Most current board evaluation processes are based on a process of self-assessment. Commonly, directors will complete a board review questionnaire. The results of this are collated, analysed, compiled and used as the basis for a collective discussion. Ideally, the annual evaluation process should be conducted on behalf of the board by an independent and external third party. They would collate the information and feed it back to the board, facilitating a discussion of the board’s strengths and weaknesses, and helping the board develop a programme for improving its effectiveness.
A questionnaire survey on its own, however, has limitations. Ticking the boxes can be carried out in a mechanical way with little thought given to the responses. When an organisation’s budget allows, the independent third party should conduct face-to- face or via-the-telephone interviews with each director and the CEO. The survey data will form the basis for the follow-up interview questions. Much deeper feedback is gathered from these interviews.
Such a deep-level formal review might be carried out once every two or three years with a less formal ‘check-up’ conducted in the in-between years. This might focus on the development goals established for the board and individual directors with fine- tuning and sign-offs signalling improvements and work in progress. In this way, the board goes in deeply on a regular cycle and supplements this with shallower, less formal reviews. The formal review then does not become viewed as a mechanical exercise to be ‘tossed off’ as routine or repetitive.
Whatever cycle the board chooses should be scheduled into its ongoing work plan so the discipline of board and director self-assessment is as much a part of the organisation’s overall quality management as annual staff performance management systems and processes.