STANDARD REPORT FORMAT

Standard Format for

Leadership Performance Evaluation Report (LPER)

Font: Times New Roman, 12 points

Spacing: 1.5 points
Length: maximum of 4,000 words
( roughly 20-30 pages excluding footnotes, tables)

Contents

I. Executive Summary
A. 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% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sevice Orientation 20% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Network-Building 20% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strategic Focus 15% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management
Acumen 20% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Leadership Score 0.00
NOTE:

Input scores in blank cells.

IR score must not exceed assigned weight per criterion.
Raw average survey scores must not
exceed 4.
Error-trapping system in place, do not alter formulas.
VI. Rating Analysis

1. 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 16.88 20.31 42.50

Sevice Orientation 20% 6.25 14.75 16.65 54.40
Network-Building 20% 10 14.45 17.00 63.68
Strategic Focus 15% 8.5 10.80 12.90 67.13
Management Acumen 20% 11 14.00 16.05 64.55

Total Score Per Category 38.75 70.88 82.91

57.22%
Weight Per Category 50% 30% 20%
Weighted Score 19.38 21.26 16.58
Leadership Score
2. General analysis of the five criteria using the different methodologies (Graph
and Narrative)

• Graph

• Narrative of key findings

• Narrative of analysis
3. 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, network building
at 75% proved to be the strongest leadership trait of the regional director followed by
integrity at 65%, management acumen 55%, service orientation the lowest at 54% and
strategic focus emerged the lowest at 46%.[Fig.2] The different factors affecting the
results would be attributable to …………….
II. Full Report

A. Overview of the Project (c/o DAP)

a) Rationale/Background
b) Objectives
c) Components
d) Scope and Limitations
III. Methodologies

A) Indicators Research (Documents Review and KII-probing) and scoring

1. Describe the tool focusing on the criteria and the weight of the specific
indicators. (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 and the method and manner of conducting the research. (c/o DAP)
IV. Profile of the Officer
(CENRO/PENRO whichever is applicable)

Description of the following:

1. Name of Officer under review

2. Position/Designation (include residency in the position)
3. Educational Attainment
4. Work experience outside the department
5. Employment History in the DENR
6. Awards and Recognitions
7. Membership in other organizations
V. Analysis of the different criteria

Individual Analysis per criteria PENRO/CENRO (Graph and Narrative)

A. Integrity D. Strategic Focus
B. Service Orientation E. Management Acumen
C. Network Building
(e.g. Integrity)

The above mentioned criteria received the raw rating of 13.5 out of 25 or weighted rating of
3.375 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 0.658 and
superior rating with an overall weight of 10% received the average rating of 0.75.

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, it cannot be
given corresponding rating in the absence of documentation. In the course of documents
gathering the assessor did not receive any kind of feedback for anomalous transactions or
negligence of duties. [Fig.3] etc. etc……………
VII. Conclusions

In no longer than eight to ten sentences, briefly

summarize and draw factual conclusions based on the main
results/ratings.

VIII. ANNEXES

1. Annex A - Assessor’s Notes

2. Annex B – MOV’s (documents collected supporting the rating in the indicators
research answer sheet
3. Annex C - Summary of Superior and Subordinate Survey
4. Annex D – Indicators Research answer sheet
Annex C

Subordinate Rating
Total Survey Size Actual no. of Average Score per Criteria Total Score
Plantilla Respondents
Population who
participated in
the Survey
95 38 38 Integrity - 0.658991228 2.71950501
Service Orientation - 0.587280702
Network Building - 0.548421053
Strategic Focus - 0.392105263
Management Acumen - 0.532706767

Superior Rating
Name of Superior Rater
Atty. Juan Miguel T. Cuna
Average Score per Criteria Total Score
Integrity - 0.7500 3.2232
Service Orientation - 0.6500
Network Building - 0.6042
Strategic Focus - 0.5333
Management Acumen - 0.6857
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 - 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.g. DENR Code generally and policies
of Conduct, RA 3019, etc.) undocumented Memo 10/19/11
on observance of proper policy guidelines
conduct and ethical on attendance
behavior of subordinates at
work – 4.5 pts