This morning, I was digging through several white papers looking for a little blog inspiration when I came across BoardEffect’s 2027 Governance Outlook.

As you might expect, AI was a hot topic.

So was the ongoing conversation about boards being strategic versus operational.

But one statistic stopped me.

Only 53% of respondents said their boards use self-assessments. And among boards that do evaluate themselves, 56% do so annually. Nearly a third said they don’t conduct board evaluations at all.

That gave me pause.

As I reflected on my more than 20 years as an association CEO, I couldn’t think of a year when I wasn’t evaluated by either the executive committee or a select group of board members. And normally, those results were shared with the rest of the board.

So, let’s get this straight.

A board understands accountability when it’s applied to the CEO.

But when that same accountability is turned back toward the board itself, it becomes optional or at least something we’ll get around to eventually.

Help me make this make sense.

Both the board and CEO share responsibility for the success of the organization. Yet in many organizations, only one of those parties has defined measures, standards, and a regular evaluation process to determine whether expectations are being met.

And the data bears that out.

BoardSource’s 2021 Leading with Intent study found that 53% of chief executives had received a formal, written performance evaluation within the previous 12 months.

During that same 12-month period, only 32.3% of CEOs and 30.4% of board chairs reported that their boards had conducted a formal written self-assessment. Even more interesting: 32.9% of CEOs and 42.2% of board chairs said their board had never conducted one.

There is way too much daylight in those numbers for my comfort level.

Now, to be fair, I’m not suggesting that every board needs to undergo a massive formal assessment every year.

ASAE’s Association Governance Institute recommends a board self-assessment every two to three years, while BoardSource recommends doing so at least every two years.

So the issue isn’t whether the board and CEO have to be evaluated on exactly the same schedule.

The issue is whether a schedule for board accountability exists at all.

Does Self-Assessment Actually Matter?

There’s some pretty compelling evidence that it does.

BoardSource’s Leading with Intent found a distinct relationship between board self-assessment and reported board performance.

CEOs whose boards had assessed themselves within the previous two years rated those boards higher across every area of board performance than CEOs whose boards had never assessed themselves. The average performance rating was 2.50 for recently assessed boards compared with 2.15 for boards that had never been assessed.

ASAE Foundation research points in the same direction.

Its research on high-performing association boards identifies learning, self-assessment, and accountability as characteristics of effective governance. Associations with lower-performing boards also experienced more staff and board turnover, greater difficulty recruiting volunteers, and were more likely to be dealing with declining membership and revenue.

Now, before my fellow data geeks come after me, let me say it:

Correlation does not equal causation.

We can’t look at these studies and say that conducting a board assessment automatically produces higher membership, stronger revenue, happier staff, and rainbows over the boardroom.

But when multiple studies repeatedly associate learning, self-reflection, and accountability with stronger governance performance, I think it’s reasonable to pay attention.

And frankly, it just makes sense.

If we expect the CEO to measure performance, receive feedback, identify areas for improvement, and adjust accordingly, why wouldn’t we expect the governing body to do the same?

“But We’re a Nonprofit”

If you know me well, you know I’m a firm believer that “nonprofit” is a tax status.

It should not be an excuse for abandoning sound business discipline.

That doesn’t mean a nonprofit association should operate exactly like a publicly traded corporation. Our purposes, stakeholders, and measures of success are very different.

But measurement?

Accountability?

Continuous improvement?

Those principles translate pretty darn well.

The National Association of Corporate Directors reports that 99% of S&P 500 boards conduct annual board evaluations.

So if virtually every major publicly traded company expects its board to examine its own performance, why does self-evaluation remain optional for so many mission-driven organizations?

What are we afraid of?

Evaluation Isn’t Punishment

An annual CEO evaluation shouldn’t be designed as a “gotcha.”

At least I hope yours isn’t.

It should be a tool for continuous improvement.

The same should apply to the board.

How do you learn to govern better if you never stop to examine how well you’re governing now?

And if the CEO is expected to be accountable to the board for effectively leading the organization, shouldn’t the board also be accountable for how effectively it governs?

When both are happening, you have an opportunity to see something even more valuable:

Where perceptions align and where they don’t.

Culture, Candor & Accountability

In my House of Governance™, Culture, Candor & Accountability is one of the seven domains for a reason.

A healthy board must possess enough candor to look honestly at its own performance and enough accountability to do something about what it finds.

Because here’s another wrinkle:

A board member may think the board is doing wonderfully.

The CEO may have a completely different experience.

And vice versa.

That’s why I don’t believe board self-assessment should become a closed-loop exercise where board members simply evaluate themselves and congratulate one another afterward.

In fact, ASAE’s Association Governance Institute recommends including at least the CEO in a board self-assessment process.

That outside perspective matters.

Can you imagine a board ever telling its CEO:

“We don’t really need to evaluate you. We’re sure you’re doing just fine.”

Probably not.

Yet when a board never evaluates its own performance, isn’t it essentially saying the exact same thing about itself?

And here’s one final question to sit with:

When was the last time your board asked you, as CEO, to evaluate them?

Let that thought sink in.

The CEO evaluating the board.

Now that might lead to an interesting board conversation.