Executive Director (ED) performance management is one of the most important governance responsibilities a board holds. But many of the so-called “best practices” we lean on in the nonprofit sector are outdated, unhelpful, or downright harmful.
Here are five common ED evaluation practices that need a serious rethink, and some advice on what to do instead.
1. Waiting until the end of the year to look backwards
Too often, ED evaluations are treated as an afterthought, something we cram in at the end of the year, reflecting on what’s already happened. But this reactive approach misses the point.
Example:
In May, the board realizes that their workplan requires an ED evaluation before the June AGM. With no framework in place, they ask the ED to summarize the past year. The report ends up duplicating info already shared in board meetings. A quick debrief with the board chair results in vague feedback about the ED’s personal competencies. There’s no conversation about strategic goals, challenges, or support needs.
What to do instead:
- Develop your ED evaluation framework in advance, so expectations are clear from day one.
- Schedule regular check-ins to make performance management a shared, forward-looking process that can steer the organization as you move forward, not a rushed year-end task.
2. Using anonymous 360 reviews
Boards sometimes rely on anonymous 360 surveys because they feel disconnected from day-to-day operations. But these tools can do more harm than good, especially in smaller organizations.
Example:
The board sends a five-question anonymous survey to staff. One person shares critical feedback that is easily traced back to them. Another worries about saying the wrong thing. The ED receives all the raw comments without context and feels blindsided and overwhelmed. Instead of useful insights, the process breeds mistrust and tension.
What to do instead:
- Set a formal expectation for the ED to seek feedback from staff and partners as part of their own professional development.
- Put internal systems in place, such as a whistleblower policy and complaints process, to ensure that serious concerns can be escalated to the board when necessary.
- Require the ED to conduct regular organizational wellness surveys, and share those trends with the ED evaluation committee.
3. Focusing on subjective feedback
When boards lack a clear structure for performance management, they often default to vague feedback about leadership style or communication preferences.
Example:
Board members offer anecdotal comments about the ED’s style. One says she should be “friendlier” and “less direct”, feedback that echoes harmful stereotypes, particularly for racialized leaders. The ED feels hurt and alienated, and fears future interactions will be misinterpreted as incompetence. Meanwhile, the board misses the chance to support her through a tough funding pivot.
What to do instead:
- Evaluate ED performance against strategic outcomes, policy compliance, and organizational stewardship, not personality traits or leadership style.
- Share constructive feedback about communication or management style in real time, being clear about whether it reflects an individual opinion of a board director or a formal board consensus.
- Let the ED lead in identifying professional growth areas, with board input as needed.
4. Making the board chair the single point of contact
It might seem efficient to centralize ED communication through the board chair, but this can easily turn into a bottleneck or power imbalance.
Example:
The ED shares concerns about poorly run board meetings with the chair during her evaluation. The chair chooses not to pass this information on to the full board. When the board doesn’t acknowledge her concerns, the ED feels unheard, but fears pushback if she brings it up in a meeting. The other board directors are left in the dark, at a disadvantage to fulfill their role effectively, and confused about the ED’s behaviour.
What to do instead:
- Delegate ED oversight to a committee of at least three people, not just the chair.
- Ensure that important board/ED communications are shared transparently with the full board.
- Build formal mechanisms for collecting and sharing feedback both ways.
5. Treating performance evaluation as one-way feedback
ED evaluations shouldn’t be a top-down exercise in control. The board’s role is to support the ED’s success, so their own performance in that area should be part of the conversation.
Example:
During the annual ED performance review, the board asks the ED to spend more time on partnership development. The ED explains that she’s been held back by the board’s own sluggish sponsorship committee. She’s told not to be “defensive”, and the board misses a valuable opportunity to improve their own contributions to the organization’s success in a priority area.
What to do instead:
- Take time at the start of the ED performance management process to have valuable conversations about expectations and roles to build alignment between the ED and board.
- During ongoing performance management check-ins, identify and discuss organizational or governance barriers to success.
- Cultivate a culture of two-way feedback between the board and ED to strengthen leadership and governance overall.
Refreshing our approach to ED evaluation
ED performance management isn’t just about reviewing a person’s work, it’s about strengthening the leadership of your entire organization. That means moving away from vague, last-minute, or one-sided approaches, and embracing a clear, collaborative, and values-aligned process. Many boards and EDs have found ED evaluations to be awkward, irrelevant, confusing and even harmful. It’s time to let go of some of the ‘best practices’ in this area, and be thoughtful and intentional about why and how we engage in ED performance management.
Nic Gagliardi is a nonprofit governance consultant with 18 years of experience helping boards and executive leaders build stronger, more effective organizations. Want to improve your ED evaluation process? Check out the ED Performance Management System designed specifically for small nonprofits.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent those of CharityVillage.com or any other individual or entity with whom the authors or website may be affiliated. CharityVillage.com is not liable for any content that may be considered offensive, inappropriate, defamatory, or inaccurate or in breach of third-party rights of privacy, copyright, or trademark.