Why fairness of benchmarking is crucial in an open and transparent workplace.
HR Magazine talked to Dr Ardeshir Geranpayeh from the Department of Applied Linguistics at Cambridge ESOL, to discuss why assessment and benchmarking is essential in training and development programmes. Geranpayeh was keen to focus on the need for fairness in benchmarking, and that companies should not fall into the trap of using benchmarking as a means of introducing a hidden agenda into the workplace. One of Hong Kong’s biggest employers—who will remain nameless—recently used English-language benchmarking as a tool to sack a significant number of its staff. Geranpayeh pointed out that this type of activity should definitely not be the function of benchmarking.
Dr Ardeshir Geranpayeh has been engaged in language assessment for over 23 years. He was first introduced to benchmarking of language proficiency in a workplace context in Hong Kong back in 2000, when working as a language testing specialist consultant at Polytechnic University. At that time the Education and Manpower Bureau and Standing Committee on Language Education and Research jointly set aside $50 million from the Government’s Language Fund, in order to finance the Workplace English Campaign. BULATS was used as the benchmarking tool for this campaign. Geranpayeh has since joined Cambridge ESOL and has been involved in the design, development, validation and revision of several internationally recognised language proficiency tests.
Assessments on a limited budget
What advice would you give to HR managers who have limited budgets available but would still like to conduct assessment and benchmarking exercises?
The key here is effective planning to avoid what we call a ‘false economy.’ Successful benchmarking can benefit the individual and the company as a whole, but it’s essential that the right things are tested, and for the right reasons. It can seem like a good idea to save money by developing your own tests or running your own benchmarking service, but it takes far more time than anyone expects, and you end up taking a huge risk by possibly appointing the wrong people or turning down first class applicants. This is hugely expensive. It is much better to use an effective service, which has been properly researched and refined using data from millions of test takers. My advice would be that HR managers on limited budgets work with an expert in language assessment to understand where there is most need for language assessment and benchmarking. The benchmarking toolkit developed by the University of Cambridge ESOL examinations is an excellent tool as it provides options for a company to use the tool flexibly depending on budgets and resources available.
Keeping assessments fair
What legal and ethical considerations do you think are important for HR to bear in mind when assessing and benchmarking staff?
I would say that transparency is an important issue to follow up in any benchmarking of staff. The participants in such a process need to be convinced that benchmarking is not a tool for implementing a hidden agenda for change in the workplace. There has to be a clear statement of the purpose of the exercise and what is going to be measured and how. Obviously fairness is extremely important, not just ethically, but because it helps you to make sure you are making the right decisions. Again, an objective, internationally recognised test doesn’t just help you to be fair; it enables you to prove that your criteria are fair and objective.
Keeping assessments simple & flexible
What are the main challenges that can arise when establishing and implementing assessment and benchmarking frameworks? How can metrics be kept as simple as possible?
Benchmarking frameworks have to be structured and highly organised to be effective. However, it is essential that HR managers are mindful of the risk of implementing a system that becomes too complicated.
The best way to reduce the amount of data is to use a service that produces a clear, easily understood report, which gives an objective picture of what the person can actually do and reports ability in terms of an internationally understood system like the CEFR.
What can HR do to make the process of assessment and benchmarking more flexible?
The best piece of advice I would give is to be aware of their employee’s needs, and then develop an appropriate process of assessment. Again, an off-the-shelf system that can be applied where and when it’s needed, with specialist input, so that you’re not dependent on having an in-house specialist available whenever you need one. For example, from our own experience, we know that some students taking an English exam now prefer to do this on a computer, whereas others prefer the traditional pen and paper method—therefore you need to choose a solution that offers both.
Frequency of assessments
Which do you consider the most potentially damaging for businesses—too much assessment or too little?
Of course it’s important to strike a balance, but it’s not necessarily a case of too much or too little assessment, but rather of appropriate assessment that gives you, as HR managers, the right information, and being seen by employees to be using that information in the right way. Employees will be less likely to feel burdened by assessment, if it is perceived to be testing skills, which are relevant, and if it is being used to help staff develop.
Linking assessments to L&D
How can HR effectively link assessment & benchmarking with future training and development programmes for staff?
The clearer the picture you have of current levels of ability, the more easily you can plan your training. So when putting a training package together I’d suggest talking to line managers and feed this into the plan. A key part of benchmarking is identifying the gaps between the skills that employees and their line managers perceive to be needed in particular roles and the skills which they already possess. It also involves making realistic judgements about the training that will be necessary to narrow those gaps, and how it should be prioritised. Otherwise you run the risk of wasting time and money and teaching people skills they already have, or trying to teach things that are, as yet, too difficult for them, or even not yet necessary.
Paul Arkwright
Publisher
