You are on page 1of 11


Executive Summary A.00 0. . IR score must not exceed assigned weight per criterion.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Management Acumen 20% 0.00 Sevice Orientation 20% 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strategic Focus 15% 0.00 0.5 points Length: maximum of 4.00 0. tables) Contents I. Summary Ratings (Score Calculator) IR Score (from Documents Weighted Score Per Weight Subordinate Survey (30%) Superior Survey (20%) Score in Review) 50% Criterion (Raw Criterion Per Percentage Weighted Raw Average Weighted Raw Average Weighted Score * weight per Criterion Raw Score Per Criterion Score Score Score Score Score criterion) Integrity 25% 0. Raw average survey scores must not exceed 4.00 0.00 0. do not alter formulas. 12 points Spacing: 1.00 0.00 NOTE: Input scores in blank cells.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 words ( roughly 20-30 pages excluding footnotes. Standard Format for Leadership Performance Evaluation Report (LPER) Font: Times New Roman.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. Error-trapping system in place.00 Network-Building 20% 0.00 0.00 Leadership Score 0.00 0.

05 64.00 63.26 16.13 Management Acumen 20% 11 14.88 20.68 Strategic Focus 15% 8.5 10.88 82.55 Total Score Per Category 38. Rating Analysis 1.22% Weight Per Category 50% 30% 20% Weighted Score 19.38 21.50 Sevice Orientation 20% 6. General analysis of the five criteria using the different methodologies (Table) Criterion Weight Per Documents Review Subordinate Superior Total Score Per Criterion Survey Survey Criterion Weighted Score Weighted Score Integrity 25% 3 16.40 Network-Building 20% 10 14.91 57.65 54.80 12.75 70.VI.25 14.75 16.45 17.31 42.00 16.58 Leadership Score .90 67.

2. General analysis of the five criteria using the different methodologies (Graph and Narrative) • Graph • Narrative of key findings • Narrative of analysis .

2] The different factors affecting the results would be attributable to …………….[Fig. service orientation the lowest at 54% and strategic focus emerged the lowest at 46%. . network building at 75% proved to be the strongest leadership trait of the regional director followed by integrity at 65%. Comparative Analysis of all criteria (Graph and Narrative) • Graph • Narrative Comparative analysis among the five indicators across the different tools used to evaluate the field officer namely indicators research and survey tools. management acumen 55%.3.

Overview of the Project (c/o DAP) a) Rationale/Background b) Objectives c) Components d) Scope and Limitations III.II. (c/o DAP) B) Survey (Documents Review and KII-probing) and scoring 1. Describe the tool focusing on the criteria and the weight of the specific indicators. Full Report A. Methodologies A) Indicators Research (Documents Review and KII-probing) and scoring 1. (c/o DAP) . Describe the tool focusing on the criteria and the weight of the specific indicators and the method and manner of conducting the research.

IV. Profile of the Officer (CENRO/PENRO whichever is applicable) Description of the following: 1. Name of Officer under review 2. Awards and Recognitions 7. Work experience outside the department 5. Educational Attainment 4. Position/Designation (include residency in the position) 3. Employment History in the DENR 6. Membership in other organizations .

Integrity) The above mentioned criteria received the raw rating of 13. Integrity D. Analysis of the different criteria Individual Analysis per criteria PENRO/CENRO (Graph and Narrative) A.V. Strategic Focus B. etc…………… . Network Building (e. it cannot be given corresponding rating in the absence of documentation.375 for indicators research assigned with an overall weight of 25% while subordinate survey rating assigned with an overall weight of 15% received an average of 0.75. In the course of documents gathering the assessor did not receive any kind of feedback for anomalous transactions or negligence of duties. Management Acumen C. [Fig.5 out of 25 or weighted rating of 3. Based on the key responses during the key informants interview the officer under review has adequately performed functions in line with the required indicators however.658 and superior rating with an overall weight of 10% received the average rating of 0.g. Service Orientation E.3] etc.

Annex C . Annex A . VIII. briefly summarize and draw factual conclusions based on the main results/ratings.Summary of Superior and Subordinate Survey 4. ANNEXES 1. Annex D – Indicators Research answer sheet .VII.Assessor’s Notes 2. Conclusions In no longer than eight to ten sentences. Annex B – MOV’s (documents collected supporting the rating in the indicators research answer sheet 3.

Annex C Subordinate Rating Total Survey Size Actual no.0.5333 Management Acumen .0.0.392105263 Management Acumen .548421053 Strategic Focus . Cuna Integrity .2232 Service Orientation .0.71950501 Service Orientation . .0.0.6042 Strategic Focus .0.532706767 Superior Rating Name of Superior Rater Average Score per Criteria Total Score Atty.6500 Network Building .658991228 2.587280702 Network Building . Juan Miguel T. of Average Score per Criteria Total Score Plantilla Respondents Population who participated in the Survey 95 38 38 Integrity .7500 3.

HR and Admin 2 - Conduct and Ethical Clearances Standards of DENR – 2 pts  Ensures implementation of Reiterates during flag Memo 11/2/09 on 2 existing policies and ceremonies but are Office decorum systems (e.) undocumented Memo 10/19/11 on observance of proper policy guidelines conduct and ethical on attendance behavior of subordinates at work – 4.Annex D Leadership Indicators Key Response MOV Point/ Remarks Criteria (100%) During Interview Score Integrity (25%) Level 1 (25 % – 5 points)  Adheres to Code of .5 pts . etc. RA 3019.g. DENR Code generally and policies of Conduct.