Staff Performance Review Policy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Adam.burgess (talk | contribs) |
Adam.burgess (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Philosophy == | == Philosophy == | ||
"Some boards neglect their duty of evaluating the director. They may fear conflict, be | |||
at a loss for the tools, or lack the tradition. All are poor, if common, reasons to avoid | |||
evaluation. That’s too bad, because evaluation offers numerous benefits, including: | |||
* Ensuring that the board is meeting its duty to actively lead the organization | |||
* Monitoring whether organizational goals are being achieved | |||
* Providing an opportunity to set new annual goals | |||
* Maintaining a formal, documented, fair, and pragmatic process for providing | |||
feedback to the executive | |||
* Helping the executive understand the board’s perspective on his or her | |||
strengths and limitations | |||
* Providing direction for specific improvements in skills and performance | |||
* Providing documented processes that help the board retain, improve, or retire the | |||
executive, as well as justify changes in compensation and other matters of record | |||
* Maintaining a process and documentation that can help protect the board if they | |||
let a chief executive go and the chief executive decides to sue the organization | |||
* Helping board members examine the executive’s accomplishments rather than | |||
personality | |||
* Laying the foundation for an improved working relationship between board | |||
and executive | |||
* Identifying opportunities, strengths, challenges, and strategic questions before | |||
they become troubling issues." | |||
[http://firstnonprofit.org/images/uploads/pdf/Evaluating.pdf Source (pdf)] | |||