Nonprofit Boards and Governance
Review
Evaluating The Executive Director: Part 1
- Why Evaluations of the Executive Director Don't Work
By Terrie
Temkin
Oct 3, 2002, 08:00 PST
Ask
board members to list their responsibilities
and most will include the evaluation of their
executive director. Ask why such evaluation
is important and in unison one hears that the
process improves agency functioning and enhances
personal growth. However, ask how many actually
do evaluations of their executive director
and the number of affirmative responses drops
dramatically. And, of those that do evaluations
it’s rare to find enthusiastic supporters when
you ask how many think that the process lives
up to its expectations.
I hear many reasons for the disconnect between people’s embrace
of the concept and their failure to put it into action.
- "Evaluations have never actually been a
part of our organizational culture, so the
need for scheduling it isn’t on anyone’s
radar screen. I guess it’s easy for the process
to fall through the cracks."
- "Our
board has the best of intentions, but people
get wrapped up in their day-to-day
activities and time just seems to get away
from everyone."
- "I
agree that the concept sounds good.
Most of us don’t like to do evaluations,
though. It’s uncomfortable evaluating others."
- "It
takes too much time and effort to do it
right."
I see many reasons why those who put an evaluation
process into action are often disillusioned
with the result. The expectations are unrealistic,
unclear, too diverse, or always changing.
- The
board forgets that while the executive
director is ultimately responsible to it,
he or she also has responsibilities to the
staff, direct service volunteers, clients,
community leaders, and funding sources. The
Executive Director may be overwhelmed with "priorities."
- The board chooses to measure outcomes that,
perhaps, are less significant than other
factors that could have a greater impact
on the mission.
- The
board chooses an evaluation form that has
little to do with the executive director’s
job. Often it is the same form used for evaluating
everyone in the organization.
- Even when the board chooses an evaluation
form designed specifically for nonprofit
administrators it fails to recognize that
the job of its executive director most likely
varies a great deal from that of the executive
director in the organization down the street.
Executive directors wear many different hats
depending on such things as the size and
sophistication of their organizations.
- The
availability of "standard" evaluation
forms causes boards to believe that executive
directors are responsible for clearly defined
jobs with a right and wrong way to approach
them. This concept is dangerous because it
impedes risk-taking and change -- the very
qualities that can keep an organization alive
and growing.
- Carefully devised, clear, criteria for
evaluation turn out to be irrelevant in light
of changes that have taken place in the environment
during the evaluation period.
- The feedback is sugar-coated to the degree
that critical concerns are lost among the
accolades. Or, the concerns are not voiced
at all until the board explodes in pent-up
frustration, causing the executive director
to become defensive and tune out the message.
- The
board doesn’t evaluate itself so the "findings" --
for better or worse -- exist outside a holistic
context that could really help the organization
move forward.
Yet, the potential consequences of skipping
the evaluation process are great.
Lacking mutually defined goals and frequent, frank exchanges
of expectations and priorities, executive directors cannot know
what their boards want or don’t want, what they like or don’t
like. Forging ahead, they may make decisions that the board members
feel could have been made differently.
In many cases, an executive director -- particularly one who
is entrenched and used to acting independently -- may make a
number of decisions that don’t sit right with the board. Those
old enough to remember Transactional Analysis may remember the
tendency of people in situations like this to collect brown
stamps rather than confront the issues. Each difference of
opinion becomes one more irritant increasing the likelihood that
one day the proverbial "brown stamps will hit the fan."
The organization then risks losing an inherently good executive
who might have happily and easily accommodated the board’s thinking
early on. The loss might happen either through dismissal, which
occurs seemingly out of the blue -- or through paralysis as the
executive director shuts down for fear of crossing a line is
continually shifting. This situation benefits no one.
While it’s easy to understand a board that questions the validity
of any evaluation attempt and throws its collective hands in
the air -- abdicating its responsibility -- there are techniques
that allow a board to do its job effectively. These will be explored
in part two of this article, "Making Executive Director Evaluations
Effective." (in the next issue of Nonprofit Boards and Governance
Review).
Editor's note: Our thanks to Terrie Temkin for her contribution
to Nonprofit Boards and Governance Review. More information about
Terrie can be found at: http://charitychannel.com/resources/Detailed/600.html
__________________________________________________
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Aspen Publications.
(1996). Evaluating the nonprofit CEO.
Akron, IA.
Nason, J. (1997). Board assessment of the chief executive:
A responsibility essential to good governance. Washington
D.C.: National Center for Nonprofit Boards
Pierson, J. and Mintz, J. (1996). Assessment of the chief
executive: A tool for governing boards and chief executives of
nonprofit organizations. Washington D.C.: National Center
for Nonprofit Boards
__________________________________________________
Share YOUR insights or experiences .
. . .
Do you have additional insights or experiences
that you would like to share with the Nonprofit
Boards and Governance Review readers?
Please send them to the editors at ngbr-editors@charitychannel.com.
__________________________________________________
Publisher:
Stephen C.
Nill, J.D., CEO, CharityChannel
Edited by:
Nathan Garber,
Editor-in-Chief
Contributors Panel:
Mr. Garber is advised and assisted by a panel of well-respected
nonprofit-sector experts
on boards and governance, including:
· Jane Garthson
· Gayle Gifford
· Ernie Ginsler
· Hildy Gottlieb
· Donald Griesmann
· Lisa Lamontagne
· Jim Lochrie
· Lisa A. Runquist
· Terrie Temkin
· Jane Tennen
__________________________________________________
How to Sponsor Nonprofit Boards and Governance Review
Nonprofit Boards & Governance Review is supported
by sponsors. If you have a product or service that would be of
benefit to the rapidly growing subscribership of this electronic
publication, and would like to learn more, contact Pamela Johnston
by e-mail at pam_johnston@charitychannel.com,
or telephone CharityChannel's headquarters at 1+ 949-589-5938.
__________________________________________________
Subscribing and Unsubscribing
To receive the entire issue by email (sent
every other week), send an email to Listserv@CharityChannel.com.
The "subject" or "re" is ignored. In the
body of the message, type:
SUBSCRIBE NBGR yourFullName
(Example: SUBSCRIBE NBGR Nathan Garber)
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to nbgr-signoff-request@CharityChannel.com
Need help? Suggestions? Questions? Just reply, use the contact
form at http://CharityChannel.com/contact,
write to nbgr-editors@CharityChannel.com,
or telephone 1+ (949) 589-5938 during normal business hours (Pacific
Time).
__________________________________________________
Reprints
Permission is granted
to link to this article from another web
site. Permission to reprint this newsletter,
whether in print or electronically, requires
the consent of both CharityChannel and the
individual author of this article. To ask
for consent, please utilize the form at http://charitychannel.com/reprints.
Nonprofit Boards & Governance Review(tm) is
a domestic and international trademark of
CharityChannel LLC. Copyright © and
Trademark ™ 2002 CharityChannel LLC. All rights reserved. The
article in this issue, "Evaluating The Executive Director: Part
1-- Why Evaluations of the Executive Director Don't Work" Copyright © 2002
Terrie Temkin.
|
