In her article CEO Evaluations: Providing Feedback that Makes a Difference, Laura Hay believes that a CEO's performance be assessed on the following criteria:

• Strategy and Vision – How well does the CEO convey the bank’s vision and develop a clear guide for current and future courses of action?
• Leadership – How well does the CEO motivate and energize employees to implement the business strategy and achieve the bank’s vision?
• Innovation/Technology – Does the CEO have a vision for the development of new/better products and services? Is there an IT strategy in place to improve the customer experience and assist in operational and risk management?
• Operating Metrics – Is the bank meeting its current financial objectives? Has progress been made in achieving mid- and long-term financial performance objectives?
• Risk Management – Is the bank adequately managing its risk and receiving satisfactory regulatory reviews?
• People Management – To what extent does the CEO take steps to improve and expand the capabilities of senior managers? Does the CEO’s management style convey a high level of ethics and respect for employees?
• External Relationships – How well does the CEO interact with shareholders, the Board, customers, regulators, media and other stakeholders?

These criteria are is OK as a generic, but I think that most CEOs are appointed for a specific set of objectives in a specific context.

If you believe the article that this is the way that CEOs are assessed, then any CEO reading the article would focus on those few characteristics. Yet his/her board-directed brief is to achieve specific outcomes, and the generic criteria in the article are of lesser importance (not unimportant, but at a certain time, less important.)

It's not that these criteria a wrong; it's that they may, in context, distract from the task at hand.

If we are honest, the criteria specified here are rarely if ever met perfectly by anyone. Where a CEO is lacking (or doesn't have the time) in a particular area, then others are usually used to fill that role/task. That doesn't necessarily mean the CEO falls short, but rather that the CEO might be focussing on 'more important' things at that time (e.g. like survival!)

Ref: http://boardprospects.hivefire.com/articles/612090/ceo-evaluations-providing-feedback-that-makes-a-di/