In many CEO evaluation processes, one question comes up early: should the CEO complete a self-evaluation? I suspect that this topic will produce some disagreement. Barring unusual circumstances, I believe that a CEO self-evaluation creates stress, unnecessary conflict and confusion about the point of the CEO evaluation process.
At first glance, it seems only fair that the CEO should have the opportunity to provide their input – they are the ones who know the most about what is going on. The CEO understands the context behind the numbers, the obstacles that were overcome, the staff challenges that never reached the board agenda, the quiet successes, the unfinished progress, and the tradeoffs behind difficult decisions.
After all, a good evaluation should be informed, fair, and grounded in reality. The board does not see everything. Board members usually have limited contact with staff, funders, clients, regulators, community partners, or operational realities. A CEO self-evaluation might be able to bridge those gaps. It might remind board members of goals that were achieved, projects that were delayed for good reasons, and accomplishments that may not have been visible from the board table. It allows the CEO to explain things.
Still, in most cases, I do not think a formal CEO self-evaluation is the right tool. The purpose of the evaluation is for the board to reach and communicate its own assessment of the CEO’s performance. The CEO’s perspective matters, but the CEO should not be placed in the position of grading, defending, or framing the evaluation before the board has done its work.
Ideally, the CEO is providing context throughout the year through reports, conversations, dashboards, goal updates, and candid discussion with board leadership. If the annual evaluation is the first time the board hears the CEO’s explanation of major accomplishments, obstacles, or tradeoffs, that is not an argument for a self-evaluation. It is a sign that board communication needs to improve.
A CEO self-evaluation alters the structure of the evaluation. Instead of the board beginning with its own responsibility to assess the CEO’s performance, the CEO is asked to step forward first and explain, defend, or grade their own work. That can put the CEO in an awkward position. If the CEO is too positive, the self-evaluation may read as self-promotion. If the CEO is too candid about shortcomings, those comments may be remembered more vividly than the accomplishments. Suddenly, the focus changes from the board’s assessment of performance to a search for variance between the board’s scores and the CEO’s score.
A CEO self-evaluation creates unnecessary tension. Suppose the CEO gives themselves high marks in an area where some board members have concerns. Does that make the CEO look unaware? Defensive? Out of touch? Suppose the CEO modestly underscores their performance in a given area. Does that become the center of the evaluation? Suppose the CEO’s narrative emphasizes external obstacles, while board members wanted more ownership. The self-evaluation complicates the conversation instead of keeping the focus on what the board thinks about the CEO’s performance.
The board is responsible for evaluating the CEO. That responsibility belongs to the board. It should not be outsourced to the CEO, nor should it begin by asking the CEO to define the terms of the evaluation.
A well-designed CEO evaluation should ask board members to assess performance based on clear criteria, agreed-upon goals, organizational priorities, and the board’s actual experience with the CEO’s leadership. It should help the board identify patterns, not collect stray opinions. It should give the CEO useful feedback, not create a stressful ritual of self-justification.
This does not mean the CEO’s perspective should be excluded. The CEO should be communicating to provide context before and after the evaluation process. The CEO should be invited to contribute to a thoughtful conversation after the board has gathered its own feedback. That is providing helpful context.
A self-evaluation asks the CEO to judge their own performance. A thoughtful conversation asks the CEO to help the board understand the work. The first can feel defensive. The second can be constructive, and it should build upon conversations held throughout the year.
If the board wants to make sure it is not forgetting or misunderstanding progress, setbacks and challenges, it can ask the CEO to provide a pre-evaluation report on topics that will appear in the evaluation. Providing reports to the board on important topics ought to be part of the CEO’s work throughout the year. The CEO can help assemble or explain that information without being asked to score themselves.
My aversion to CEO self-evaluation is not absolute, and I see cases where it makes sense. In a mature organization with a strong board culture, clear goals, and a high-trust relationship between board and CEO, the CEO may find the exercise useful. Some CEOs may even welcome the chance to reflect in writing before receiving feedback. In those cases, a self-evaluation can be constructive if it is brief, focused, and clearly understood as one source of information rather than the foundation of the evaluation.
But for most nonprofit organizations, I would be cautious.
The annual CEO evaluation is already sensitive. It touches compensation, trust, accountability, organizational direction, and the relationship between the board and the executive. Adding a formal self-evaluation may create more stress than value. It can encourage defensiveness. It may turn the process toward advocacy rather than assessment. It may cause the CEO to wonder whether candor will be rewarded or used against them.
That is not the purpose of a CEO evaluation. The purpose of a CEO evaluation is for the board to evaluate the CEO. The board should do its job. The CEO should receive meaningful feedback. The conversation should look forward as well as backward. Everyone should leave with a better understanding of expectations, priorities, and support needed for the year ahead.
So my general answer is no: I would not usually require the CEO to complete a formal self-evaluation.
I would invite the CEO’s perspective. I would expect the CEO to provide the information to support an accurate assessment regularly, in meetings, written communications and conversations. I would give the CEO an opportunity to respond to the board’s feedback, if they believe it would clarify things. I would encourage reflection. But I would avoid turning the CEO into both the subject and a co-author of the evaluation. The CEO should be heard. The CEO’s context should be respected. The CEO should have an opportunity to respond, clarify, and help the board look ahead. But the judgment itself belongs to the board.
That is the distinction worth preserving: the CEO may inform the evaluation, but the board must own it.