> Posted by Julie Shea
Loan officers have a tremendous effect on the productivity and income of the MFIs that employ them, and their compensation often comprises over half of the MFI’s costs. Most MFIs are double-bottom-line organizations dedicated to the social mission for which they were founded as well as to achieving financial health. So it’s no wonder that management has an interest in tools that encourage and promote superior loan officer performance, in relation to social as well as financial goals. One such tool is a staff incentive scheme.
A recent visit to a Nicaraguan MFI provided me with firsthand insight into a mission-driven organization that uses a monetary incentive scheme to motivate and reward its loan officers. I approached the project with the assumption that some degree of tradeoff exists when an organization is balancing social and financial objectives. But how much of a tradeoff is there really? Focusing on the social mission can have financial payoffs in the form of loyal clients willing and able to pay back their loans. On the other side, by ensuring strong financial performance, the MFI is also increasing the likelihood that it will reach sustainability, scale, and scope and thereby continue to be able to provide necessary services to the world’s poor. So if the two goals are not mutually exclusive, how can an incentive scheme be designed to promote both?
Within the organization’s staff incentive scheme, loan officers are able to earn 50 percent of their total income in bonuses (effectively doubling their salary). As the cornerstone of my master’s thesis research, I set out to answer the important question: how does this MFI’s incentive scheme influence loan officer behavior, and more importantly do monetary incentives introduce a risk that loan officers will drift from the organization’s social mission?
The staff incentive scheme I observed targets five indicators, representing a mix of social and financial goals. These include loan portfolio and number of clients, both of which contribute to the overall productivity of the MFI. Striving for growth in the loan portfolio and expanding the target client base can have both positive social and financial impacts, in the form of greater outreach to clients (social) and helping the MFI reach scale (financial). [1]The incentive scheme rewards loan officers for referring clients to the healthcare services offered by the organization, which is closely aligned with its social mission to support the health of its clients. Maintaining low rate of delinquency is the main focus of the system– not only is this indicator given most weight (25 percent), but failure to meet the target results in disqualification from all other incentive bonuses. Similar to productivity, the target of low delinquency can be characterized as both socially and financially motivated.
While this particular incentive scheme is designed with financial targets as the primary objective, it is important to note the mission-focused organizational culture in which it is embedded. Interviews with management revealed the emphasis they place on fostering a strong culture focused on the social aspect of the organization’s work, via staff training, workshops, and goal-setting. A survey of loan officers confirmed that management prioritizes this culture, and that it has an effect on loan officer behavior. For example, one loan officer commented that “management provides training to staff. They are concerned with knowing what each loan officer is doing. They ensure that staff is doing quality work and providing good service to clients.” While a monetary staff incentive scheme aimed at financial indicators might introduce the risk that loan officers lose sight of the social focus, this is less likely to occur in a financial institution where every loan officer can recite the mission statement and understands the social significance of the organization’s work.
What have I learned so far? That the indicators can’t neatly be divided into social and financial groups, and that an understanding of the incentives goes hand-in-hand with an understanding of the organizational culture into which they are introduced. In the coming months, I’ll be delving into loan officers’ survey responses to find out more about how the incentive system impacts their behavior – stay tuned!
1 Rashmi Ekka (2010): Integrating social performance management into microfinance capacity building – staff incentives.
Image credit: microlinks.org


Facebook
Twitter
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 7, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Chuck Waterfield
This is a very interesting report, Julie, on a timely topic. The industry has been promoting incentive schemes for about 15 years, and I do hope that we can advance on what the mix of indicators should be, and how they should be weighted.
The indicators for this MFI are rather heavily slanted toward the business side of the MFI. The two that fall partly in the social camp are still also solidly engaged with the profitability of the MFI. Do you have some ideas on additional social measures that should be worked into the formula?
And do you have any feeling of when the incentive might be too high? In this case, you say 50% of the pay is incentives. One way of seeing that is to say it “doubles the salary”, but I don’t know the base salary, and in most examples the base salary (without any incentives) is not a real “market rate”. In other words, the loan officer might see this as “If I don’t hit my targets, my salary gets cut in half, and then I’m in big economic trouble.”
And since the loan portfolio quality indicator is so heavily weighted in this system — if you don’t get solid repayment, you lose half your salary — it draws attention to the recent news on staff incentive programs in India. SKS loan officers, fearing that they were to lose their incentive payment, pressured clients into suicides. These stories of microfinance-motivated suicides were just rumors eighteen months ago, but the news reports now include details that make it pretty clear that in some instances the strong pressure of the incentive system motivated some SKS loan officers to pressure clients to the point of death.
We do all believe this is extremely rare. Still, there this is something of the risk of using payment incentive systems. If they are too strongly weighted, they can motivate behaviors we clearly do not want to happen. Do you have any opinions on “how much incentive might be too much”? Or do you have other ideas on how we can ensure the appropriate behaviors and decisions of our loan officers?
Chuck Waterfield
CEO, MFTransaparency
March 8, 2012 at 12:12 am
Julie Shea
Thanks for a very thoughtful (and thought-provoking) comment, Chuck. You raise some interesting and important questions.
One theme that seems to continue to emerge is this question of tradeoffs – that when management creates an incentive for one area, they are causing loan officers to spend less time on another area, and the outcome cannot always be predicted ahead of time. Therefore I think it’s really important that management is constantly monitoring the impact of the incentives and tweaking the system when necessary.
To your question on incentives for social measures, there is absolutely a lot of progress to be made here. This particular MFI is not yet tracking social data for clients, in part because they use a group-lending model, but they do plan to move in this direction. They expressed concern that incentives for social measures, in the current system, would actually be disincentives, because there would be no objective measurements upon which to base them.
I can’t say for sure how much incentive is too much, but I think the real question is the environment in which the incentives are provided. If loan officers join the MFI strictly for the extrinsic rewards, and there is little or no mention of a social mission in the organizational culture, then yes, there might be a danger of the situation you describe with loan officers pressuring clients. If, on the other hand, loan officers enter the organization because they are strongly dedicated to the social mission, and feel that the incentives are fair and attainable, they are more likely to have positive results.
Overall, I think there is a lot of potential for MFIs to impact their performance through innovative HR strategies (beyond monetary incentives) and look forward to continuing this discussion!
March 8, 2012 at 11:17 am
Chuck Waterfield
Thanks for your response, Julie.
I’m curious to read more that has been written on what I would call “Stage 2″ of incentive pay schemes. I think “Stage 1″ focussed primarily on productivity and financial goals. What has been written on how to correct for some of the dis-incentives that have resulted?
What case studies are there of efforts to advance in more balanced systems?
If I run an MFI that wants to ensure staff work for more balance between financial and social goals, and want to communicate that through the incentive system they all monitor every day, not just in their initial orientation session when they first join the organization, are there some documents I can find to help me think through how to do this?
I think this essential to get 100% staff commitment to our values. Otherwise, 10%, or 20% of my staff might be persuaded to bend decisions toward their own economic self-interest.
Do you have some documents along these lines that you’ve read and would recommend?
Chuck
March 8, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Julie Shea
Chuck,
I would recommend the following articles:
Rashmi Ekka, ‘Integrating social performance management into microfinance capacity building: Staff Incentives’
Eduardo Bazoberry, ‘We Aren’t Selling Vacuum Cleaners: PRODEM’s Experience with Staff Incentives’, MicroBanking Bulletin, April 2001
Martin Holtmann and Mathias Grammling, ‘A Toolkit for Designing and Implementing Staff Incentive Schemes,’ MicroSave, http://www.microsave.org, 2005
Martin Holtmann and Mathias Grammling, ‘Designing Staff Incentive Schemes to Balance Social and Financial Goals,’2006
Martin Holtmann and Mathias Grammling, ‘The Role of Staff Incentive Schemes in Balancing Social and Financial Goals – Evidence From Four MFIs,’ 2008
Imp-Act Consortium, ‘Staff incentives: Integrating SPM into microfinance capacity building,’ 2011
Best,
Julie
March 13, 2012 at 10:50 am
Chuck Waterfield
Thanks, Julie
I’ve not had time to dig into these, but I hope to soon, as I think this certainly is an important topic.
Chuck