230 Human Resources Management for Public and Nonprofi t Organizations
organizations in which the board works closely with the chief executive.
If problems arise, it is easy to identify the cause and provide remedies.
Nason notes, however, that as organizations expand and board mem-
bers become less involved in the agency ’ s operations, this method may
no longer be effective. Should this become the case, the board will have
to reanalyze its oversight role and restructure its own performance.- Periodic assessment of the chief executive by the board ’ s chairperson or other board
members. This assessment should refl ect the chief executive ’ s perfor-
mance over the previous year. The evaluation should consider the
assessments of other board members, especially those of the chairs of
standing committees. Nason believes that board members should not
discuss the chief executive ’ s performance with the staff. He claims that
“ to do so is to risk good morale within the organization and to distort
proper lines of responsibility ” (p. 5). That statement needs further con-
sideration. Some aspects of the chief executive ’ s performance, such as
communicating agency policies, informing employees about changes,
delegating tasks and responsibilities, and leadership characteristics,
are best evaluated by subordinates. Should subordinate evaluations
be used, it is important that employees receive training and be asked
to evaluate only relevant dimensions. Information from proximate
sources is important because council and board members spend most
of their time away from the organization. For evaluating responsibili-
ties such as council and board relations and communication, board
members are the most appropriate source. But for other dimensions,
such as fi scal management, they may need to rely on an audit prepared
by an outside accounting fi rm or government regulators to verify that
the chief executive ’ s fi scal management performance was satisfactory. - Annual board committee review designed to assess the state of the agency and the
chief executive ’ s performance. This is a formal review of the chief executive ’ s
goals and accomplishments and is conducted by the executive com-
mittee, the personnel committee, or another committee. The standard
procedure is for the chief executive to review the accomplishments of
the previous year in relation to the goals set and propose goals for the
next year. During the evaluation, the chief executive ’ s strengths and
weaknesses are identifi ed and discussed, and the evaluation concludes
with an agreement about the next year ’ s goals. - Full - dress public assessment of the chief executive, including formal hearings and
survey data from an extensive variety of interested parties. Only a few nonprofi t
organizations use this approach because it is time - consuming, often