People, Culture & Employment Governance · 2 March 2027
CEO turnover in Australia sits at close to twenty-two percent, higher than most other mature economies, and research into why points somewhere most boards would not expect. Conflict between the board and the chief executive ends more than one in ten CEO tenures, and the root cause identified most consistently is not poor CEO performance. It is poor communication of what the board actually expected in the first place.
A Genuine Board Failure Often Misread As A Ceo Failure
This finding deserves to reframe how a board thinks about performance review entirely. A CEO departure attributed to underperformance is frequently, on closer inspection, a failure of the board to set and communicate clear expectations from the outset, discovered only when the gap between what the board wanted and what the CEO delivered had already become a relationship problem. Performance review done well is not primarily a judgment exercise conducted once a year. It is an ongoing communication discipline that prevents exactly this kind of quiet, compounding misalignment.
Why This Is A Genuine Governance Standard 5 Obligation, Not Just Good Practice
For ACNC-registered charities, performance evaluation connects directly to the board's own duties under Governance Standard 5, discussed throughout this series. A board demonstrates it has the knowledge, skill, and ability to govern effectively partly through evidence that it actually evaluates its own chief executive with rigour, not through an assumption that things must be fine because nobody has raised a formal concern. A board that only discovers its expectations were unclear after the CEO relationship has already broken down has learned the lesson at the most expensive possible moment, after the cost of departure, replacement, and organisational instability has already been incurred.
Building Expectations That Actually Prevent This
The standard, useful discipline for setting CEO expectations clearly is the SMART framework, specific, measurable, agreed between both parties, realistic, and time-bound. Critically, not every expectation needs to be quantitative. Boards in the not-for-profit sector have latitude to use qualitative, subjective measures where these more accurately capture what matters, provided the measure itself, quantitative or qualitative, is agreed clearly with the CEO before the review period begins rather than applied retrospectively.
- Agree specific, measurable expectations with the CEO before each review period begins, using the SMART framework, rather than evaluating against criteria clarified only after the fact.
- Use a mix of quantitative and qualitative measures appropriate to what matters, recognising that not-for-profit performance often cannot be captured through numbers alone.
- Conduct the review on a regular, predictable cycle, since irregular or ad hoc reviews are a documented common failure mode that erodes the process's real value.
- Base the evaluation on real evidence, organisational performance data, financial results, stakeholder and staff feedback, rather than relying primarily on individual board members' personal impressions.
- Treat any misalignment discovered during review as a signal to clarify expectations going forward immediately, rather than allowing it to compound quietly until it becomes a relationship crisis.
A rigorous CEO performance review process is one of the most direct ways a board can reduce its own contribution to the CEO turnover this series has identified as a genuine, costly, and largely preventable problem. The discipline this requires sits with the board at least as much as it does with the chief executive being reviewed.
This is one of the practical governance topics built into our Board Director course — alongside the papers, tools and frameworks that turn the principle into your board's actual practice. Explore the course →
— Annie