The effectiveness of the Commission on Audit merit system as perceived by employees of the COA Bicol Regional Office
Binamira, Jose Rey R.
- March 2000
- Pages 1-145
ABSTRACT
BINAMIRA, JOSE REY DEL ROSARIO,” THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COA MERIT SYSTEM AS PERCIEVED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE COA BICOL REGIONAL OFFICE “ ( Unpublished , Graduate School, Aquinas University, Legazpi City)
Summary
This study was made to determine the effectiveness of the COA Region V Merit System. Specifically, it aimed to determine:
1) The level of employee’s perceptions on the effectiveness of the Personnel Appraisal subsystem in terms of
a. Relevance;
b. Objectivity; and
c. Accuracy of the attributes on the effectiveness of merit and fitness.
2) The level of employees’ perceptions on the effectiveness of the Incentive and Rewards subsystem.
3) The strategic actions to address the identified strengths and weakness.
To achieve these objectives, the study used the Descriptive Research Method. The data were obtained from both primary and secondary sources and were gathered with the help of the COA Regional Director’s endorsement of the study, and in coordination with the provincial/City Auditors, Head of Auditing Units, and the Training Unit, through a highly instructed, researcher-constructed questionnaire. The question on effectiveness used a 4-point scale in measuring the respondents’ perceptions on effectiveness, while the multiple-response type of questions were used to solicit the respondents ’suggestions to improve the system. The Stratified Sampling Method was used in the study. The data gathered were analyzed using descriptive statistic, particularly the weighted mean, to describe sample characteristics and to provide information about the distribution of the employees’ perception about the COA merit System. The mean values of the respondents’ perceptions, as well as the values for each of the four scales used, were determined through the use of a computer program/software (Micro stat).
Findings
On the basis of the statistically-analyzed data, the following were the study’s findings:
1. Level of Perception on the Effectiveness of the Personnel Appraisal System
All categories of respondents converged on their perception that the Personnel Appraisal System if effective in terms of the relevance, objectivity and accuracy of the different attributes of merit and fitness.
a. On Relevance of Attributes to the Determination of Merit and Fitness Task Accomplishment and Quality of Work, as indicators of performance, were considered by core personnel, staff, and supervisors as very relevant, while non-core personnel considered these two indicators as merely relevant. On the other hand, Compliance with Office Rules and Working Relations, as indicators of performance, were considered by core and non-core personnel, staff and supervisors, as merely relevant, except for compliance with office rules which was considered by supervisors as very relevant.
Educational attainment, training and experience were considered by core personnel and supervisors as very relevant and non-core personnel and staff, as only relevant. The remaining attributes, namely, proficiency, physical characteristic, personality traits and potential were considered by all categories of respondents as relevant attributes of merit and fitness.
b. On the Objectivity of the Attributes of Merit and Fitness
All categories of respondents considered the four indicators of performance (i.e. task accomplishment, quality of work, compliance with office rules, and working relations) as objective, except working relations, which was considered by supervisors as a subjective factor. All categories of respondents also considered educational attainment, training and experience and proficiency examinations as objective attributes of merit and fitness. Except for the non-core personnel who considered physical characteristics and personality traits as objective criteria, core personnel, staff and supervisors converged on their perceptions that these two are subjective factors in determining merit and fitness. Except for supervisors who considered potential as subjective factor, the core and non-core personnel and staff perceived potential to be an objective factor.
c. On the Accuracy of the Attributes of Merit and Fitness
All categories of respondents perceived most of the attributes of merit and fitness to be accurate except the following: a) Education, training, and experience, including quality of work as a sub- attribute of performance, were perceived by core personnel as very accurate in terms of actual verification of the given ration against a reliable and objective basis; b) Working relations, as an indicator of performance, and personality traits, were bother perceived by supervisors as inaccurate.
2. Level of perceptions on the Effectiveness of the Rewards and Incentives System
All categories of respondents also had the general perception that the COA incentive and rewards system was effective. The only exception were : a) Better unit reassignment ,which was considered by non-core personnel as ineffective ; and b) merit pay/step increments given to those who rendered at least three continuous years in a particular positions, which was perceived by staff employees as ineffective.
3. Strategic Actions to Address Identified Weaknesses
There was a general preference among the respondents for a status quo on the existing weights from the different attributes of merit and fitness, except for quality of work, experience and potential. Quality of work, as a sub-attribute of performance, was perceived to be more important than Compliance with Office Rules and Potential. There were more respondents (49perecnt) who wants to increase the existing 7 percent weight for Experience than those who wanted a retention (44 percent). There was as much number of respondents who wanted to decrease than present 12 percent weight for Potentials as those who wanted to retain it. While 48 percent of the respondents wanted to retain the existing weight on Training, the remaining 52 percent were split on the issue of whether to increase or decrease its exiting weight. While there was also a greater majority (59 percent) who wanted to retain the existing weight on Proficiency Examination, a significant portion (38person) wanted a decrease.
Conclusions
The following are the conclusions reached on the basis of the findings:
1. Despite some perceive deficiencies of the attributes of merit and fitness in the COA Merit promotion Plan, the respondents considered the Personnel Appraisal subsystem effective in hiring, promoting and keeping the best and most qualified.
a. Relevance. The respondents considered performance, education, training, experience, proficiency examinations, physical characteristics, personality traits, and potential, including the sub-attributes of performance, namely, task accomplishment, quality of work, compliance with office rules, and working relations, to be relevant to the determination of merit and fitness.
b. Objectivity. Except for physical characteristics and personality traits which were considered subjective, the respondents considered the remaining attributes (i.e. performance, education, training, experience, proficiency examinations, and potential),including the sub-attributes of performance ,namely, task accomplishment, quality of work, compliance with office rules, and working relations, to be objective factors of merit and fitness. Supervisors, considered working relations, as an indicator of performance and potential, to be subjective factor of merit. However, all of the eight attributes of merit and fitness, as a single criterion, were considered by respondents as objective factors for determining merit and fitness as a single criterion, and were considered by respondents as objective factors for determining merit and fitness.
c. Accuracy. The respondents of the study also dismayed positive perceptions with regard to accuracy. They perceived all of the eight attributes of merit and fitness, as a single criterion, as accurate, in terms of in terms of actual verification of a given rating against a reliable and objective basis.
2. The respondents of the study believe that the existing COA incentives and rewards are effective in eliciting meritorious performance from the employees.
3. Although the respondents wanted a status quo on the existing weights for each of the attributes of merit and fitness they clamor for an increase in the weight of quality of work and experience and a decrease in the current 12 percent weight given to potential. The respondents were divided on the issue of retaining, increasing or decreasing the current weight for Training. A significant portion of the respondents (38 percent) wanted a decrease in the 10 percent current weight for profanely examinations.
Recommendations
1. While the general positive findings and conclusions reached with regard to the relevance, objectivity and accuracy of the attributes of merit and fitness, indicate the strengths of the COA merit System, particularly the personnel Appraisal Subsystem, the perceived minor deficiencies of the different attributes with regard to the three criteria indicate the weakness of the system which need addressing. Accordingly, a re-examination of the different attributes of merit and fitness and their respective weights should made to make them consistent with their perceived relevance, objectivity and accuracy.
a. Relevance. – Performance, education, training and experience, as the more relevant factors should be given more weight than proficiency examination, physical characteristic, personality traits, and potential. Similarity, task accomplishment and quality of work, as indicators of performance, should be given more weight than compliance with office rules and working relations.
b. Objectivity. - Working relations, as a sub-attributes of performance, physical characteristic. Personality traits, and potential while considered relevant, should be given lesser weight, if not totally excluded from among the attributes used in the determination of merit and fitness due to their perceived subjectivity.
c. Accuracy. - Education, training and experience, should be given as much weight as performance due to their perceived accuracy, objectivity and relevance. Quality of work should also be given more weight in determining an employee’s performance considering that it has registered a high perception level not only as to relevance but also as to accuracy, especially among core personnel.
2. The Commission on Audit policy-makers should find more and better ways to motivate employees in view of the findings that the Incentive and Reward was merely effective.
3. The commission on Audit policy-makers should consider revising the existing attributes of merit and fitness and their corresponding weights as follows:
Attributes of merit and Fitness Present Weight Proposed Weight
Performance 70 70
Task Accomplishment 9 22
Quality of work 8 4
Working Relations 4 4
Potentials 9 0
Total PRS rating 100 50 100 50
Education 10 15
Training 9 15
Experience 7 15
Proficiency Examination 10 5
Physical Char. & Personality Traits 2 0
Potentials 12 0
Total 100 100
Finally, the following areas for research are recommended:
1. A replication of this study in the different COA Regional Offices throughout the Philippines;
2. A study of the Grievance and Appeal Subsystem of the COA Merit System ; and
3. A study of the effectiveness of the Recruitment, Selection and Promotions Board Subsystem of the COA merit System
ABSTRACT
BINAMIRA, JOSE REY DEL ROSARIO,” THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COA MERIT SYSTEM AS PERCIEVED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE COA BICOL REGIONAL OFFICE “ ( Unpublished , Graduate School, Aquinas University, Legazpi City)
Summary
This study was made to determine the effectiveness of the COA Region V Merit System. Specifically, it aimed to determine:
1) The level of employee’s perceptions on the effectiveness of the Personnel Appraisal subsystem in terms of
a. Relevance;
b. Objectivity; and
c. Accuracy of the attributes on the effectiveness of merit and fitness.
2) The level of employees’ perceptions on the effectiveness of the Incentive and Rewards subsystem.
3) The strategic actions to address the identified strengths and weakness.
To achieve these objectives, the study used the Descriptive Research Method. The data were obtained from both primary and secondary sources and were gathered with the help of the COA Regional Director’s endorsement of the study, and in coordination with the provincial/City Auditors, Head of Auditing Units, and the Training Unit, through a highly instructed, researcher-constructed questionnaire. The question on effectiveness used a 4-point scale in measuring the respondents’ perceptions on effectiveness, while the multiple-response type of questions were used to solicit the respondents ’suggestions to improve the system. The Stratified Sampling Method was used in the study. The data gathered were analyzed using descriptive statistic, particularly the weighted mean, to describe sample characteristics and to provide information about the distribution of the employees’ perception about the COA merit System. The mean values of the respondents’ perceptions, as well as the values for each of the four scales used, were determined through the use of a computer program/software (Micro stat).
Findings
On the basis of the statistically-analyzed data, the following were the study’s findings:
1. Level of Perception on the Effectiveness of the Personnel Appraisal System
All categories of respondents converged on their perception that the Personnel Appraisal System if effective in terms of the relevance, objectivity and accuracy of the different attributes of merit and fitness.
a. On Relevance of Attributes to the Determination of Merit and Fitness Task Accomplishment and Quality of Work, as indicators of performance, were considered by core personnel, staff, and supervisors as very relevant, while non-core personnel considered these two indicators as merely relevant. On the other hand, Compliance with Office Rules and Working Relations, as indicators of performance, were considered by core and non-core personnel, staff and supervisors, as merely relevant, except for compliance with office rules which was considered by supervisors as very relevant.
Educational attainment, training and experience were considered by core personnel and supervisors as very relevant and non-core personnel and staff, as only relevant. The remaining attributes, namely, proficiency, physical characteristic, personality traits and potential were considered by all categories of respondents as relevant attributes of merit and fitness.
b. On the Objectivity of the Attributes of Merit and Fitness
All categories of respondents considered the four indicators of performance (i.e. task accomplishment, quality of work, compliance with office rules, and working relations) as objective, except working relations, which was considered by supervisors as a subjective factor. All categories of respondents also considered educational attainment, training and experience and proficiency examinations as objective attributes of merit and fitness. Except for the non-core personnel who considered physical characteristics and personality traits as objective criteria, core personnel, staff and supervisors converged on their perceptions that these two are subjective factors in determining merit and fitness. Except for supervisors who considered potential as subjective factor, the core and non-core personnel and staff perceived potential to be an objective factor.
c. On the Accuracy of the Attributes of Merit and Fitness
All categories of respondents perceived most of the attributes of merit and fitness to be accurate except the following: a) Education, training, and experience, including quality of work as a sub- attribute of performance, were perceived by core personnel as very accurate in terms of actual verification of the given ration against a reliable and objective basis; b) Working relations, as an indicator of performance, and personality traits, were bother perceived by supervisors as inaccurate.
2. Level of perceptions on the Effectiveness of the Rewards and Incentives System
All categories of respondents also had the general perception that the COA incentive and rewards system was effective. The only exception were : a) Better unit reassignment ,which was considered by non-core personnel as ineffective ; and b) merit pay/step increments given to those who rendered at least three continuous years in a particular positions, which was perceived by staff employees as ineffective.
3. Strategic Actions to Address Identified Weaknesses
There was a general preference among the respondents for a status quo on the existing weights from the different attributes of merit and fitness, except for quality of work, experience and potential. Quality of work, as a sub-attribute of performance, was perceived to be more important than Compliance with Office Rules and Potential. There were more respondents (49perecnt) who wants to increase the existing 7 percent weight for Experience than those who wanted a retention (44 percent). There was as much number of respondents who wanted to decrease than present 12 percent weight for Potentials as those who wanted to retain it. While 48 percent of the respondents wanted to retain the existing weight on Training, the remaining 52 percent were split on the issue of whether to increase or decrease its exiting weight. While there was also a greater majority (59 percent) who wanted to retain the existing weight on Proficiency Examination, a significant portion (38person) wanted a decrease.
Conclusions
The following are the conclusions reached on the basis of the findings:
1. Despite some perceive deficiencies of the attributes of merit and fitness in the COA Merit promotion Plan, the respondents considered the Personnel Appraisal subsystem effective in hiring, promoting and keeping the best and most qualified.
a. Relevance. The respondents considered performance, education, training, experience, proficiency examinations, physical characteristics, personality traits, and potential, including the sub-attributes of performance, namely, task accomplishment, quality of work, compliance with office rules, and working relations, to be relevant to the determination of merit and fitness.
b. Objectivity. Except for physical characteristics and personality traits which were considered subjective, the respondents considered the remaining attributes (i.e. performance, education, training, experience, proficiency examinations, and potential),including the sub-attributes of performance ,namely, task accomplishment, quality of work, compliance with office rules, and working relations, to be objective factors of merit and fitness. Supervisors, considered working relations, as an indicator of performance and potential, to be subjective factor of merit. However, all of the eight attributes of merit and fitness, as a single criterion, were considered by respondents as objective factors for determining merit and fitness as a single criterion, and were considered by respondents as objective factors for determining merit and fitness.
c. Accuracy. The respondents of the study also dismayed positive perceptions with regard to accuracy. They perceived all of the eight attributes of merit and fitness, as a single criterion, as accurate, in terms of in terms of actual verification of a given rating against a reliable and objective basis.
2. The respondents of the study believe that the existing COA incentives and rewards are effective in eliciting meritorious performance from the employees.
3. Although the respondents wanted a status quo on the existing weights for each of the attributes of merit and fitness they clamor for an increase in the weight of quality of work and experience and a decrease in the current 12 percent weight given to potential. The respondents were divided on the issue of retaining, increasing or decreasing the current weight for Training. A significant portion of the respondents (38 percent) wanted a decrease in the 10 percent current weight for profanely examinations.
Recommendations
1. While the general positive findings and conclusions reached with regard to the relevance, objectivity and accuracy of the attributes of merit and fitness, indicate the strengths of the COA merit System, particularly the personnel Appraisal Subsystem, the perceived minor deficiencies of the different attributes with regard to the three criteria indicate the weakness of the system which need addressing. Accordingly, a re-examination of the different attributes of merit and fitness and their respective weights should made to make them consistent with their perceived relevance, objectivity and accuracy.
a. Relevance. – Performance, education, training and experience, as the more relevant factors should be given more weight than proficiency examination, physical characteristic, personality traits, and potential. Similarity, task accomplishment and quality of work, as indicators of performance, should be given more weight than compliance with office rules and working relations.
b. Objectivity. - Working relations, as a sub-attributes of performance, physical characteristic. Personality traits, and potential while considered relevant, should be given lesser weight, if not totally excluded from among the attributes used in the determination of merit and fitness due to their perceived subjectivity.
c. Accuracy. - Education, training and experience, should be given as much weight as performance due to their perceived accuracy, objectivity and relevance. Quality of work should also be given more weight in determining an employee’s performance considering that it has registered a high perception level not only as to relevance but also as to accuracy, especially among core personnel.
2. The Commission on Audit policy-makers should find more and better ways to motivate employees in view of the findings that the Incentive and Reward was merely effective.
3. The commission on Audit policy-makers should consider revising the existing attributes of merit and fitness and their corresponding weights as follows:
Attributes of merit and Fitness Present Weight Proposed Weight
Performance 70 70
Task Accomplishment 9 22
Quality of work 8 4
Working Relations 4 4
Potentials 9 0
Total PRS rating 100 50 100 50
Education 10 15
Training 9 15
Experience 7 15
Proficiency Examination 10 5
Physical Char. & Personality Traits 2 0
Potentials 12 0
Total 100 100
Finally, the following areas for research are recommended:
1. A replication of this study in the different COA Regional Offices throughout the Philippines;
2. A study of the Grievance and Appeal Subsystem of the COA Merit System ; and
3. A study of the effectiveness of the Recruitment, Selection and Promotions Board Subsystem of the COA merit System