© Copyright 2003 RBAP. All Rights Reserved. Microfinance Staff Performance Evaluation

© Copyright 2003 RBAP. All Rights Reserved.

Microfinance Staff Performance Evaluation

© Copyright 2003 RBAP. All Rights Reserved. 2

Staff Evaluation

Performance Indicators

• Use of both quantitative and qualitative performance indicators

• Eighty percent (80%) of the AO’s final rating will come from his/her quantifiable outputs and 20% will be coming from his/her non-quantifiable contributions.


Staff Evaluation

Quantitative Indicators

• Number of Active Borrowers

• Amount of Loans Disbursed

• Portfolio At Risk (PAR) Ratio


Staff Evaluation

Number of Active Borrowers - refers to the number of borrowers with outstanding loans who are under the Account Officer’s supervision

Amount of Loans Disbursed - refers to the amount of loans disbursed by the AO. This indicator is used as a proxy indicator for the AO’s loan portfolio. Setting a monthly loan disbursement target is easier than determining a monthly loan portfolio target.

Portfolio at Risk Ratio - refers to the ratio of the total balances of accounts with past due installments (1 day or more) under the supervision of the AO to his/her total loan portfolio.


Staff Evaluation

In terms of their relative importance, the amount of loans disbursed and PAR are given high and equal importance (40% each), while the number of active borrowers is given lesser importance (20%).

The bias, in so far as individual lending is concerned, is for the AOs to focus on relatively bigger loan accounts and to maintain zero PAR.


Staff Evaluation

End of Period Accomplishments and Consistency of Performance

The evaluation will also look at two aspects of the AO’s outputs: the end-of-period accomplishments, and the consistency of his/her performance during the period.

The end-of-period accomplishments refers to the comparison of the AO’s accomplishments with his/her targets as of the cut-off date of the review.

Consistency of performance refers to the extent by which the staff has met his/her monthly performance targets.

(When measuring the consistency of performance of the AOs on a monthly basis, the number of new borrowers brought in by the particular AO will be used in lieu of the number of active borrowers.)


Staff Evaluation

The principle behind looking at the consistency of performance is that a staff who was able to attain his/her targets consistently on a monthly basis should be given a higher rating than a staff who had, for the most part of the review period, fell below his/her monthly targets but, nevertheless, was able to meet his/her targets during the “last two minutes” of the review period, so to speak. The consistency aspect, however, could be disregarded when a monthly staff incentive scheme shall have been introduced. In terms of their relative importance, 75% of the AO’s final rating in so far as his/her quantifiable outputs are concerned will come from his/her end of period accomplishments, and 25% from the consistency of his/her performance.


Staff Evaluation

Qualitative Performance Indicators

• Knowledge of work

• Quality of work

• Attitude

• Customer service

• Other Factors


Staff Evaluation

Scoring System – OVERALL RATING

Total Weighted Score Rating

4.0 Outstanding

3.1 – 3.9 Exceeds requirements

2.1 – 3.0 Meets requirements

1.1 – 1.9 Below requirements in some areas

1.0 and below Unsatisfactory


Staff Evaluation

Qualitative Indicators – End of Period Accomplishments

Number of Active Borrowers

% of Target Accomplished Score

Over 100% 4

85 – 100% 3

70 – 85% 2

Below 70% 1


Staff Evaluation

Qualitative Indicators – End of Period Accomplishments

Portfolio At Risk (PAR) Ratio

PAR Score

0% 4

0.01% - 2.55% 3

2.56% - 5.00% 2

Over 5.00% 1


Staff Evaluation

Qualitative Indicators – Consistency of Performance

Consistency will be measured by the average monthly accomplishments of the AO and his/her average scores for the period.


Staff Evaluation

Qualitative Indicators

The scoring system will be the same as that for the quantitative indicators where the highest level being given the highest score of 4, and the lowest level, 1.

The maximum scores, together with the corresponding weight of each performance area, are shown in the table below.


Staff Evaluation

Performance Area Maximum Score

Average Score

Weight Weighted Ave. Score

A. Knowledge of Work 4 4 0.25 1.0

B. Quality of Work Thoroughness 4 Organization 4 Accuracy 4 Timeliness in submitting reports 4 Monitoring of Accounts 4 Written communication skills 4

Sub-total 24 4 0.25 1.0

C. Attitude Initiative 4 Concern for the company 4 Team work 4 Convictions 4 Integrity 4

Sub-total 20 4 0.25 1.0

D. Customer Service Appearance 4 Customer Relations 4

Sub-total 8 4 0.15 0.6

Other Factors Punctuality and attendance 4 4 0.10 0.4

TOTAL SCORE 4.0


Staff Evaluation

Estimation Procedure

Quantitative Indicators

Step 1: Evaluate the AO’s End of Period Accomplishments The target is assumed to be 15 new borrowers per month, or a total of 45 active borrowers during the three-month review period. The target for loans disbursements is assumed to be P100,000 per AO per month, or a total of P300,000 for the review period. The target PAR is assumed to be 0%.


Staff Evaluation

Indicator Target Actual Accomp.

% Accomp.

Score Weight Weighted Score

# Active Borrower 45 30 66.7% 1 0.20 0.2

Amt. Of Loans Disbursed

300,000 280,000 93.3% 3 0.40 1.2

PARR 0% 1.0% N/A 3 0.40 1.2

Total 2.6


Staff Evaluation

Step 2: Evaluate the AO’s Consistency The number of new borrowers brought in by the AO is assumed to be as follows: 5 in Month 1, 16 in Month 2, and 9 in Month 3. The target is 15 new borrowers per month. The amount of loans disbursed by the AO is assumed to be: P65,00 in Month 1, P125,000 in Month 2, and P90,000 in Month 3. The PARR on a monthly basis is assumed to be: 0% in Month 1, 0% in Month 2, and 1.0% in Month 3.


Staff Evaluation

Indicator Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Monthly Average

Weight Weighted Score

No. of New Borrowers

- Actual 5 16 9

- Target 15 15 15

- % Accomplishment 33.3% 106.7% 60.0%

- Score 1 4 1 2.0 0.20 0.40

Amount of Loans Disbursed

- Actual 65,000 125,000 90,000

- Target 100,000 100,000 100,000

- % Accomplishment 65.0% 125.0% 90.0%

- Score 1 4 3 2.67 0.40 1.07

PARR

- Actual 0% 0% 1.0%

- Target 0% 0% 0%

- Score 4 4 3 3.67% 0.40% 1.47%

TOTAL 2.94


Staff Evaluation

Step 3: Determine the AO’s Total Score for the Quantitative Indicators

Indicator Score Weight Weighted Score

End of Period 2.6 0.75 1.95

Consistency of Performance 2.9 0.25 0.72

Total 2.67


Staff Evaluation

Qualitative Indicators

Step 4: Evaluate other qualities of the AO’s performance

Assume that the AO performance in other aspects of his work is evaluated by his/her supervisor in the following manner:


Staff Evaluation

Performance Area Maximum Score

Average Score

Weight Weighted Ave. Score

A. Knowledge of Work 2 2.0 0.25 0.50

B. Quality of Work

Thoroughness 2

Organization 3

Accuracy 2

Timeliness in submitting reports 3

Monitoring of Accounts 3

Written communication skills 3

Sub-total 16 2.7 0.25 0.675

C. Attitude

Initiative 3

Concern for the company 3

Team work 4

Convictions 3

Integrity 4

Sub-total 17 3.4 0.25 0.85

D. Customer Service

Appearance 4

Customer Relations 4

Sub-total 8 4 0.15 0.60

Other Factors

Punctuality and attendance 4 4 0.10 0.40

TOTAL SCORE 3.00


Staff Evaluation

Overall Performance Rating

Indicator Score Weight Weighted Score

Quantitative Indicators 2.67 0.80 2.14

Qualitative Indicators 3.00 0.20 0.60

Final Score 2.74

Overall Performance Rating Meets Requirement


Staff Evaluation

Basic Policies in Performance Evaluation

• Targets should be set at the start of the rating period.

• Objective setting should be a participative process.

• Targets should be documented and signed.

• The staff’s targets are also the supervisor’s targets.

• Observe confidentiality of Ratings.

• Performance ratings should be linked to incentives. Incentives should be separate and not discussed as part of salary.


The MABS program is implemented by the Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines. It receives The MABS program is implemented by the Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines. It receives funding support from the U.S. Agency for International Development with oversight provided by the funding support from the U.S. Agency for International Development with oversight provided by the

Office of the President and the Mindanao Economic Development Council.Office of the President and the Mindanao Economic Development Council.

Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines

Mindanao Economic Development Council

Office of the President of the Philippines

U.S. Agency for International Development

The general contractor is Chemonics International, Inc.

These materials were made possible through the support provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development/Philippines under the terms of contract no. 492-C-00-98-0008-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Documents

© Copyright 2003 RBAP. All Rights Reserved. Microfinance Staff Performance Evaluation