Post 3: Performance Management Is a Governance Skill, Not a Crisis Response
Police service boards are already familiar with structured performance management when it comes to police leadership. Boards understand that performance evaluation is not a single event, but an ongoing process designed to support alignment, accountability, and development over time.
That same principle applies to all individuals who support the board’s work, regardless of title or employment arrangement.
Performance management is not about hierarchy. It is about responsibility.
What boards are often navigating
Boards frequently work with a mix of employment arrangements:
- an Executive Director hired directly by the board,
- a board administrator employed part-time or full-time,
- or a municipal employee assigned to perform board functions in addition to their regular role.
In these arrangements, performance management is often assumed to be “handled elsewhere” or left undefined altogether.
Common patterns include:
- No shared understanding of who provides feedback or evaluates performance.
- Reliance on informal conversations rather than structured check-ins.
- Hesitation to raise concerns because the role feels politically or administratively sensitive.
- Performance conversations occurring only when frustration has already built.
Over time, this creates a situation where boards are exercising direction and control without the corresponding employer discipline.
Why this matters
Performance management does not disappear simply because a role is shared, part-time, or administratively complex. When it is absent or informal, predictable governance risks emerge:
- Misalignment: Staff may reasonably believe they are meeting expectations, while boards quietly feel dissatisfied.
- Surprise: Concerns surface late, often framed as “fit” rather than performance.
- Inconsistency: Different board members provide different signals, creating confusion and tension.
- Risk exposure: Decisions lack documentation, making them difficult to defend or explain.
- Loss of continuity: Boards lose institutional knowledge through avoidable turnover or disengagement.
Boards would not accept this level of ambiguity in managing a police chief or OPP detachment commander. The same governance standard should apply here.
What this looks like in practice
In real-world board environments, this often shows up as:
- An administrator whose board responsibilities steadily expand without adjustments to role clarity or expectations.
- A governance professional hired to “bring structure,” whose early momentum creates discomfort because pace and sequencing were never discussed.
- A municipal staff member assigned to board work without clear guidance on how board expectations interact with their primary employment obligations.
- Performance concerns being expressed informally among board members but never clearly communicated to the individual.
These situations are rarely about intent. They are about structure.
Actions boards can take
Boards can significantly reduce risk and strengthen relationships by approaching performance management deliberately and consistently:
- Clarify responsibility
Explicitly identify who is responsible for performance oversight, feedback, and support for anyone performing board-directed work. This should not rely on assumptions or informal arrangements. - Separate role clarity from performance
Before assessing performance, ensure expectations are clear. Where roles have evolved, recalibrate scope, priorities, and authority before drawing conclusions about effectiveness. - Establish a regular performance rhythm
Use scheduled check-ins focused on alignment, priorities, pace, and support needs, not just task completion. These conversations should occur even when things are going well. - Normalize calibration conversations
When boards hire for improvement or change, enthusiasm can outpace comfort. Calibration conversations allow boards to adjust pace, sequencing, and communication style without undermining the original hire decision. - Document for continuity, not punishment
Written objectives, summaries of discussions, and agreed adjustments protect both the board and the individual, especially as board membership changes. - Acknowledge dual-accountability arrangements
Where individuals are employed by another organization but directed by the board, clarify how performance feedback is shared and coordinated to avoid mixed messages.
Linking back to board administrator guidance
This is why the Administrator Handbook includes guidance on performance management. It is not intended to create rigidity, but to:
- help administrators understand expectations,
- provide boards with a basic framework where none exists,
- and create shared language for discussing scope, priorities, and support.
Performance management, when done well, is not corrective. It is stabilizing.
Why this strengthens governance outcomes
Boards that approach performance management as a governance skill:
- reduce the likelihood of abrupt or reactive decisions,
- preserve relationships during periods of change,
- retain capable people who understand the governance environment,
- and protect institutional memory and momentum.
This is not different from how boards already manage police leadership. It is an extension of that same responsibility.