Looking in the mirror: why effective boards evaluate themselves

David Hughes MInstD

At the end of every board meeting, David Hughes MInstD asks a simple question: how did we go?

It is not rhetorical. As chair of the Ag Emissions Centre Governance Group, Hughes has embedded a short “mini evaluation” into each meeting. “What things are we doing that are valuable and should continue? What should we stop? What did we miss?” he says. For him, formal board evaluation is simply an extension of that habit.

“One of the board’s key jobs is to hold the chief executive to account,” Hughes says. “But to do that with any kind of integrity, we’ve got to hold ourselves to account. We’ve really got to be there ensuring we’re bringing our best game every time. And that’s a continuous process.”

That commitment to continuous improvement sits at the heart of how the Governance Group approaches its work. Formal evaluation is not a periodic box-ticking exercise. It is a deliberate pause – a chance to step back from the rhythm of meetings and ask, collectively, how the board is performing.

The right moment to pause

In 2025, the Governance Group undertook a formal board evaluation through the IoD two years into its tenure – deliberately timed.

“It’s a new board,” Hughes explains. “Two years in is a pretty good time to do a reasonably thorough evaluation. We’ve got past the forming, storming and norming stages. We should be at steady state. How are we going? Have we fallen into bad practices? Are there things we could stop doing? Are there things we could start doing?” 

Rather than searching for dysfunction, the board approached the process as a performance reset – a structured pause to sharpen its practice. 

The evaluation combined survey feedback from directors and the senior team, followed by a facilitated workshop with Felicity Caird CMInstD.  

“Having an external facilitator is hugely helpful. It means, in particular, the chair can just be part of the meeting and everyone gets an equal voice.” 
It also brings perspective. “They bring comparisons to other organisations and learnings from other organisations. So that’s really quite reassuring.”

Protecting strengths

The evaluation was as much about reinforcing strengths as identifying gaps. 
“One of the key findings was that we were doing several things well,” Hughes says. “It’s easy to lose good practices. You start off with great intent. Over time, you can get a bit lazy.

“Making a commitment to each other that we’re going to continue doing what we do well – and excelling at it – is just as important as identifying where we could do better.”

Seeing ourselves through others’ eyes

A more challenging insight came from differences between how the board rated itself and how the senior team experienced it.

The questionnaire was sent to directors and to the senior team who regularly present to the board. Some differences in scoring were understandable. Others were not.

“That taught us quite a lot about how it felt to be presenting to this board,” Hughes says.

Agenda management and meeting flow emerged as areas for improvement. For Hughes, that meant reflecting on his own chairing practice.

“We got some useful data about areas that were not optimal from the senior team’s point of view and what we could take on board to show greater respect to them and their contribution.”

The insight is simple: evaluation should consider not only how directors experience governance, but how governance feels to those engaging with it.

That kind of honest feedback, however, depends on trust.

“If you’re going into an evaluation and the board culture is not strong to start with, it would be a pretty tricky thing to do,” Hughes says.

By the time the formal evaluation took place, the board had already embedded a habit of debriefing difficult discussions – sometimes at the end of meetings, sometimes immediately after a challenging exchange. That continuous improvement mindset created what

Hughes describes as a virtuous cycle: successfully navigating one difficult conversation made the next one less daunting. Over time, the board strengthened its collective capacity to have robust discussions without damaging trust. 

Turning insight into action

An evaluation only has value if it changes behaviour.

“The debrief is important,” Hughes says. Without prioritisation, boards can generate an overwhelming list of good intentions.

His approach is pragmatic: identify must-dos, should-dos and could-dos.

“That gives you a smaller number of things that you’re really going to hold yourself accountable to actually delivering.”

The key is ensuring outcomes are not simply recommendations from a facilitator, but commitments owned by the board.

For Hughes, evaluation is not an event but an expression of mindset. It works best when it is part of an ongoing rhythm, reinforced meeting by meeting, rather than introduced as a corrective measure.

“I would build to a position of an evaluation as opposed to surprising people with an evaluation,” he says. “An evaluation should be a culmination of a process that’s been run right from the start . . . where you set a continuous improvement expectation and everyone buys into it.”

Hughes is quick to acknowledge that context matters. The Governance Group comprises experienced and highly competent directors, most of whom had participated in evaluations before. It was not a hard sell.

There is also a strong sense of purpose. Supporting the transition to low-emissions agriculture is mission critical for New Zealand – and, as Hughes sees it, a privilege to contribute to. That shared motivation creates its own accountability: a collective determination to bring their best game.

In the end, looking in the mirror is not about criticism. It is about credibility.

Regular evaluation is a practical way for boards to strengthen performance and embed continuous improvement. The IoD offers independent board evaluations designed to provide objective insight, benchmark against governance best practice and identify clear, actionable steps forward. Find out more here. 

And if you want to hear more about board dynamics and evaluations, check out episode 4 of our podcast Board Talk: Off the Cuff.