July 1, 1996
DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 10-96
TO | : | All Officials and Employees of the Department of Agrarian Reform | |
SUBJECT | : | DAR Policy Guidelines and Procedures in the Implementation of the Performance Management System (PMS) for Third Level Officials | |
1. Introduction
While the System for Performance Evaluation and Employee Development (SPEED) has already been installed in the Central and Regional Offices, the Departments' performance management system for third level officials should likewise be strengthened. The system of performance contracting, review and evaluation will improve the individual performance of the third level official and Department with respect to the following:
1.1 Better understanding of work responsibilities and standards;
1.2 Establishing accountabilities; TEaADS
1.3 Getting aware on how the performance against pre-determined standards is perceived;
1.4 Identifying and recognizing high performance;
1.5 Managing low performance; and
1.6 Providing opportunities for meeting the training and development needs of individual official. HSCcTD
Establishing an updated system of appraisal and feedbacking for officials will complete the Department's performance management system and will help ensure that the SPEED developed for the rank and file is aligned and integrated.
2. Basic Policies
In order that the Performance Management System (PMS) will result into greater job satisfaction and improve performance of the third level officials the following basic policies should be observed:
2.1 The performance contracting, review and evaluation is compulsory for all the third level officials of DAR. This includes the Undersecretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Bureau Directors and Assistant Directors, Regional and Assistant Regional Directors, Service Directors and Provincial Agrarian Reform Officers II;
2.2 The performance management process is inherent in DAR's management practice. The flow of information between the rater and the ratee should be constant throughout the year so that relevant performance issues will be dealt with as they arise;
2.3 The performance commitment of officials should be reflected in the individual SPEED commitments of the people under them. It is the responsibility of the official involved to ensure that this is followed; and IEAaST
2.4 The performance rating is results-oriented such that results are the ones primarily appraised and not the individual person himself or herself.
3. The Performance Management Cycle
For the performance appraisal to be effective, it should be viewed within the context of Performance Management Cycle which includes performance contracting, midyear appraisal review and year-end performance review. The three step performance cycle is a twelve-month cycle starting in January and ending in December.
For each step, the procedures involved are shown below:
3.1 Performance Contracting
After the office work plan for the year shall have been prepared, each official and his/her immediate superior should meet and agree on specific performance objectives for the appraisal year. Said meeting is to be done not later than 07 January of each year in order to map out specific commitments in the official's performance contract. This would give the official ample time to explain and ensure that his/her commitment is reflected in the performance plans of the 1st and 2nd level employee whose SPEED requirements are due not later than 30 January. CTHDcS
3.1.1 The following documents can be used as guides in drawing up the contract:
• Operational Directives of the Secretary;
• Workplan of the Unit;
• Minimum Standards of Performance (for RD and PARO II);
• Duties and responsibilities of the official; cAHIaE
• Agreements between the official and immediate manager;
• Special assignments from the Secretary; and
• Other planning documents directly affecting the official.
3.1.2 Performance Management should focus on what is produced, achieved or contributed to the Department. Achievement is measured using performance indicators or standards such as quality, quantity, costs and time.
3.1.3 To set performance indicators and standards, the manager-rater and the official concerned may choose to apply either of the following methods:
• agree on the performance indicator which corresponds to a rating of 3 (fully effective) and then a general description of what would result in, and qualify as, ratings above or below 3; or HCSAIa
• agree on the performance indicators which corresponds to each rating.
3.1.4 The manager-rater and the official concerned should complete and sign the performance contract and submit to the Office of the Secretary a copy of the contract not later than January 15 of each year. Prior to this, rater and ratee should have agreed on the following:
• Key result areas;
• Units of weight for each of the key result areas; TEcAHI
• Performance indicators and standards for measuring KRAs which would rate the official being appraised as fully effective (rating of 3 and the broad parameters for ratings above and below).
3.1.5 The core competency requirements of each individual official should be discussed and a competency development plan be agreed upon. This plan will provide information on the development requirements of the official. The competency criteria of third level officials will not be rated but will have to be monitored and reviewed by the manager-rater. In making a competency plan, the manager-rater and the subordinate official should consider the following competency areas:
• Lead, develop and manage people;
• Managing the quality and quantity or work; ESCDHA
• Network inside and outside the Department;
• Achieving results;
• Accountability and Integrity.
3.2 Mid-year Appraisal Review
The mid-term review which shall be conducted in July each year should provide feedback on how the official performs so that assistance can be given to improve his/her performance. The following procedure comprises the midterm review: TcEaDS
3.2.1 Review performance indicators so far; (are they still plausible, realistic, or doable?);
3.2.2 Check the relevance of the performance agreement and adjust it if the nature of the job or work environment (i.e., priorities, objectives or resources) has changed substantially;
3.2.3 Discuss progress on the official's competency development plan; and revise the plan where it is necessary; and
3.2.4 Provide copy of review summary to the Office of the Secretary not later than 30 July. EADSIa
3.3 Year-end Performance Appraisal
At the end of the Performance Management Cycle, a formal meeting is held to establish the level of performance against the contract, taking into account the mid-term review on or before December 15, a copy of the Performance Appraisal Review should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary.
3.3.1 The following steps should be undertaken in order to make the meeting successful:
• The manager-rater should initiate the meeting and give adequate notice (at least a week before the appraisal session); HAaDcS
• Independently, the rater and ratee should complete an appraisal form, decide on ratings against individual objectives and a single overall performance rating;
• The individual appraisals are exchanged prior to the meeting and form. The basis for discussion at the meeting;
• Both official and manager should gather evidence to support judgment however, the judgment of manager-rater prevails;
• In case of contested ratings, the arbiter shall be the Secretary of the Department;
• Sufficient time should be allowed for the meeting and measures taken to ensure there are no interruptions; IcADSE
• Discussion should take place on the competencies of the official. An assessment of these competencies should be agreed upon again and the development plan revised.
3.3.2 Rating Process
The individual performance key result areas are rated on a five-point scale as follows:
Description | Adjectival | Numerical | |
Rating | Rating | ||
Performance far exceeds the standards | Outstanding | 5 | |
expected of fully effective officials at this | |||
classification level. This level indicates that | |||
the official exceeds performance targets by | |||
at least fifty percent (50%) or more. With | |||
this, his contributions to the office are | |||
marked "outstanding" | |||
Performance exceeds the standards | Superior | 4 | |
expected of fully effective officials at this | |||
classification level. This level indicates that | |||
the official has delivered at least twenty-five | |||
percent (25%) or more than what was | |||
targeted but falls short of an outstanding | |||
performance | |||
Performance fully meets the standard | Fully Effective | 3 | |
expected of official as this classification | |||
level. This level indicates that the officer | |||
meets 100% of his performance targets | |||
Performance just meets the standard | Adequate | 2 | |
expected of official at this classification | |||
level. This level indicates that the official | |||
only meets fifty-one percent (51%) to | |||
ninety percent (90%) of the performance | |||
targets but could stand improvement | |||
Performance does not meet the standard | Unsatisfactory | 1 | |
expected of official at this classification | |||
level. This level indicates that the official | |||
has failed to meet his target or just meets | |||
fifty percent (50%) or below his targets |
3.3.3 Computing the Overall Performance Rating
The single overall performance rating is a weighted average of the five-point ratings on each of the key result areas. The rating should correspond to its five-point scale. The process includes the following:
• Establish an average rating on each key result area;
• Multiply each of the ratings by the weights for the key result areas; SCIcTD
• Add the results; and
• Divide the sum of the weights (i.e., 100%)
3.3.3.1 Illustration
The following example shows how the overall rating is obtained
Key Result Area | Average | Weighted | |||
Rating | Weights | Rating | |||
LTI | 2 | 25 | 50 | ||
PBD | 3.3 | 25 | 82.5 | ||
AR Justice | 4.3 | 15 | 64.5 | ||
Managing Publics | 4.5 | 15 | 67.5 | ||
Managing Program | 3 | 15 | 45 | ||
Personal Contribution | 5 | 5 | 25 | ||
Total | 100 | 334.5 |
Overall Performance Rating = 334.5/100 = 3.345
Overall Adjectival Rating = Fully Effective
3.3.4 The Manager-Raters and Ratees
Below is a list of the DAR Managers who are responsible for the evaluation of their subordinate-official's performance. ADCEcI
Rater | Ratee | ||
Regional Director | All PARO II, ARDO, ARDA | ||
RARAD | PARADs | ||
DARAB Assistant | RARADs | ||
Secretary | |||
Undersecretary for | Assistant Secretary for Operation | ||
Operations | Assistant Secretary for Support | ||
Services, 14 Regional Directors | |||
Assistant Secretary for | Directors and Assistant Directors | ||
Support Services | of BARBD and PDMS CcSTHI | ||
Assistant Secretary for | Directors and Assistant Directors | ||
Operations | of BLD and BLAD | ||
Undersecretary for | Directors of Planning Service, | ||
Planning | PSRS, MIS, PARC Secretariat and | ||
Tribal Farmers Affairs Group | |||
Undersecretary for | Assistant Secretary for Legal | ||
Legal and Finance | Affairs, Assistant Secretary for | ||
FMAO, Directors and Assistant | |||
Directors of BALA and Special | |||
Concern, Directors of Legal | |||
Service and Litigation HCaDET | |||
Assistant Secretary for | Director and Assistant Director | ||
FMAO | of BARIE, Directors of | ||
Administration and Finance | |||
Secretary | 3 Undersecretaries, DARAB Board | ||
Members, DARAB Executive | |||
Director, Director and Assistant | |||
Director of PAS, Directors of IAS | |||
and CORD |
3.4 Management of the Program
The DAR Secretary and the performance management system's Secretariat play important roles in the management of the program. ACIDTE
3.4.1 Role of the Secretary
The Secretary, aside from being a rater himself, assumes an equally important role as reviewer and/or arbiter in the implementation of the system. Where agreement between both parties cannot be reached on the individual's rating, the official concerned may seek for a performance rating review. The Secretary shall act as the reviewer and shall provide an objectivity in the settlement of disagreements related to work performance. He shall settle any differences through informal and frank discussion to arrive at a satisfactory outcome.
3.4.2 Role of the PMS Secretariat
In an effort to integrate the performance management system into the overall HRD program of the department, BARIE shall temporarily act as the PMS Secretariat. Specifically, it shall be responsible in enduring utmost confidentiality of, access to and disclosure of all performance system documents. Access is restricted to the rater, the ratee and the direct line of management to the Secretary. Disclosure to third parties, including promotion and selection committees, will not occur except on the initiative of the individual concerned. CTcSIA
BARIE shall also perform other staff functions to the Secretary. These includes monitoring the implementations of the system, recommending improvements and facilitating achievement of the management competency plan through various development interventions.
4. Effectivity
This Performance Management System for Third Level Officials shall take effect on July 1, 1996.
Diliman, Quezon City, July 1, 1996.
(SGD.) ERNESTO D. GARILAO
Secretary, DAR
ATTACHMENT