CHAPTER IV- Final Complete

CHAPTER IV

Presentation, Analysis & Interpretation

Part 1 – Profile of the Micro Financial Institution

Table 1

Classification of the Micro – Financial Institution as to Number of their Staff

Classification of the

Respondents

Advanced Microfinancing

Alalay sa Kaunlaran

Inc.

Rangtay sa Pagrang-ay

Inc.

Tulay SaPag-unlad

Incorporated

Village Enterprise

Development Foundation,

IncTotal %

Freq. % Freq.

% Freq.

% Freq. % Freq. %

Management staff

2 25 1 5 1 16.67 1 12.5 1 20 6 12.77

Office Staff 6 75 19 95 5 83.33 7 87.5 4 80 41 87.23Total 8 100 20 100 6 100 8 100 5 100 47 100

As presented in Table 1, Classification of the Micro – Financial Institution as to Number of their

Staff states that Advance Microfinance has 2 management staff which represents 25% of their total staff

while Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc., Rangtay-ay sa Pagrang-ay Inc. Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. and Village

Enterprise Development Foundation Inc. has 1 management staff which represents 5%, 16.67%, 12.5%

and 20% of their staff respectively. On the other hand, Alalay sa Kaunlaran has 19 or 95% office staff,

Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. has 7 or 87.5% office staff, Advance Microfinance has 6 or 75% office staff

while Rangtay-ay sa Pagrang-ay has 5 or 83.33% office staff and Village Enterprise Development

Foundation Inc. has 4 or 80% office staff. Overall, the respondents has a total number of 47, of which 6

(12.77%) is management staff while 41 (87.23%) of them are office staff.

Table 2

Classification of the Micro – Financial Institution as to the Number of years in Operation, Initial Amount of Capital, Average Operational Budget and number of office staff

Micro Finance Institutions

Number of Years

in Operation

Initial Amount of Capital

Average Operational

Budget

Number of Management

Staff

Number of Office

Staff

Advanced Microfinancing 7 P 100, 000.00 300,000.00 1 6Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. 6 3, 000, 000.00 516,666.67 1 19

Rangtay sa Pagrang-ay Incorporated

8 50, 0000.00 750,000.00 2 9

Tulay Sa Pag-unlad Incorporated

7 500, 000.00 3,500,000.00 7 13

Village Enterprise Development Foundation, Inc

4 5, 000, 000.00 11,600,000.00 4 8

The presentation in Table 2, Classification of the Micro – Financial Institution as to the Number

of years in Operation, shows that Advance Microfinance is already operating for 7 years and it has an

initial capital of P 100,000 and has an average operational budget of P300, 000 their number of

management staff is 1 while their office staff is 6. On the other hand, Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. is

operating for 6 years with an initial capital of P3, 000,000 and has an average operational budget of P516,

666.67, the number of their management staff is 1 and they have 19 office staff. Rangtay-ay sa Pagrang-

ay is already operating for 8 years with an initial capital of P50, 000 and has an average operational

budget of P750, 000, their management staff is 2 while their office staff is 9. Tulay sa Pagunlad Inc. is

already operating for 7 years, they had an initial capital of P500, 000 and has an operational budget of P

3,500,000, their management staff is 7 and their office staff is 13. Village Enterprise Development

Foundation Inc. is already operating for 4 years and they had an initial capital of P5,000,000 and their

operational budget is P11,600,000, they had 4 management staff and 8 office staff.

Table 3:

Classification of Micro – Financial Institutions as to the Type of Organizational StructureMicro Finance Institutions

Type of Organization

Structure

Types of Loan Services Offered

Types of Deposit Services

Other Services

Advanced Microfinancing

CorporationLoans Capital Build-up

InsuranceLivelihood

Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc.

Others Individual Loan Program

Alalay sa KaunlaranAlalay sa MagsasakaLoan Education and

Advancement Program,

OFW Loan

Capital Build-upSavings

Mutual Benefit

For Association

Rangtay sa Pagrang-ay Incorporated

Corporation Individual Loan ProgramLoan

Capital Build-Up Not Applicable

Alalay sa KaunlaranAlalay sa MagsasakaLoan Education and

Advancement Program

OFWTulay Sa Pag-unlad Incorporated

Registered Peoples

Organization

IndividualRegular

Livestock

Savings

InsuranceMutual Benefit

AssociationVillage Enterprise Development Foundation, Inc

Others

Group LoansEducational LoansIndividual Loans

Agricultural Loans

Capital Build-Up

InsuranceCommunity Devt AssistTechnical & Livelihood Training Program

Table 3, Classification of the Microfinancial Institutions with respect to their profile shows that

the type of organization of Advance Microfinance and Rang-ay tay sa Pagrang-ay are both corporation

whereas Tulay sa Pagunlad Inc. is a Registered Peoples Organization while Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. and

Village Enterprise Development Foundation Inc. are both others (microfinance). It can also be seen that

the type of loan services offered by Advance Microfinance is loan while Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. and

Rangtay-ay sa Pagrang-ay Inc. both offers individual loan, program, alalay sa magsasaka, alalay sa

kaunlaran loan education and advancement program and OFW loan, on the other hand, Tulay sa Pag-

unlad Inc. offers individual, regular and livestock loans and Village Enterprise Development Foundation

Inc. offers group loans, educational loans, individual loans and agricultural loans. Moreover, the types of

deposit services offered by Advance Microfinance, Rangtay-ay sa Pagrang-ay Inc. and Village Enterprise

Development Foundation Inc. is capital build up, on the other hand, Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. offers

savings and Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. offers both capital build up and savings. Additionally, other

services that Advance Microfinance offers are insurance and livelihood as Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. offers

mutual benefit for association whereas Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. offers insurance and mutual benefits for

association and Village Enterprise Development Foundation Inc. does not offer other services.

Table 4 - Estimated Number of Customer Served

Micro Finance Institutions

Number of Customers for Loans Served

Number of Customers Served

for Savings

Number of Customer Served for Other Services

AM 1,089 1,123 975ASKI 2,881 2,900 1,900RSP 1,500 1,500 0TSPI 1,980 1,920 1,360VEDFI 2,890 2,956 1.987

The data in table 4, Estimated Number of Customer Served illustrates that Advance Microfinance

has served loans to 1,089 customers, they also served savings to 1,123 customers and they had served other

services to 975 customers. Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. on the other hand had served loans to 2,881

customers, they also served savings to 2,900 customers and served other services to 1,900 customers. It

can also be seen that Rangtay-ay sa Pagrang-ay Inc. had served loans and savings to 1,500 customers and

has served 0 customers for other services. Tulay sa Pagunlad Inc. had served loans to 1,980 customers,

they had also served savings to 1,920 customers and had served other services to 1,360 customers. Village

Enterprise Development Foundation Inc. had served loans to 2,890 customers; they had also served

savings to 2,956 customers and had served other services to 1987 customers

Part 2 - Profile of the management staff and employees of the micro- financial institutions

Table 5:

Distribution of the Respondents according to their AgeAge Bracket Frequency Percent

20-24 8 17.0225-28 16 34.0429-32 17 36.17

33 and above 6 12.77Total 47 100.00

According to Table 5, the Distribution of the Respondents according to their Age, 17

(36.17%) out of the 47 respondents belong to the age bracket 29-32, meanwhile, 16 (34.04%) of

the respondents are in the age bracket 25-28, 8 (17.02%) of the respondents belong to the age

bracket 20-24 and the remaining 6 out of the 47 respondents belong to the age bracket 33

(12.77%) and above.

Table 6:

Distribution of the Respondents according to their SexSex Classification Frequency Percent

Male 14 29.8Female 33 70.2Total 47 100.0Total 47 100.00

As shown in Table 6, most of the respondents are female which seventy percent (33 or 70.2%) of

the total number of respondents while the remaining twenty nine percent (14 or 29.8%) are males. This

proves that majority of the staff employed in microfinance institution are females.

Table 7:

Distribution of the Respondents according to their Marital StatusMarital Status Frequency Percent

Single 14 29.8Married 33 70.2

Total 47 100.0

Flaunted in Table 7 is the distribution of the respondents according to their marital status. Less

than one in every fifteen (14 or 29.8%) respondents is single this is because some of them are in their

twenties and choose to be single. On the other hand, seventy percent (33 or 70.2%) of the respondents are

married. As shown in table 5, most of their respondents are in their late twenties or early thirties and they

are old enough to get married.

Table 8:

Distribution of the Respondents according to their Educational Attainment Educational Attainment Frequency Percent

College 45 95.8Masteral 1 2.1

Others 1 2.1Total 47 100.0

As exhibited in Table 8 is the distribution of the respondents according to their educational

attainment. Both Masteral and others (undergraduate) have only one respondent (1 or 2.1%) whereas

forty-five (45 or 95.8%) of the respondents has their college degree. This indicates that most of the micro-

financial institutions prefer employees that have college degree.

Table 9:

Distribution of the Respondents according to their Position Position Frequency Percent

Branch Manager 5 10.6Senior Project Facilitator 1 2.1Sr. Microfinance Account Officer 1 2.1Supervisor 2 4.3Account Officer 10 21.3Accounting Assistant 1 2.1Project Facilitator 5 10.6Project Officer 7 14.9Field Officer 5 10.6Cashier 1 2.1Communication Officer 1 2.1Posting Clerk 1 2.1Program Assistant 5 10.6Team Leader 1 2.1Utility Worker 1 2.1Total 47 100.0

As specified in Table 9 is the distribution of the respondents according in their position. Among

the 47 respondents, the account officer has ten (10 or 21.3%) number of respondents;the Project Officer

has seven (7 or 14.9%); Branch Manager, Project Facilitator, Field Officer and Program Assistant have

five (5 or 10.6%) each; the Supervisor has two (2 or 4.3%); and one (1 or 2.1%) respondent for the Senior

Project Facilitator, Senior Microfinance Account Officer, Accounting Assistant, Cashier, Communication

Officer, Posting Clerk, Team Leader and Utility Worker . Over-all, Account Officer has the highest

number of respondents.

Table 10:

Distribution of the Respondents according to their Monthly IncomeMonthly Income Bracket Frequency Percent

below10K 30 63.8>10-15K 13 27.7>15-20K 4 8.5

Total 47 100.0

Table 10 states that only four (4 or 8.5%) respondents have 15-20K monthly salary; almost thirty

percent (13 or 27.7%) have 10-15K monthly salary; and more than half of the respondents (30 or 63.8%)

have 10K below monthly salary. Thus this shows that the average monthly salary of a regular employee

of a micro-financial institution is 10K and below.

Part 3 - Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on the Non-Financial Performance of the Respondents in terms of several Criteria

Table 11:

Statistical Presentation of the Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #1 the management staff and employees with respect to the nature of their work environment Criteria #1 the management staff and employees

with respect to the nature of their work environment

MeanSD

Qualitative Descriptions

1. Our work areas are conducive to the respective and the nature of the jobs assigned to us.

3.43 0.62 Moderately Satisfied

2. Our office equipment are modern 3.34 0.73 Moderately Satisfied3, The lighting and cooling facilities are generally acceptable

3.43 0.77 Very Much Satisfied

4. The collegial (friendly) relationship of the employees with each other.


5. The building and other facilities are neat and orderly.


6. Grounds are clean and properly maintained 3.51 0.66 Very Much Satisfied7. The culture and emotional climate of the institution is generally positive a and supportive.


8. Policies and procedures in the institution. 3.64 0.67 Very Much Satisfied9. An environment in which honesty and openness are valued


Overall Mean 3.51 0.53 Very Much Satisfied

Based from the information summarized in table 11 the statistical presentation of the respondents’

level of satisfaction on the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #1 the

management staff and employees with respect to the nature of their work environment resulted to the

overall mean of 3.51 with SD of 0.53 rated as very much satisfied. In more detailed approach, the mean of

“Our work areas are conducive to the respective and the nature of the jobs assigned to us” is 3.43 with SD

of 0.62 and likewise the mean of “Our office equipment are modern” is 3.34 with SD of 0.73 has a rate of

moderately satisfied. On the other hand, “The lighting and cooling facilities are generally

acceptable”(mean-3.43; SD-0.77), “The collegial (friendly) relationship of the employees with each

other”(mean- 3.62;SD-0.68), “The building and other facilities are neat and orderly”(mean-3.51; SD-

0.66),” Grounds are clean and properly maintained”(mean-3.51, SD-0.66), “The culture and emotional

climate of the institution is generally positive and supportive”(mean-3.49;SD-0.72), “Policies and

procedures in the institution.”(mean-3.64; SD-0.67) and “An environment in which honesty and openness

are valued”(mean-3.62; SD-0.68) has a rate of very much satisfied.

Table 12

Statistical Presentation of the Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #2 the management staff and employees - with the Nature of Human Resources Management

Criteria # 2 along the Management Staff and Employees – Nature of Human Resources

Management Mean SDQualitative

Descriptions1 The manner in which they recruit, interview, induct and signing the employment contract for employees 3.60 0.58 Very Much Satisfied2. Updated keeping of personnel records 3.51 0.69 Very Much Satisfied3. The pay structure and compensation packages 3.43 0.71 Very Much Satisfied4. Benefits provided (Holiday, sick, maternity/paternity leave) and other form of benefits (financial and psychic) 3.60 0.65 Very Much Satisfied5. Staff & employees training and development plans and implementations 3.53 0.62 Very Much Satisfied6. The manner in which staff are being managed along the areas of time management, delegating, motivating disciplining, counseling 3.55 0.69 Very Much Satisfied7. Assessments and performance evaluation 3.53 0.58 Very Much Satisfied8. Employee discipline and handling difficult people 3.47 0.72 Very Much Satisfied9. Provision for awards and recognition for outstanding performance 3.43 0.74 Very Much Satisfied

Overall Mean 3.51 0.54 Very Much Satisfied

As presented in table 12 which is the statistical presentation of the respondents’ level of

satisfaction on the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #2 the management

staff and employees - with the Nature of Human Resources Management. The following criteria “The

manner in which they recruit, interview, induct and signing the employment contract for

employees”(mean-3.60;SD-0.58);” Updated keeping of personnel records”(mean-3.51;SD-0.69);” The

pay structure and compensation packages”(mean-3.43;SD-0.71);” Benefits provided (Holiday, sick,

maternity/paternity leave) and other form of benefits (financial and psychic)”(mean-3.60;SD-0.65);” Staff

& employees training and development plans and implementations”(mean-3.53;SD-0.62);” The manner

in which staff are being managed along the areas of time management, delegating, motivating

disciplining, counseling”(mean-3.55;SD-0.69);” Assessments and performance evaluation”(mean-

3.53;SD-0.58);” Employee discipline and handling difficult people”(mean-3.47;SD-0.72);” Provision for

awards and recognition for outstanding performance “(mean-3.43;SD-0.74).Obviously, the overall result

is rated as Very Much Satisfied whichhas a mean of 3.51 with SD of 0.54.

Table 13:

Statistical Presentation of the Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #3 the management staff and employees - with the Management and Leadership Style

Criteria #3 along the Management Staff and Employees - Nature of the Management and

Leadership Style

Mean SD Qualitative Descriptions

1. The management staff are performing beyond what is expected at their current job 3.64 0.67 Very Much Satisfied2. The age of the management gives them seniority and they have been working to the institution a long time 3.34 0.76 Moderately Satisfied

3. The leadership style are generally democratic and paternalistic 3.47 0.72 Very Much Satisfied4. The management staff personally can identify the right people to do specific job/s. 3.49 0.80 Very Much Satisfied5. They are always in “the right place at the right time” 3.45 0.72 Very Much Satisfied6. The management staff are responsible for the management of the resources 3.47 0.69 Very Much Satisfied7. The communication style of the management staff 3.55 0.69 Very Much Satisfied8. The management staff manner of recognizing outstanding employees significant accomplishments 3.48 0.58 Very Much SatisfiedOverall Mean 3.51 3.59 Very Much Satisfied

As illustrated in table 13, the Statistical Presentation of the Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on

the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #3 the management staff and

employees - with the Nature of Human Resources Management, out of eight criteria listed on criteria #3

of table 13 “The age of the management gives them seniority and they have been working to the

institution a long time” is the only moderately satisfied with a mean of 3.34 and SD of 0.76 while the rest

are very much satisfied which includes “The management staff are performing beyond what is expected at

their current job”; The leadership style are generally democratic and paternalistic”; “They are always in

“the right place at the right time”; ” The management staff are responsible for the management of the

resources”; “The communication style of the management staff” and “. The management staff manner of

recognizing outstanding employees’ significant accomplishments” with mean of 3.64, 3.47, 3.49, 3.45,

3.47, 3.55, 3.48 and with SD of 0.67, 0.76, 0.72, 0.80, 0.72, 0.69, 0.69, 0.58 respectively. Those criteria

presented has an overall mean of 3.51 and SD of 3.59 that has a qualitative description of very much

satisfied.

Table 14

Statistical Presentation of the Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #4 Customer management (Customer relation services and Handling customer complaints and problems)

Criteria #4 Customer management (Customer relation services and Handling customer Mean SD Qualitative Descriptions

complaints and problems)1. The office staff makes the institutions’ customers feel they are important and attends to their needs promptly 3.47 0.72 Very Much Satisfied2. The “first come, first served” basis policy is strictly observed especially for customers 3.43 0.71 Very Much Satisfied3. The office staff are always in their proper uniform 3.34 0.81 Moderately Satisfied4. Comments and suggestions are welcomed by the staff of the institutions 3.51 0.75 Very Much Satisfied5. Customer complaints and suggestions are used to improve service delivery 3.51 0.69 Very Much Satisfied6. The staff answer queries of customers without raising the tone of their voices 3.45 0.77 Very Much Satisfied7. The staff reflect the best image (as emphasized in their vision and mission of the institution 3.57 0.68 Very Much Satisfied8. The staff explains to the customers how long must he wait before their loans can be processed and approved. 3.46 0.62 Very Much Satisfied9. Loan Charges are itemized and explained fully to the customers 3.55 0.72 Very Much Satisfied10 The staff is efficient in his job especially in meeting customers’ requirements 3.51 0.80 Very Much SatisfiedOverall Mean 3.55 0.75 Very Much Satisfied

Table 14 displays the Statistical Presentation of the Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on the

non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #4 Customer management (Customer

relation services and Handling customer complaints and problems), they rated number 3 as the only

criteria resulted as moderately satisfied which has the mean of 3.34 with SD of 0.81.On the other hand,

numbers 1, 2, 4 to 10 are qualitatively describe as very much satisfied according to the following criteria

“The office staff makes the institutions’ customers feel they are important and attends to their needs

promptly”(mean-3.47;SD-0.72),” The “first come, first served” basis policy is strictly observed especially

for customers”(mean-3.43;SD-0.71),” Comments and suggestions are welcomed by the staff of the

institutions”(mean-3.51;SD-0.75).” Customer complaints and suggestions are used to improve service

delivery” (mean-3.51;SD-0.69);” The staff answer queries of customers without raising the tone of their

voices”(mean-3.45;SD-0.77),” The staff reflect the best image (as emphasized in their vision and mission

of the institution”(mean-3.57;SD-0.68)” The staff explains to the customers how long must he wait before

their loans can be processed and approved” (mean-3.46;SD-0.62).” . Loan Charges are itemized and

explained fully to the customers”(mean-3.55;SD-0.72),” The staff is efficient in his job especially in

meeting customers’ requirements”(mean-3.51;SD-0.80). That’s why the overall mean of 3.55 with an SD

of 0.80 also resulted as very much satisfied.

Table 15

Statistical Presentation of the Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #5Employees Productivity

Criteria #5 Employees Productivity Mean SD Qualitative Descriptions1. The effectiveness of the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior 3.45 0.80 Very Much Satisfied2. Achievement of goals and specific objectives 3.51 0.75 Very Much Satisfied3. Ratio between the target and the actual number of customer served per day. 3.38 0.82 Very Much Satisfied4. Ratio between the target and actual number of loan releases per day. 3.45 0.77 Very Much Satisfied5. Ratio between the target and actual number of new customers serve per day 3.40 0.77 Very Much Satisfied6. Ratio between the target and actual amount of loan releases per day 3.43 0.77 Very Much SatisfiedOverall mean 3.47 0.65 Very Much Satisfied

Table 15 shows that the overall mean for the Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on the non-

financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #6 Employees Productivity is 3.47 with a SD

of 0.65 is within the range of “very much satisfied”. All respondents perceived that they are very much

satisfied in criteria #6 which is employees’ productivity. Specifically, those criteria are as follows:” The

effectiveness of the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior”(mean-3.45;SD-

0.80);” Achievement of goals and specific objectives”(mean-3.51;SD-0.75);” . Ratio between the target

and the actual number of customer served per day.”(mean-3.38;SD-0.82);” Ratio between the target and

actual number of loan releases per day.”(mean-3.45;SD-0.77);” . Ratio between the target and actual

number of new customers serve per day”(mean-3.40;SD-0.77);” . Ratio between the target and actual

amount of loan releases per day”(mean-3.43;SD-0.77).

Part 4 – The Extent of Effectiveness of the Non-Financial Performance of the Micro-Finance institutions in terms of several Criteria

Table 16:

The extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the micro-finance institutions in terms of criteria #1 the management staff and employees with respect to the nature of their

Criteria #1 the management staff and employees with respect to the nature of their work environment

Mean SD Qualitatively Descriptions

1. Our work areas are conducive to the respective and the nature of the jobs assigned to us. 3.36 0.61

Effective to a moderate extent

2. Our office equipment are modern3.36 0.67


3, The lighting and cooling facilities are generally acceptable3.43 0.65

Effective to a great extent

4. The collegial (friendly) relationship of the employees with each other. 3.55 0.62


5. The building and other facilities are neat and orderly.3.43 0.58


6. Grounds are clean and properly maintained3.40 0.61


7. The culture and emotional climate of the institution is generally positive and supportive. 3.45 0.65


8. Policies and procedures in the institution.3.45 0.77


9. An environment in which honesty and openness are valued3.51 0.66


Overall Mean 3.44 0.51Effective to a moderate extent

Presented in Table 16 is the extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the micro-

finance institutions in terms of criteria #1 the management staff and employees with respect to the nature

of their work environment. Numbers 1, 2, 5, and 6 listed in the criteria #1 of Table 16 are rated as

effective to a moderate extent according to the following criteria “Our work areas are conducive to the

respective and the nature of the jobs assigned to us”,” Our office equipment are modern”,” The building

and other facilities are neat and orderly”, ”Grounds are clean and properly maintained” has mean of

3.36(SD=0.61), 3.36(SD=0.67),, 3.43(SD=0.58), and 3.40(SD=0.61) respectively. While numbers 3, 4, 7

and 8 are qualitatively describe as effective to a great extent according to the following criteria “The

lighting and cooling facilities are generally acceptable”,” The collegial (friendly) relationship of the

employees with each other”,” The culture and emotional climate of the institution is generally positive a

and supportive”,” Policies and procedures in the institution” has mean of 3.43(SD=0.65), 3.55(SD=0.62),

3.45(SD=0.65), and 3.45(SD=0.77) respectively.

Table 17:

Statistical Presentation of the Extent of Effectiveness on the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #2 the management staff and employees - with the Nature of Human Resources ManagementCriteria # 2 Along the area of management staff and employees

– Nature of Human Resources ManagementMean SD Qualitatively

Descriptions1The manner in which they recruit, interview, induct and signing the employment contract for employees 3.38 0.61


2. Updated keeping of personnel records3.43 0.62


3. The pay structure and compensation packages3.28 0.77


4. Benefits provided (Holiday, sick, maternity/paternity leave) and other form of benefits (financial and psychic) 3.45 0.69


5. Staff & employees training and development plans and implementations 3.40 0.61


6. The manner in which staff are being managed along the areas of time management, delegating, motivating disciplining, counseling 3.38 0.74


7. Assessments and performance evaluation3.36 0.70


8. Employee discipline and handling difficult people3.36 0.76


9. Provision for awards and recognition for outstanding performance 3.38 0.58


Overall Mean3.31 0.56


Presented in Table 16 is the extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the micro-

finance institutions in terms of criteria #1 the management staff and employees with respect to the nature

of their work environment. Numbers 1, 2, 5, and 6 listed in the criteria #1 of Table 16 are rated as

effective to a moderate extent according to the following criteria “Our work areas are conducive to the

respective and the nature of the jobs assigned to us”,” Our office equipment are modern”,” The building

and other facilities are neat and orderly”, ”Grounds are clean and properly maintained” has mean of

3.36(SD=0.61), 3.36(SD=0.67),, 3.43(SD=0.58), and 3.40(SD=0.61) respectively. While numbers 3, 4, 7

and 8 are qualitatively describe as effective to a great extent according to the following criteria “The

lighting and cooling facilities are generally acceptable”,” The collegial (friendly) relationship of the

employees with each other”,” The culture and emotional climate of the institution is generally positive a

and supportive”,” Policies and procedures in the institution” has mean of 3.43(SD=0.65), 3.55(SD=0.62),

3.45(SD=0.65), and 3.45(SD=0.77) respectively.

Table 18:

Statistical Presentation of the extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #3 the management staff and employees - with the Management and Leadership StyleCriteria #3 along the area of the management staff

and employees - Nature of the Managementand Leadership Style

Mean SD Qualitative Descriptions

1. The management staff are performing beyond what is expected at their current job 3.45 0.65


2. The age of the management gives them seniority and they have been working to the institution a long time 3.21 0.78


3. The leadership style are generally democratic and paternalistic 3.38 0.71


4. The management staff personally can identify the right people to do specific job/s. 3.36 0.74


5. They are always in “the right place at the right time” 3.30 0.72


6. The management staff are responsible for the management of the resources 3.40 0.74


7. The communication style of the management staff 3.40 0.74


8. The management staff manner of recognizing outstanding employees significant accomplishments 3.35 0.61


Overall Mean3.32 0.75


According to the above table 18, extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the

respondents in terms of criteria #3 the management staff and employees with respect to Nature of

Management and Leadership Style, among the eight (8) listed criteria five (5) resulted as effective to a

great extent namely:” The management staff are performing beyond what is expected at their current

job”(mean=3.45;SD=0.65);”The leadership style are generally democratic and

paternalistic”(mean=3.48;SD=0.71);” The management staff are responsible for the management of the

resources” (mean=3.40;SD=0.74);” The communication style of the management staff”

(mean=3.40;SD=0.74);”The management staff manner of recognizing outstanding employees significant

accomplishments” (mean=3.35;SD=0.61).While the three(3) remaining criteria have a rate of effective to

a moderate extent particularly the following:“The age of the management gives them seniority and they

have been working to the institution a long time” (mean=3.21;SD=0.78);” The management staff

personally can identify the right people to do specific job/s” (mean=3.21;SD=0.78);” They are always in

“the right place at the right time” (mean=3.30;SD=0.72).All in all, it has an overall mean of 3.32 with SD

of 0.75 which is qualitatively describes as effective to a moderate extent.

Table 19:

Statistical Presentation of the Extent of the Effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #4 Customer management (Customer relation services and Handling customer complaints and problems)

Criteria #4 Customer management (Customer relation services and Handling customer complaints and problems) Mean SD Qualitative

Descriptions1. The office staff makes the institutions’ customers feel they are important and attends to their needs promptly 3.38 0.74


2. The “first come, first served” basis policy is strictly observed especially for customers 3.32 0.81


3. The office staff are always in their proper uniform3.33 0.82


4. Comments and suggestions are welcomed by the staff of the institutions 3.45 0.72


5. Customer complaints and suggestions are used to improve service delivery 3.57 0.50


6. The staff answer queries of customers without raising the tone of their voices 3.43 0.71


7. The staff reflect the best image (as emphasized in their vision and mission of the institution 3.49 0.66


8. The staff explains to the customers how long must he wait before their loans can be processed and approved. 3.40 0.61


9. Loan Charges are itemized and explained fully to the customers 3.53 0.69


10 The staff is efficient in his job especially in meeting customers’ requirements 3.38 0.82


Overall Mean 3.43 0.75Effective to a great extent

As can clearly seen in Table 19, Extent of the Effectiveness of the non-financial performance of

the respondents in terms of criteria #4 Customer management (Customer relation services and Handling

customer complaints and problems),all of them resulted to the rate of effective to a great extent that has

an overall mean of 3.43 with SD of 0.75. The following ten criteria has a qualitative description of

effective to a great extent namely “The office staff makes the institutions’ customers feel they are

important and attends to their needs promptly”; “The “first come, first served” basis policy is strictly

observed especially for customers”; “The office staff are always in their proper uniform”; “Comments

and suggestions are welcomed by the staff of the institutions”; “Customer complaints and suggestions are

used to improve service delivery”; “ The staff answer queries of customers without raising the tone of

their voices”; “The staff reflect the best image (as emphasized in their vision and mission of the

institution)”; “The staff explains to the customers how long must he wait before their loans can be

processed and approved.”; “Loan Charges are itemized and explained fully to the customers” and “The

staff is efficient in his job especially in meeting customers’ requirements” with a means of 3.38, 3.32,

3.33, 3.45, 3.57, 3.43, 3.49, 3.40, 3.53, 3.38 and with a SD of 0.74, 0.81, 0.82, 0.72, 0.50, 0.71, 0.66, 0.61,

0.69, and 0.82 respectively.

Table 20:

Statistical Presentation of the Extent of Effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #5 Employees Productivity

Criteria #5 Employees Productivity Mean SD Qualitative Descriptions

1. The effectiveness of the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior 3.40 0.71


2. Achievement of goals and specific objectives3.40 0.80


3. Ratio between the target and the actual number of customer served per day. 3.24 0.77


4. Ratio between the target and actual number of loan releases per day. 3.30 0.83


5. Ratio between the target and actual number of new customers serve per day 3.19 0.90


6. Ratio between the target and actual amount of loan releases per day 3.36 0.70


Overall mean 3.36 0.65Effective to a great extent

The overall mean for the statistical presentation of the extent of effectiveness of the non-financial

performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #6 Employees Productivity in table 20 is 3.36 with a

SD of 0.65that resulted to effectively to a great extent. The criteria’s “Ratio between the target and the

actual number of customer served per day”, “Ratio between the target and actual number of loan releases

per day”(mean-3.24; SD-0.77), “Ratio between the target and actual number of loan releases per day”

(mean-3.30; SD-0.30), “Ratio between the target and actual number of new customers serve per day”

(mean-3.19; SD-0.90) and “. Ratio between the target and actual amount of loan releases per day” (mean-

3.36; SD-0.70) has a qualitatively described as effective to a moderate extent while “The effectiveness of

the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior”(mean-3.40; SD-0.71) and

“Achievement of goals and specific objectives” ”(mean-3.40; SD-0.80) are classified as effective to a

great extent.

Table 21:

The differences in the Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction on the Non-Financial performance of the micro financial institutions when they are group according to their position

Level of Satisfaction on the Non – Financial Performance Criteria Z sig

Decision

A. Management staff and employees with respect to:1. Nature of their work environment -.313 .754 Not Significant Accept Ho

2. Human resources management -.860 .390 Significant Reject Ho

3. Management and Leadership Style -1.119 .263 Significant Reject Ho

4. Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems -.593 .553

Significant Reject Ho

5. Employees productivity -1.054 .292 Significant Reject Ho

Table 21 summarizes the differences in the respondents’ level of Satisfaction on the Non-

Financial performance of the micro financial institutions when they are group according to their position.

As clearly displayed in the above table, the respondents from top level management, middle management

and low level management reveal that there is significant difference in the level of satisfaction on non-

financial performance because z score is greater than significant values in the areas of human resource

management (z= -.860), management and leadership style (z= -1.119), customer management relation

services and handling customer complaints and problems (z= -0.593) and employees productivity (z= -

1.054). The hypothesis is rejected. On the other hand, the level of satisfaction on non-financial

performance is not affected by the nature of their work environment because z= -.313 is lesser than

significant values that is equal to .754. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.

Part 4 – The Statistical Differences in the level of satisfactions on the non- financial performance criteria of the micro financial institutions when they are group according to their sex classification and position

Table 22:

The differences in the level of satisfactions on the Non-Financial performance criteria of the micro financial institutions when they are group according to their sex

Level of Satisfaction on the Non – Financial Performance Criteria Z Sig

Decision

A. Management staff and employees with respect to:1. Nature of their work environment -.203 .839 Not Significant Accept Ho2. Human resources management -.652 .514 Significant Reject Ho3. Management and Leadership Style -.484 .629 Not Significant Accept Ho4. Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems -.013 .990

Not Significant Accept Ho

5. Employees productivity -.128 .898 Not Significant Accept Ho

As presented in table 22, there is significant difference in the level of satisfaction on the non

financial performance of micro financial institutions when they are group according to their sex as

Wilcoxon valued z=-.652 which is greater than the significant values=.514 specifically in the criteria of

human resources management. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. While, the four remaining

criteria shows that there are no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on the non-financial

performance. It implies that the respondents’ Nature of their work environment, Management and

Leadership Style, Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and

problems and Employees productivity according to their sex. Respectively, their z scores are as follows

-.203, -.484, -.013 and -.128.

Table 23:

The differences in the extent of effectiveness of the Non-Financial performance of the micro financial institutions when they are group according to their position Level of Satisfaction on the Non – Financial Performance Criteria Z sig

Decision

A. Management staff and employees with respect to:1. Nature of their work environment -1.149 .251 Significant Reject Ho2. Human resources management -.977 .329 Significant Reject Ho3. Management and Leadership Style -1.007 .314 Significant Reject Ho4. Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems -.749 .454


5. Employees productivity -.770 .441 Significant Reject Ho

Displayed in Table 23 is the result of the differences in the extent of effectiveness of the Non-

Financial performance of the micro financial institutions when they are group according to their position.

Since the significant values for the level of Satisfaction on the Non – Financial Performance Criteria is

greater than the z score therefore significant differences exists for the following Nature of their work

environment (z=-1.149), Human resources management (z= -.977), Management and Leadership Style

(z= -1.007), Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems

(z=-.749), and Employees productivity (z=.770).

Table 24:

The differences in the extent of effectiveness of the Non-Financial performance of the micro financial institutions when they are group according to their SexLevel of Effectiveness on the Non – Financial Performance Criteria Z sig

Decision

A. Management staff and employees with respect to:1. Nature of their work environment -1.149 .251 Significant Reject Ho2. Human resources management -.977 .329 Significant Reject Ho3. Management and Leadership Style -1.007 .314 Significant Reject Ho4. Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems -.749 .454


5. Employees productivity -.770 .441 Significant Reject Ho

Table 24 presents the differences in the extent of effectiveness of the Non-Financial performance

of the micro financial institutions when they are group according to their Sex. Overall, there is significant

difference on the level of effectiveness based on their Nature of their work environment, Human

resources management, Management and Leadership Style, Customer management relation services and

handling customer complaints and problems, and Employees productivity as indicated by their z scores

which is greater than the significant values. That is why the null hypothesis is rejected.

Part VI – Relationship of the Respondents’ Level of Significance of the non-financial performance

indicators with the selected profile of the micro-financial institutions.

Table 25:

Relationship between the respondents’ level of satisfaction on the Non-Financial Performance Criteria of the Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 1)Level of Satisfaction on the

Non – Financial Performance Criteria N=47

Number of Years in

Operations

Est. Current Amount of

Capital

Amount of Operating

Budget

Number of Mgmt. &

Office StaffA. Management staff and employees with respect to:Nature of their work environment

Coefficient Correlations

-.119 .213 .002 .206

Sig. (2-tailed) .424 .150 .989 .165Decision Not

Significant Accept Ho


Not Significant Accept


Ho

Human resources management


-.110 .164 -.015 .112

Sig. (2-tailed) .463 .271 .920 .452

DecisionNot




Ho


Management and Leadership Style


-.228 .279 .008 .110

Sig. (2-tailed) .124 .057 .957 .462

DecisionSignificant Reject Ho



Ho


Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems


-.374** .427** .025 .132

Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .003 .868 .378




Ho


Employees productivity


-.302* .373** .009 .195

Sig. (2-tailed) .039 .010 .955 .190




Ho


**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 25 is the Relationship between the respondents’ level of satisfaction on the Non-Financial

Performance Criteria of the Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 1). According to

this table, the level of satisfaction of Management staff and employees with respect to Nature of their

work environment is not significantly correlated in terms of Number of Years in Operations and Amount

of Operating Budget. Respectively, their coefficient correlations are -.119 and .002 which are greater than

their significant values (2 –tailed), .424 and .989. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. On the other

hand, in terms of Est. Current Amount of Capital and Number of Mgmt. & Office Staff, the correlations

are significant because coefficient correlation, .213 and .206, are greater than its significant values, .150

and .165. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.

As stated in the same table under the same criteria, there is no significant relationship between

Number of Years in Operations, Est. Current Amount of Capital, Amount of Operating Budget, Number

of Mgmt. & Office Staff and Human resources management. Since the coefficient correlation is lesser

than the level of significance, the null hypothesis is accepted. These are non-influencing factors to the

level of satisfaction of the Human resources management.

As indicated above, in the same criteria, the coefficient correlations of Number of Years in

Operations (-.228) and Est. Current Amount of Capital (.279) are greater than its significant values, .124

and .057 respectively. The correlation is significant. Thus, null hypothesis of these factors is rejected.

While the coefficient correlations of Amount of Operating Budget (.008) and Number of Mgmt. & Office

Staff (.110) are lesser than its significant values which are .957 and .462 respectively. The correlation is

not significant. As a result, the hypothesis of these factors is accepted.

Displayed also in the same table, the level of satisfaction of Customer management relation

services and handling customer complaints and problems criteria is significantly correlated with Number

of Years in Operations Number of Years in Operations and Est. Current Amount of Capital. The

coefficient correlation of -.374** and .427** are significant at the 0.01 level of significance. Thus null

hypothesis is rejected. In contrary, Amount of Operating Budget and Number of Mgmt. & Office Staff

have no significant correlation since their coefficient correlations are lesser than their significant values.

Presented also in the same table, only Amount of Operating Budget is not significantly correlated

with Employees productivity because the significant value (.955) is greater than its coefficient correlation

(.009). The null hypothesis is accepted. But in terms of Number of Years in Operations, Est. Current

Amount of Capital and Number of Mgmt. & Office Staff are significantly correlated with Employees

productivity because their significant values which are .039, .010 and .190 respectively are lesser than its

coefficient correlations which are -.302*, .373** and .195 respectively. Thus, the null hypothesis is

rejected.

Table 26:

Relationship between the respondents’ level of satisfaction on the Non-Financial Performance Criteria of the Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 2)

Level of Satisfaction on the Non – Financial Performance

Criteria N=47

Number of Customers on

Loans Services


Savings Services

Number of Customers on Other Services

Management staff and employees with respect to:Nature of their work environment

Coefficient Correlations .187 .187 .120Sig. (2-tailed) .208 .208 .421

DecisionNot Significant

Accept HoNot Significant


Accept Ho






Accept Ho







Coefficient Correlations .376** .376** .301*

Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .009 .040





Coefficient Correlations .333* .333* .262Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .022 .075





As found in table 26 is the relationship between the respondents’ level of satisfaction on the Non-

Financial Performance Criteria of the Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 2).With

reference to the level of satisfaction between nature of their work environment and Number of Customers

on Loans Services, P-value is .208 which is higher than .187 and likewise in Number of Customers on

Savings Services which has a P-value of .208 that is higher to .187 and also in Number of Customers on

Other Services which has P-value of .421 that is higher to .120 are not significant. This means that there

is no significant relationship existing. The null hypothesis is accepted.

As to human resources management criteria, both its relationship to Number of Customers on

Loans Services, Number of Customers on Savings Services and Number of Customers on Other Services

has no significant relationship the level of satisfaction on the Non-Financial Performance Criteria of the

Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 2). It indicates that the Significant (2 tailed) is

higher than the coefficient correlation. Respectively their P-values are as follows .101, .101

and .223.Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.

As to Management and Leadership Style, significant relationship exist based on Number of

Customers on Loans Services and Number of Customers on Savings Services. Both have greater

coefficient correlation of .242(Number of Customers on Loans Services) and .242 (Number of Customers

on Savings Services) that resulted to null hypothesis which is rejected. On the other hand, Number of

Customers on Other Services has greater significant (2 tailed) of .223 than coefficient correlation of .181

which means that there is no significant relationship. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.

As to Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems,

Number of Customers on Loans Services which has significant relationship because the coefficient

correlation is higher than the significant (2 tailed) at 0.01 level. Moreover, Number of Customers on

Savings Services has also higher coefficient correlation of .376** than significant(2 tailed) and Number

of Customers on Other Services has greater coefficient correlation of .301* than significant (2 tailed) at

0.05 level. The null hypothesis is rejected.

As to Employees productivity Number of Customers on Loans Services which has significant

relationship because the coefficient correlation is higher than the significant (2 tailed) at 0.05 level.

Moreover, Number of Customers on Savings Services has also higher coefficient correlation

of .333*than significant (2 tailed) and Number of Customers on Other Services has greater coefficient

correlation of .262 than significant (2 tailed) at 0.05 level of .075.The null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 27:

Relationship between the Extent of Effectiveness of the Non-Financial Performance Criteria of the Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 1)Extent of Effectiveness of the Non – Financial Performance

CriteriaN=47

Number of Years in

Operations

Est. Current Amount of

Capital

Amount of Operating

Budget

Number of Mgmt. &

Office StaffManagement staff and employees with respect to:

Nature of their work environment


-.155 .191 -.073 .121

Sig. (2-tailed) .298 .199 .627 .418

DecisionNot







-.091 .110 -.030 .002

Sig. (2-tailed) .545 .463 .841 .989

DecisionNot







-.205 .229 .008 .000

Sig. (2-tailed) .166 .121 .959 .998







-.244 .294* .043 .074

Sig. (2-tailed) .099 .045 .772 .622







-.299* .332* .002 .090

Sig. (2-tailed) .041 .023 .991 .548





**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

As presented in table 27, Relationship between the Extent of Effectiveness of the Non-Financial

Performance Criteria of the Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 1), all profile

characteristics are not significantly correlated with Nature of their work environment and Human

resources management because their coefficient correlation is lesser than its significant values. Thus, the

null hypothesis is accepted. Under the criteria Management staff and employees, Management and

Leadership Style and Number of Years in Operations and Est. Current Amount of Capital are

significantly correlated. Their coefficient correlation, -.205 and .229 respectively are higher than its

significant values which are .166 and .121 respectively. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Consequently, Amount of Operating Budget and Number of Mgmt. & Office Staff are not significantly

correlated with Management and Leadership Style. Their coefficient correlation (.008 and .000

respectively) is lower than its significant value (.959 and .998 respectively). Hence, the null hypothesis is

accepted.

In the same table, Number of Years in Operations is significantly correlated with Customer

management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems having a greater

coefficient correlation of -.244 and a significant value of .099. Est. Current Amount of Capital is

significantly correlated with Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints

and problems at the 0.05 level having a higher coefficient correlation of -.244 than a significant value of

.045. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected. On the other hand, Amount of Operating Budget and Number of

Mgmt. & Office Staff are not significantly correlated with the same criteria having a lesser correlation

coefficient of .043 and .074 respectively than its significant value which are .772 and .622 respectively.

These makes the null hypothesis accepted.

As found also, the extent of effectiveness of Number of Years in Operations and Est. Current

Amount of Capital are significantly correlated at the 0.05 level with Employees productivity having

higher coefficient correlations of -.299* and .332* respectively than its significant values of .041 and .023

respectively. Thus making the null hypothesis rejected. Amount of Operating Budget and Number of

Mgmt. & Office Staff are not significantly correlated with the same criteria because its correlation

coefficients (.002 and .090 respectively) is lower than its significant values (.991 and .548 respectively).

As a result, the null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 28:

Relationship between the Extent of Effectiveness of the Non-Financial Performance Criteria of the Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 2)

Level of Satisfaction on the Non – Financial Performance

CriteriaN=47


Loans Services


Savings Services

Number of Customers on Other Services

Management staff and employees with respect to:

Nature of their work environment


.159 .159 .109

Sig. (2-tailed) .287 .287 .465




Accept Ho



.079 .079 .037

Sig. (2-tailed) .598 .598 .805




Accept Ho



.187 .187 .131

Sig. (2-tailed) .209 .209 .380




Accept Ho

Customer management relation services and handling customer

complaints and problems


.255* .255* .193

Sig. (2-tailed) .084 .084 .194






.290* .290* .231

Sig. (2-tailed) .048 .048 .118





In table 28, Relationship between the Extent of Effectiveness of the Non-Financial Performance

Criteria of the Micro-Financial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 2), under the Nature of their

work environment criteria, Number of Customers on Loans Services, Number of Customers on Savings

Services and Number of Customers on Other Services are not significantly correlated with Nature of their

work environment. The profile characteristics have lower coefficient correlation (.159, .159 and .109

respectively) than its significant values of .287, .287 and .465 respectively. Therefore, the null hypothesis

is accepted. Under the same criteria, Number of Customers on Loans Services, Number of Customers on

Savings Services and Number of Customers on Other Services are not significantly correlated with

Human resources management. As evidenced in the table, its coefficient correlations are lower (.079, .079

and .037 respectively) than its significant values which are .598, .598 and .805 respectively making the

null hypothesis accepted. Number of Customers on Loans Services, Number of Customers on Savings

Services, and Number of Customers on Other Services are also not significantly correlated with

Management and Leadership Style. Their coefficient correlations (.187, .187 and .131) are lower than its

significant values which are .209, .209 and .380 respectively. With this, the findings resulted to the

acceptance of the null hypotheses.

In another criterion, Number of Customers on Loans Services are significantly correlated with

Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems. As seen in the

table, its coefficient correlations (.255* and .255* respectively) are higher than its significant values

of .084 and .084 respectively at 0.05 level. These findings make the null hypothesis rejected. In the same

criteria, the Number of Customers on Other Services is not significantly correlated with Customer

management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems having a .193 coefficient

correlation which is lower than its significant value of .194. These makes the null hypothesis accepted.

On the last criterion, number of customers on oans Services and Number of Customers on

Savings Services are significantly correlated with Employees productivity. As evidenced, its coefficient

correlations (.290* and .290* respectively) are higher than its significant values (.048 and .048

respectively) at the 0.05 level. These make the null hypothesis rejected. Number of Customers on Other

Services is the also significantly correlated with Employees productivity. As evidenced, its coefficient

correlation (.231) is higher than its significant value (.118). This resulted to the rejection of the null

hypothesis.

Additional Tables

The following additional tables are conceptualized and prepared in order to have a basis for

conducting a deeper analysis. Using the tables as basis an understanding will be developed that if the

level of satisfaction is high will it result to a high or great extent of significance, whatever is the results of

the comparisons may provide the researchers vital information that can be used as basis in developing

recommendations.

Table 29:

Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on as compared to the extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #1 the management staff and employees with respect to the nature of their work environment Criteria #1along the area of the management staff

and employees with respect to the natureof their work environment

Qualitative Descriptions(Level od Satisfaction)

Qualitatively Descriptions

1. Our work areas are conducive to the respective and the nature of the jobs assigned to us.

Moderately SatisfiedEffective to a moderate extent

2. Our office equipment are modernModerately Satisfied


3, The lighting and cooling facilities are generally acceptable

Very Much SatisfiedEffective to a great extent

4. The collegial (friendly) relationship of the employees with each other.


5. The building and other facilities are neat and orderly.

Very Much SatisfiedEffective to a moderate extent

6. Grounds are clean and properly maintainedVery Much Satisfied


7. The culture and emotional climate of the institution is generally positive a and supportive.


8. Policies and procedures in the institution.Very Much Satisfied


9. An environment in which honesty and openness are valued


Overall Mean Very Much Satisfied Effective to a moderate

extent

The table above proves that the respondents are very much satisfied to all criteria - 1 along the

area of management staff and employees with respect to the nature of their work environment and this

level of satisfaction when compared to extent of effectiveness the same different items, their perceived

that the criteria are also effective to a grate, this may indicate that that the extent of the effectiveness

results to a the satisfaction of the respondents

Table 30

Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on as compares to the extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #2 the management staff and employees - with the Nature of Human Resources Management

Criteria # 2 along the Management Staff and Employees – Nature of Human Resources

ManagementQualitative Descriptions

Qualitatively Descriptions

1 The manner in which they recruit, interview, induct and signing the employment contract for employees Very Much Satisfied


2. Updated keeping of personnel recordsVery Much Satisfied


3. The pay structure and compensation packagesVery Much Satisfied


4. Benefits provided (Holiday, sick, maternity/paternity leave) and other form of benefits (financial and psychic) Very Much Satisfied


5. Staff & employees training and development plans and implementations Very Much Satisfied


6. The manner in which staff are being managed along the areas of time management, delegating, motivating disciplining, counseling Very Much Satisfied


7. Assessments and performance evaluationVery Much Satisfied


8. Employee discipline and handling difficult people Very Much Satisfied


9. Provision for awards and recognition for outstanding performance Very Much Satisfied


Overall MeanVery Much Satisfied


As shown in the above table, the respondents are very much satisfied with all of the items of

Criteria # 2 along the Management Staff and Employees – Nature of Human Resources Management but

the extent of effectiveness on item #1 the manner in which they recruit, interview, induct and signing

the employment contract for employees; item #5. Staff & employees training and development plans

and implementations and item # 7. Assessments and performance evaluation that are qualitatively rated

by the respondents “effective to a moderate extent” , this imply that improvements are needed on the

three criteria (see recommendations)

Table 31

Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on as compared to extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #3 the management staff and employees - with the Management and Leadership Style

Criteria #3 along the Management Staff and Employees - Nature of the Management and

Leadership Style

Qualitative Descriptions Qualitative Descriptions

1. The management staff are performing beyond what is expected at their current job Very Much Satisfied


2. The age of the management gives them seniority and they have been working to the institution a long time Moderately Satisfied


3. The leadership style are generally democratic and paternalistic Very Much Satisfied


4. The management staff personally can identify the right people to do specific job/s. Very Much Satisfied


5. They are always in “the right place at the right time” Very Much Satisfied


6. The management staff are responsible for the management of the resources Very Much Satisfied


7. The communication style of the management staff Very Much Satisfied


8. The management staff manner of recognizing outstanding employees significant accomplishments Very Much Satisfied


Overall Mean Very Much SatisfiedEffective to a moderate extent

Respondents’ level of satisfaction on as compared to extent of effectiveness of the non-financial

performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #3 the management staff and employees - with the

Management and Leadership Style as can be seen in Table 31 above, the respondents with all the items

about criteria number 3 “very much satisfied” and they also qualitatively described the same criteria as

effective to a great extent except for criterion # 2. the age of the management gives them seniority and

they have been working to the institution a long time and the overall mean which generally perceived as

“effective to a moderate extent” only, which imply that the management should developed mechanism

about this findings of the study

Table 32

The Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on as compared to the extent of effectiveness of the Non-Financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #4 Customer management (Customer relation services and Handling customer complaints and problems

Criteria #4 Customer management (Customer relation services and Handling customer complaints

and problems)Qualitative

DescriptionsQualitative

Descriptions1. The office staff makes the institutions’ customers feel they are important and attends to their needs promptly Very Much Satisfied


2. The “first come, first served” basis policy is strictly observed especially for customers Very Much Satisfied


3. The office staff are always in their proper uniform Moderately Satisfied


4. Comments and suggestions are welcomed by the staff of the institutions Very Much Satisfied


5. Customer complaints and suggestions are used to improve service delivery Very Much Satisfied


6. The staff answer queries of customers without raising the tone of their voices Very Much Satisfied


7. The staff reflect the best image (as emphasized in their vision and mission of the institution Very Much Satisfied


8. The staff explains to the customers how long must he wait before their loans can be processed and approved. Very Much Satisfied


9. Loan Charges are itemized and explained fully to the customers Very Much Satisfied


10 The staff is efficient in his job especially in meeting customers’ requirements Very Much Satisfied


Overall MeanVery Much Satisfied


Along Criteria #4 Customer management (Customer relation services and Handling customer

complaints and problems) the respondents are very much satisfied with the items in this criteria and that in

terms of effectiveness that same are rated qualitatively as effective to a great extent. The details are

presented above.

Table 33

The Respondents’ Level of satisfaction on as compared to the Extent of Effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the respondents in terms of criteria #5Employees Productivity

Criteria #5 Employees Productivity Qualitative Descriptions

Qualitative Descriptions

1. The effectiveness of the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior Very Much Satisfied


2. Achievement of goals and specific objectivesVery Much Satisfied


3. Ratio between the target and the actual number of customer served per day. Very Much Satisfied


4. Ratio between the target and actual number of loan releases per day. Very Much Satisfied


5. Ratio between the target and actual number of new customers serve per day Very Much Satisfied


6. Ratio between the target and actual amount of loan releases per day Very Much Satisfied


Overall meanVery Much Satisfied


The comparison presented in the table above that the respondents level of satisfaction on item #1

the effectiveness of the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior and item # 2

achievement of goals and specific objectives is “very much satisfied” while for the following criteria 3.

Ratio between the target and the actual number of customer served per day, 4. Ratio between the target

and actual number of loan releases per day, 5. Ratio between the target and actual number of new

customers serve per day, 6. Ratio between the target and actual amount of loan releases per day the

qualitative rate for the level of satisfaction is also “very much satisfied” but the extent of effectiveness is

“effective to moderate extent, this means that the different ratios are not effective criteria in determining

the productivity of the micro-financial institutions under study.

Date post:	13-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	einsteinspy
View:	28 times
Download:	2 times

CHAPTER IV- Final Complete

Documents