Still another common error is profiling only your top performers. Unless you profile your bottom performers as well, your information is invalid. If, for instance, your bottom performers scored same as top performers in a certain category, that trait could be an insignificant concern in hiring process. Yet, testing just top performers would narrow your field and decrease your chances of successful job matching. The benchmarking process is intended to improve productivity and performance but opposite can occur if certain variables in environment are not accounted for in ranking process. It will not be an effective benchmark if your top ranking performers are in a "flush" market - that is, where almost anyone could do a good job. Other environmental factors such as consistency of systems and procedures across all employees considered in benchmarking process may also have a powerful influence. If only half of your team is computerized, behavioral job description may not be same at all. Likewise, communication behaviors appropriate for supporting Sales & Marketing staff is probably quite different from doing that same support work for Auditing. A better method is to have those who work, manage and know position do an objective behavioral job analysis, starting 'from beginning' - that is, don't look at current people, but evaluate job itself. Some of newer tools on market make this exercise convenient (15 to 20 minutes), accurate and inexpensive. Once ideal behaviors are prioritized, job description becomes much easier to define and fulfill. This refinement also accelerates orientation process, greatly reducing that period of time it takes to "get feel" of a new job. Turnover is reduced, performance is enhanced.