The Power and Pitfalls of Performance Benchmarking
- Jun 26, 2025
- 3 min read
In a recent post, I mentioned how critical comparisons are in analyzing data—specifically, that “a number means nothing until it’s next to another number.”
But comparisons do more than clarify data. Using the right performance benchmarks can inspire action and push us to reach levels we once thought impossible. Since we all carry limiting beliefs, seeing what's possible can be a powerful mental unlock.
Take the “Roger Bannister Effect,” for example. It’s a classic case of self-imposed limits being shattered by the right benchmark.
What happened?
For decades, it was believed that running a mile in under 4 minutes was physiologically impossible.
In 1954, Roger Bannister broke the barrier with a time of 3:59.4.
Just 46 days later, John Landy followed.
Within a few years, dozens of others had done it.
What changed?
The human body didn’t change—the mental model did.
Once someone proved it could be done, the psychological ceiling disappeared.
Limiting beliefs gave way to broader success.
This is a perfect example of how benchmarks can expand what's possible and unlock performance. But they also come with pitfalls.
If you benchmark against poor performers, you risk creating complacency. Benchmark too far above your current capabilities, and you can demotivate people and stall action. The key is finding the right balance.
Here’s a more personal example:
A few months ago, I started riding a Peloton bike. My reaction to performance benchmarks varied depending on the class:
In beginner classes, I regularly finished in the top 20%. I felt like a rockstar and didn’t push much harder.
In more advanced (but age-aligned) classes—like those themed around ’70s and ’80s music—I placed around 40–60%. I was surprised to be average and became very motivated to improve.
In the top-tier classes with modern music, I got crushed—finishing in the bottom 15%. It felt overwhelming, and my motivation took a hit.
Benchmarking blends naturally into goal setting, and the same principles apply. There’s strong research behind this:
Psychologists Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, through 40+ years of studies, consistently found:
Challenging but achievable goals drive the highest effort and performance.
Goals that are too easy don’t inspire effort.
Goals that are too hard can create anxiety, reduce confidence, or lead to quitting.
So, what should we do?
✅ Use benchmarks—but align them with current capabilities and the size of the gap.
The goal is to challenge people just enough to break through barriers—set for them or by them.
✅ Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAGs) are great—but if they’re beyond even your best performers, use intermediate goals to bridge the gap.
As I improve on Peloton and climb the ranks, I’ll need to reset my targets and benchmarks.
✅ Protect newbies from unrealistic benchmarks.
New employees should be measured against their own progress and peers at similar tenure.
New products also need protection—especially from comparison to mature, core offerings. (This is central to The Innovator’s Dilemma, the book that deeply shaped Steve Jobs’ approach to product development.)
✅ Watch for limiting benchmarks.
Just because something hasn’t been done doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Roger Bannister didn’t let that stop him.
Goals should inform your strategies—not the other way around. Just setting aggressive goals will get you to think differently.
Remember...
Growth happens in discomfort. The right benchmarks and goals stretch us in ways that lead to transformation.
Get comfortable being uncomfortable. It’s worth it—and you won’t look back.
