A recent NACD article authored by Russell Reynolds: “Pressure-Testing Your Board Evaluation” posits that the value of a board assessment is based on whether it leads to better decisions, more candid conversations, and concrete action. Drawing on several sources (see, e.g., our write-ups here, here, and here), the article suggests that many boards continue to struggle with evaluation processes that focus primarily on governance mechanics rather than the behaviors, dynamics, and forward-looking capabilities that most influence board effectiveness.
The article highlights several areas that boards should consider when evaluating the effectiveness of their assessment processes, including director engagement and contribution, boardroom participation and debate, board culture, board-management dynamics, and whether the board is spending sufficient time on future risks, opportunities, and strategic priorities. These qualitative issues are often the most important—and the most difficult—to surface through traditional evaluation approaches.
To make assessments more useful, the article suggests framing evaluations as tools for director development rather than as mechanisms for punishment or removal. It also recommends supplementing annual evaluations with periodic check-ins led by the independent chair, lead director, or governance committee chair, enabling concerns to be identified and addressed before they become entrenched performance or relationship issues. Boards may also benefit from periodically engaging an external facilitator, particularly during periods of strategic change, CEO succession, or when boardroom dynamics require an independent perspective.
The article further encourages boards to evaluate whether their processes gather sufficiently candid feedback, incorporate management perspectives, and inform decisions regarding board refreshment, succession planning, onboarding, and committee leadership. Directors are urged to consider not only what issues emerge from evaluations, but also what changes result from them.
To improve follow-through, the article recommends several practical steps:
- Assigning clear ownership for actions arising from evaluations
- Establishing timelines and milestones
- Regularly reviewing progress
- Prioritizing a small number of high-impact improvements
- Integrating findings into the board’s ongoing work
- Revisiting initiatives that are not producing the desired results
According to the article, these practices can help boards avoid "assessment theater" and translate evaluation findings into meaningful governance improvements.
The article's focus on turning assessments into actionable outcomes aligns with findings from the Society's recent collaboration with Spencer Stuart, which identified board performance assessments as one of the areas where corporate secretaries see significant opportunity to increase their strategic contribution to the board.