You’re absolutely right on about the distinctions and corruption of the positive potential of best practices. Too much “follow-the-leader” and “me-too” going on the be effective.

Look forward to playing around with this algorithms idea with you. Maybe we can shift the dialogue a bit so that organizations *can* get better.

Echoing Steve re “underlying principles” above, I would suggest a distinction here between two types of best practices:

1. Best practices and benchmarking as a rote, Bisquick-recipe method. There’s no fundamental rethinking of habits or modus operandi, and therefore there’s no struggle and growth for the organization or the individuals within it.

2. REAL best practices, which will have to go by another name since “best practices” has been so corrupted. “Underlying principles” is a good name for it; “algorithms” might be another.

In this version, you look to Toyota NOT because you entertain the fantasy that you’ll follow six simple steps and be like them 18 months from now, but because you acknowledge the reality that Toyota is quantitatively and qualitatively superior to its competitors, and that it didn’t — couldn’t have — gotten there by accident. So you look for the underlying principles of operating without waste and overburden; you think hard about AND IMPLEMENT programs to solicit worker suggestions aggressively; you ENACT measures to ENSURE that improvements to processes are implemented every single day.

As I said in my post about “real advice” for companies, version #1 of best practices — the “tips-’n'-tricks” version is easy but useless. Version #2 implies — REQUIRES — actual changes in behavior, and not at some far-off future date, but starting right now. That makes it hard.

Which is why most people run away from it, and why many companies allow themselves to fall prey to version #1 of best practices.

And then they wonder why they never get better.

I did an article or a post some time ago, but my take on it has been this: Why would you compare yourself to an organization whose culture is different, mission and values are different, and that is comprised of, well–different people. It’s an exercise in futility. And by the time you are finished the exercise, their–and your–circumstances have changed.

My two cents: if you are going to look at successful people or companies, find the underlying principles that they are adhering to; not what they are doing.

The very act of figuring out the difference between the two will be time well spent.

Steve

“There is no need for more benchmarking of where the world is working. The reason is partly that we have already heard all the stories, and partly—and more important—that narratives of success give us hope and places to visit, but do not build our community. Social fabric and successful communities simply cannot be imported. What works somewhere else ends up as simply another program here, which might be useful but does not shift the fundamentals we are after.”

He’s talking about building community, but I think his comments also relate to what you’re saying about mimicry and mediocrity. At any rate, I thought it might be of interest to you!