CHAPTER IV Presentation, Analysis & Interpretation Part 1 Profile of the Micro Financial Institution Table 1 Classification of the Micro

o Financial Institution as to Number of their Staff Advanced Microfinancing Freq. 2 6 8 % 25 75 100 Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. Freq . 1 19 20 % 5 95 100 Rangtay sa Pagrang-ay Inc. Fre q. 1 5 6 % 16.67 83.33 100 Tulay Sa Pag-unlad Incorporated Freq. 1 7 8 % 12.5 87.5 100 Village Enterprise Development Foundation, Inc Freq. % 1 4 5 20 80 100

Classification of the Respondents Management staff Office Staff Total

Total

6 41 47

12.77 87.23 100

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 Number Average Number of Number of Years Initial Amount Micro Finance Institutions Operational Management of Office in of Capital Budget Staff Staff Operation Advanced Microfinancing 7 P 100, 000.00 300,000.00 1 6 Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. 6 3, 000, 000.00 516,666.67 1 19

Rangtay sa Pagrang-ay Incorporated Tulay Sa Pag-unlad Incorporated Village Enterprise Development Foundation, Inc

8 7 4

50, 0000.00 500, 000.00 5, 000, 000.00

750,000.00 3,500,000.00 11,600,000.00

2 7 4

9 13 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 Pagrangay 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 Structure Micro Finance Type of Types of Loan Services Types of Deposit Institutions Organization Offered Services Structure Advanced Corporation Loans Capital Build-up Microfinancing Alalay sa Kaunlaran Inc. Others Individual Loan Program Alalay sa Kaunlaran Alalay sa Magsasaka Loan Education and Advancement Program, OFW Loan Individual Loan ProgramLoan

Other Services Insurance Livelihood

Capital Build-up Savings

Mutual Benefit For Association

Rangtay sa Pagrang-ay Incorporated

Corporation

Capital Build-Up

Not Applicable

Alalay sa Kaunlaran Alalay sa Magsasaka Loan Education and Advancement Program OFW Tulay Sa Pag-unlad Incorporated Registered Peoples Organization Others Group Loans Educational Loans Individual Loans Agricultural Loans Individual Regular Livestock Savings Insurance Mutual Benefit Association Insurance Community Devt Assist Technical & Livelihood Training Program

Village Enterprise Development Foundation, Inc

Capital Build-Up

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 Pagunlad 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 AM ASKI RSP TSPI VEDFI Number of Customers for Loans Served 1,089 2,881 1,500 1,980 2,890 Number of Customers Served for Savings 1,123 2,900 1,500 1,920 2,956 Number of Customer Served for Other Services 975 1,900 0 1,360 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 Age Age Bracket Frequency 20-24 8 25-28 16 29-32 17 33 and above 6 Total 47

Percent 17.02 34.04 36.17 12.77 100.00

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 Sex Sex Classification Frequency Male 14 Female 33 Total 47 Total 47

Percent 29.8 70.2 100.0 100.00

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 Status Marital Status Frequency Single 14 Married 33 Total 47

Percent 29.8 70.2 100.0

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 College 45 Masteral 1

Percent 95.8 2.1

Others Total

1 47

2.1 100.0

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 microfinancial institutions prefer employees that have college degree. Table 9: Distribution of the Respondents according to their Position Position Frequency Branch Manager 5 Senior Project Facilitator 1 Sr. Microfinance Account Officer 1 Supervisor 2 Account Officer 10 Accounting Assistant 1 Project Facilitator 5 Project Officer 7 Field Officer 5 Cashier 1 Communication Officer 1 Posting Clerk 1 Program Assistant 5 Team Leader 1 Utility Worker 1 Total 47

Percent 10.6 2.1 2.1 4.3 21.3 2.1 10.6 14.9 10.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 10.6 2.1 2.1 100.0

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 Income Monthly Income Bracket Frequency below10K 30 >10-15K 13 >15-20K 4 Total 47

Percent 63.8 27.7 8.5 100.0

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 Mean Qualitative SD environment Descriptions 1. Our work areas are conducive to the respective 3.43 0.62 Moderately Satisfied and the nature of the jobs assigned to us. 2. Our office equipment are modern 3.34 0.73 Moderately Satisfied 3, The lighting and cooling facilities are generally 3.43 0.77 Very Much Satisfied acceptable 4. The collegial (friendly) relationship of the 3.62 0.68 Very Much Satisfied employees with each other. 5. The building and other facilities are neat and 3.51 0.66 Very Much Satisfied orderly. 6. Grounds are clean and properly maintained 3.51 0.66 Very Much Satisfied 7. The culture and emotional climate of the 3.49 0.72 Very Much Satisfied institution is generally positive a and supportive. 8. Policies and procedures in the institution. 3.64 0.67 Very Much Satisfied 9. An environment in which honesty and 3.62 0.68 Very Much Satisfied 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 S D 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; SD0.66), 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 1 The manner in which they recruit, interview, induct and signing the employment contract for employees 2. Updated keeping of personnel records 3. The pay structure and compensation packages 4. Benefits provided (Holiday, sick, maternity/paternity leave) and other form of benefits (financial and psychic) 5. Staff & employees training and development plans and implementations 6. The manner in which staff are being managed along the areas of time management, delegating, motivating disciplining, counseling 7. Assessments and performance evaluation 8. Employee discipline and handling difficult people 9. Provision for awards and recognition for outstanding performance

Mean

SD

Qualitative Descriptions

3.60 3.51 3.43

0.58 0.69 0.71

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied

3.60 3.53

0.65 0.62

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied

3.55 3.53 3.47 3.43

0.69 0.58 0.72 0.74

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied 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 Mean SD Qualitative Descriptions Employees - Nature of the Management and Leadership Style 1. The management staff are performing beyond what is expected at their current job 3.64 0.67 Very Much Satisfied 2. 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 4. The management staff personally can identify the right people to do specific job/s. 5. They are always in the right place at the right time 6. The management staff are responsible for the management of the resources 7. The communication style of the management staff 8. The management staff manner of recognizing outstanding employees significant accomplishments Overall Mean

3.47 3.49 3.45 3.47 3.55

0.72 0.80 0.72 0.69 0.69

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied

3.48 3.51

0.58 3.59

Very Much Satisfied 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 2. The first come, first served basis policy is strictly observed especially for customers 3. The office staff are always in their proper uniform 4. Comments and suggestions are welcomed by the staff of the institutions 5. Customer complaints and suggestions are used to improve service delivery 6. The staff answer queries of customers without raising the tone of their voices 7. The staff reflect the best image (as emphasized in their vision and mission of the institution 8. The staff explains to the customers how long must he wait before their loans can be processed and approved. 9. Loan Charges are itemized and explained fully to the customers 10 The staff is efficient in his job especially in meeting customers requirements Overall Mean

3.47 3.43 3.34 3.51 3.51 3.45 3.57

0.72 0.71 0.81 0.75 0.69 0.77 0.68

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied

3.46 3.55 3.51 3.55

0.62 0.72 0.80 0.75

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied 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). Thats 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 1. The effectiveness of the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior 2. Achievement of goals and specific objectives 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 Overall mean Mean 3.45 3.51 3.38 3.45 3.40 3.43 3.47 SD 0.80 0.75 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.65 Qualitative Descriptions Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied

Table 15 shows that the overall mean for the Respondents Level of satisfaction on the nonfinancial 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 perceive d 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;SD0.80); 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 Mean SD Qualitatively with respect to the nature of their work environment Descriptions 1. Our work areas are conducive to the respective and the Effective to a nature of the jobs assigned to us. 3.36 0.61 moderate extent 2. Our office equipment are modern Effective to a 3.36 0.67 moderate extent 3, The lighting and cooling facilities are generally acceptable Effective to a great 3.43 0.65 extent 4. The collegial (friendly) relationship of the employees with Effective to a great each other. 3.55 0.62 extent 5. The building and other facilities are neat and orderly. Effective to a 3.43 0.58 moderate extent 6. Grounds are clean and properly maintained Effective to a 3.40 0.61 moderate extent 7. The culture and emotional climate of the institution is Effective to a great generally positive and supportive. 3.45 0.65 extent 8. Policies and procedures in the institution. Effective to a great 3.45 0.77 extent 9. An environment in which honesty and openness are valued Effective to a great 3.51 0.66 extent Effective to a Overall Mean 3.44 0.51 moderate extent

Presented in Table 16 is the extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the microfinance 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 p ositive 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 Management Criteria # 2 Along the area of management staff and employees Mean SD Qualitatively Nature of Human Resources Management Descriptions 1The manner in which they recruit, interview, induct and Effective to a signing the employment contract for employees 3.38 0.61 moderate extent 2. Updated keeping of personnel records Effective to a 3.43 0.62 moderate extent 3. The pay structure and compensation packages Effective to a 3.28 0.77 moderate extent 4. Benefits provided (Holiday, sick, maternity/paternity leave) Effective to a great and other form of benefits (financial and psychic) 3.45 0.69 extent 5. Staff & employees training and development plans and Effective to a implementations 3.40 0.61 moderate extent 6. The manner in which staff are being managed along the areas of time management, delegating, motivating disciplining, Effective to a great counseling 3.38 0.74 extent 7. Assessments and performance evaluation Effective to a 3.36 0.70 moderate extent 8. Employee discipline and handling difficult people Effective to a great 3.36 0.76 extent 9. Provision for awards and recognition for outstanding Effective to a performance 3.38 0.58 moderate extent Overall Mean Effective to a great 3.31 0.56 extent

Presented in Table 16 is the extent of effectiveness of the non-financial performance of the microfinance 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 ge nerally 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 Style Criteria #3 along the area of the management staff Mean SD Qualitative and employees - Nature of the Management Descriptions and Leadership Style 1. The management staff are performing beyond Effective to a great what is expected at their current job 3.45 0.65 extent 2. The age of the management gives them seniority and they have been working to the Effective to a institution a long time 3.21 0.78 moderate extent 3. The leadership style are generally democratic Effective to a great and paternalistic 3.38 0.71 extent 4. The management staff personally can identify Effective to a the right people to do specific job/s. 3.36 0.74 moderate extent 5. They are always in the right place at the right Effective to a time 3.30 0.72 moderate extent 6. The management staff are responsible for the Effective to a great management of the resources 3.40 0.74 extent 7. The communication style of the management Effective to a great staff 3.40 0.74 extent 8. The management staff manner of recognizing outstanding employees significant Effective to a great accomplishments 3.35 0.61 extent Overall Mean Effective to a 3.32 0.75 moderate extent

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 Descriptions 1. The office staff makes the institutions customers feel Effective to a great they are important and attends to their needs promptly 3.38 0.74 extent 2. The first come, first served basis policy is strictly Effective to a great observed especially for customers 3.32 0.81 extent 3. The office staff are always in their proper uniform Effective to a great 3.33 0.82 extent 4. Comments and suggestions are welcomed by the staff of Effective to a great the institutions 3.45 0.72 extent 5. Customer complaints and suggestions are used to Effective to a great improve service delivery 3.57 0.50 extent 6. The staff answer queries of customers without raising Effective to a great the tone of their voices 3.43 0.71 extent 7. The staff reflect the best image (as emphasized in their Effective to a great vision and mission of the institution 3.49 0.66 extent 8. The staff explains to the customers how long must he Effective to a great wait before their loans can be processed and approved. 3.40 0.61 extent 9. Loan Charges are itemized and explained fully to the Effective to a great customers 3.53 0.69 extent 10 The staff is efficient in his job especially in meeting Effective to a great customers requirements 3.38 0.82 extent Effective to a great Overall Mean 3.43 0.75 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 1. The effectiveness of the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior 2. Achievement of goals and specific objectives 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. Mean SD Qualitative Descriptions Effective to a great extent Effective to a great extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a moderate extent

3.40 3.40 3.24 3.30

0.71 0.80 0.77 0.83

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 Overall mean

3.19 3.36 3.36

0.90 0.70 0.65

Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective 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 criterias 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 (mean3.36; 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 Decision Performance Criteria Z sig 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 Significant Reject Ho handling customer complaints and problems -.593 .553 5. Employees productivity -1.054 .292 Significant Reject Ho

Table 21 summarizes the differences in the respondents level of Satisfaction on the NonFinancial 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 nonfinancial 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 financial institutions when they are group according to their sex Level of Satisfaction on the Non Financial Performance Criteria Z A. Management staff and employees with respect to: 1. Nature of their work environment -.203 2. Human resources management -.652 3. Management and Leadership Style -.484 4. Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems -.013 5. Employees productivity -.128 performance criteria of the micro Decision Sig .839 .514 .629 .990 .898 Not Significant Accept Ho Significant Reject Ho Not Significant Accept Ho Not Significant Accept Ho 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 Decision Performance Criteria Z sig A. Management staff and employees with respect to: 1. Nature of their work environment -1.149 .251 Significant Reject Ho 2. Human resources management -.977 .329 Significant Reject Ho 3. Management and Leadership Style -1.007 .314 Significant Reject Ho 4. Customer management relation services and Significant Reject Ho 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 NonFinancial 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 Sex Level of Effectiveness on the Non Financial Decision Performance Criteria Z sig A. Management staff and employees with respect to: 1. Nature of their work environment -1.149 .251 Significant Reject Ho 2. Human resources management -.977 .329 Significant Reject Ho 3. Management and Leadership Style -1.007 .314 Significant Reject Ho 4. Customer management relation services and Significant Reject Ho 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 Number of Est. Current Amount of Number of Non Financial Years in Amount of Operating Mgmt. & Performance Criteria Operations Capital Budget Office Staff N=47 A. Management staff and employees with respect to: Coefficient -.119 .213 .002 .206 Correlations Nature of their work Sig. (2-tailed) .424 .150 .989 .165 environment Not Not Significant Significant Decision Significant Significant Reject Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho

Coefficient Correlations Sig. (2-tailed) Human resources management Decision Coefficient Correlations Sig. (2-tailed) Decision Coefficient Correlations Sig. (2-tailed) Decision Coefficient Correlations Sig. (2-tailed) Decision

-.110 .463 Not Significant Accept Ho -.228 .124 Significant Reject Ho -.374** .010 Significant Reject Ho -.302* .039 Significant Reject Ho

.164 .271 Not Significant Accept Ho .279 .057 Significant Reject Ho .427** .003 Significant Reject Ho .373** .010 Significant Reject Ho

-.015 .920 Not Significant Accept Ho .008 .957 Not Significant Accept Ho .025 .868 Not Significant Accept Ho .009 .955 Not Significant Accept Ho

.112 .452 Not Significant Accept Ho .110 .462 Not Significant Accept Ho .132 .378 Not Significant Accept Ho .195 .190 Significant Reject Ho

Management and Leadership Style

Customer management relation services and handling customer complaints and problems

Employees productivity

**. 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 Number of Number of Number of Non Financial Performance Customers on Customers on Customers on Criteria Loans Services Savings Other Services N=47 Services Management staff and employees with respect to: Nature of their work Coefficient environment Correlations .187 .187 .120 Sig. (2-tailed) .208 .208 .421 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient Correlations .138 .138 .087 Sig. (2-tailed) .355 .355 .560 Human resources management Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient Correlations .242 .242 .181 Sig. (2-tailed) .101 .101 .223 Management and Leadership Significant Significant Not Significant Style Decision Reject Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Coefficient Customer management relation Correlations .376** .376** .301* services and handling customer Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .009 .040 complaints and problems Significant Significant Significant Reject Decision Reject Ho Reject Ho Ho Coefficient Correlations .333* .333* .262 Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .022 .075 Employees productivity Significant Significant Significant Reject Decision Reject Ho Reject Ho Ho **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

As found in table 26 is the relationship between the respondents level of satisfaction on the NonFinancial 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 MicroFinancial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 1) Extent of Effectiveness of the Number of Est. Current Amount of Number of Non Financial Performance Years in Amount of Operating Mgmt. & N=47 Criteria Operations Capital Budget Office Staff Management staff and employees with respect to: Coefficient -.155 .191 -.073 .121 Correlations Nature of their work Sig. (2-tailed) .298 .199 .627 .418 environment Not Not Not Not Decision Significant Significant Significant Significant Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient -.091 .110 -.030 .002 Correlations Human resources Sig. (2-tailed) .545 .463 .841 .989 management Not Not Not Not Decision Significant Significant Significant Significant Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient -.205 .229 .008 .000 Correlations Management and Leadership Sig. (2-tailed) .166 .121 .959 .998 Style Not Not Significant Significant Decision Significant Significant Reject Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient -.244 .294* .043 .074 Correlations Customer management relation services and Sig. (2-tailed) .099 .045 .772 .622 handling customer Not Not Significant Significant complaints and problems Decision Significant Significant Reject Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient -.299* .332* .002 .090 Correlations Sig. (2-tailed) .041 .023 .991 .548 Employees productivity Not Not Significant Significant Decision Significant Significant Reject Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho **. 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 MicroFinancial Institutions and their Selected Profile (part 2) Number of Level of Satisfaction on the Number of Number of Customers on Non Financial Performance N=47 Customers on Customers on Savings Criteria Loans Services Other Services Services Management staff and employees with respect to: Coefficient .159 .159 .109 Correlations Nature of their work Sig. (2-tailed) .287 .287 .465 environment Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient .079 .079 .037 Correlations Human resources management Sig. (2-tailed) .598 .598 .805 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient .187 .187 .131 Correlations Management and Leadership Sig. (2-tailed) .209 .209 .380 Style Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Coefficient .255* .255* .193 Correlations Customer management relation Sig. (2-tailed) .084 .084 .194 services and handling customer Significant Significant Not Significant complaints and problems Decision Reject Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Coefficient .290* .290* .231 Correlations Employees productivity Sig. (2-tailed) .048 .048 .118 Significant Significant Significant Reject Decision Reject Ho Reject Ho Ho **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

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 Qualitatively and employees with respect to the nature Qualitative Descriptions Descriptions of their work environment (Level od Satisfaction) 1. Our work areas are conducive to the respective Effective to a moderate Moderately Satisfied and the nature of the jobs assigned to us. extent 2. Our office equipment are modern Effective to a moderate Moderately Satisfied extent 3, The lighting and cooling facilities are generally Effective to a great Very Much Satisfied acceptable extent 4. The collegial (friendly) relationship of the Effective to a great Very Much Satisfied employees with each other. extent 5. The building and other facilities are neat and Effective to a moderate Very Much Satisfied orderly. extent 6. Grounds are clean and properly maintained Effective to a moderate Very Much Satisfied extent 7. The culture and emotional climate of the Effective to a great Very Much Satisfied institution is generally positive a and supportive. extent 8. Policies and procedures in the institution. Effective to a great Very Much Satisfied extent 9. An environment in which honesty and Effective to a great Very Much Satisfied openness are valued extent Overall Mean Effective to a moderate Very Much Satisfied 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 Management 1 The manner in which they recruit, interview, induct and signing the employment contract for employees 2. Updated keeping of personnel records 3. The pay structure and compensation packages Very Much Satisfied 4. Benefits provided (Holiday, sick, maternity/paternity leave) and other form of benefits (financial and psychic) 5. Staff & employees training and development plans and implementations 6. The manner in which staff are being managed along the areas of time management, delegating, motivating disciplining, counseling 7. Assessments and performance evaluation 8. Employee discipline and handling difficult people 9. Provision for awards and recognition for outstanding performance Overall Mean Qualitatively Descriptions

Qualitative Descriptions

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied

Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a great extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a great extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a great extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a great extent

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied

Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very 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 Qualitative Descriptions Qualitative Descriptions Employees - Nature of the Management and Leadership Style 1. The management staff are performing beyond Effective to a great what is expected at their current job Very Much Satisfied extent 2. The age of the management gives them seniority and they have been working to the Effective to a moderate institution a long time Moderately Satisfied extent 3. The leadership style are generally democratic Effective to a great and paternalistic Very Much Satisfied extent 4. The management staff personally can identify Effective to a moderate the right people to do specific job/s. Very Much Satisfied extent 5. They are always in the right place at the right Effective to a moderate time Very Much Satisfied extent 6. The management staff are responsible for the Effective to a great management of the resources Very Much Satisfied extent 7. The communication style of the management Effective to a great staff Very Much Satisfied extent 8. The management staff manner of recognizing outstanding employees significant Effective to a great accomplishments Very Much Satisfied extent Effective to a moderate Overall Mean Very Much Satisfied 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 Qualitative Qualitative and problems) Descriptions Descriptions 1. The office staff makes the institutions customers feel they are important and attends to their needs Effective to a great promptly Very Much Satisfied extent 2. The first come, first served basis policy is Effective to a great strictly observed especially for customers Very Much Satisfied extent 3. The office staff are always in their proper Effective to a great uniform Moderately Satisfied extent 4. Comments and suggestions are welcomed by the Effective to a great staff of the institutions Very Much Satisfied extent 5. Customer complaints and suggestions are used to Effective to a great improve service delivery Very Much Satisfied extent 6. The staff answer queries of customers without Effective to a great raising the tone of their voices Very Much Satisfied extent 7. The staff reflect the best image (as emphasized Effective to a great in their vision and mission of the institution Very Much Satisfied extent 8. The staff explains to the customers how long must he wait before their loans can be processed Effective to a great and approved. Very Much Satisfied extent 9. Loan Charges are itemized and explained fully to Effective to a great the customers Very Much Satisfied extent 10 The staff is efficient in his job especially in Effective to a great meeting customers requirements Very Much Satisfied extent Overall Mean Effective to a great Very Much Satisfied extent

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 1. The effectiveness of the office staff of the institution is always manifested by their behavior 2. Achievement of goals and specific objectives 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 Overall mean Qualitative Descriptions Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Very Much Satisfied Qualitative Descriptions Effective to a great extent Effective to a great extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a moderate extent Effective to a great extent

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 criter ia in determining the productivity of the micro-financial institutions under study.