Question #48 – Does Your Board Monitor Board Member Performance?

Rick Maloney

(49 Questions to Ask Your Board)

The objective of the monitoring process is to flag substandard performance before it becomes habitual and to provide counsel aimed at correcting it, without causing any embarrassment to erring board members. In my experience, it makes sense for the executive, or governance committee to make individual board member performance a formal agenda item at least quarterly, taking a management by exception approach. ― Doug Eadie1

Aware of the potential that individual board members may at times obstruct the work of the board, boards are well advised to keep a watchful eye on individual member behavior. As Eadie suggests, the practice of routinely assessing boardsmanship helps avoid bigger problems by dealing with misbehaviors when they are relatively minor, before they have had a chance to fester, become embedded bad habits, and negatively affect the board culture.

Scenario: The board meeting was nearing its end. The chair called on Christy to conduct a meeting assessment by reviewing board protocol for board member behavior. Before commenting, Christy read aloud each of the criteria used to assess the meeting, on the theory that publicly reciting the board’s expectations is in itself a reinforcement of protocol. All knew that it would be obvious to anyone in attendance if any board members had violated protocol. After reciting a particular expectation, Christy remarked whether that norm had been violated in the meeting. Without naming names, she in effect called out board member behaviors that were (in her opinion) outside the bounds of acceptability so that they (hopefully) don’t become habitual.

Through regular informal end-of-meeting critiques as described above, this board routinely monitors board member performance using a protocol the board has established for that purpose. Regularly monitoring the performance of its members and focusing attention on behavior rather than personality reinforces positive behaviors, reduces negative behaviors, and provides ongoing opportunities for effective feedback from colleagues. Publicly following this routine makes a positive impression and generates public trust.

Conducted on an annual basis, more formal self-assessments cover behavior for the whole year and provide an opportunity for deep reflection and discussion about the board’s expectations of its members, which in turn sets the stage for decisions about improvement anticipated during the next year. When conducted more frequently ― even at every meeting ― self-assessments further improve the prospect of aligning boardsmanship behavior with the board’s expectations.

Boards should not only set expectations for good boardsmanship, they also should regularly monitor board member behavior, comparing observations made through systematic monitoring with previously written criteria.

Scenario: In a formal self-assessment at the end of the year, before finalizing its superintendent evaluation, the board reviewed self-administered surveys of board member compliance with its policy for governing style with the following conclusions:

•     Board members continue to hold themselves to high standards in maintaining the behaviors described in this policy.

•     We need to improve preparation for meetings, including completing monitoring surveys before meetings.

•     We monitor our own process at each meeting.

•     The process (monitoring, followed by board response, followed by policy review/revision) has been “routinized” to the extent possible.

The effective board receives observation data or gathers data by itself, seeking evidence that shows the level of board member performance as measured against its policy expectations. It is committed to a system of publicly monitoring its members’ performance, because individual board member behavior affects overall board performance. It monitors various aspects of member performance to determine if its mutually developed expectations are being met. The board can cite examples of its members’ work that fit the pattern of best practices and lead to improved student learning. It is willing to discuss negative data and learn from it.

NOTE: Please feel free to comment. The opinions expressed in these blog entries are informed by references cited herein, and the experiences of the author. Your comments are welcome additions to the conversation.

ALSO: Please feel free to register in order to receive future posts like this one as soon as they are published.

Excerpt from:

Additional References:

Next: Question #49 – Does Your Board Respond to Board Member Monitoring?