Reviewing the Executive Director

A nonprofit board is essentially responsible for every aspect of the organization that it monitors. However there are several roles that are more important than others when determining priority. I believe it is evident that the nonprofit board is responsible for the financial well-being of an organization. This means that they are responsible for the fundraising as well as the monitoring of expenditures. There are several instances where nonprofit boards take a back seat on fundraising, this does not mean they are not involved, they simply are not the primary fundraiser. An example would be when there is a large development staff for a national or international nonprofit. In these instances board members still are fundraising in their local community and at a bare minimum they are giving a personal donation. 

One aspect of a boards role that should not be tasked out to anyone other than the board is the hiring and review of the Executive Director of the organization. The hiring phase of the executive director should always be done by the board because this person will act as the agent of the board and they are ultimately responsible for the organization. When hiring an executive director it is important to have a clear job description outlining the roles and responsibilities of the executive. If the job description is too vague or too specific it will make it very difficult to review the director. 

Reviews are based upon the required duties of the the individual being reviewed. It would be very difficult to rate an individuals performance on something they were never required to do. The key is to stay away from assumptions. During a review you will also be able to determine specific outcomes that you would like to see done by the director before the next review.

Many boards will give performance reviews once per year, I believe that this is a negative way to review an individual. Having a review once per year can sway a review one way or another. I am guessing that everyone has heard of the "halo effect". If you haven't, the halo effect occurs when an individual is able to do something very positive in a segment of their tenure and this is what they are remembered for. An example would be if an executive director is able to receive a large grant in the beginning of his tenure that enables the organization to become more financially stable. The fact that he was able to do something that dramatically shifted the organizations financial stability, is seen as a very positive. When it is time for his review, board members will remember this and overlook many of the areas where improvement is needed, because he excels in one area. 

The opposite of the halo effect is the "horn effect". If early on in an executive director's tenure he has difficulty adjusting or loses a funding source (even if it is not his fault), he will be remembered for this regardless of the things he has achieved since then. This is why I believe reviews should be done every 6 months. The annual review should still exist, since this is typically what raises are tied to. Each 6 month review does not have to be a fully extensive review, but it should discuss the executive director's progress towards stated performance measures. 

It has often been said that when reviewing the performance of an individual you should use the "sandwich method". The sandwich method is a critiquing method that sandwiches a single negative critique with two positive critiques. I am against this for several reasons, however, the main reason is because when an individual hears a negative comment they tend to block out the positive comments and vice versa.

I believe that when a review is done it should highlight the areas that the individual was successful in performing. The areas that need improvement should be placed in the next 6 month review in order for the individual to correct these performance flaws. The reason I believe reviews should be done in this manner is because, when the negative performance is put on the current review it is filed away and never reviewed again. By only putting the areas where an individual performed up to standard on the current review you do not have to worry about it not being reviewed again. In order for an individual to improve on their performance, the performance must be tracked. 

It is imperative that the board review the executive director, this is how you are able to keep checks in balances on the individual representing the organization in your name. Not only should the board require a performance review but it should be done on a 6 month basis. I believe that this will prevent the board from assessing an individual on a small segment of their tenure. If you are an executive director you must insist that a review is done, it not only protects the organization, it protects you.