Director Performance Review

Seeing it as a bit of an annual governance chore that has somehow to be fitted in to keep the Company Secretary quiet. It’s actually an opportunity to make sure the Board is working well and getting as much as it can out of the wisdom and experience around the table.

Avoiding the difficult conversation by dodging the issues. Or slipping into excessive informality because it all “feels a bit awkward” (possibly a particular challenge for easily embarrassed Brits). Directors set high standards for themselves as well as for others, and they want to know their contribution is having the desired impact. They won’t get much feedback from any other source and they should be able to see it in the positive way it is intended. So, the Chairman should make sure that any knotty issues are not skirted around – and aim for a clear agreement on development points and, if necessary, actions.

Forgetting to give praise where it’s due, and using the chat as an opportunity to highlight “weaknesses” rather than to discuss how best to leverage each director’s strengths. If they have particular specialist areas of expertise or experience, discuss how these can be brought to bear more – weather in the boardroom or outside.

Making the director feel it’s all up to him/her. Especially when you’re dealing with very experienced people, it’s more likely that something is needed from others too. For example, if a director is thought to be not participating in discussions sufficiently: is the Chairman allowing others to dominate or talk over them? Missing their points? Not allowing enough space for a non-native English speaker to form sentences before others jump in…?

Just turning up and then seeing where it goes. This rarely works well for any sort of meeting. Throughout the year, thoughts will have occurred to the director and the Chairman alike – so it shouldn’t take that long to jot them down beforehand. Remember to try to give tangible examples to illustrate your points and avoid vague statements like “you are not contributing well” or “your challenges are too aggressive”.

Basing the discussion solely on the Chairman’s view. He/she will probably already have picked up on the main points. But grumblings from other directors might not have reached the Chairman’s ears. Comments from executives in particular may have been held back or not been heard – whereas the CEO has probably picked up on them and will be unlikely to hold back in sharing them with the Chairman.

Abdicating the Chairman’s responsibility for giving feedback and helping board members to develop and contribute to their fullest, and instead shuffling the responsibility off to a computer system or consultants. No matter how good these supporting services might be, it’s still the Chairman’s job to look the board members in the eye.

Thinking you can cover the ground in just a quick chat: 15 minutes might be enough for a discussion of the “You alright? Yeah, I’m alright” variety but that’s unlikely to be very insightful or constructive. If some really have to be fitted around the inevitably-overrunning board and committee meetings, save those slots for the directors who have to travel a long way.

Trying to cram in all the one-to-ones within just a few weeks as the end of the reporting year looms. It will be hard to do justice to the discussions in these circumstances. And who says board members’ continuing development needs to be part of the annual reporting routine, anyway?

Saying you’re very willing, but somehow always having it well down your priority list. You don’t want to get to the position where the Chairman becomes frustrated and gives up.

Assuming that what suits the Chairman is going to suit the other person. For some, a more formal setting helps them bring focus to the discussion or helps them get concerns on the table in an overtly professional way. Others will open up mire – or be more open to constructive suggestions – in an informal environment.