I am very fortunate to be able to serve on multiple not-for-profit
boards. I interact with terrific people
and in every case, the mission of the organization makes a very positive
contribution to society, be it on a larger scale or a smaller scale. Most of
the boards I serve on are education related and as a long term educator, I
recognize the importance of volunteer service to support quality education at
every level. Especially now, when
economic constraints are present at every level, board service can make an
important positive difference.
Boards are more effective or less effective depending on the
membership of the board and also depending on the relationship of the board to
the CEO. Individual board members are
often evaluated on a regular basis according to the criteria of their appointment. Overall board evaluations happen much less
frequently in my experience. One of the
boards I serve on has, for many years (beginning long before I was involved),
had board members do an annual evaluation of the overall board. The evaluation covers everything from how the
chair runs the meetings, to how well board members are prepared for the meeting,
all with a five point scale and the ability to add comments. Questions are
asked about respecting confidentiality, working toward compromise, not
micromanaging, keeping your constituency fully involved, evaluating and
recognizing – if appropriate – exemplary performance of top management,
developing clear policies and providing the resources to support those
policies, understanding budgets, as well as establishing and monitoring
strategic plans. There are more than 60
detailed questions in total, and 8 separate opportunities to add comments.
In some years, the board ranks itself very highly while in
other years more concerns and self doubts permeate the review. The honesty and candor of the reviews have
been impressive as have the discussions that follow the distribution of the
consolidated self assessment. But the
result of this self assessment is a board that is better positioned to lead and
also to listen. We know what hasn’t worked well and we have reviewed what could
make it better.
This type of self evaluation doesn’t work if one or more of
the individuals involved take this assessment personally. There is a conscious
effort not to be critical of individuals and to look at the overall board
performance. A few of the questions do
however single out the board president and
that person’s individual performance is in fact to some extent under a
microscope but is still in the context of the overall board performance.
In the months and years ahead, I will suggest to more of the
boards that I serve on and to the individuals I serve with, that a self
assessment be built in on a regular basis.
I recommend that my colleagues do the same. The practice makes sense and the improvement
in performance can make a positive difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment