Transformation at UNDP at a crossroads
The eminent organization behavior professor John
Kotter suggests that the main reason transformation efforts fail is a lack of
vision. That didn't used to be an issue for UNDP.
In 1994 my old organization, Stakeholder Forum,
became the first National Committee for UNDP in a donor country. It was a
pleasure to be advocate to the UK government and the UK stakeholders about what
UNDP was doing and the vision they had under Gus Speth.
"Sustainable human development is development
that not only generates economic growth but distributes its benefits equitably;
that regenerates the environment rather than destroying it; that empowers
people rather than marginalizing them.
It gives priority to the poor, enlarging their choices and opportunities and
providing for their participation in decisions affecting them. It is
development that is pro-poor, pro-nature, pro-jobs, pro-women and
pro-children".
Sustainable human development can, therefore, be
defined as “the enlargement of people’s choices and capabilities through the
formation of social capital so as to meet as equitably as possible the needs of
current generations without compromising the needs of future ones."
(UNDP)
As UNDP is rediscovering Gus’s vision maybe that
should be updated to a vision of human AND sustainable development for a UNDP
of the 21st century.
A few months before Labour won the UK election in
1997 I also had the pleasure of organizing a dinner for Richard Jolly (UNDP
HDR) with Clare Short and she became a huge advocate for UNDP and the Human
Development Report.
I also have fond memories of the work that Inge Kaul
did first at the Human Development Report Office, then one of the first UNDP
people really doing work on some of the new financial mechanisms – against US
Congress rules…they withdrew funding from UNDP for the work she did initially
on the Tobin Tax.
This brings me to the present state of UNDP and what
is going on there now.
An organization should reflect the principles that
they claim to promote
First, I have no idea what UNDP stands for now.
There seems an increasing disconnect and contrast between the change process
and UNDP’s mandates in development, especially human development, sustainable
development, democratic governance, capacity development.
We should remember that UNDP were very slow in
engaging in the Rio+20 process but did ultimately provide the triple-win
publication which contributed in the run-up, not least with the host country.
On the SDGs UNDP were also a little slow in coming onboard but for them it was
a question of working out how the SDGs would be elaborated in relation to the
post-2015 process, and offering options to the SG and to the member states in
this regard which was a helpful bridge. They have played a significant role in
the analytical contributions (UN TT Report, OWG Issues Briefs etc) together
with DESA, and with the outreach and consultation with stakeholders.
Eighteen months before the agreement on the
post-2015 new goals are set, they have decided to go through a massive
reorganization.
It’s my understanding there will be up to 30% cuts
in staff at UNDP HQ- some going to the regions to re-balance the organization.
Staff are being instructed to apply for their own positions one grade under
what they are at this point. Those staff that do not have a chair to sit in by
August will have to leave – in many cases the country and take their families
as their visa will no longer enable them to stay as they do not have a job.
I am not sure how many of the UNDP’s 2015 staff
have/will survive, this will ensure that UNDP is not outward facing at a
critical time. At the most important time for defining the new Post 2015 agenda
the UNDP staff clearly will be focusing on other things. Many of these staff
are the same who have been doing really excellent work, work that has been
widely praised by member states and UN colleagues, including the UN's most
senior leadership. This is the same staff that now has to scramble to find a
new role, without them have been given any kind of rationale, logic or
direction for what this change will deliver. This is what is so profoundly
demoralizing and disappointing.
Change in organizations is normal and very good
because it allows new ideas and new collaborations to happen and organizations
should re-invent themselves every five years or so as times are changing so
quickly.
When looking to change management, where better to
go for advice than Dr John Kotter, whom I mentioned in my introduction. He is
regarded by many as THE authority on leadership and change, a New York Times
best-selling author, award winning business and management thought leader,
business entrepreneur, inspirational speaker, and Harvard Professor. He says
that thirty years of research have proven that “70% of all major change efforts
in organizations fail.” The question is why do they fail?
This is often because organizations do not take the
holistic approach required to see the change through and they forget they are
dealing with people.
Organizational change can succeed but only when
there is a solid case that has a "compelling" rationale that not only
appeals to people's head but also to their hearts who are working for it.
A question I would be asking UNDP is what role have
the staff played in developing the new vision and do they accept the approach
and its implementation. If they don’t then there is little chance that the
change will be owned by those working for the organization and therefore they
will not give their hearts and minds to its implementation.
If the new vision has come from the top and being
foisted on UNDP staff then it isn’t a shared vision, it will be very difficult
to communicate it and eliminate key obstacles as it will not fit in with the
organziations culture. Of course UNDP is an intergovernmental organization so
it isn’t just the staff who need to be involved in change but the governments
and outside stakeholders as well.
As Dr John Kotter suggests there are six key
characteristics to the development of effective visions:
Imaginable: They convey a clear picture of what the
future will look like.
Desirable: They appeal to the long-term interest of
those who have a stake in the enterprise (UNDP Staff).
Feasible: They contain realistic and attainable
goals.
Focused: They are clear enough to provide guidance
in decision making.
Flexible: They allow individual initiative and
alternative responses in light of changing conditions.
Communicable: They are easy to communicate and can
be explained quickly.
It’s unclear if UNDP’s new approach has any of these
six characterizes.
As I have already said there is no question that
UNDP and other UN bodies should embrace change as part of the normal way of how
an organization operates in the twenty-first century. To do that the approach needs to ensure that
it’s underpinned with building a common vision and coalition for change and
that the implementation is done with the staff and not against the staff - how
management deal with this will either demoralizes the people that remain so
undermining future efforts or inspire them to deliver the new vision.
What really upsets me in the way that UNDP is
approaching their changes is the way the staff have been treated. These people
have in many ways given their commitment to the UN and the UN ideals and to
UNDP in specific and should be treated in a way that upholds the principles of
the UN. They have not.
There are many ways to do this – first is to agree
with staff about how change will happen so that it enables those staying and
leaving to do so in as little disruptive way as possible. I am of course not
privy to the contracts that UNDP staff have but I do have friends over the UN
system who don’t understand why people couldn’t have left as their contracts
finished over the next 18 months. Of course if you are like the manager from
the recent The Secret Life of Walter Mitty film, then you don’t see the people
as people and people who have families and a life here in the USA. You see them
as disposable. As the three UN Staff unions have said in their letter to the UN
Secretary General:
“We understand that these cuts were taken in utmost
secrecy, without due consultation, and in direct violation, of the principles
expressed in General Assembly Resolution 128 . Furthermore, the speed at which they are being made will have a serious
detrimental impact on UNDP staff; this from an organization that claims on its
web site to “empower lives.”
Conclusion
I have done this blog for those who cannot speak up
and who feel their lives and their work have not been valued. To them I say
there are many who do value your work, your commitment and what you have
brought to UNDP and to people across the planet.
To those that are administrating these changes I
would ask them to reconsider the implementation of their plan. These are people
who have given their lives to the values of the UN and they should be treated
with respect and care…otherwise UNDP may be lost for a generation and at the
exact time when their input to the post 2015 agenda is needed most.
I add my voice to say it’s time for the Secretary
General to intervene.
This sounds as if UN Staff Rules may have been violated as well as established staff procedures and rights. Staff might consider appealing to the usual administrative processes and eventualy to the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT).
ReplyDeleteLearned so much here! Discursive of contemporary stakes for world actors at the UNDP Such a diagnosis opens a bleak image of the future to those of us with ambitions to build careers in the UN. Even as they shred the flax, having an opportunity to hear from you will be an auspicious occurrence Sir!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete