Written by: Gray Southon, Special Officer for UN Reform, UNA New Zealand
There are common calls for the UN Secretariat to be more efficient, effective, responsive, open and accountable with high quality staff. While these are all desirable goals, it is not often realised that they come at a cost, and can substantially conflict with each other. Let us consider each of these characteristics in turn.
Efficiency refers to minimising the cost of specific activities (e.g., running a specific form of conference). One needs to specify the activities and ensure costs are accurately allocated to that activity, and eliminating any costs that do not contribute. Focussing on efficiency reduces flexibility and broad thinking.
Effectiveness refers to the impact on broader goals (e.g. increasing the success of dispute resolution) which are complex with diverse inputs. It requires a broader approach and coordination of many different stakeholders which requires spare resources and flexibility of objectives.
Responsiveness means that the organisation will respond quickly to changing demands. It requires the capability to assess changes and adapt to them, which requires broad thinking and flexibility. This also requires spare resources.
Openness means that people outside can know what is going on, and have an impact on decisionmaking. The provision of information that is generally understandable is expensive, and managing the subsequent response may be intrusive and disruptive. Especially in a highly political environment, stakeholders may have objectives which are not consistent with achieving effectiveness or efficiency. Openness can lead staff to be risk averse, avoiding politically sensitive issues, and confine themselves to easily defended actions.
Accountability refers to more formal reporting on activities and achievements normally based on pre-defined parameters, often on the basis of prescribed performance indicators. If the operation is at all complex, such accountability inevitably overlooks a substantial part of essential activities. A strong emphasis on such accountability encourages the organisation to distort priorities away from those activities not specifically addressed. Some forms of accountability carry with them penalties for substandard performance, such as budget cuts or staff changes, and can provide an incentive to bias the information provided.
Quality Staffing requires sensitivity to staff needs, not just in their employment conditions, but in the attractiveness of the working environment, such as the clarity of the tasks they are given, the level of support that they have in achieving their goals, potential for taking initiative and the recognition they are given for their work. It needs to be the type of organisation that quality staff will want to work in. Unwarranted attacks, intrusive scrutiny, unreasonable constraints, unproductive paperwork, uncertain goals and inadequate support all increase staff frustration. Because of the very special characteristics of many UN activities, many skills can only be developed through long term experience, requiring considerable stability and support for long term careers.
All of these characteristics are important, and in an effective organisation are well balanced. However, external forces can disrupt this balance and degrade the organisation. It is important, therefore, in putting demands on an organisation, that one is aware of the potential impact. It was therefore of concern when the US placed the threat of a budget termination over the Secretariat, apparently ignoring the destructive effects of this uncertainty. Similarly, the G77 insistence on continued close scrutiny of the Secretariat by the GA, with no recognition of the destructiveness of such “micromanagement”, demonstrates a greater concern for their exercise of power than for the health of the organisation. Also, the highly politically motivated scrutiny which the SG and the secretariat were submitted to over the Iraq food for oil program is destructive of morale and integrity of the organisation.
Given such destructive forces on the Secretariat, one wonders what sort of person would offer themselves for the SG position. Would it be a person ignorant of the realities of this position, a person so enamoured with the attendant glory that they overlook such pressure, a person with an ulterior motive which justifies the pressure, or a person with the arrogance to ignore it. Further, the level that the current SG has raised expectations will make them difficult to fulfil. One hopes that a person with the required sensitivity and the wisdom is sufficiently forbearing to submit themselves to this ‘impossible task’.
Gray Southon is an organisational analyst specialising in the health industry. He is Special Officer for UN Reform for UNA New Zealand.
