9
Getting the Most from Assessment and Evaluation
True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information.
—Winston Churchill
Executive Director Jim Miller of the League of Minnesota Cities explained how in the process of board change, the organization relied on regular informal and scheduled formal assessment and evaluation:
We used to do conventional strategic planning at each September's board retreat. This has now evolved from setting longer-term goals to reviewing annual items that are more urgent (e.g., how are our cities doing financially and how can we help them through their crises.) Our strength is that we can step back once a year and ask, “How are we doing, and is there a need for change?”
But a weakness we recognized was that we always came away with more things to do (objectives, tactics), but we were never taking anything off the table. So we are now experimenting with something we are calling “strategic review”—which has elements of a conventional strategic planning process but does not carry the expectation that anything new will come immediately from the exercise. We ask how we are doing as an organization. Then we do an environmental scan: What's on the horizon? What do we need to be aware of? Where might we spend more time on in the coming year? What are the questions we need to be addressing?
The League intersperses these activities with regular (every three years) “governance retreats” separate from the strategic review effort and governance assessments, using the BoardSource board self-assessment tool. These activities sometimes changed the board's priorities, as the case that follows this chapter reflects.
Assessment and evaluation of governance processes require two things: stated goals and a process for measuring the board's progress in reaching them. Since there is no single or generic model of governance, how boards actually fulfill their responsibilities will vary enormously. But recognizing that board performance, like organizational performance, varies over time also means that governance performance measures should not only fit each organization's circumstances but should also be renewed and refreshed periodically (Ingram 2003).
This chapter introduces three levels of assessment that support governance change and in which board members should be involved: organizational strategic assessments, board self-assessments, and process assessments designed for measuring the actual quality of the deliberations. From the macro- to micro-level, each has value to change management.
Concepts and Application
Organizational Strategic Assessment
Boards are advised to monitor and evaluate an organization's progress in fulfilling its mission and meeting previously established goals (Butler 2007). Evaluation in the context of mission-fulfillment for a nonprofit helps to inform policymaking. Staff facilitate this process with accurate information, but the task is not accomplished simply by filling board members' mailboxes with excessive and overly detailed data.
Although there are many options, each with advantages and disadvantages, many of our interview subjects favored “dashboard reporting,” which makes it possible to present succinct, easily readable performance indicators that allow the board to view organizational status at a glance. The effectiveness of these performance measurement formats in scholarly assessments is still being explored, but interest in their use has certainly increased (see, for example, Kaplan 2001). Proponents of dashboard reports describe them as early warning devices, similar to an automobile's lights and signals, to help leaders assess setbacks and to focus the board's attention on what matters most (Butler 2007). Without knowing whether the use of these tools is imitative or based on evidence of success, it was clear from our interviews that they helped board members not only assess an organization's strategic progress but also keep on task and focused on strategic issues.
Board Self-Assessment
In prior governance studies, researchers have found a strong connection between boards that self-assessed and better board performance (BoardSource 2013; Gazley and Bowers 2013; Harrison and Murray 2014). The causal path is not clear—do high-performing boards self-evaluate more as a best practice, or are these boards performing better because they have evaluated themselves and then fixed identified governance problems? Regardless of the implications, BoardSource observes on its website that “assessment is the most effective way to ensure your board members understand their duties and utilize effective good governance practices.” Yet, data still suggest that approximately half of all boards do not monitor their own performance, and most of those who do still do not use a formal self-assessment instrument (Gazley and Bowers 2013; Ostrower 2007).
Nonetheless, a board self-assessment is an efficient way to get input from all board members and to compare performance against generally accepted standards, and it should be put to greater use. Assessment can also be used to build a shared understanding of the board's responsibilities (Harrison and Murray 2014). By determining what should be assessed, the board in effect is deciding what really matters. When a board engages in an assessment process, it is checking in on the board's perceptions, individually and collectively, of its own performance.
Responses to self-assessment tools should be carefully analyzed and discussed with the full board, as they offer an opportunity to discuss levels of board member participation and engagement. They can also assess the degree of consensus at which individual board members perceive various aspects of their own performance. It may be useful to explore responses with a low degree of consensus to understand the diversity of opinion among the board. Such an analysis also helps a board prepare for larger governance decisions. A periodic board member self-assessment that is not given much extra attention may serve as a starting point for a larger, generative discussion about the board's collective capacity to make decisions and lead a governance change.
Meeting Evaluations and Other Process Evaluations
As the following case of the League of Minnesota Cities demonstrates, it's also valuable to consider using meeting evaluations to assess a board's readiness, progress, and ability to achieve change. Meeting evaluations are also used in assessments of the health of team dynamics (see Chapter 5). Meetings, after all, are the structure in which governance occurs: good meeting, good outcomes; bad meeting, often bad outcomes.
Each board member's perception of and experience in a meeting is individual. Allowing an opportunity to regularly provide feedback about what works well and what doesn't can lead to important process improvements such as the length of the agenda, the quality of the discussion, or the opportunity for participation. The meeting assessment, even in organizations that feel they already have strong cultures of participation, also signals that leaders respect each board member's time and commitment.
Our interviews demonstrated that a successful meeting evaluation can be a five-minute around-the-table discussion at the end of each meeting: “How do you feel this meeting went? Were we successful? Did we achieve what we set out to do in our agenda?” Or, board members can complete a written evaluation form. Follow-up is important to address any areas at issue. A sample meeting evaluation form is included in the Tools section in the appendix of this book.
Summary
There's little reason to cover detailed ground when it comes to organizational performance assessment. Plenty of resources are available for association boards generally. What may be less self-evident is how they have been effectively used in change management processes, hence the value of this research (Harrison and Murray 2014). The three strategies introduced here will help associations understand that boards have multiple process evaluation tools at their disposal, each capable of assessing the organization at different levels, as an organization, a governing board, or a single event. The case that follows introduces several means of gathering information and assessing progress, including a tool that may be less familiar to boards: an exit interview for outgoing board members.