KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CABINET MEMBERS

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CABINET MEMBERS President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.'s recent cabinet shake-up has generated interest not just because of who stayed and who was replaced, but also because of what the reshuffling says about measuring performance. After what was described as a “recalibration,” six Cabinet members were retained, two were reassigned, two were “promoted,” and one new appointee—Tess Lazaro—was brought in. The big question is: what was the basis for these movements? Were these decisions backed by a clear, objective performance review process? And if so, what were the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used? In modern governance, performance-based evaluation is not just a best practice—it is a necessity. Cabinet members function as chief executives of their respective departments. Their roles are critical in achieving the administration’s goals, and as such, they should be held accountable using concrete, transparent metrics. The idea of KPIs is not new in government. In fact, the Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) and the Performance Governance System (PGS) were designed to encourage results-oriented public services delivery. If a performance review was indeed conducted, the public deserves to know what criteria were used. Was it a simple "pass or fail" system? Or were officials graded based on quantifiable outputs and outcomes, such as project completion rates, budget utilization efficiency, or improvements in service delivery? Were there qualitative assessments too, like leadership effectiveness, crisis response, and inter-agency collaboration? And crucially, who conducted the review—the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES), the Presidential Management Staff (PMS), or an external auditing body? Transparency is key. If this reshuffle was truly performance-driven, the public has every right to ask: will the results be published? Citizens are entitled to know who performed, who underperformed, and why. After all, Cabinet members are public servants paid with taxpayer money, and their departments directly affect national welfare. In private corporations, executive reviews are often internal, but in public service, accountability is a cornerstone of legitimacy. This brings us to the interesting case of Tess Lazaro, the newest face in the Cabinet. By all accounts, she is a competent technocrat with a track record in diplomacy. Her appointment may signal the President’s desire to bring in professionals who prioritize results over politics. If that is the new standard, then it's a step in the right direction. However, this moment also exposes a gap in the current governance approach. There must be a formalized, institutional performance monitoring system for all Cabinet secretaries—something integrated and published, perhaps quarterly or annually. Such a system would not only ensure accountability but would also foster a culture of continuous improvement. In the end, the call for KPIs is not just about evaluation; it's about transformation. It is about setting the tone for a results-driven government—one where service delivery is measured, excellence is rewarded, and the public is always informed. If PBBM wants a “fiercely intense” Cabinet, as Palace insiders suggest, then it must begin with performance indicators that are fierce, fair, and fully transparent. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-22-2025