Who Appraises the People Who Appraise the CEO?

An uncomfortable question about accountability, power and charity governance.

I had an interesting conversation with an organisation recently that left me thinking about something we don't discuss nearly enough in the third sector.

Should the CEO, or the most senior employee, have a formal role in evaluating the performance of the Chair and board?

My answer is yes.

But perhaps not in the way you might expect.

We have become very comfortable with the idea that trustees should scrutinise senior leaders.

We expect CEOs to demonstrate their effectiveness, account for their decisions, explain their performance, accept constructive challenge and occasionally have some fairly uncomfortable conversations.

Quite right too.

But I wonder how many Chairs and trustees would welcome that same level of scrutiny from the people whose working lives are shaped by their decisions.

And, more importantly, what would happen if the feedback wasn't particularly flattering?

The view from the boardroom isn't always the view from the organisation

A board can look exceptionally effective on paper.

Meetings attended. Minutes approved. Policies reviewed. Financial reports scrutinised. Strategic plans discussed.

All the familiar indicators of governance activity.

Meanwhile, the CEO might be dealing with a Chair who regularly crosses into operational management, trustees who avoid difficult decisions, contradictory instructions, or a board that treats legitimate professional challenge as a personal affront.

None of that necessarily appears in the minutes.

And it certainly won't appear in the annual report.

Yet those behaviours can shape the culture, confidence and effectiveness of an entire organisation.

A board can meet its procedural obligations and still be profoundly ineffective in how it exercises leadership.

That's an important distinction.

The problem with asking people to speak truth to power

Imagine being a CEO who is invited to provide feedback on the Chair.

You believe the Chair is undermining your authority, making unreasonable demands or creating unnecessary friction within the organisation.

You also know that this same person has substantial influence over your performance appraisal, your professional reputation and potentially your continued employment.

How candid are you going to be?

Would you challenge them openly?

Would you soften your language?

Would you decide that some battles simply aren't worth fighting?

We often talk about creating psychologically safe workplaces.

But psychological safety becomes a rather selective principle if it disappears at the boardroom door.

An organisation cannot reasonably expect people to challenge poor leadership while leaving them exposed to the consequences of doing so.

And this works both ways. A CEO can be defensive, resistant to scrutiny or unwilling to accept legitimate oversight. Trustees must be able to challenge that too.

The objective isn't to give either side more power.

It's to make sure neither side becomes immune to challenge.

So should CEOs appraise their Chairs?

Not directly, in my view.

Trustees have legal responsibilities that cannot simply be handed over to an employee. The board must retain responsibility for its own effectiveness.

But I strongly believe the CEO should contribute structured, confidential feedback to any meaningful review of the Chair and board.

That feedback should be gathered through a fair process, ideally overseen by an independent reviewer or an appropriate trustee who isn't the subject of the appraisal.

It should examine things that actually matter.

Does the Chair encourage legitimate disagreement?

Does the board understand the difference between governance and operational management?

Are decisions made with sufficient information?

Do trustees listen to professional advice, even when it challenges their assumptions?

Does the board support the CEO while still holding them properly accountable?

And perhaps most revealingly:

What happens when somebody tells the Chair they're wrong?

Not when everyone agrees.

Not when the organisation is performing well.

Not when the board is congratulating itself on another successful year.

When somebody disagrees.

Because that's often when you discover how healthy the governance culture really is.

Accountability cannot depend on someone's position in the hierarchy

I have enormous respect for trustees who give their time, skills and experience to support charitable organisations.

It's a demanding role, often undertaken voluntarily and with considerable responsibility.

Many Chairs are exceptionally good at it.

But being a volunteer doesn't make somebody an effective leader.

Holding a senior position doesn't make their judgement beyond challenge.

And having the authority to scrutinise others doesn't automatically mean they possess the humility to accept scrutiny themselves.

Good trustees shouldn't fear an appraisal process that includes the perspective of senior staff.

They should value it.

Not because staff are always right, but because their experiences provide evidence that boardroom discussions alone cannot capture.

And I would extend that principle further, where appropriate, to staff, volunteers and the communities the organisation exists to serve.

After all, an organisation's governance should ultimately be judged by more than the experience of those sitting around its boardroom table.

The question I'd like more boards to ask

At your next board development session, consider asking:

"If our CEO could give us completely honest feedback, without worrying about the consequences, what might we discover about ourselves?"

And then consider something even more uncomfortable.

Would you genuinely want to hear the answer?

Would you act on it?

Or would you start questioning the person who raised the concerns?

That reaction might tell you more about your governance culture than another completed board effectiveness questionnaire ever could.

I don't believe the CEO should mark the board's homework.

But I don't believe the board should be the only voice deciding how well it has performed either.

The real test of accountability isn't how confidently you hold other people to account. It's what you do when the scrutiny turns towards you.

I'd be interested in the views of Chairs, trustees, CEOs and senior managers.

Should formal CEO feedback be a standard part of Chair and board performance reviews? And if it already happens in your organisation, what makes it genuinely safe and useful?