For sitting directors
Effectiveness, committee fit, renewal readiness. With evidence.
A board evaluation tells the board how it is doing. It rarely tells you, in evidence a chair would accept, how you are doing. boardiqo does, privately, before renewal season, a committee chair appointment or an external evaluation.
When directors use it
Four moments where evidence beats reputation
Renewal at end of term
The nomination committee will ask what you contributed. A report with twelve evidenced scores answers before the question is asked.
Stepping up to chair a committee
Committee fit is a competency profile, not seniority. Know where your evidence supports the chair role and where it does not yet.
Before an external board evaluation
Read your own profile before a facilitator reads it to the chair. Build the artefacts that are missing while there is time.
A pattern you suspect in yourself
Deference, filtered information, avoidance of conflict: the failure-pattern screen reads early signals you cannot see from inside the room.
Committee fit is a shape: this profile matches an audit committee's demand on eight competencies and falls short on risk oversight, where the gap is evidence, not judgment
- C1Strategic judgment4.32 / cap 5.00
- C2Financial acumen4.05 / cap 4.50
- C3Risk oversight3.25 / cap 3.25
- C4Technology, cyber & AI literacy4.60 / cap 5.00
- C5Regulatory & legal awareness3.80 / cap 4.50
- C6Human capital & talent oversight3.40 / cap 4.00
- C7ESG & stakeholder judgment4.00 / cap 4.00
- C8Crisis & reputation management3.00 / cap 3.25
- C9Behavioral governance4.10 / cap 4.50
- C10Independence & conflict resilience3.60 / cap 4.50
- C11Boardroom contribution & follow-through4.20 / cap 5.00
- C12Board system contribution3.70 / cap 4.00
Basis: illustrative sitting-director profile (synthetic) overlaid with an illustrative audit-committee demand profile. Demand profiles weight the competencies a committee relies on most.
Renewal readiness is read in three questions a chair asks, and each has an evidenced answer in the report
| The chair's question | Where the report answers it | Illustrative reading |
|---|---|---|
| What did you contribute? | C11 Boardroom contribution & follow-through, with minuted interventions graded as evidence | 4.20 · Strong evidence |
| Did you challenge when it mattered? | C1, C3, C9 and the FP4 deference screen: dissent on the record, or its absence | FP4 not detected · dissent minuted twice |
| Is your skill set still what the strategy needs? | Twelve-competency profile against the board's demand map, C4 technology and AI in particular | 4.60 · Strong evidence |
Basis: boardiqo report sections mapped to the questions nomination committees typically put to directors at renewal. Illustrative readings from the synthetic sample profile.
Sitting directors already hold the strongest evidence class: minutes, committee memoranda and decision records grade Strong when they are attributable to you
| Evidence you already hold | Typical grade | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Board or committee minutes recording your intervention, dissent or question | Strong · cap 5.00 | Attributable to you by name or role; contemporaneous. |
| Committee memoranda you authored or materially shaped | Strong · cap 5.00 | Authorship or documented contribution; scope of the committee's remit. |
| Decision records with your position on the record | Good · cap 4.50 | Position recorded; outcome need not be favourable to score. |
| Post-mortems, incident reviews, crisis debriefs | Good · cap 4.50 | Direct evidence for C8 and C9 when your role is documented. |
| External evaluation extracts concerning you | Moderate · cap 4.00 | Attributable but interpretive; supports, does not establish. |
| Self-description without an artefact | Weak · cap 3.25 | Caps at 3.25 regardless of the account. |
Basis: boardiqo evidence grading. Confidential documents are graded, never reproduced in the report; you may redact names before attaching.
Your board does not see this. Unless you show it.
boardiqo is bought by you and reports to you. Boards and nomination committees see nothing unless you share the report yourself. If your board later adopts a board workspace, your individual report remains yours; the chair sees only the aggregate map.
Confidentiality and control