Partnering With Your Executive Director

A board–ED partnership, not a performance trap

The strongest associations run on a shared rhythm between the board and the Executive Director: clear expectations, honest feedback, and regular conversations. When that rhythm is missing, boards often end up doing an "evaluation" in year five for the first time — usually either to justify a raise or to start a firing conversation. That doesn't help anyone.

What a good partnership looks like

Annual cadence. Same time every year, never skipped. Tied to the fiscal year so it links to performance.

Written goals, set at the start of the year. Three to five goals the ED and the board chair both signed off on. No goals = no fair check-in.

Three inputs.

1. Self-assessment by the ED against the goals.
2. Board input from every board member via a structured form (not a free-text "thoughts?").
3. Operational metrics — membership numbers, financial performance, member satisfaction scores. Numbers, not vibes.

Closed-door conversation between the ED and a small committee (typically chair, vice chair, treasurer).

Written summary that goes in the personnel file. Specific. Compensation decisions flow from this, but are handled separately.

Sample goal areas

• Member growth or retention target
• Financial result vs. budget
• One major strategic initiative
• Staff development or retention
• Board-relations / governance support

What boards get wrong

• Mixing the check-in with compensation in the same conversation. Do the check-in first. Decide compensation in a separate meeting based on what you learned.
• "Anonymous" input that's actually identifiable. If only seven board members fill out a survey, "anonymous" is a polite fiction. Use a third-party facilitator if you want real candor.
• Letting the chair's personal opinion dominate. Aggregate the board input first. The chair represents the board, not the other way around.