The concept of self-assessment, or that boards and individual board members should be held accountable for the effectiveness of their contribution, is new to many organisations. While some boards undertake self-assessment, others actively reject it. There are many reasons or excuses for this resistance.
In other words, members will determine whether a board is doing a good job. In a broad sense this is true. However, members are not inside the boardroom and cannot typically provide the performance feedback a self-assessment would generate. Leaving this judgement to an annual meeting is an ineffective mechanism. It is likely to be backward looking and will not address issues as they arise or prepare the board for the future, instead delivering a response to outcomes too late to vary.
Boards of struggling organisations often find themselves continually under pressure because of ineffective governance and leadership. A review process would allow them to step back and reflect.
Asking directors to review their performance introduces an element of competition that could undermine efforts to build cooperation and collaboration among directors. Similarly, the process will invite critical comments that will create tension. As any sports team knows, however, ignoring performance shortcomings is far more divisive.
Because they are volunteers, giving freely of their time, directors should not be expected to perform to the same standards as paid counterparts in other types of organisations. In other words, given that theirs is a voluntary contribution it should be accepted without judgement or assessment. To accept this contention is to undermine the board’s position of trust. No one should join a board anticipating that they will give anything less than their best.
A board comprising eminent sports, professional and business people should not be subject to review because it implies they could be doing a better job. The mere suggestion of a review is somewhat insulting and disrespectful. A board of eminent individuals does not guarantee collective efficacy.
Eminence in other fields is no guarantee of governance effectiveness.
The benefits of an effective review process should put any concerns into perspective.
Boards in all sectors are increasingly recognising the need to review their own effectiveness.
Boards evaluate their chief executive’s performance (or should) and will almost certainly expect the chief executive to evaluate staff. So why shouldn’t they reflect periodically on their own effectiveness? The answer, of course, is that they should.