HR Perspective with MEMORY NGUWI
ONE of the clearest indicators of a board’s seriousness about performance is whether it has a formal performance contract with the chief executive officer (CEO). A board that reaches the middle of the year without an agreed CEO performance contract has probably misplaced its priorities. After all, the board’s primary responsibility is to oversee organisational performance, and the CEO is ultimately accountable for delivering that performance.
If there are no agreed targets, no clear expectations, and no structured review process, the board is effectively attempting to govern performance without a framework for measuring it. Such an approach undermines accountability and weakens the board’s ability to fulfill its governance responsibilities.
Corporate governance best practice across the world places CEO performance oversight at the centre of board activity. Governance codes, institutional investors, and governance experts consistently emphasise the board’s responsibility to set strategic direction, monitor execution, and hold management accountable for results. The CEO serves as the critical link between strategy and execution. While many factors influence organisational outcomes, the board’s assessment of company performance is largely channeled through its evaluation of the CEO’s performance. For this reason, leading boards ensure that CEO performance expectations are clearly documented, formally agreed upon, and rigorously monitored throughout the year.
A CEO performance contract is a strategic management tool that aligns the organisation’s goals with executive accountability. The performance contract translates the board-approved strategy into measurable outcomes that the CEO is expected to deliver. It establishes what success looks like and creates a shared understanding between the board and the CEO. Without this clarity, disagreements often emerge at year-end when performance is being assessed. The board may feel that results are disappointing, while the CEO may argue that expectations were never clearly defined. A well-designed performance contract eliminates such ambiguity.
Research in performance management consistently demonstrates that individuals perform better when goals are specific, measurable, and regularly reviewed. The principles established by decades of goal-setting research show that clear and challenging objectives lead to higher levels of performance than vague aspirations. These findings apply equally to executive leadership.
CEOs require clear targets covering financial performance, operational performance, strategic execution, risk management, talent development, customer outcomes, and sustainability objectives where relevant. A comprehensive performance contract ensures that organisational success is evaluated across multiple dimensions rather than solely through financial results.
The timing of the performance contract is equally important. Best practice requires that the CEO performance contract be agreed at the beginning of the financial year or performance cycle. Waiting several months into the year before establishing targets significantly weakens the process. Performance management should be proactive rather than retrospective. Boards should not spend most of the year discussing operational matters only to attempt an evaluation at the end of the year without having established clear expectations upfront. Effective boards begin with clear goals derived from the strategy and spend the remainder of the year monitoring progress against agreed commitments.
Equally important is the review process. The most effective boards do not wait until year-end to assess CEO performance. Instead, they conduct structured quarterly reviews through the human resources, remuneration, or governance committee before reporting to the full board. Quarterly reviews allow for timely feedback, course correction, and identification of emerging risks. They also ensure that performance discussions remain objective and evidence-based rather than being influenced by recent events or personal perceptions. Regular reviews help both the board and the CEO maintain focus on strategic priorities throughout the year.
Leading boards extend performance accountability beyond the CEO. While executives report directly to the CEO, many of their activities fall within areas that are ultimately overseen by board committees. For example, the audit committee has a legitimate interest in the performance of executives responsible for internal audit. Similarly, the human resources committee should have visibility into the performance of senior executives responsible for people-related outcomes. This does not mean that boards manage executives directly. Rather, it ensures that the board receives sufficient information to discharge its oversight responsibilities.
A practical approach adopted by many high-performing organisations is for all senior executives to operate under formal performance contracts aligned to organisational objectives. These performance contracts are reviewed by the CEO, while summary performance assessments are periodically presented to the board. Such reporting gives directors valuable insight into organisational capability and execution capacity. It also enables committees to identify potential leadership risks, succession challenges, and areas requiring intervention. Boards that receive no information on executive performance often have limited visibility into whether the management team can deliver the strategy.
The role of board committees in performance oversight is particularly important. Every committee should maintain a keen interest in the performance of executives responsible for the areas under its jurisdiction. This interest should not be operational in nature, but oversight focused. Directors should seek assurance that capable individuals are in place, that performance expectations are being achieved, and that corrective action is taken when performance falls short. This oversight becomes especially critical when organisations face significant strategic, financial, operational, or regulatory challenges.
An often-overlooked benefit of CEO performance contracts is that they strengthen the relationship between the board and management. Contrary to popular belief, performance contracts are not designed to create conflict. They create clarity. They help the CEO understand exactly what the board expects while helping the board evaluate performance fairly and consistently. When expectations are transparent, discussions become more objective and constructive. The result is a healthier governance environment built on accountability rather than the personal preferences of board members.
Boards exist to govern. They do not manage the organisation directly, but they are accountable for ensuring that performance is delivered. This responsibility cannot be discharged effectively without clear targets, regular reviews, and structured accountability mechanisms. A CEO performance contract provides the foundation for all three. It creates alignment between strategy and execution, enables meaningful oversight, and strengthens organisational accountability. Boards that take CEO performance management seriously are far more likely to drive sustainable success than those that treat performance evaluation as an annual formality. In the end, organisations achieve better results when accountability is deliberate, measurable, and embedded throughout the leader
lNguwi is the managing consultant of Industrial Psychology Consultants and a registered occupational psychologist.