Dar-logo Ice-logo

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:    STcAIa

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;    TcICEA

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:    CScTED

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.    ISCTcH

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;    IAaCST

           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.    CIcTAE

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:    TaISEH

           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:    ACcTDS

           Lead, develop and manage people;

           Managing the quality and quantity or work;    ESCDHA

           Network inside and outside the Department;

           Achieving results;    SEDaAH

           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;    HAISEa

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.    CSDcTA

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;    aHADTC

           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: 

 

  DEcSaI

                            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:    aSAHCE

           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    cSIADa

 

    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

  ScAIaT

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.    cCHETI

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.    ECaITc

Diliman, Quezon City, July 1, 1996.

(SGD.) ERNESTO D. GARILAO
Secretary, DAR

ATTACHMENT

 



CONTACT INFORMATION

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel. No.: (632) 928-7031 to 39

Copyright Information

All material contained in this site is copyrighted by the Department of Agrarian Reform unless otherwise specified. For the purposes of this demo, information are intended to show a representative example of a live site. All images and materials are the copyright of their respective owners.