Board Evaluations: From Checklist to Catalyst for Strategic Impact

By Mui Hoon POH, Co-founder & Partner | BoardLens Advisory

In today's rapidly evolving business and regulatory landscape, board evaluations are no longer just a formality. They are increasingly seen as a strategic tool for aligning the board's performance with the organisation's long-term goals, identifying blind spots, and enhancing governance effectiveness. Across jurisdictions, global governance bodies and regulators have been raising the bar for board accountability. Both Singapore and Malaysia exemplify this trend with clear regulatory expectations.

SGX : Raising the Standard

The Singapore Exchange (SGX) in its Practice Guidance 5 outlines clear expectations on board performance evaluations. One of its key points is: "The Board should disclose in the company's annual report how the evaluation was conducted and the criteria on which the evaluation was based. This is more than a disclosure requirement. It sets a tone from the top that performance reviews are essential—not optional. Practice Guidance 5 also encourages:

• Evaluation at three levels: the full board, board committees, and individual directors

• The Nominating Committee (NC) to determine the evaluation process and set objective criteria

• Use of external facilitators periodically to provide independent insight and encourage candour

Malaysia's Commitment to Board Excellence Similarly, Bursa Malaysia has established robust governance frameworks that emphasise board effectiveness and accountability. The exchange's listing requirements and corporate governance guidelines reinforce the importance of systematic board evaluations as part of sound governance practice. This regulatory alignment between Singapore and Malaysia reflects the broader ASEAN commitment to elevating governance standards across the region. The Institute of Corporate Directors Malaysia (ICDM) further strengthens this foundation through its comprehensive director development programmes and advocacy efforts.

Global Convergence on Good Practice The push for meaningful board evaluations is echoed across international governance bodies: AICD (Australia): Frames evaluations as performance improvement tools. HKIOD (Hong Kong Institute of Directors): Emphasizes regular evaluations as a means to enhance board effectiveness. ICDM (Malaysia): Provides a structured framework for director effectiveness NACD (National Association of Corporate Directors, US): Recommends moving beyond checkbox exercises toward rigorous, recurring evaluations that sharpen board performance and adaptability in a complex risk landscape. GNDI (Global Network of Director Institutes): In their Board Performance Evaluation Guideline, GNDI emphasizes that regular evaluations are critical for improving board performance. Over 50% of directors surveyed indicated that enhancing board evaluation processes is their top priority for improving board performance. SID (Singapore Institute of Directors): Highlights that evaluations drive accountability, succession planning, and board culture. UK IOD: Stresses resolving governance issues and surfacing undercurrents. Across these sources, common threads emerge: • Evaluations promote strategic alignment, not just compliance • They enable candid conversations and boardroom trust • They help boards adapt to change, not just react to it From Practice to Performance At BoardLens, we help boards turn evaluations into actionable insights: • Quantitative surveys benchmark behaviours and structure • Confidential interviews surface dynamics and friction points • Comparative benchmarks help directors understand how they measure up to peers But the most important transformation is cultural: When evaluations are done well, they shift the conversation from individual feedback to collective growth. Including Management in the Evaluation Loop While board evaluations have traditionally focused inward—examining board and committee dynamics—there is growing recognition of the value of incorporating feedback from management, particularly the CEO and senior leadership team. At BoardLens, we advocate a forward-looking approach where boards:

• Invite structured, confidential feedback from the CEO and selected members of management on the board's strategic guidance, decision-making efficiency, and supportiveness • Use these insights to supplement board self-evaluations and calibrate perceptions between governance and execution • Engage external facilitators to manage and integrate this input into the evaluation process Including the management perspective strengthens board-management alignment and creates a more holistic understanding of board effectiveness. It opens the door to richer dialogue and a more unified leadership culture. Directors: Are You Asking the Right Questions? • When did your board last evaluate itself, its committees, or each director individually? • Were the findings shared openly, and did they lead to concrete changes? • Have you ever engaged an external advisor for a deeper, more honest review? • Have you sought management's views to understand how the board is experienced by those it oversees? As regulators across Asia raise expectations and stakeholders demand transparency, meaningful board evaluations will become a clear marker of good governance. Resources for Further Reading: • SGX Practice Guidance 5: Board Performance • SID Global Board Performance Evaluation Guideline (2024) • ICDM Board & Director Effectiveness Evaluation • Bursa Malaysia (2024): Corporate Governance Report. View Report • ICDM: Director Competency Framework. View Framework

---

Boardroom Insights That Matter — a series by BoardLens. Stay with us for grounded, globally informed perspectives on what truly drives board effectiveness.