1 / 31

Board Self-Assessment: May 2012 Benchmark Report

Board Self-Assessment: May 2012 Benchmark Report. NCMA Governance Committee Penny White, Chair. Survey. Survey conducted by BoardSource 3rd year using this survey 23 surveys distributed; 21 surveys completed (91% response rate) Checklist of Practices Performance of the Board

gilon
Download Presentation

Board Self-Assessment: May 2012 Benchmark Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Board Self-Assessment:May 2012 Benchmark Report NCMA Governance Committee Penny White, Chair

  2. Survey • Survey conducted by BoardSource • 3rd year using this survey • 23 surveys distributed; 21 surveys completed (91% response rate) • Checklist of Practices • Performance of the Board • Nine (9) areas of board responsibility • Compare our responses to association benchmarks, and our data from last year • Degree of Consensus

  3. Survey Results • 9 areas measured • Exceed benchmark in 8 areas • 1 area improved, 8 declined from FY2011 • Mission • Strategy • Public Image and Advocacy • Board Composition • Program Oversight • Financial Oversight • CEO Oversight • Board Composition • Meetings

  4. Bench: 2.96 2012: 3.22 2011: 3.27 2010: 3.21 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  5. Comments on 1. Mission • Tie the mission to committee work / assignments. • Board has done well in this area. During prior board year, the vision and mission was revised. This board year was focused on ensuring that we were appropriately implementing the vision and mission. • The board needs to be less tactical. I find that discussions about strategic issues often turn to conversations about implementation issues. • I believe the vision should not be too long term and needs to be focused on the association and members a not on "how we are going to do procurements and new policies in procurement. • We can select a time each year to specifically focus on this and "pause" to do so.

  6. Comments on 1. Mission • Getting some consensus or understanding around the board's mission relative to the association's mission. • Board has had good discussions of the mission and vision for the future. We now need to translate that into concrete actions. • The Board needs to be more disciplined and urgent in linking these various areas. • Instead of having the entire Board work on the Vision and Mission, might be more effective to select a few strategic thinkers and have them create a draft and rationale for the draft then share w/ the Board. That would ensure that the thought process is consistent across all the categories and would enable a more effective debate to achieve the best result. Too many voices get lost in the discussion when the group is too large.

  7. Bench: 2.80 2012: 2.90 2011: 3.06 2010: 3.05

  8. Comments on 2. Strategy • Distractions this year prevented us from focusing on issues of more importance to the association. • Board often meanders into tactical while discussing strategic. • The Board needs to set up mechanisms to better assess the association's environment, outlining potential responses and holding the Executive Director accountable to provide the data to better track progress. • We need to move from long term strategic vision to near term supporting actions. • Again, the Board should not go out too far in its strategic planning.

  9. Comments on 2. Strategy • If one particular member of the Board (president elect, president or past-president) were responsible for highlighting progress against these objectives at each Board Meeting (there aren't that many per year), we might all feel the emphasis of this goal. • It's hard to develop quantifiable goals that we can measure to in some areas, but you must start somewhere and revise as we learn. Example is chapter health. May be able to measure their health based on criteria (Grahlman) and lack of health based on what is missing then establish goals from there. This process has to be flexible as the chapters and leaders evolve; it's not always black and white. The scores would not always tell the entire story, but would provide another level of insight. • Efforts to improve the tracking of progress against strategic direction are still lacking

  10. Bench: 2.84 2012: 2.87 2011: 3.11 2010: 3.29

  11. Comments on 3. Public Image and Advocacy • The Board received some challenging messages this year re its own behaviors so there is room for improvement here. The association looks to us as role models/mentors so we may need to behave in ways that are even more conservative than the general membership. • 3.2... not certain how much we've done with this as a board; ED does some of this.3.6... we have mixed messages/approaches with our Board/Staff approach to certain activities. We could clarify. • Association has lost a focus in this area, not as much visibility or tracking of metrics.

  12. Comments on 3. Public Image and Advocacy • I believe we can be more engaged with other professional organizations that closely relate to NCMA like the Program Management Institute. Are we as engaged with the membership?. I believe that is an area to improve. Are we staying on top of all the issues and having a good balance of industry and government viewpoint. Should we have more use of board members on issues. Seems like there are select few. • There is not much organized about the way the Board advocates for the association. • The Board has debated these issues for years, but has not implemented a specific framework or clear understanding to address these areas. Bolder steps may be needed.

  13. Bench: 2.73 2012: 3.12 2011: 3.21 2010: 3.51

  14. Comments on 4. Board Composition • Continue to improve the process for assessing board composition and nurturing next generation leadership. • It seems there is a trend toward selecting a board of titles/positions rather than people who have time to lead various initiatives so if that is the approach of the Board, then the staff will need to be increased to accommodate the additional work that was performed by the Board. If that is not the intent of Board, then it needs to ensure a balance of titles vs. leaders of initiatives. Would like to see more focus on the involvement of Young Professionals at leadership levels and encouragement of their participation and selection to the Board. Many Board members participate for so many years, it's hard for them to roll off and to transition to a local leadership role as they perceive it to be a negative instead of a positive of continuing in active leadership locally with their chapters where it is much needed.

  15. Comments on 4. Board Composition • We don't seem to "assign responsibilities or duties" to members according to who they know or what they might be capable of in order to fulfill our goals. • It is very easy for a board member to be minimally involved so we need to do better in getting some involvement. • The board needs a better balance of interms of getting board members who are younger and less experience. More govtboard members. Get more use of the board members. allocate more responsibility among the board. • Identify and planning for Board succession is good, but criteria could be more transparent to all. The process is relatively informal. Orientation sessions are held, but recommend a mentoring program for new members that take them past the original orientation session. There are untapped skills and talents of Board members that are not fully utilized.

  16. Comments on 4. Board Composition • 4.2- BOD doesn't reflect the membership's demographics. Need younger representation. Admitting one to two 30ish professionals would not bring us to a screeching halt. Their opinions might reflect something we might actually find energizing. Our more "tenured" members are steeped in the political, legal, senior-level networked aspects of the business. A voice for younger professionals would serve us well. Perhaps an outside member with a different perspective would serve us well also. Let's grab a senior member from a complementary association to see if that individual would share thoughts, approaches, etc. Or... someone with a different perspective in Business... from health care, banking, Small Business, etc. We do a wonderful job of telling each other how vital contract management is. A validating (or contradicting) opinion would be healthy.

  17. Bench: 2.79 2012: 3.16 2011: 3.34 2010: 3.31 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  18. Comments on 5. Program Oversight • Two areas. (1) How do we measure the effectiveness and member satisfaction for NCMA sponsored training? what metrics are can we use to ensure members are getting what they want and need. (2) How effective is the NCMA Jobs site? Are company HR managers satisfied with the tool? Are members satisfied? • There has got to be a better way to provide some insight on the operations of the association. • More frequent feedback to the Board. Email, monthly, only to the BOD, on the status of high-vis, critical areas of importance. One of two things: Either more transparency from the Pres/ED/ExComm to the remainder of the BOD... or, a smaller BOD, more tightly coupled with a collaborative ED.

  19. Comments on 5. Program Oversight • This is an area that be improved with more knowledge and information being pushed out to board members. • Lost some of the focus this year on measuring association's quality against industry benchmarks, peers and also assessing how critical programs and initiatives are doing - what are critical. • The Board could improve in this area by becoming more informed and setting up pre-determined measures of impact of existing services.

  20. Bench: 3.08 2012: 3.71 2011: 3.59 2010: 3.47 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  21. Comments on 6. Financial Oversight • Board should follow up on recommended actions from outside counsel and ensure they are effectively implemented. • Sam does a great job of keeping the finances in order! • This question might be best limited to the finance committee. • Outstanding financial management and oversight. The lack of clarity on association priorities makes it hard to ensure the budget reflects the association priorities.

  22. Bench: 2.93 2012: 2.62 2011: 3.17 2010: 2.90

  23. Comments on 7. CEO Oversight • Chief Executive = Executive Vice President • Tough to answer this since we had one Exec Dir for 1/2 the year, and an acting Exec Dir for the 2nd half. • This position is currently vacant and under recruitment. Trust will have to be established and roles and relationships well understood once the position is filled. Ratings were based on the prior position. • This is a difficult area to respond to given actions of the past year. Over all, I think the Board and Association President took very effective and necessary action and handled the transition to an interim director seamlessly. • This was an unusual year and difficult to assess because of unique circumstances. a number of areas for improvement were identified and are being implemented.

  24. Comments on 7. CEO Oversight • We need a more concerted effort to address this issue in the coming year. Our "Acting" ED is doing well, but continues to endure the aftereffects of a challenging year. A thorough recalibration is needed to ensure the incoming ED is properly supported, both from the BOD and his/her staff. • These questions were answered in regard to the former chief executive. • With last year's issues, this area is certainly a critical focus for the new executive director. • This is a critical area with a new director coming in so there needs to be an improvement in assessing the performance of the director by the board • Probably need a better handle on succession planning for the key staff.

  25. Bench: 2.91 2012: 3.27 2011: 3.44 2010: 3.41 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  26. Comments on 8. Board Structure • The board does a pretty good job of setting and managing its performance; however some Board Members don't actually do anything and it is demotivating for those who are working hard. Penny did a great job of revisiting how the Board Committees should be structured to ensure focus on the right areas. • The Board is making great progress in this area. • Excellent review of committee structure and alignment with priorities. • Better utilize the complete board of directors. continuing looking at committees and ad-hoc groups.

  27. Comments on 8. Board Structure • 8.5, 8.7, 8.8... Good, but slow. Could be accelerated through use of electronic means. 3x annual BOD meetings don't provide sufficient time to address issues or make 'as-needed' changes. (Caveat: With the full involvement of the BOD. It's conceivable the Executive Committee makes quicker changes... which tends to validate the position that a smaller BOD might be all we need.) 8.4... BOD is hesitant to discuss obligations with members.

  28. Bench: 3.04 2012: 3.34 2011: 3.44 2010: 3.28 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  29. Comments on 9. Meetings • Smaller, more engaged BOD. Better articulation of expectations to staff. Restructure paid staff to better execute "Operations"... place a seasoned professional in the position. 9.5... we defer to the opinions of a select few. 9.6... we study issues over a wide expanse of time. Work expands to fit the time allotted... we could do better with timelines and deadlines, as well as electronic means of communication. • MORE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBIITIES AMONG THE BOARD. BOARD SEEMS TO BE DOMINATED BY CERTAIN BOARD MEMBERS. • Too often board members do not attend all board meetings (there are only three) or leave the meeting before it's scheduled completion time.

  30. Comments on 9. Meetings • We are often "shy" in addressing the board members who do little to engage in committee work or attend board meetings. We should lean more toward enforcement of the attendance and participation rules. • Still a percentage of board members that do little more than show up for meetings

  31. PA 1 – NCMA does not have a diversity statement nor has NCMA reviewed its policies/processes to incorporate diversity/inclusion. • PA 2 – NCMA does have a whistleblower policy – see APM 5-14.

More Related