Truth #2: How the question is asked determines the answer you receive
Unfortunately, many board evaluations are perfunctory exercises that use multiple-choice surveys. Directors tick boxes to rate dozens of board activities and behaviors from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” This approach typically produces a narrow cluster of anodyne responses. On a one to five rating scale, 4.2 seems to be the most popular result.
Responses are much more meaningful when each director has an open-ended conversation with independent interviewers who are themselves experienced board members. When directors are engaged directly, given time to reflect and guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality, their answers are more thoughtful and candid. Skilled interviewers know what threads to pull to enhance the conversation. An individual who rated everything “good” in a check-the-box survey may confess, “I think we can do a better job evaluating the CEO and this is an approach we might consider.” A board member might expand beyond a complaint about agendas and offer specific suggestions about how they could be refocused. Or we often hear comments around wishing a particular colleague would contribute more to boardroom discussions. What can be even more valuable is to find out why some board members choose to be more circumspect.
An overall rating of 4.2 does little to highlight the most important issues or point to solutions.
It is amazing what you can learn from the talent assembled around a boardroom table if you start with questions designed specifically for the situation and ask the correct follow-up questions.