Board Guide to ED Evaluation: Integrating Coaching for Development

The board chair leaned back in her seat after the evaluation meeting, exhausted. “Well, that was awkward,” she admitted to a fellow board member. “I don’t think either of us knew what we were supposed to get out of that conversation.”

I hear versions of this story constantly from nonprofit boards. The annual ED evaluation arrives like an unwelcome guest—something everyone knows they should do but nobody quite knows how to do well. Too often, it becomes a checkbox exercise that leaves both parties feeling vaguely dissatisfied, or worse, it damages the very relationship it should strengthen.

Here’s what I’ve observed across the sector: boards that treat evaluation as an opportunity for development rather than judgment create fundamentally different outcomes. Their EDs don’t dread the annual review—they look forward to it as a chance for honest conversation about growth. And these organizations perform better as a result.

The difference isn’t complicated. It comes down to understanding what evaluation is actually for and building processes that serve that purpose.

Why Most Nonprofit ED Evaluations Fall Short

Let me be direct about what typically goes wrong. According to nonprofit ED evaluation best practices from BoardSource, boards should conduct a formal, written review of performance each and every year, with input from the executive’s direct reports included as part of the assessment. Yet many boards skip years, rely on informal conversations, or gather input only from board members who may see a fraction of the ED’s actual leadership.

The consequences extend beyond awkward meetings. Without clear evaluation processes, EDs operate without meaningful feedback. They may be excelling in areas the board doesn’t value or struggling in ways nobody addresses. The relationship drifts toward misalignment, and by the time problems surface, they’ve often become crises.

An ED who receives no meaningful evaluation for years isn’t being trusted—they’re being abandoned.

This matters for supporting ED development because coaching works best when it connects to clear goals and honest feedback. Without robust evaluation, coaching becomes disconnected from organizational priorities and board expectations.

Evaluation Criteria That Actually Matter

Generic corporate evaluation forms miss the mark for nonprofit executives. The criteria that matter for your ED reflect the unique demands of mission-driven leadership.

Mission Impact

Is the organization advancing its mission effectively? This goes beyond program metrics to include strategic positioning, community relationships, and long-term sustainability. The ED’s job is to steward the mission, and evaluation should examine how well they’re doing that.

Leadership Effectiveness

How is the ED performing as a leader of people? This includes staff development, team culture, retention, and the organization’s capacity to execute. Input from direct reports is essential here—board members simply cannot assess internal leadership without it.

Organizational Health

Beyond financial statements, is the organization getting stronger? Look at systems development, risk management, operational efficiency, and the infrastructure that enables program delivery.

Sustainability

Is the ED building an organization that can thrive beyond their tenure? This includes succession planning, knowledge transfer, leadership development throughout the organization, and diversified funding.

Board Partnership

How effectively does the ED work with the board? Communication quality, transparency, strategic partnership, and the health of the governance relationship all belong in this assessment.

When connecting evaluation to coaching, consider using organizational capacity metrics that track development over time rather than providing a single snapshot.

The 360 Evaluation Process: Gathering Input Appropriately

The most effective ED evaluations incorporate multiple perspectives. Research on developmental performance evaluation{:rel=”nofollow”} from the Center for Creative Leadership demonstrates that 360 assessments create comprehensive feedback that improves self-awareness and identifies genuine development opportunities.

For nonprofit EDs, a meaningful 360 process includes:

Board Member Input

Every board member should have the opportunity to provide feedback, not just the executive committee. Use a consistent framework that allows for both ratings and narrative comments. Anonymous responses encourage honesty.

Direct Report Input

The ED’s leadership team sees aspects of their leadership that board members never witness. Gathering this input requires careful attention to confidentiality—staff must trust that their honest feedback won’t create retaliation.

Peer and Partner Input

Key stakeholders outside the organization—funders, partner organization leaders, community members—can provide valuable perspective on the ED’s external leadership and the organization’s reputation.

Self-Evaluation

Before receiving feedback from others, the ED should complete the same evaluation instrument. This creates opportunity for comparing self-perception with external perception, which often reveals the most important development insights.

Understanding various leadership feedback models{:rel=”follow”} can help boards design evaluation processes that generate actionable insights rather than vague impressions.

The goal of gathering multiple perspectives isn’t to build a case against your ED—it’s to give them the complete picture they need to grow.

Development Over Judgment: The Essential Mindset Shift

Here’s where most boards get stuck. They approach evaluation as judgment—is the ED doing a good job or not?—when the more powerful question is developmental: how can we help the ED become even more effective?

This isn’t about avoiding accountability. Developmental evaluation still addresses performance problems directly. But the frame shifts from “are you meeting our standards?” to “how do we support your growth while ensuring organizational success?”

The practical differences are significant:

Developmental evaluation focuses forward. While it acknowledges past performance, the emphasis is on what’s next—what capabilities need strengthening, what support would help, what goals matter most for the coming year.

Developmental evaluation is collaborative. The ED isn’t a passive recipient of the board’s judgment. They’re an active partner in analyzing feedback, identifying growth areas, and designing development plans.

Developmental evaluation connects to resources. When gaps are identified, the conversation immediately turns to how to address them. This might include coaching, training, peer networks, or structural changes that provide better support.

Understanding the ED’s evaluation perspective helps boards design processes that feel supportive rather than threatening. When EDs experience evaluation as developmental, they engage more honestly and use feedback more effectively.

Connecting Evaluation to Coaching Goals

If your ED is receiving coaching—or if evaluation reveals they should—the evaluation process provides essential input for that work. The connections flow in both directions.

Evaluation informs coaching priorities. Feedback from the 360 process often reveals patterns the ED hasn’t fully recognized. These insights help coach and ED focus on the development areas that will have the greatest impact.

Coaching progress informs evaluation. When evaluating an ED who’s been receiving coaching, consider how they’ve grown in targeted areas. Are they applying what they’re learning? Is the organization seeing results from their development?

Evaluation and coaching share accountability. Both processes work toward the same goal: an ED who leads more effectively. Aligning them creates reinforcement and momentum.

For boards interested in measuring coaching impact, connecting evaluation to coaching goals provides concrete data about return on investment. You can assess whether coaching is producing the development you’re investing in.

Compensation Conversations: When and How

Compensation deserves attention, but mixing it with developmental feedback creates problems. When money is on the table, honest conversation about growth areas becomes harder. The ED may become defensive, the board may soft-pedal concerns, and the developmental purpose gets lost.

Best practice separates these discussions:

Conduct the developmental evaluation first. Have the full conversation about performance, feedback, growth areas, and goals before any mention of compensation.

Schedule the compensation discussion separately. Allow at least a week between the developmental conversation and compensation discussion. This gives time for reflection and keeps the conversations distinct.

Connect compensation to performance holistically. When you do discuss compensation, reference the evaluation—but focus on overall performance and market factors rather than relitigating specific feedback.

Document both conversations. Written records of evaluation outcomes and compensation decisions protect everyone and create clarity about expectations and commitments.

The Evaluation Meeting: Structure, Tone, and Outcomes

The actual evaluation meeting sets the tone for everything that follows. Poorly conducted meetings damage trust even when the feedback is positive. Well-conducted meetings strengthen the relationship even when difficult issues need addressing.

Preparation matters. The board should synthesize all feedback before the meeting, identify key themes, and decide who will lead the conversation. The ED should have completed their self-evaluation and come prepared to discuss their own assessment of the year.

Start with listening. Rather than launching into the board’s feedback, begin by asking the ED to share their self-evaluation. What went well? Where did they struggle? What do they want to develop? Their perspective often reveals important context for the feedback you’ll share.

Be specific and balanced. Vague feedback (“you’re doing great” or “we have concerns”) provides nothing actionable. Specific examples of both strengths and growth areas give the ED something to work with.

Make it a dialogue. The ED should have opportunity to respond to feedback, provide context, and share their own perspective. Evaluation works best as conversation, not presentation.

End with clear next steps. What are the development priorities for the coming year? What support will the board provide? When will you check in on progress? Concrete commitments turn insight into action.

The evaluation meeting isn’t a performance—it’s a partnership conversation about how to help your organization thrive.

What Goes Wrong: Two Failure Patterns to Avoid

Two patterns consistently undermine ED evaluation, and recognizing them helps boards avoid common traps.

The Surprise Attack

This happens when boards provide no meaningful feedback throughout the year, then deliver a list of concerns at the annual evaluation. The ED feels blindsided and defensive. The board looks like they’ve been storing up complaints. Trust erodes.

The solution is ongoing feedback. Monthly check-ins between the ED and board chair should include honest conversation about what’s working and what isn’t. The annual evaluation should contain no surprises—only a more comprehensive synthesis of conversations that have occurred throughout the year.

The Popularity Contest

This pattern emerges when evaluation focuses on whether people like the ED rather than whether they’re effective. A charismatic ED who’s beloved by the board but struggling operationally may receive glowing reviews. A less personally warm ED who’s building organizational capacity may face unfair criticism.

The solution is criteria-based evaluation. Define what matters before you evaluate, and assess against those criteria rather than personal feelings. Include input from people who see the ED’s operational leadership, not just board members who primarily experience their meeting presence.

Post-Evaluation Action Planning

The evaluation meeting isn’t the end—it’s the beginning of the next development cycle. Effective boards build structures for what happens after.

Document agreements. Create a written summary of evaluation outcomes, agreed-upon development priorities, and commitments from both the ED and board. Both parties should sign off on this document.

Identify resources. If coaching is part of the development plan, who will find and vet coaches? If training is needed, what’s the budget and timeline? If structural support would help, what changes will the board make? Vague commitments to “support the ED” mean nothing without specifics.

Schedule check-ins. Quarterly conversations about progress on development goals keep evaluation from becoming an annual event that everyone forgets about until next time. These don’t need to be formal—just regular touchpoints that maintain accountability.

Adjust as needed. Circumstances change. Development priorities that made sense in January may need revision by June. Build flexibility into your planning while maintaining focus on growth.