The Problem With Benchmarking Against Your Best Location

What If Your Highest-Performing Location Is Teaching You the Wrong Lessons?

Every organization has a location that stands out. It consistently earns the highest assessment scores, receives positive customer feedback and appears to operate with fewer issues than the rest of the network. Naturally, leaders want to understand what it's doing differently.

The instinct is understandable. If one location has found the formula for success, why not encourage every other location to follow its example?

Across the thousands of locations Steritech assesses each year, we've found that this approach can unintentionally steer improvement efforts in the wrong direction. Exceptional locations often benefit from circumstances that aren't easily replicated across an enterprise, including experienced leadership, stable staffing, favorable market conditions or a team that has worked together for years. Those factors certainly contribute to strong performance, but they don't necessarily reveal the operating systems that can be repeated across hundreds or thousands of locations.

"The highest performers often have a unique combination of circumstances going for them that other locations can't replicate just by doing things differently," says Chris Connor, Director of Technical Services at Steritech. "Factors like a star manager or staff, the location itself, nearby attractions, customer demographics and even the design of the building can all contribute to exceptional results."

That's why enterprise leaders face a different challenge than individual location managers. Their objective isn't to reproduce one exceptional location. It's to identify the systems, behaviors and operational disciplines that create consistently strong performance across the entire organization.

Look Beyond the Standout Performers

If exceptional locations don't provide the complete picture, where should leaders focus instead?

According to Doug Sutton, President of Steritech, the answer begins with culture.

"In a word, it's culture," Sutton says. "Organizations that consistently outperform don't rely on exceptional individuals. They build a culture of accountability and operational discipline that produces strong performance regardless of who's leading a location or working a particular shift."

That distinction changes how enterprise performance should be evaluated.

Rather than asking why one location consistently outperforms the rest of the network, leaders should be looking for the operational practices that produce reliable results across dozens or even hundreds of locations. Those organizations don't simply react to assessment scores. They:

• Establish clear accountability for corrective actions
• Encourage disciplined self-assessments
• Regularly review operational data
• Use those insights to identify root causes before they become recurring problems

Sutton says that approach also changes the metrics leaders should prioritize. While individual location scores provide useful snapshots, enterprise performance is better understood by tracking indicators that reveal whether operational systems are improving over time, such as average assessment scores, repeat priority findings and the number of locations experiencing repeat failures.

"When those indicators aren't moving in the right direction," Sutton explains, "there's usually a breakdown somewhere in accountability, training or priorities."

The objective isn't to create more standout performers. It's to build operating systems that allow every location to perform consistently, even as managers change, staffing fluctuates and business conditions evolve.

Repeatable Performance Doesn't Depend on Exceptional People

One of the biggest differences between exceptional and repeatable performance is what happens when conditions become less than ideal.

A location may consistently achieve outstanding assessment results because it benefits from an experienced manager, a long-tenured team or favorable operating conditions. Those advantages certainly contribute to success, but they aren't easily replicated across an enterprise. Managers move on, turnover happens and operating conditions change. If performance depends on those factors, it isn't sustainable.

Bryan Falk, Director of Analytics at Steritech, says that's why organizations should spend less time studying their standout locations and more time understanding the systems behind their most consistently successful ones.

"There is a massive difference between a restaurant that is built to succeed and one that is just 'muscling the system' to look good on paper," Falk says. "A store might ace its food safety audit because a heroic manager ran around fixing everything themselves right before the evaluator walked in, but that's not a repeatable strategy."

Instead of asking how your best location became exceptional, ask whether its success can be repeated.

Would that location still perform well if the manager took a week's vacation? If the answer is no, the operation is probably relying on people instead of processes.

Chris Connor, Director of Technical Services at Steritech, says repeatable performance comes from systems that are consistently executed regardless of who's working.

"Repeatable performance is driven by processes that are documented, trained, executed and verified across all shifts at all locations," Connor explains. "Exceptional performance is typically achieved by a team that follows all of those repeatable processes but also applies above-and-beyond effort because of a strong culture and team mindset."

As Falk puts it, "Real operational health is quiet and predictable."

Organizations that consistently outperform aren't asking teams to work harder every day. They're building operating systems that make strong performance the expected outcome, not the exception.

Raise the Floor, Not Just the Ceiling

For enterprise leaders, the goal isn't to create more exceptional locations. It's to reduce the performance gap between the highest- and lowest-performing locations across the organization.

"Operational excellence isn't about hitting a high score on the test or avoiding a fail," says Chris Connor, Director of Technical Services at Steritech. "It's about consistency, improvement and reducing the gap between the highest and lowest performers over time."

That requires leaders to look beyond individual assessment scores and evaluate whether their operating systems are becoming stronger. Doug Sutton, President of Steritech, recommends focusing on performance indicators that reveal whether improvements are being sustained across the enterprise, including average assessment scores, priority findings, repeat priority findings, failed locations and repeat failed locations.

"When those indicators aren't moving in the right direction," Sutton explains, "there's usually a breakdown somewhere in accountability, training or priorities."

Those metrics tell a much richer story than a single top-performing location ever can. They reveal whether corrective actions are being completed, whether training is translating into better execution and whether operational improvements are taking hold across the organization.

Ultimately, the strongest organizations aren't defined by one exceptional location. They're defined by operating systems that continue producing consistent results as managers change, staffing fluctuates and business conditions evolve.

Your best location can still provide valuable insights. Just don't mistake an exception for the standard. The organizations that achieve lasting operational excellence aren't chasing standout performers. They're building systems that make strong performance repeatable.

 

*Data presented is gathered by Steritech through its OnBrand360®