National Academies Press: OpenBook

Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook (2004)

Chapter: Section 2 - The Purpose of and Need for Board Self-Assessment

« Previous: Section 1 - Introduction Effectiveness of Boards of Directors
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - The Purpose of and Need for Board Self-Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13765.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - The Purpose of and Need for Board Self-Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13765.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - The Purpose of and Need for Board Self-Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13765.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - The Purpose of and Need for Board Self-Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13765.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - The Purpose of and Need for Board Self-Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13765.
×
Page 9

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5SECTION 2 THE PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR BOARD SELF-ASSESSMENT WHO SHOULD USE THE ASSESSMENT? TCRP Report 104: Public Transportation Board Effective- ness—A Self-Assessment Handbook (Handbook) has been prepared to address a variety of policymaker and oversight situations, including the following: • Transit boards composed of appointed or elected directors; • Transit boards composed of citizen volunteers and/or elected officials; • Directors serving as volunteers or compensated for part- time or full-time services; • Chairpersons seeking to identify board performance improvements; and • Consultants, advisors, and board mentors seeking to iden- tify performance issues and improve board effectiveness. WHY SHOULD A BOARD ASSESS ITS PERFORMANCE? The need for a board self-assessment of its performance as a policymaking and oversight body can arise from a number of situations that are either positive or negative and either internal or external to the board. Typical factors that may pro- mote board interest in self-assessment of its performance are discussed below. Board members’ interest in, and commitment to, identify- ing and improving processes that enhance board effective- ness. This is not necessarily an indication of known deficien- cies, but rather a tacit admission that the board may have areas in which it could work more effectively as a policymaking and oversight body. The self-assessment instrument allows direc- tors to evaluate different categories and subcategories of board performance. The results can be used to focus on particular topics, depending on the directors’ self-assessment responses. The assessment provides a common denominator, allowing the board to review and discuss performance perceptions, issues, and concerns voiced by directors. An interest in establishing assessment trend lines for issues and outlining areas of strength and further development. From this perspective, board performance assessment is not viewed as a unique, one-time event, but rather as a series of potentially interrelated applications over time. The continu- ing purpose is to measure trends in board development, from both an individual and collective perspective. Boards grow in their effectiveness as directors begin working together more effectively. Boards may wish to use the self-assessment process at different times and for different purposes; these might include familiarizing new directors with the operation or identifying particular talents the board is seeking for actual or impending vacancies. The assessment provides a means for determining how directors view the board’s effectiveness in particular categories of performance. Over time, the direc- tors or their views may change, just as the issues that face the board may change. Accordingly, the self-assessment should allow for multiple applications as circumstances change. A need for a mechanism to help the board develop greater effectiveness in deliberations, decisions, and oversight. Self-assessments of board effectiveness will often vary, reflecting the different perceptions and perspectives of indi- vidual directors. The self-assessment process gives the board a way to identify the divergence and convergence of differ- ent directors’ performance assessments. This helps to iden- tify areas for change and improvement. For example, more or less attention to detail may be appropriate with respect to operating performance, expense budgets, and so forth. The self-assessment provides an opportunity to inform discerning directors by giving them a potentially enlightened perspec- tive on their interests, participation, and involvement in board deliberations relative to the body as a whole. A desire for a flexible tool for orienting and training rela- tively new directors about board performance and the effectiveness of directors and the board. The self-assessment can be used to introduce new directors to the board and its pol- icymaking oversight responsibilities, either apart from the board assessment process (such as during orientation or when reviewing general board materials) or as part of the full board assessment of its performance. Newly appointed direc- tors can get a perspective on where the board is vis-à-vis the skills and abilities that they might contribute to enhance board effectiveness. The self-assessment process can be used to inform new directors as to what is expected of them as effec- tive contributors to the existing, usually less-than-perfect policymaking body.

A need to identify whether new talent or expertise for policymaking oversight is necessary when vacancies of directors arise or are anticipated. Aside from assistance in training or orienting new directors, the board can use the self- assessment process to identify particular talents or skill sets that would complement the continuing board. Whether direc- tors are retiring or are otherwise not likely candidates for reappointment or reelection, board turnover is an opportunity to identify whether there are unique underdeveloped skill sets that are particularly needed by the board (e.g., knowl- edge of insurance, liability, and actuarial issues). Board self- assessment may be an appropriate mechanism for effectively conveying to appointing officials the board’s sense of the director qualifications that are needed to enhance board performance. An interest in providing direction and incentive for the board and the chair to work more effectively with senior management officials who report directly to the board. A primary function of the board is to set policies and have them implemented through a chief executive officer (CEO) that the board has recruited and hired. The CEO usually serves at the pleasure of the policymaking body. There may also be other senior-level staff members who report directly to the board and serve at its pleasure. Accordingly, a major role for the board is periodically evaluating the CEO and other report- ing staff with regard to board-specified performance criteria and making commensurate merit adjustments in compensa- tion. Beyond these milestones, which presumably occur at least annually, the board, the CEO, and other directly report- ing staff must develop a harmonious relationship of mutual respect and trust. The self-assessment process can be used to identify areas where board members can contribute posi- tively to this ongoing relationship, as well as communicate to the management staff group better-defined board expecta- tions concerning their performance and their relationship with the board. The board self-assessment may also be used effectively by the board chair in conferring with the CEO, and it may allow individual directors, as members of the policymaking and oversight body, to better assess their roles and relationships to the CEO. A need to explicitly recognize particular board policy and oversight responsibilities and identify areas not normally under direct board oversight. Most boards and directors have to exercise judgment on whether and to what extent to become involved in governance of particular aspects of tran- sit performance under the rubric of policymaking oversight. The gap between policymaking with effective oversight and usurping management prerogatives by intrusion into the day- to-day administrative details of management and staff is some- times not clear with respect to particular issues or in terms of the directors’ perceptions and interests. One advantage of performing a self-assessment is that it collectively identifies, from the directors’ perspectives (which may not be shared by 6 the management), just how well the board thinks that it is doing with respect to (1) adherence to broad policy and over- sight responsibilities and (2) leaving the delegation of these items to the purview of management. Whether directors have a proclivity to intervene or not to intervene in operations or administration matters under the responsibility of manage- ment, the self-assessment gives them an opportunity to see the perspective of the overall policymaking body as it strives to function in the longer-range strategic policy and oversight affairs of the transit agency. An interest in identifying directors’ views about board effectiveness and solidifying board consensus on perfor- mance issues and areas of concern. Policymaking oversight bodies will usually be composed of members with different personalities, perspectives, interests, and levels of participa- tion in board business. Differences among directors or groups of directors may arise over views on board effectiveness in general or in particular areas. The self-assessment can help boards define the directors’ different views about board effec- tiveness and seek to address common performance issues and areas of concern. The improvement consensus can become an agenda for change by identifying the gaps that exist among directors on how board effectiveness is identified (in terms of particular performance issues and areas of concern that affect board members). The self-assessment can be used to develop a strategy to improve performance. A need to distinguish between board performance issues and unique concerns of particular directors. The self- assessment can be used to identify whether a particular direc- tor’s board performance perceptions and concerns are shared by other members of the board or tend to reflect individual characteristics. This can provide some insight for the board and the chair, helping to identify the extent to which these director-specific concerns can be refocused or otherwise pre- vented from becoming disruptive to the workings of the board if pursued by other directors. An interest in discovering common insights on, and shared perspectives of, board performance. The self-assessment will allow boards to evaluate their performance on a variety of topics and issues particular to policymaking oversight bodies. The self-assessment can be viewed as a means to solidify common insights and perceptions about where the board is and where it needs to be with regard to particular cat- egories of performance. The self-assessment process can be viewed as an instrument to provide for focused and planned changes to enhance the board’s performance according to the shared perspectives of directors. The self-assessment process is a vehicle to identify the shared concerns and begin to develop a consensus to address them. A desire for information that could serve as the basis for discussions with other transit agency boards or individual

directors about board performance issues, perspectives, and so forth. The self-assessment of performance can pro- vide boards and directors with a perspective on their own situation to share with other transit directors across the industry. Policymaking oversight boards seldom operate in a vacuum. Boards and directors engaging in self-assessment would be equipped to converse with other transit boards about board inputs and outputs with regard to particular per- formance issues, as well as the particular benefits of the self- assessment. The self-assessment can enable a sharing of expe- rience, wherein different transit boards can relate their own ideas and contributions arising from use of the Handbook. WHEN SHOULD THE ASSESSMENT BE INITIATED, AND SHOULD IT BE REPEATED? A board performance assessment can be initiated at any time, but it will usually accompany changes in the decision- making, policy formulation, and oversight environment. Those changes may be internal to the board or the transit agency or driven by external elements (such as the community at large or funding sources). Potential stimulants for board self- assessment of performance are discussed below. Changes in board personnel or in policymaking and over- sight issues. As the board changes through new directors and as the policymaking and oversight issues change, the board may wish to use the assessment as part of taking inventory of its perceived strengths and possible weaknesses. Directors and boards have life cycles with respect to familiarity with issues, diligence in discharging board roles and responsibil- ities, the proclivity to engage in review of agency details (versus outsourcing all but legally mandated board approval to the purview of staff and management), and so forth. An assessment may be appropriate when there are changes in board composition, leadership, or the commitment and inter- ests of long-serving directors. An assessment may also be warranted when there are major changes in policy and over- sight issues that tax the existing board’s ability to adapt to change or that require different skill sets. The use of self- assessment in these situations would be analogous to a “stress test” for a heart-wellness examination. Changes in the internal transit agency environment that affect board policy and oversight, potentially character- ized by management and staff criticism or communica- tion difficulties. Board self-assessment may be triggered by transit agency management and staff dissatisfaction with board performance. The board may perceive that there are communication difficulties with the management and staff or that board policy and oversight are known to be under critical review by management or staff. A board’s self-assessment may be a conduit for discussing its perceived and expected performance, as well as what changes (if any) need to be con- 7 sidered to address valid criticisms that management and staff may have, particularly criticisms that are supported by the self-assessment. Changes in the external environment that affect board policy and oversight, potentially characterized by com- munity criticism or communication difficulties. Board self- assessment may be triggered by the dissatisfaction of the community external to the transit agency (including specific interest groups, political bodies, funding sources, etc.) with board performance. Self-assessment may allow the board to discuss its performance in light of the criticisms and identify what changes (if any) need to be made to address valid criti- cisms that outside interests may have with respect to the board. A decision to use multiple board performance assess- ments as a long-term learning tool. In this case, board self- assessment is not viewed as a one-time event, but rather as an opportunity for a series of assessments over time as the composition of the board and its policymaking and oversight issues change. In this case, the use of one of the assessments (Level I, for example, with its 13 responses) does not pre- clude using the more detailed assessment of the Level II or Level III variety at a later time. Similarly, a board that uses a more detailed Level II or Level III assessment would not be precluded from subsequently using a less detailed assess- ment for different circumstances or purposes (such as orien- tation of new directors). WHAT ARE THE EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT? The self-assessment instruments contain explicit statements about board performance effectiveness. Directors indicate their levels of agreement using a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “strongly disagree” and 5 indicates “strongly agree.” The results are expected to be a compilation of indi- vidual director responses that can be used to facilitate con- structive, confidential review and discussion by directors. Board confidentiality requirements will affect how assess- ment results are compiled. The assessment results can be compiled, distributed, and discussed informally or formally. In either case, the results are expected to be discussed in both informal and formal sessions to examine the responses, com- pilations, and opinions of the board. In theory, the results of the less formal and more formal approaches can be the same with regard to the level of detail with which the composite assessment of the board perfor- mance is recorded, tabulated, analyzed, and presented. How- ever, the results of the less formal approach will tend to be more general, which will be reflected in their compilation and distribution. More formal assessment processes will tend to result in richer detail, with the compilation, presentation, and distribution of results reflecting greater thoroughness and

precision in conveying the directors’ responses. The results of self-assessment are discussed more specifically below. Informally compiled assessment results for directors tend to relate more to individual perspectives and responses. Less formal compilation of assessment results tends to avoid use of written materials entirely or makes minimal use of them. This facilitates presentation and discussion of the results. Although the directors’ responses may still be compiled and discussed, there would normally be no formal documenta- tion, and recordkeeping would be minimal. This helps avoid possible disclosure of the self-assessment (which creates potential confidentiality concerns). In fact, the major advan- tage of compiling and sharing the self-assessment results informally is that confidentiality is likely to be maximized, and the potential for disclosure outside the board is mini- mized. A less formal compilation of assessment results will tend to be more meaningful to individual directors than to the board as a whole, because there typically will be less review as a board of the detailed results. Such reviews are typically limited to tabulations on overheads or erasable boards, or they generate brief notes that are not circulated or retained. Formally compiled assessment results for the board tend to relate more to the collective pursuit of additional mea- sures for self-help. More formal compilation of assessment results typically includes the use of statistics to get a better pic- ture of the board’s response as a whole. Directors’ responses can be statistically tabulated to show average effectiveness scores, ranges between high and low scores, and other mea- sures of dispersion among responses. The formally compiled results give board members something they can collectively review in greater detail. This is sometimes viewed as an advan- tage, providing an element that facilitates discussion. How- ever, any concerns about confidentiality and leakage would need to be adequately addressed by the board before formally compiled self-assessment results are produced or distributed. Use of assessment to foster a commitment to enhance effectiveness and working relationships among board members and between board and senior management. Regardless of the format used to present the results of the self-assessment (whether a less formal or more formal com- pilation of responses and statistics is envisioned, for exam- ple), it is important for the board to emerge from the process with a clear picture of the directors’ overall perceptions of board effectiveness in different performance categories. When the self-assessment is seriously and genuinely undertaken by individual directors, the board should have a clear indication of how its constituents view its performance across the dif- ferent categories. The informal or formal dissemination of the range and variability of director responses provides insights as to the level of agreement on board effectiveness across performance categories. Boards may find that considerable 8 differences in directors’ assessments may be resolved after issues are clarified. Conversely, an apparent similarity in responses may mask divergent perceptions or assessment approaches. In short, the self-assessment responses provide the basis for board review of how its members view its per- formance. This is the staging ground to stimulate discussions, with the ultimate objective being to foster agreement for con- structive changes and to address shared concerns about per- formance enhancements. The assessment should lead to con- sideration of follow-up actions by the board and by individual directors who are motivated to improve their effectiveness. WHAT ABOUT FOLLOW-UP TO THE ASSESSMENT? The Handbook includes these different means of follow- up to self-assessment: (1) organizational behavior assess- ment tools, (2) a goal-setting process, (3) an annotated bibli- ography of follow-up resources, and (4) application of other assessment levels or reassessment using the same instrument. Each follow-up strategy or tool is discussed below. Organizational behavior assessment tools. The Handbook includes an optional organizational behavioral approach to board assessment developed by Dr. Edgar Schein. Dr. Schein has identified several variables to measure group effectiveness in terms of (1) goals, (2) participation, (3) feelings, (4) diag- nosis of team problems, (5) leadership, (6) decisions, (7) trust, and (8) creativity. The particular instrument developed by Dr. Schein is merely one example among many organiza- tional behavior assessment tools, practices, and applications that are commercially available to groups, including policy- making and oversight bodies. The optional organizational behavior assessment tool is included as Section VII in the Level III assessment. Goal-setting process. The Handbook includes a goal-setting process for transit boards that choose the Level II or Level III assessment options. The goal-setting process is an approach to self-assessment based on adopting goals and subsequently assessing whether self-defined goals have been met. Appendix A of the Handbook contains a sample of Chittenden County Transit Authority’s 2002 board goals. A board using this process would need to articulate some goals and provide for a follow-up mechanism for this approach to be useful. Annotated bibliography of follow-up resources. The Hand- book contains an annotated bibliography (Appendix B) of board management materials related to the six categories of assessing board performance: (1) goal-setting processes, (2) strategic planning, (3) fiduciary and legal responsibilities, (4) diversity, (5) CEO relations, and (6) public advocacy. Board responses to self-assessment could include targeting strengths and weaknesses for enhancement of best practices in con-

junction with consulting the remedial references supplied in the Handbook. Application of other assessment levels or reassessment using the same instrument. The Handbook contains three levels of assessment, offering boards a choice of the level of 9 detail to pursue with regard to the six measures of board per- formance. Transit boards will be able to use the same assess- ment level (reassessment) or an alternative level whenever the board determines that a reassessment should be con- ducted. Boards may wish to establish a timeframe for possi- ble reassessment as one means of follow-up.

Next: Section 3 - Decisions Necessary to Implement Board Self-Assessment »
Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 104: Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook provides a self-assessment process and tools to measure public transportation board effectiveness and provides references on how board characteristics can be changed to improve effectiveness in various areas. The Handbook also identifies the characteristics of public transportation boards that influence transit system performance.

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Web Document 24: The Public Transportation Board Effectiveness Study describes the process used to develop the Public Transit Board Self-Assessment Handbook.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!