More and more often, nonprofit boards take the plunge and undergo evaluations to boost effectiveness and respond to demands from stakeholders, the public and the media. In an article that appeared in the May/June issue of Director Journal, Chartered Director Colleen Fleming outlines three key phases of the evaluation process: pre-implementation planning, implementation and post-assessment planning.
Getting the board on board
Introducing the evaluation process can go over like a lead balloon unless communicated effectively, perhaps with an expert to help facilitate the discussion. Gaining input and clarifying the process before implementation means less resistance and higher engagement on the part of board members.
Generally, the board evaluation process is owned by the chair of the nominating and governance committee. Step one of the pre-implementation planning phase is to engage the full board. This involves educating members about the general purpose of the evaluation, reviewing evaluation instruments, gauging the board’s appetite and identifying any concerns. It is often helpful for a board to review recommended best practices in order to benchmark its starting level of effectiveness.
Pre-implementation is when the board clarifies specific objectives of the evaluation. These may include improving board performance, confirming that the right resources are available to implement a new strategic plan, or ensuring compliance with the requirements of an oversight body.
It is critical to create a sense of urgency—if the scope of the evaluation is not sufficiently bite-sized so that it can be incorporated into work plans immediately, too much time can elapse and circumstances can change. There may be director turnover, for example, leading to a perception that feedback already gathered from those individuals is irrelevant. It may be difficult to re-engage the board, especially if directors adopt a “tried that, didn’t work” attitude. It is preferable to have a specific, and perhaps less lofty goal for the evaluation to ensure the process gets completed.
Another critical aspect of the planning phase is to determine the mechanics for sharing feedback. The normal practice is for the chair of the nominating and governance committee to share the results and lead the action planning. As a courtesy, the board chair or committee chairs generally receive and share the peer evaluations with individual directors.
Soliciting input
Once the groundwork has been laid so that board members are committed to the evaluation process, the implementation phase begins and self-evaluations can get underway. A common concern is whether new members can be evaluated fairly. Some boards believe it unreasonable to assess members who have not had time to fully absorb the organization’s culture. A contrary point of view is that including a new board member can provide valuable insight into culture, emphasize different communication and problem-solving styles and highlight if ‘group think’ has set in.
Most board evaluations are surveys, customized and delivered electronically. External resources are generally tapped to administer the survey in order to provide confidentiality and reduce directors’ workload. If tensions are high and trust low, additional investment in external support may be warranted.
Input may include interviews, manual questionnaires, direct observations and feedback from other stakeholders, including management.
Taking action
Once the implementation phase is complete, the board should move quickly. The CEO, senior staff and stakeholders will all be watching; dropping the ball at this point can erode trust, confidence and credibility.
The nominating and governance committee chair leads the action planning, but engages the full board to identify priorities and develop corrective actions. It is better to carve out three to five specific actions and accomplish them, rather than be too ambitious.
The plans should be concrete, supported by performance measures and incorporated into work plans. The evaluation process is a continuous one. Ideally, the system provides for year-over-year comparisons that allow board members to see progress—even if incremental.
Michelle Jondreau is a communications professional with an avid interest in all things HR. On top of that, she hails from the nonprofit world and as such has a keen understanding of sector trends and issues. Follow her @majondreau.
