The autumn is traditionally the period when supervisory boards decide how to shape the annual self-assessment. After all, the annual report will have to say something about the content and results of the evaluation.
The first question a council should ask itself is how the evaluation will be addressed. Will a questionnaire be used, are some conversations held by the chairman and/or vice-chairman, or is it time for an evaluation by an external party?
At many supervisory boards where I am called in to lead the (external) evaluation, the chairman says during the intake interview that the board is functioning well. Of course, there will be quite a few areas for improvement, but they will not be material. Despite this reassurance, I still agree on how the evaluation will be organized. Like my colleagues at De Bestuurskamer, I think it is important that the evaluation is forward-looking. How can the council function even better, how can the contribution of the various members stand out even better? To answer these questions, of course, you need to look into the past, but this is done in the most factual way possible. A questionnaire often serves as a basis for the individual interviews that I have with all members of the board, the board, the board secretary and other people who work regularly with the council. In this way, a 360 inventory is made of the functioning of the council as a body, any committees of the council and the contribution of the individual members of the council.
Those one-on-one conversations, preferably held in person, are always very interesting. The confidentiality of such a conversation often shows that there is an important undercurrent that does not surface. Board members, for example, think that the chairman is too dominant or gives too much space to the chairman of the board, are annoyed by the fact that one of the colleagues often wants to reschedule the date of a meeting at the last minute, or that one of them always starts at the start of the meeting complaining about the council's lack of support, which immediately makes the tone of the meeting negative.
Gradually, it becomes clear to me that this council believes that it can do better in the future, especially on the softer side. Not infrequently, the board also thinks so. When asked why this is not being discussed in plenary, people often say that it is quite difficult to talk about the undercurrent, which often determines the atmosphere. After all, the request that meeting documents be summarized is not addressed to a colleague and can often be addressed easily.
Nevertheless, it is precisely those aspects that determine the atmosphere that make a council feel like a real team. It is very easy for an external party to pick up whether there are those unspoken things that make a commissioner feel like they are not coming out on top.
Because a council only really works well if all members feel they can make a meaningful and valued contribution, it is so important to actively bring out the undercurrent. An external evaluation is the ideal tool for this.
