Effective CEO Assessments Robert Fealy and Merrill Schwartz Foundation Leadership Forum January 22, 2018 Palos Verde, CA 1
Agenda Why Assessment Matters Boards and CEOs Foundation Context Areas for Leadership Assessment Annual Assessment Process Periodic Comprehensive Assessment Discussion and Q & A
Why Assessment Matters Good practice set goals and assess progress, enhance performance, improve board/ceo relationship Fiduciary responsibility of board hire, support, compensate, and assess the chief executive IRS 990 inform compensation decisions
Boards and Chief Executives Select, support, and assess Board chair/ceo relationship key but chair and board must act together Directors as fiduciaries act collectively (no Lone Rangers) Regular communication, not once a year Assure shared vision, strategic goals, and priorities
Foundation Context Public open meeting and records laws if applicable to foundation, is CEO assessment excepted? Foundation, institution and system/state goals Fiscal realities for compensation Role of university president and foundation board in hiring, compensating, and assessing the foundation CEO
AGB Policies Practices and Composition of Governing and Foundation Boards 2016, p. 53 ( see attachment)
Areas for Leadership Assessment University of Cincinnati Foundation: Leadership Selection and Development of Talent & Organization Business and Organizational Acumen Collaboration Execution Person Traits Greatest Strengths/Opportunities (see attachment)
CEO Responsibilities Measure & Communicate Results University Programs & Funding Priorities Foundation/ Advancement Strategy & Long Term Goals Execute Plan CEO Assessment of Talent & Available Resources Secure Approvals, Funding & Additional Resources Establish Performance Metrics Develop Operational Plan & Initiatives
Annual Assessment: Preparation and Process Preparation Board policy on CEO assessment CEO position description Annual and long-term goals, measurable & qualitative Process Board committee for CEO assessment CEO self-assessment Board input Meeting with board/committee chair and CEO
Annual Assessment: Board Review and Feedback Assessment Committee Review CEO s self-assessment feedback from other board members data and feedback from other sources, as appropriate questionnaires and surveys: not typical Review with CEO board chair and chair of the committee meet promptly with the CEO to provide feedback documented oral and/or written review focusing on the future
Periodic Comprehensive Assessment Purposes systematic feedback leadership development reflect on leadership over time determine compensation succession planning Timing every 3 to 5 years according to policy avoid crises and public controversies
Discussion Question What are appropriate goals and good measurements for CEO reviews?
Performance Review (sample) Above Top Average Middle Lean Agree Disagree Neutral 1 Exhibits excellent leadership skills 8 1 3 2 Is a strong communicator 8 0 4 3 Has the trust and confidence of university 8 0 4 leaders, administrators, foundation board 4 Has a strong set of personal values and work 10 0 2 ethic 5 Delivers on his promises 10 0 2 6 Works collaboratively up and down the chain 8 1 3 of subordinates, colleagues, superiors 7 Is decisive, yet open to constructive input 8 1 3 8 Clearly articulates foundation s strategy and 9 0 3 goals 9 Recruits excellent foundation leadership and staff 8 1 3 10 Demands excellence from his team 8 0 4 11 Relative to other not-for-profit leaders you know, where does he rank? Top Above Middle Lean 3 5 4 0
Periodic Comprehensive Assessment Multi-Source / 360 Reviews with Interviews/Surveys board member(s) or external consultant(s) confidential but not anonymous individuals and/or small groups interview questions and questionnaires: aspects of leadership document process; send follow-up communications plan for leadership development and enhanced organizational effectiveness
Discussion at Tables What s working and what s not in annual and comprehensive CEO assessment at your foundation? How do you do it? What are the barriers? Pitfalls to avoid? Recommended good practices? Questions? Each group will provide a brief summary of best practices and those to avoid.
Special Issues Risk management political, financial, and reputational Divisions within the board Differences of opinion between university president and foundation board Other topics?
Resources & Contact Information Bob Fealy, bobfealy@gmail.com Merrill Schwartz, mschwartz@agb.org www.agb.org https://www.agb.org/briefs/presidential-assessment https://www.agb.org/blog/2016/03/01/presidential-assessments-that-make-a-difference https://www.agb.org/trusteeship/2012/1/how-presidential-evaluations-must-change https://www.agb.org/store/assessing-presidential-effectiveness https://www.philanthropy.com/article/6-steps-board-members-should/241779
Performance Evaluation Date of Review: UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION 3 Point Scale 1 = Acceptable (50 th percentile) 2 = Strong (50-75 th percentile) *Note any significant weaknesses or suggested improvement in the Comments column 3 = Very Strong (75 th percentile and above) 1. Leadership 1 2 3 Comments a. Energizes the organization b. Articulation of strategic vision c. Articulation of annual goals d. Approachability throughout organization e. Has trust and respect of employees f. Has trust and respect of trustees, donors, educators, etc. g. Leads by example h. Connects with staff i. Connects with outside constituents 2. Selection and Development of Talent and Organization a. Eye for talent b. Employee engagement c. Effective coach and motivator d. Develops high performance organization d. Creates succession plan e. Champions workforce diversity f. Seeks out diverse views g. Actively promotes culture h. Promotes initiative and decision-making among employees and executives 1
3. Business and organizational acumen a. Business instincts and judgment b. Intellectual edge, deep thinker c. Seeks input where knowledge and experience lacking d. Development of clear strategic plan e. Vigilant of, and anticipates changes in market, or general trends f. Development of clear annual goals linked to strategy 4. Collaboration a. Works well with subordinates down through organization b. Works well up the chain of command c. Good chemistry with university leadership and board of trustees d. Seeks UC and UCF board input on key issues e. Participates actively in trade groups and other foundation oriented organizations f. Provides candid and timely communication to UC and UCF boards g. Networks effectively with other executives and constituents h. Transparency 5. Execution a. Executes effectively on initiatives and plans b. Decisiveness c. Confronts reality and acts timely d. Delivers measurable results directly as a result of his decisions and actions e. Constantly assesses and establishes priorities f. Balance between short and long term goals g. Understands financial model and key drivers of performance 2
h. Robust operating discipline i. Manages team to plan effectively j. Devotes appropriate time to cultivation activities 6. Personal traits a. Has established deep values and culture b. Ethics beyond question c. Strong work ethic d. Drives positive environment e. Likes people f. Stays current on management approaches, technical requirements, and governance practices Other comments: Three greatest strengths: 1. 2. 3. Opportunities: 3
Reproduced with permission of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Copyright 2016 All rights reserved. www.agb.org TABLE 93: COMPENSATION AND REPORTING RELATIONSHIP OF FOUNDATION CEO BY ENDOWMENT SIZE Endowment Size Relationship Total among All Respondents Less than $10 million $10 million $50 million $51 million $100 million $101 million $500 million $500 million $1 billion More than $1 billion Paid by foundation and institution/system and reports to foundation board and institution/system president 15.0% 20.0% 8.7% 23.5% 24.1% 0.0% 0.0% Paid by foundation/ reports to foundation board 32.7% 13.3% 8.7% 17.6% 48.3% 63.6% 63.6% Paid by foundation/ reports to foundation board and institution president 10.3% 0.0% 8.7% 23.5% 0.0% 9.1% 27.3% Paid by institution and reports to institution president 19.6% 26.7% 21.7% 17.6% 24.1% 18.2% 0.0% Paid by institution and reports to institution president and foundation board 22.4% 40.0% 52.2% 17.6% 3.4% 9.1% 9.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%