“Monitoring and evaluation are a sine qua non of any organized structure.”
― Henrietta Newton Martin
The last edition of this newsletter discussed the working relationship of the board of directors, board chair, and executive of nonprofit organizations, asserting that where these relationships are active, open, and based on trust, exempt organizations do well.
In this edition, we’ll discuss one of the ways to foster positive relationships between these key players – evaluations, or assessments.
Mention the word evaluation in a work setting and many people get a shiver or chill, thinking back to an annual evaluation process that seemed to be primarily focused on checking boxes – “well, that’s your evaluation for the year!” – rather than as a time of reflection, assessment, and planning. Almost always, we think of “evaluation” as pertaining to job performance for individuals. However, evaluation for governing bodies can be just as critical but, alas, is often overlooked.
Executive
Let’s start with the obvious – the chief executive should be evaluated annually based on duties or competencies and performance towards goals. At a minimum, the executive should be evaluated by the board chair. Better yet, the executive committee or a committee of directors will conduct the evaluation, which will be based on assessments provided by all directors to that committee.
Given that directors in nonprofit organizations with paid staff are not involved in day-to-day management, assessment of the executive by directors should be focused on the executive’s skill level and performance related to agreed upon competencies, such as vision, leadership, communication, and delegation. The chair or executive committee may additionally evaluate the executive based on performance expectations for the prior year, given their greater interactions with the executive.
Should assessments of the executive be sought from managers, employees, or outside parties, such as key donors? That is up to the board, of course, but caution is appropriate. Ultimately, the board is evaluating the executive’s performance as the leader of the organization. Evaluating the executive on how well she or he provides information to the board, keeps it updated on operations, advises it of challenges, and shares performance results is fully within the board’s capabilities. Directors know what they observe and what is reported to them and, if they don’t know, they should evaluate the executive based on the absence of that information.
The Board…and committees
The evaluation in nonprofit organization that often does not take place, in my experience, is the board evaluating how well it is performing its duties and conducting its work. Failing to do so is removing accountability for a significant portion of the governance structure, one that is essential, with the executive, in the success of the charity.
A board evaluation should be done by the directors using the organization’s governing documents and policies pertaining to the board as the benchmark. For instance, if the board has delegated some of its authority, is it respecting that delegation? If the organization is using policy-based governance, is the board staying out of operational decisions? Is the board regularly reviewing its policies to ensure they are adequate or to update them as needed? Does discussion regularly occur? Is the board focused on strategic matters and does it have adequate time to do so?
The same evaluation should be done for standing committees of the board, if they exist. A review of the committee’s charter, scope of its work, applicable policies, effectiveness of meetings, and meeting frequency, done a regular basis, will either affirm the work being done or provide an intentional opportunity for improvement.
Chair
While evaluation of boards and committees is more typical, an evaluation of the board chair is not as common in my experience. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to see where such an evaluation would have value, especially given the key role the chair plays in the executive-board relationship.
Does the chair ensure the board’s voice is heard or that it has an opportunity to speak into a matter? How well are the meetings structured and run? Does the chair foster and encourage participation and discussion? How well does the chair communicate with directors between meetings? Is the chair offering his or her perspective on questions from the chair, potentially running roughshod over the debate?
An evaluation of the chair should incorporate assessments by all directors and would likely be conducted by the governance committee, or the other executive committee members. In larger organizations, similar evaluations could be conducted for other corporate or board officers.
Directors
Beyond the board evaluating its collective performance, an evaluation of individual directors and their performance can provide great benefit. I have also generally not seen it be done.
Evaluation of directors would typically be conducted by the executive committee or governance committee of a board. Utilizing the expectations of a director as its benchmark, among the items a director evaluation could be based on are attendance, preparation for meetings, respecting limits on activity as a sole director, personal financial support of the organization, introduction of prospective donors or partners to the organization, and identification of prospective directors.
When a director’s term is nearing its end and the issue of re-appointment or nomination of the director for another term comes up, these evaluations should be considered in making those determinations. Director positions for a nonprofit organization are a limited resource – they shouldn’t be taken up by individuals who aren’t doing the work the organization needs them to do as a director.
Applicable to All
While it is tempting to have an evaluation be solely backwards focused – how did ___ do this past year – the best evaluation process, particularly for executives, will intentionally include a discussion of the plans and focus for the coming year. Not only does this allow the evaluator to endorse those articulated goals, but it also provides the basis for the performance part of the next evaluation.
Whether written assessments or evaluations can be provided without attribution to the individual providing them is a question an organization should deal with early on. I have been part of evaluations where the evaluator had to include their name or it would not be included and I’ve been part of evaluations that have intentionally made sure no identifying information is provided to the evaluated party. Personally, I lean towards attribution because, in a healthy organization, feedback and dialogue is happening throughout the year, not just at evaluation time. If there are issues worthy of noting on the evaluation, they merited action and discussion before then.
What has been your experience with evaluations of the executive, boards, committees, or directors in nonprofit organizations, good or bad? Disagree with the thoughts above? Please share your reactions in the comments.
As always, thanks for reading.
This newsletter is for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Those requiring legal advice are encouraged to consult with their attorney.
