Statutory accountability
Creates a structured performance record for a statutory officer role - one that the Companies Act defines with specific obligations and that the board is responsible for overseeing.
The Company Secretary Evaluation module provides a structured assessment of the Company Secretary's performance against their statutory obligations, governance support responsibilities, and the board's operational needs - aligned to the Companies Act and King V Principle 7.
The Company Secretary is not a support function. They are a statutory officer with defined obligations under the Companies Act, a governance advisor to the board and its committees, and the primary custodian of the organisation's governance records. Yet formal evaluation of Company Secretary performance is consistently absent from board evaluation programmes.
Creates a structured performance record for a statutory officer role - one that the Companies Act defines with specific obligations and that the board is responsible for overseeing.
Company Secretary performance directly affects the quality of information the board receives, the compliance standing of the organisation, and the board's ability to function effectively.
King V Principle 7 requires the board to ensure that delegation to management is governed effectively. Formal evaluation is part of discharging that obligation.
The module applies equally to internal Company Secretaries and outsourced governance service providers - with configuration adjustments to reflect the different accountability framework in each case.
The Company Secretary Evaluation sits naturally within the same annual cycle as the CEO/MD Evaluation - since both roles are subject to King V Principle 7 and both directly affect board governance quality.
Company Secretary evaluation can be conducted as a purely developmental tool - or as the basis for a formal performance review where the Company Secretary is employed by the organisation. The module supports both approaches.
Agree the evaluation criteria, participant list, and how findings will be used - differentiating between developmental and formal performance review purposes.
Directors assess the Company Secretary's performance across all dimensions - anonymously and independently.
The chair, given their closest working relationship with the Company Secretary, completes a more detailed and attributed assessment.
The Company Secretary assesses their own performance - creating the basis for a self-perception versus board-perception comparison.
A senior BoardEvaluator™ practitioner synthesises the assessment data and produces a structured performance picture.
The chair presents the evaluation findings to the Company Secretary - with specific development commitments and performance expectations for the next cycle.
Formal Company Secretary evaluation consistently surfaces governance signals that informal board sentiment misses - particularly around governance advice quality, information management, and independence.
Company Secretaries who have been in role for several years sometimes hold governance knowledge that has not kept pace with framework changes - including King V updates, Companies Act amendments, and regulatory developments.
Directors consistently rate board information quality as the Company Secretary dimension where improvement would most benefit governance effectiveness.
Where the Company Secretary is employed by the organisation and reports to the CEO, directors often express concern about whether they can advise the board independently on governance matters involving management.
Company Secretaries typically rate their induction support highly. Director perceptions of ongoing governance support are often lower.
The quality of minutes as a governance record - capturing decisions, dissent, and rationale rather than just attendance and resolutions - is more variable than formal compliance suggests.
Proactive relationship management with CIPC and relevant regulators - ahead of filing deadlines and compliance requirements - is frequently identified as a development opportunity.
This module works well independently and integrates naturally into multi-module engagement programmes.
Connect this module to the wider BoardEvaluator™ operating model.
Show how this module connects to wider governance themes.
Move from understanding to engagement.
Yes. The module is configured to reflect the different accountability framework - contractual rather than employment-based - and the different independence dynamics of an outsourced arrangement. In outsourced contexts, the evaluation serves as both a performance review and a contract value assessment.
No. The Company Secretary receives aggregated findings - not individual director ratings. The chair presents findings in a structured performance conversation.
Yes, with careful configuration. Where the Company Secretary role is combined with another executive function, the evaluation is calibrated to assess the governance dimensions of the role specifically.
Where evaluation findings suggest that the Company Secretary is unable or unwilling to advise the board independently of management, this is presented as a material governance concern - with recommended actions ranging from structural changes to reporting lines to consideration of an outsourced arrangement.
The structured director assessment typically takes 20 to 30 minutes per director. The chair's separate assessment takes approximately 40 minutes. The Company Secretary's self-assessment takes 30 to 40 minutes.
Modules that complement this evaluation in a structured annual governance cycle.
If the board is ready to bring the same governance rigour to the Company Secretary's performance that it applies to other management roles - this module provides the structured, evidence-based framework to do so.