Problems arise when organizations use norm data that have been generalized based on results from hundreds of thousands or millions of employees from companies around the world. The norm data seeks to create one model of performance for an organization that, if followed, will lead to superior results. The problem with this thinking is that the generic models factor out the culture of the organization, the background and roles of employees, market conditions, demographics, societal issues and other factors that influence whether or not an employee stays with a company and is productive.

In the quest for simplicity and comparative data, organizations fall into the trap of comparing their peformance to other companies and making value judgments and action plans based on this data. They do this without conducting internal studies to verify if the generic model for superior performance actually holds true in their organization.

A classic example of this is the notion that employee loyalty and productivity is enhanced when people work with close friends. While CDCI would not say this is unimportant, we do question how important it is relative to other issues.

In a study we did of employee loyalty factors, we tested 41 items to determine the impact certain factors had on employee intent to remain with an organization. What we found was that of the 41 items that had a positive and significant relationship with likelihood to remain, having a close friend at work was number 41 in importance. Clearly this item was less important for our customer given the nature of its work and employees, but would this hold true in your organization?

CDCI believes that external norm bases need to validated relative to the business strategy and conditions facing an organization rather than being accepted based solely on external research. Understanding what is required for high performance from both an internal and external perspective is a better way to make appropriate decisions about improvement priorities and objectives.