There is a growing trend for the performance of individual board members to be reviewed in some way. This often tends to be undertaken fairly informally (usually an annual conversation with the governing body chair) as the principle of voluntary participation by governors places a limit on the extent of performance measurement of individual board members. In some institutions, however, it is more structured, while in others this form of review has been rejected. Many board chairs and chief executives wonder if institutions are in any position to require independent governors who provide their time freely and out of a sense of public duty to have their performance reviewed.
The CUC has produced a short guidance document on this topic. (Word, 58kb)
Where individual reviews are practised, one of the main benefits is reported to be providing better training, briefing and support for governors. However, there is little documented evidence of significant enhancements in governor performance as yet resulting from personal effectiveness reviews. As governing bodies become smaller, it is to be expected that the nature of the effectiveness reviews for individual governors will also change. The review of the effectiveness of individual governors is complicated by the different levels of experience (and therefore potential performance) of members. This most obviously affects internal governors (and particularly student governors) whose membership rests on different criteria from those relating to lay members.