AAMFT conducts an annual governance orientation for newly elected AAMFT board, elections council, and commissioners. CEO Tracy Todd, president-elect Shelley A. Hanson, and I led the intensive two-day orientation. A standout question from one of the new officers asked ‘why don’t you all try to better inform the membership’ about AAMFT corporate structure, board policies, processes, and the mega issues facing the association?
Well, that is exactly what we are aiming to do. We began a new governance series in our eNews to focus on AAMFT Governance. Now, we are focusing on this topic in this issue of the magazine. Our hope is to inform our members about how we operate as a Board and as an association.
The topic I want to highlight is the Performance Evaluation Committee (PEC). This three-person standing board committee is integral to monitoring, assessing, and calibrating our collective fidelity to strategic and generative board process, as well as in our carrying out our individual board roles.
Minimally there are four different types of evaluations the board enforces upon itself throughout the year. These evaluations are directed by policy and facilitated by the PEC. The first type is the mid-meeting evaluation. At every board meeting we pause to engage in a series of reflective questions designed to ensure integrity and efficiency of meeting process and a formative evaluation of ongoing work. The mid-meeting evaluation allows for adjustments in current board meeting process. Since the adaption of the D & I commitment and accountability policies this year, the board is intentional in our reflections to ask a series of D & I informed questions.
The second type of evaluation is the mid-year board process evaluation. This is a more formal process where an electronic survey is distributed to all board members to evaluate performance measures that include responsiveness to network related activities, how generative the board has been between meetings, and board perceptions of Task Force performance.
The third type of evaluation occurs near the end of the calendar year is the annual or summative evaluation. Again, a formal electronic survey is distributed to every board member with the aim of evaluating our progress and processes in governing. Specifically, we reflect on how well we are addressing mega issues, serving as the link between organization and the membership, and how the board is balancing its agenda and time related to ongoing monitoring vs. future oriented planning.
The last type of evaluation led by the PEC is centered specifically on task force and committee performance. Every board appointed task force evaluates its performance by formal electronic survey. Questions center on the overall integrity of the work including compliance with deadlines, mindfulness of policies, use of knowledge-based questions, and attentiveness to fiscal issues.
The PEC chair collaborates with the president and president-elect to identify specific performance variables needing assessment across the four types of evaluation we conduct (e.g., mid-meeting, mid-year, annual summative, and task force and committee evaluations).
To provide some degree of longitudinal consistency, certain questions are used routinely for each type of evaluation.
The PEC is collecting data and leading discussions at every board meeting. Importantly, an annual summative evaluation is conducted via electronic survey. These questions are aimed to evaluate the overall progress in governing, addressing of mega issues, serving as the link between organization and the membership, and how the board balances its agenda and time related to ongoing monitoring vs. future oriented planning. This is generally a lengthier and more in-depth evaluation. Along with rating each question, members are expected to offer comments to support their responses. This evaluation helps guide current board members, as well as serving as a useful platform to onboard new board members during the March meeting.
Example questions include:
- How well are we holding the organization accountable for accomplishing its mission/Strategic Plan?
- How well have we been regarding intentionality about what does and does not gain our attention from the Strategic Plan?
- How well are we addressing the fundamental needs of AAMFT’s stakeholders?
- How well does the board demonstrate care, loyalty and stewardship?
- How well is the board paying attention to the mega issues/questions?
Since the adoption of the Diversity and Inclusion (D & I) Accountability policy, the PEC selects a minimum of three additional questions at each meeting and for each type of evaluation. The PEC has discretion for determining the questions most relevant to be considered for the current board agenda and process.
Example D&I questions include:
- What individuals and or groups will likely benefit or be privileged by this policy decision?
- In what ways may this policy decision render individual members and/or groups silenced, marginalized, or invisible?
- Are we examining our biases and acknowledging our privileges in this conversation?
- Are we inviting and holding space for marginalized voices to be heard in this process?
- Are we being transparent about our identities and respectful of those who are different?
The president and the board are sensitive to having the PEC monitor the spirit and style of our board: “… that emphasizes outward vision rather than an internal preoccupation or micro-management, encouragement of diversity in viewpoints, visionary leadership more than administrative detail, clear distinction of board and chief executive roles, collective rather than individual decisions, future rather than past or present, and proactivity rather than reactivity. The board will have a forward focus on behalf of the profession, representing values of transparency, integrity, and ethical practice.”
I hope this helps to assure members that the Board is in a continuous evaluative feedback loop process regarding our performance.
