For a long time, the benchmark has occupied a comfortable place in management and innovation discourse. Look at what others do, learn from successful cases, adopt recognized practices. This all sounds responsible, rational, almost mandatory. Questioning this movement often generates strangeness., as if it were a gesture of arrogance or unpreparedness. And perhaps this is exactly why the benchmark is rarely problematized in the depth it deserves..
This set of texts is born from a persistent discomfort. Annoyance with the ease with which the benchmark stopped being a tool and became a direction. With the naturalness with which he began to guide strategic decisions, creative and organizational, even in contexts that claim to be innovation-oriented. Quanto mais se fala em futuro, mais se recorre ao que já foi feito.
O problema não está em observar o mercado ou aprender com experiências alheias. Está em transformar essa observação no eixo central do pensamento. Quando o benchmark assume esse papel, a criatividade tende a se estreitar. Em vez de explorar possibilidades, passamos a ajustar soluções existentes. Em vez de formular perguntas novas, buscamos respostas já legitimadas.
Throughout my journey, vi o benchmark cumprir funções muito diferentes dentro das organizações. In some cases, como ponto de partida honesto para entender um contexto. Em outros, como argumento para encerrar discussões difíceis. Também como bengala para decisões conservadoras, that avoid explicit risk by relying on what has already been validated by others. This expanded use has created a paradox that is difficult to ignore. Innovation has become, oftentimes, a well-executed repetition exercise.
The texts that make up this series are based on the premise that it is necessary to put the benchmark into perspective. Not to dismiss it, but to understand its limits and side effects. Each article addresses one of these dimensions, always with the intention of tensioning certainties and provoking reflection.
I discuss how benchmarking can limit creativity by conditioning thinking to existing models. I analyze its role as a comfort instrument in risk-averse companies. I question the idea that organizations are directly comparable, ignoring deep singularities. I bring time as a central element, showing how the benchmark carries a structural delay. I propose thinking about innovation as building your own references, not as qualified copy. E, Lastly, I explore the trap of the concept of best practice, when established solutions start to block the emergence of new.
This is not an invitation to improvise or reject external learning. It is an invitation to authorial responsibility. Recognizing that innovation requires choices without guarantees, clear unprecedented decisions, questions that don't yet fit into well-formatted presentations. Question the benchmark, in the background, is to question to what extent we are creating paths or just following trails already opened. In an increasingly unstable world, Perhaps this distinction is more important than it seems.
Access the PDF with all the articles in this series at