human Resource Management,Oxford: Blackwell.

Martin, G., & Beamont, P. (1998), Diffusing ‘best practice’ in multinational firms:prospects, practice and contestation, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 9, No. 4, 672-695

Mohrman, S.A., Tenkasi, R.V., Lawler, E.E., & Ledford, G.E. Jr (1995), Total qualitymanagement: practice and outcomes in the largest US firms, Employee Relations,Vol. 17, No. 3, 26-41

Morgan, W. G. (1974). The shaping game: A teaching technique, Behavior Therapy, 5,271-272

Munroe-Faure, L., & Munroe-Faure, M. (1992), Implementing total quality management,London, Pitman

Ogden, S. M.& Wilson, P., (2000), Bridging the quality gaps: Implementing benchmarkingto deliver Best Value, Public Management, Vol. 2 Issue 4 2000, 525–546

Oliver, N., & Wilkinson, B. (1992), The Japanization of British Industry: NewDevelopments in the 1990s, 2nd ed., Oxford, Blackwell

Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955), The principle of congruity in the predictionof attitude change, Psychological Review, 62, 42-55

Overman, S. (1993), In search of best practices, HR Magazine, Vol. 38, 48-50Phillips, P., & Appiah-Adu, K. (1998), Benchmarking to Improve the Strategic Planning

Process in the Hotel Sector, The Service Industries Journal, 18:1, 1–17Pringle, J., & Tudhope, J. (1996), Family friendly policies: the experiences of three New

Zealand companies, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 34 No. 3, 77-89Quinn, J. B. (1980), Strategies for change, Homewood, IrwinReger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., DeMarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. (1994), Refraining the

organization; Why implementing total quality is easier said than done, Academy ofManagement Review, 19, 565-584

Rodwell, J. J., Lam, J., & Fastenau, M. (2000), Benchmarking HRM and the benchmarkingof Benchmarking: Best practices from outside the square in the Australian financeindustry, Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 4, 356-374

Schmid, G., Schütz, & Speckesser, S. (1999), Broadening the Scope of Benchmarking:Radar Charts and Employment Systems. Labour, Vol 13, No. 4, 879-899

Sisson, K, Arrowsmith, J., &Marginson, P. (2002), All Benchmarkers Now? Benchmarkingand the ‘Europeanisation’ of Industrial Relations, Working Paper 41/02, SussexEuropean Institute, University of Sussex


RRM 1-2007 65

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Longbottom, D. (2000), Benchmarking in the UK: an empirical study of practitionersand Academics, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No.2, 98-117

Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1975), Organizational Behavior Modification. Glenview,Scott Foresman.

Mabey, C., Salaman, G., & Storey, J. (1998), Strategic Human Resource Management,Oxford: Blackwell.

Martin, G., & Beamont, P. (1998), Diffusing ‘best practice’ in multinational firms:prospects, practice and contestation, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 9, No. 4, 672-695

Mohrman, S.A., Tenkasi, R.V., Lawler, E.E., & Ledford, G.E. Jr (1995), Total qualitymanagement: practice and outcomes in the largest US firms, Employee Relations,Vol. 17, No. 3, 26-41

Morgan, W. G. (1974). The shaping game: A teaching technique, Behavior Therapy, 5,271-272

Munroe-Faure, L., & Munroe-Faure, M. (1992), Implementing total quality management,London, Pitman

Ogden, S. M.& Wilson, P., (2000), Bridging the quality gaps: Implementing benchmarkingto deliver Best Value, Public Management, Vol. 2 Issue 4 2000, 525–546

Oliver, N., & Wilkinson, B. (1992), The Japanization of British Industry: NewDevelopments in the 1990s, 2nd ed., Oxford, Blackwell

Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955), The principle of congruity in the predictionof attitude change, Psychological Review, 62, 42-55

Overman, S. (1993), In search of best practices, HR Magazine, Vol. 38, 48-50Phillips, P., & Appiah-Adu, K. (1998), Benchmarking to Improve the Strategic Planning

Process in the Hotel Sector, The Service Industries Journal, 18:1, 1–17Pringle, J., & Tudhope, J. (1996), Family friendly policies: the experiences of three New

Zealand companies, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 34 No. 3, 77-89Quinn, J. B. (1980), Strategies for change, Homewood, IrwinReger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., DeMarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. (1994), Refraining the

organization; Why implementing total quality is easier said than done, Academy ofManagement Review, 19, 565-584

Rodwell, J. J., Lam, J., & Fastenau, M. (2000), Benchmarking HRM and the benchmarkingof Benchmarking: Best practices from outside the square in the Australian financeindustry, Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 4, 356-374

Schmid, G., Schütz, & Speckesser, S. (1999), Broadening the Scope of Benchmarking:Radar Charts and Employment Systems. Labour, Vol 13, No. 4, 879-899

Sisson, K, Arrowsmith, J., &Marginson, P. (2002), All Benchmarkers Now? Benchmarkingand the ‘Europeanisation’ of Industrial Relations, Working Paper 41/02, SussexEuropean Institute, University of Sussex



Smith, H.L. (1996), Accountability in PR: Budgets and Benchmarks, Public RelationsQuarterly, Spring 1996, 41, 1, pg.15

Tronti, L. (1998), Benchmarking Labour Market Performances and Practices, Labour,Vol 12, No. 3, 489-513

Vedder, J.N. (1992), How much can we learn from success?. Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 6 No. 1, 56-66

Watson, G. H. (1993), Benchmarking, New York, John Wiley & SonsWeisendanger, B. (1993), Benchmarking Intelligence Fuels Management Moves, The

Public Relations Journal, Vol.49, Iss. 11; pg. 20, 3Wolfram-Cox, J.R.W., Mann, L., & Samson, D. (1997), Benchmarking as a mixed

metaphor: disentangling assumptions of competition and collaboration, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, 285-314

Young, D. (1996), Looking at your company’s fragile reputation, Public RelationsQuarterly, Winter1995-96, 40, 4, pg.7


RRM 1-2007 67

Smith, H.L. (1996), Accountability in PR: Budgets and Benchmarks, Public RelationsQuarterly, Spring 1996, 41, 1, pg.15

Tronti, L. (1998), Benchmarking Labour Market Performances and Practices, Labour,Vol 12, No. 3, 489-513

Vedder, J.N. (1992), How much can we learn from success?. Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 6 No. 1, 56-66

Watson, G. H. (1993), Benchmarking, New York, John Wiley & SonsWeisendanger, B. (1993), Benchmarking Intelligence Fuels Management Moves, The

Public Relations Journal, Vol.49, Iss. 11; pg. 20, 3Wolfram-Cox, J.R.W., Mann, L., & Samson, D. (1997), Benchmarking as a mixed

metaphor: disentangling assumptions of competition and collaboration, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, 285-314

Young, D. (1996), Looking at your company’s fragile reputation, Public RelationsQuarterly, Winter1995-96, 40, 4, pg.7

the use of benchmarking in public relations

Documents