Many of today’s Boards and Councils develop rigorous processes for hiring, directing and evaluating their most senior employee: The Chief Executive Officer. Yet very little attention is given to selecting, directing and evaluating individual Board or Council members. This is a serious organizational deficiency. One ineffective member can undermine the performance of the entire governing body and the CEO. “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”

There are three options for evaluating Board or Council members:

1. Peer evaluation: Members give feedback to one another. Such feedback can be given verbally or in writing, e.g.: Members are given feedback forms, enabling them to note strengths and weaknesses of others, and offer suggestions for improvement.
2. Evaluation by the Chair, or a designated mentor, or the governance committee. Each member can be given such feedback periodically, e.g.: every six months or once a year.
3. Self-evaluation: Each member uses the checklist below at the end of every meeting.

Self-Evaluation Checklist (Board Members)

Rate your performance at this meeting on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) under each of the ten categories below. Add the totals (to a grand total of up to 100 points) and then make your own notes and goals for improvement:

1. I prepared fully for this meeting and arrived with knowledge and confidence.
2. I performed all my pre-meeting duties with excellence.
3. I arrived on time and was present for the full meeting, in body and in spirit.
4. I spoke on issues when I thought my ideas would make a difference.
5. I did not hesitate to raise unpopular but necessary questions.
6. I made room for others to contribute. I integrated their ideas into my thought process.
7. I was guided by our mandate, mission statement, strategic plan, and core values.
8. I did not allow a negative climate or other imperfections to inhibit my participation.
9. I always placed community interests ahead of personal or constituency interests.
10. I pressed for excellence in decision-making and did not settle for mediocrity.

Coding of results:

0 to 50: Dysfunctional
51 to 70: Functional
71 to 90: Effective
91 to 100: Excellent