Nonprofit
Boards and Governance Review
Evaluating The
Executive Director: Part 2 - Making
Executive Director Evaluations Effective
By Terrie Temkin
Oct 17, 2002, 08:00 PST
In part one of this article, I listed a number
of reasons why evaluations of the executive
director frequently fail. In part two, I
discuss some ways to conduct a successful
evaluation.
Effectively evaluating your organization’s executive director may not
be simple, but it is possible. It requires taking away "the box" that
has traditionally defined your approach to the evaluation process (e.g.,
evaluation forms, annual evaluations, focusing strictly on the executive
director’s behaviors). The box must be replaced with year-round communication
that focuses on the entire system, of which the executive director’s
actions is just one part.
If the evaluation is to be system-wide, a frank discussion between
the board and executive director must be the first step. Put on the
table issues such as the organization’s vision and values, its overall
goals for the next three years, what might be seen as a logical and
equitable division of responsibilities, the desired degree of board/staff
interaction, and the expected levels of performance on everyone’s part.
Decide what must be accomplished the first year, the second year and
the third year, then what ideally should be accomplished. Come to a
consensus about the roles both the executive director and the board
members are to assume in helping the organization reach these goals.
Let’s say, for instance, that together you agree that the organization
will raise $300,000 the first year through direct solicitation. The
board is committing to serve as links and make most of the asks. The
executive director agrees to prepare the case statement, provide solicitation
training, accompany board members on solicitations targeting a minimum
$5,000 contribution and coordinate the recognition activities.
The next step borrows from an old paradigm (no sense throwing out the
baby with the bath water). Specify objectives for each of the identified
roles. State the desired end results in such a way that everyone will
know when the objectives have been met. This usually means making the
objectives measurable. Zeroing in on the case statement from the above
example, you might agree that the successful case statement will be
one page, be written in an active voice, and be grammatically correct.
It will convey the value of the organization and the worthiness of
its mission. It will include a brief history of the organization, a
summary of its track record, a statement of its need and the good that
will be done in the community. And, it will be completed by September
15, 2003. As a side note, this is a good time to also discuss the criteria
levels that will be required for any increase in the executive director’s
salary.
When setting the criteria for success be aware that traditional measuring
sticks such as the number of programs offered or clients served may
actually prove meaningless when trying to demonstrate mission achievement.
It may be far more beneficial to your organization, for example, that
your executive director is able to build relationships, facilitate
participation, listen and generate commitment because, by so doing,
he/she creates a strong, yet flexible entity that is able to perform
in any situation. If so, the criteria you set must be able to measure
these more nebulous competencies.
You might facilitate the process of identifying your objectives and
the criteria for their success by having both the executive director
and the individual board members write out what they believe to be
their own and the other’s responsibilities. Compare lists, negotiating
wherever differences exist. You will encourage an interactive exchange
by positively reinforcing people for laying all their cards on the
table. The idea is to reach consensus about what has to be done, the
priority of each responsibility and who will be responsible for doing
it.
We all know that people will be more committed to achieving objectives
that they have written themselves. I like to see the entire board involved
with the executive director in the process of writing their own and
each other’s objectives for a reason. The resulting objectives tend
to reflect more diverse thinking, more creativity in their approach,
and a broader understanding of how each role impacts the organization.
Such involvement also ensures everyone’s expectations will be similar
and, perhaps equally important, the process serves as a leadership
development tool for board members.
Unfortunately, the lists you now have of executive director and board
member objectives and their priorities are good only for the moment.
In our rapidly changing world, organizational responsibilities are
always subject to change. The board and executive director need to
formally assess -- at least twice a year -- whether the objectives
and priorities are still relevant and important. I’ve seen too many
resources wasted on objectives that were in a plan but no longer had
value. When a change is indicated, the process of consensus building
must begin anew. Similarly, your measurement criteria cannot be set
just once early in the year with the expectation of declaring success
or failure late in the year. Rather, they too are dynamic, requiring
constant renegotiation
Renegotiation will be relatively painless if the board and executive
director remain on a similar wavelength throughout the year. This is
possible through the use of regular updates, frequent phone calls and
the occasional one-on-one visit over coffee. Updates -- whether in
the form of weekly, biweekly or monthly email messages, fax broadcasts
or briefing papers -- keep everyone current. Phone calls and one-on-one
visits give people the opportunity to raise concerns or exchange perspectives
on critical issues. Because they are private exchanges people tend
not to grandstand. After all, there is no audience. Instead, they strive
to understand each other and the situations each face. If there are
problems or issues that still require resolution, it’s important to
raise them at a board meeting. The focus, though, must be on the future
-- what can be done and how -- not on what hasn’t been done and why.
The intent of such an ongoing exchange is to eliminate the once-a-year
attempt at course correction that rarely results in any lasting change.
However, there does remain value in, once a year, formally reviewing
everyone’s accomplishments. A written summary serves a base from which
all can evaluate their personal impact on the organization, and begin
brainstorming for the future. Such reports should be shared in a board
meeting. The board can then respond to their colleagues and the executive
director with their comments and feedback. If there is anything that
would best be discussed in private, two or three representatives from
the board can meet with the executive director or one of their colleagues,
again staying as future oriented as possible. Typically, members of
the governance or executive committee provide this feedback, but you
might opt to use either a new board member who isn’t invested in the
way things are or a board member with personnel experience.
I mentioned earlier that it is valuable to spell out the criteria an
executive director must demonstrate in order to merit a raise. Whether
or not you take this step I would keep any evaluation meetings separate
from discussions of salary. You are looking to create a collaborative
situation rather than an adversarial one. The last thing you want is
to set the executive director up to feel as if he or she has to defend
his/her accomplishments as being worthy of an increase.
Evaluation can improve the functioning of your organization, but only
if it focuses on the whole system -- not just the executive director.
Looking at the part that each person plays in furthering the organization’s
mission and key objectives creates a true working partnership between
the board and executive director. Isn’t that what it is all about?
Editor's
note: Our thanks to Terrie Temkin for her
contribution to Nonprofit Boards and Governance
Review. More information about Gayle can
be found at: http://charitychannel.com/resources/Detailed/502.html
__________________________________________________
FOR
MORE INFORMATION
Temkin,
T. (1997. September 1) Constant communication
makes evaluations easier. Miami Herald.
p. 10
Temkin, T. (1997). Evaluating the top administrator: A new Approach. Nonprofit
World. 15 (4), 14-17
Temkin, T. (1997. August 18). Evaluation process vital to agency’s
success. Miami Herald. p. 10
__________________________________________________
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 2 - Making Executive
Director Evaluations Effective" Copyright © 2002
Terrie Temkin.
|
