In spite of best efforts, it’s unrealistic for boards to “know everything” about an organization. Instead of wading through agendas packed with a minutia of detail (making decisions, crafting programs, resolving problems, critiquing projects, directing staff, supervising money, tweaking and approving the ideas of others), the board needs to operate at the macro level, specifying what it needs to know about mission execution, vision achievement, financial and legal compliance (fiduciary health), and limitations compliance. Within that information spectrum the board rigorously executes its governance duties.
Who and what should be monitored? Pertinent question! Here’s the answer – chief staff officer, financial and legal matters and the organization’s progress toward achievement of a vision crafted and articulated by the board. Monitoring executive performance is synonymous with monitoring organizational performance. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine the degree to which the chief staff officer is achieving the Board’s vision for the organization and remaining compliant to board policy.
That said; systematic monitoring of executive job performance must be solely on the basis of the achievement of board vision, fulfilled job products and compliance with executive imitations. Further, it is incumbent on the chief staff officer to objectively demonstrate to the board that achievement of board policy is occurring.
Good monitoring requires three specifics.
One: a stated gauge of predetermined key result areas. The data requested by the board is specific, never general. This information is judgmental in that it rigorously and intentionally measures achievement of predetermined criteria – criteria set by the board.
Two: type and method of reporting. Relative to type, reporting is either internal or external. If the information is supplied by someone outside the organization (independent financial auditor) the reporting is external. Data supplied by staff is internal. Method refers to format. Facts can be written, oral, graphed, charted, tabled, or diagramed. Data supplied by the chief staff officer is always historical or retrospective.
Three: timing. When and how often key result areas are measured must be defined. Determined frequencies for reporting helps communicate what the board thinks is most important. More specifically, if the board meets quarterly it must decide what data is most important to monitor or measure in each quarter. Should the board meet monthly it must determine the information critical to each month.
Once the monitoring process is determined, the board is in a strong position to celebrate and award achievement or effect timely corrective action.
Logicboard offers an innovative and highly successful model for board leadership and governance. It brings detail and coaching to the items listed above. Contact us today for more information.
Creating Excellence in Board Leadership
