Boards - Your Chief Administrator Wants You to Learn and Practice CEO Evaluation

Ask board members to list their responsibilities and most will include the supervision of the CEO. However, according to the findings of CompassPoint and Meyer Foundation researchers as reported in Daring to Lead 2011: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership, there is apparently a disconnect between what board members acknowledge as their responsibilities and what they take on, because close to half of the CEOs surveyed reported that they had not had a performance review within the past year. Adding concern, of those boards that do ensure their CEOs are reviewed, more than two-thirds may not be particularly skilled at the process, judging by the report that fewer than one-third of CEOs found their review either somewhat useful or very useful.

With CEOs clamoring for effective feedback there are evaluation basics that every board can incorporate. Assign a month within which the CEO review will be done, add it to your compliance calendar and make a commitment to follow through. Ask the CEO to consider process and goals and to explain what he or she feels will make the review valuable on both a personal and organizational level. Gather input from the entire board. Then select a few board members to sit down with the CEO to negotiate what the review will consist of. Be sure success measures and deadlines are clearly defined so that everyone has a clear picture of what it will look like when the CEO has successfully met all expectations. Provide interim assessments that ensure everyone is still on the same page and that movement toward goal achievement is on track. (See “Evaluating the Top Administrator: A New Approach” for more.)

But what takes evaluation beyond the basics and ensures an effective result? I would like to learn what those boards that are providing “very useful” feedback are doing. I’d also like to hear from CEOs about what would make their reviews satisfying and helpful. Are there tips that you can share with your colleagues and partners? Perhaps you’ve asked a former board chair to lead the process or brought in a consultant to guide it. Maybe you’ve found a book or article that provided helpful insights into the process or content. All input is encouraged.

An Open Question to Board Chairs: Do You Dare to Lead?

Executive directors have thrown down the gauntlet. In “Daring to Lead 2011: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership” conducted by CompassPoint and the Meyer Foundation, only 20 percent of those surveyed reported being satisfied with their board’s performance. While a few of these executive directors might have a personality conflict with their current chair or have felt particularly frustrated with their board the day they responded, there must be something more significant going on to account for 80 percent of chief administrators indicating dissatisfaction with their boards.

Determining the underlying factor(s) is particularly important in today’s rapidly changing environment where boards must be strong, strategic and steadfast so that their organizations can be responsive and achieve relevant results. Research by the likes of Herman, Renz and Heimovics, Nobbie and Brudney and others have made very clear that there is a relationship between the effectiveness of a board and the effectiveness of the organization for which the board works. While none could prove causality, each found that highly effective organizations have highly effective boards.

I don’t believe that an organization’s effectiveness can be laid at the feet of just one person. Yet, I do believe that you, as board chair, have opportunity and influence that can be brought to bear in ways that you perhaps have not tested. Be honest with yourself. What more could you do to ensure a stronger board, and ultimately a stronger organization?

For instance, research again tells us that highly effective boards use more proven practices than less effective boards. There are a lot of accepted practices out there that are actually based on myth. Are you just propagating these or are you analyzing their effectiveness? Are you making the effort to regularly read or participate in workshops and webinars to learn about governance practices rooted in science? Are you implementing what you’ve learned? If not, why not?

As an unknown sage once said, “Hope is not a method.” You cannot afford to merely come in once a month to chair a meeting, check in occasionally with your executive director and write your column for the newsletter and expect an exceptional board to emerge. Nor can you rely on years of experience with a multitude of boards. The world has changed too much. If you dare to lead, tell us what you are doing differently and what impact it has made.

Our Boards Must Understand How They Operate

I just finished analyzing a governance assessment completed by 15 different organizations participating in a board building program sponsored by our local Community Foundation. It was fascinating. In many cases there would be one person from an organization that would answer the question in the affirmative about whether that organization had a Whistleblower Policy or a Records Retention policy – policies every organization must have. The rest of the respondents would answer “no” or “I don’t know.” In each of these cases, the executive director/CEO completed the survey along with board members. While I didn’t have the access required to manipulate the data, I’d bet my bottom dollar it was the executive director/CEO that was correctly answering the question because he or she was the one who ensured compliance. Even the answers to questions such as whether the organization employs term limits or a consent agenda revealed that oftentimes more than half the board members did not know if they did or didn’t.

While not surprised, I must admit I’m a bit disappointed. Clearly the majority of these organizations are operating according to proven practices, but the board is not aware of it. According to their answers to the question about the ease of getting a quorum, it doesn’t appear the problem lies with nonattendance. It seems as if the chief administrative officer is implementing the right policies and procedures but failing to share this with the board along the way.

What is the answer? First, maybe it’s time that the executive director/CEO turn over the implementation of board-related responsibilities to the board. Using the example above, this would mean that the development and dissemination of policies would be done by the board. And, if the board handles the job, the members would know the policies exist.

Second, perhaps the content of board education should be changed to focus more on proven practices and how the board complies with such practices. The bylaws committee might mention what section in the bylaws is guiding each action. The board development committee might create more or different talking points or initiate a short quiz at each board meeting designed to test whether the board knows how it is/should be operating. The orientation might be enhanced to ensure new board members understand what is expected and why.

Finally, there has to be a better communication. At meetings the board chair might make it a point to explain why certain actions are being taken. Committees might use a report form that spells out how recommendations relate to the organization’s strategic initiatives the budget, staffing and so on.

Hopefully, by working together more as a board each member of the board will know exactly how the board operates and why. Ultimately, that has to result in a more effective board.

Should We Be Considering Professional Board Chairs?

I recently returned from Australia where I facilitated a series of master classes in governance. While the US and Australian systems are similar, there are some distinct differences. One, to which I was introduced this trip, is a trend toward hiring professional board chairs. Though not wide-spread, it is prevalent enough that there are actually companies there that provide such individuals to organizations as required.

Clearly, there are advantages to such a concept. You ostensibly get a board chair that is unbiased, skilled and willing to give the time to the job since he or she is getting paid to do it. One would expect that such a person keeps up with the latest governance trends and has a broad perspective from working with different groups – both conditions that can lead to increased board effectiveness.

Some of the drawbacks are obvious, but not necessarily insurmountable. One board member complained to me that the professional board chair working in his organization was working with twenty other boards and often came to meetings unsure of which organization’s meeting she was actually at! I would think that far fewer than twenty boards may still be too many for a board chair to handle well. Of course, this is a relatively easy problem to circumvent. The board has an obligation to do its due diligence. A single question would have determined that this woman was over-committed. Still, in an emerging field where there may not be that many qualified individuals available for hire, organizations desperate for leadership may opt to move forward anyway and take their chances.

I would be concerned that any board chair for hire actually has the facilitation skills necessary to do the job effectively and is familiar with today’s proven governance practices. I meet a lot of people who tell me that they have chaired many boards over the years and know what they are doing. Unfortunately, I have observed that far too many of these individuals are mired in how things were done back in the days when they began their board service and are totally unaware of practices common throughout the sector now.

I also see the potential for conflict of interest. A professional board chair might work for several organizations with similar missions. While it could be advantageous to hire someone who has a depth of experience in your organization’s mission area, how can you be sure that your ideas, deliberations and decisions will remain in-house until they are ready to be shared with the community? Of course, this could prove an issue with anyone in the boardroom and if you deal with a true professional, this should not be a problem. More critically, the board chair is privy to discussions that can personally impact him or her, for instance whether the contract should be renewed and at what rate. If the organization has policies for dealing with such situations, this also can be handled in a transparent and judicious manner. Australia has the same duty of loyalty requirement we do in the US and conflict of interest has not been a sticking point for the nonprofits in that country.

The culture in the US may be the biggest barrier to such an idea taking hold here. I can foresee donors reacting negatively to the idea of having their money go to pay a professional board chair. So many already resent money being spent on even the most critical administrative fees. Link this to the expectation that has taken hold here – but not in Australia – that all board members must make a personal contribution and we have yet another potential obstacle. This expectation would imply the professional must “pay to play,” something that is unethical if not illegal. Yet, if the organization excludes the chair from the requirement, resentment is sure to build in the other board members who are held to the giving standard. They may already be upset, wondering why they shouldn’t get paid for their time.

Then, who wants to be the first to test the IRS response? Surely, as paying for a professional board chair is not accepted practice in the US, the board and organization may be liable for a hefty excise tax on that fee if it is deemed excess benefit.

Yet, I can’t help thinking about the potential benefit – boards running more efficiently and effectively. Acceptance of such a practice might even stimulate new jobs as individuals with the appropriate skills move into this arena and programs crop up to certify these professional board chairs!

Is this a bad idea if no organization is required to move in this direction or consider itself locked into a paid chair if it has used such a service in the past but now has the appropriate leadership in-house? What do you think?