Over time, I came to realize that benchmarking is rarely neutral within organizations. It does not enter discussions just as an analytical tool. Used as a political argument, as a shield, as a way to reduce tension. In many companies, especially the more conservative ones, the benchmark works less as a reference and more as a cane. Something to lean on to avoid the burden of actually deciding.
There is an important difference between using the benchmark to learn and using it to protect yourself. In the first case, it broadens the understanding of the context. Not second, it serves to dilute responsibility. When a decision is justified by the fact that “the market is doing it that way”, no one needs to assume full authorship. The choice stops being someone’s and becomes the environment’s. This relieves, but it also impoverishes.
Conservative companies tend to have an ambiguous relationship with risk. no speech, talk about innovation, transformation, future. In practice, operate out of fear of making mistakes, fear of exposing yourself, fear of breaking internal balances. The benchmark emerges as an elegant solution to this conflict. It allows you to move forward without seeming bold, change without seeming reckless, decide without assuming the discomfort of uncertainty.
Throughout my journey, I saw countless projects born with an implicit list of limits. They couldn’t be “too radical”, they could not “escape the industry standard”, They couldn’t “scare the customer”. The benchmark came in early to reinforce these boundaries. Not as a critical market analysis, but as a silent reminder of how far one was allowed to go.
The logic is simple and dangerous. If a competitor did it and it didn't go wrong, so it's safe to repeat. If several companies adopted the same practice, then it becomes almost mandatory. O benchmark, in this context, creates an implicit moral. What runs away from him sounds irresponsible. What aligns with it sounds mature, professional, well-founded.
This behavior reinforces a culture of following the herd. Decisions are no longer evaluated by their strategic potential and are now evaluated by their degree of conformity. The central question is no longer “does this make sense to us?” and becomes “this has already been done by someone similar to us?”. A semelhança vira critério de validação.
O problema é que essa lógica não apenas reduz o risco, ela reduz também a ambição. Empresas que se apoiam excessivamente em benchmark tendem a operar sempre um passo atrás. Estão constantemente reagindo aos movimentos do mercado, raramente provocando esses movimentos. A estratégia se transforma em leitura de sinais, não em criação de direções.
O benchmark também cumpre um papel importante na dinâmica de poder interna. Ele é frequentemente usado para encerrar debates. Quando alguém apresenta uma ideia que foge do padrão, basta mostrar um slide com exemplos de mercado para neutralizá-la. Não porque a ideia seja ruim, mas porque não é reconhecível. The unknown loses to the familiar.
This defensive use of the benchmark creates an environment in which experimentation is seen as a threat. Testing something new requires explaining why it hasn't been done by others yet.. Requires justifying the absence of precedents. In more conservative cultures, This explanation is seen as a weakness, not as vision. The result is the systematic preference for the already validated.
There is also an important psychological effect. The benchmark offers emotional comfort. It reduces the anxiety associated with the decision, because it transfers part of the responsibility outside. If something goes wrong, there is always the argument that the company just followed a common practice. The error stops being a failure of judgment and becomes an accident along the way.
This kind of rationalization is seductive, but corrosive in the long term. It creates an organization that learns to avoid visible mistakes, but also learn to avoid significant bets. The innovation, in this scenario, turns into an ornamental speech, while actual behavior remains guided by preserving the status quo.
Conservative companies often confuse stability with security. The benchmark reinforces this confusion, because it suggests that repeating established patterns is a way of protecting yourself from the unpredictable. What is ignored is that the greatest risk, oftentimes, It's precisely about not changing. Not questioning models that worked in the past, but they may be running out.
When the benchmark becomes a cane, it also weakens the internal analytical capacity. Instead of developing your own criteria, the company starts to import foreign criteria. Instead of building a consistent strategic vision, begins to assemble a mosaic of external references. Thought fragments, guided more by examples than by principles.
I realize that, in these contexts, decision making becomes overly dependent on external validation. Consultancies, market reports, international cases start to occupy a disproportionate space. Not because they bring deep insights, but because they offer a sense of legitimacy. The decision seems more solid when it is accompanied by well-known logos.
The cost of this is the gradual loss of strategic identity. The company no longer knows why it does what it does. Just know that others do the same. The differentiation, when there is, It's superficial. Small speech adjustments, cosmetic changes, execution variations. The core remains untouched.
It is also common to see the benchmark used as a moral argument. “If we don’t do this, we will be late.” “If we don’t follow this trend, we will lose competitiveness.” These phrases create a climate of artificial urgency, that pushes the organization to make decisions that are not well thought out. The fear of being left behind replaces clarity about where you want to go.
The most curious thing is that many of these companies pride themselves on their prudence. They talk about responsibility, governance, maturity. E, in fact, These values have their place. The problem arises when prudence becomes immobility and governance becomes an excuse for not deciding. O benchmark, in this scenario, is the perfect ally.
This is not about demonizing conservative companies. Every organization carries its own story, their own traumas, your own pressures. The point is to recognize that the uncritical use of the benchmark reinforces exactly the aspects that limit your ability to reinvent yourself. He validates fear instead of facing it.
Breaking with this logic does not mean abandoning references, but resignify them. Use the benchmark as input, not as justification. As a provocation, not as authorization. This requires a profound cultural change. It requires leaders willing to make choices without the immediate support of “everyone does it”.
As long as the benchmark is used as a walking stick, the company will keep going, but never running. Will advance, but always within known trails. E, in an environment of accelerated change, This may be riskier than it seems. True security may lie less in following the herd and more in learning to walk without constant support., trusting in one's own reading of the world and in the courage to support decisions that have not yet become a reference.
Access the PDF with all the articles in this series at