Sporting boards should comprise a diverse group of directors who collectively provide different perspectives and experience to facilitate more considered decision-making.

Boards are ultimately responsible for the organisation and directors are empowered to make decisions in the best interests of the organisation and its members. Consequently, the board should have a system for regular evaluation and oversight of director performance.

The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) has developed a suite of formal online evaluation tools for sporting organisations that align with the Sport Governance Principles. The evaluation process helps sporting boards: understand good practice governance; evaluate their effectiveness and performance against strategic goals; and identify any chair or director skills gaps and opportunities for personal development and improvement.

Andrea McQuitty from Paddle Australia shares her experience with the chair evaluation tool - read more.

All evaluations are confidential, anonymous and provided free of charge to sporting organisations.

Board evaluation

The board evaluation is used to evaluate the board as a collective. An online survey is sent to each director of the sporting organisation. It takes approximately 30 minutes to complete.

The ASC then collates the responses, analyses the results and provides a comprehensive, independent report which includes actions and recommendations for the board.

Chair evaluation

The chair evaluation evaluates the performance of the chair as an individual. The chair evaluation includes a self-assessment and a 360-peer review by their fellow directors. The assessment survey takes approximately 10 minutes to complete.

The ASC then collates the responses, analyses the results and provides a comprehensive, independent report, along with any actions and recommendations. The report includes the chair self-assessment scores, and the average of the peer review scores. The report is sent to the chair and it is strongly recommended it is also shared with the board.

Experienced chair, Andrea McQuitty, said that completing the chair evaluation process improved the effectiveness of the Paddle Australia Board - read more.

Director evaluation

The director evaluation evaluates individual directors. At a minimum, the evaluation includes a self-assessment. Best practice includes a self-assessment and a 360-peer review by their directors. The director evaluation survey takes approximately 10 minutes to complete.

The ASC then collates the responses, analyses the results and provides a comprehensive, independent report, along with any actions and recommendations for the director. The report includes the director's self-assessment scores, and the average of any peer review scores. The report is sent to the individual director, and it is encouraged a copy is also shared with the chair.

Privacy

All information captured on the platform is stored securely and will not be shared without the sporting organisation’s permission. All data is treated as private and confidential.

NSO Insights

Andrea McQuitty

President, Paddle Australia

"The online tool provides a sport-specific, simple method for evaluating chair performance."

Having a tool that considers the wide range of skills, attributes and responsibilities for the chair of a sporting board makes the evaluation process more meaningful. As someone who is always seeking to improve performance, both personally and for the benefit of the organisation, I was very comfortable with being evaluated by my fellow directors using this tool.

The evaluation revealed two main areas for consideration that had both been mentioned before but were more strongly highlighted through this process. Increasing the amount of board meeting time spent discussing strategic priorities was one of these points. Following nearly two years of online meetings, meetings had become more transactional and lacked more open strategic discussion. This feedback led to our first full face-to-face board meeting being almost entirely devoted to strategic priorities, and the reorganisation of the annual board calendar to ensure sufficient time is scheduled for strategic discussion during all face-to-face meetings, with online meetings covering more straightforward items.

The second point was around confirmation of the process for chair succession planning. Although I had agreed a plan with the board, the evaluation raised my awareness that I needed to be more proactive in empowering them to take the necessary steps. Since the evaluation, I have openly discussed succession planning and delegated parts of the process to others so that the whole board is involved. The process has been agreed 18 months prior to my departure, with the successor now selected and shadowing in the vice-chair role in a manner that should guarantee a smooth transition. From a director's perspective, I think the evaluation tool provided them with an opportunity to note this without feeling that it might be a sensitive topic for me to discuss. Being more aware, I've now been able to reassure the board that I'm more than happy to openly discuss my departure.