Board Evaluation Attracts Good Leadership

This thread is about setting performance standards for nonprofit boards and having regular performance evaluation for board members. As part of that discussion, we detoured into an analysis of some of the games board members play and how they avoid performance evaluation by engaging in those games.

Having done that little diversion, we now come back to our consideration of why performance standards, and performance evaluation procedures are a good thing for nonprofit boards.

We have said in a previous post that there is sometimes a fear that creeps into the consciousnesses of both board members and executive staff; we suggested that this fear has to do with the idea that a board pursuing such standards of performance might get a reputation around the community for being “tough.” That would make it difficult for the executive and other board members to recruit new members to the board. But is that really a likely possibility? I don't think so.

Most people appreciate two qualities to doing a job they've been asked to do as volunteers: One is the yardstick by which they know when they will succeed, and the other is the "light at the end of the tunnel," by which they know when they have successfully completed the job they were asked to do.

Consequently, if a nonprofit gets a reputation in town for evaluating the performance of its board fairly, on a regular basis, and with lots of recognition for good performance, then people of merit, people with money and connections, are going to be eager to obtain a seat on that nonprofit's board. This is a good reputation to have among the community's leaders.

So this means that a nonprofit organization using thoughtfully conceived and well-written set of performance standards is going to attract capable, giving, connected leadership more easily than a charity that doesn't use such measurement.

In today's overcrowded philanthropic marketplace, having this ability to measure board performance and reward members can distinguish nonprofits and give them a leadership advantage that puts them ahead of the pack. That alone should serve to motivate both boards and their executives of organizations that don't have performance standards for their boards to start immediately to devise them.

One could think about it this way: Suppose we eavesdrop on three company executives having lunch together in a local restaurant. Besides reviewing the local economy and playing a quick round of one-upmanship, they're getting into the subject of corporate giving.

Harry, Mary and Joe have all been asked for contributions to several local charities, and they're getting together, among other reasons, to chat a bit about what they're going to do.

Joe might say, "I'm tired of giving to the Helping Hands group that asked me. Several people from that charity approach me many different times a year for small amounts, and I wish they could get their act together and consolidate their requests. That would make it a lot easier for to justify the contribution to their board. And, besides, aren't there other charities in town to give to?"

Then Mary pipes up to say, "I have just been asked to sit on the board of one of the community's nonprofits, and I knows this brings with it a commitment to raise or give $10,000 each year I'm to be on that board. This board also has pretty high performance standards, and the board members are all very enthusiastic and committed people."

Mary goes on to cite various other community leaders who are part of this group, and says that despite the requirement, she feels honored to be part of that board. She also gets around, in the discussion, to asking both Harry and Joe for a contribution that can be logged against her quota! Smart woman!

And then Harry chimes in with a comment: "If there were any board on which I would serve it would be that one on which Mary is about to be installed. Why? because not only are the 'movers and shakers' of the community over there, but I would feel much more comfortable being a part of something where the leadership was excited and enthusiastic about doing something really significant for the community."

Harry goes on to say that the fact that this board does have performance standards as a reason he would seek membership on that board.

So you see, in this little example, how word spreads, how one comment spurs another, and eventually the positive word gets around that happy, productive people serve on boards that do performance evaluation according to specific standards of performance. Those board members are not only doing a good job, but are part of an organization that is seen throughout the community as effective, progressive and a true community asset.

That should lay those fears about "toughness" to rest.