150 likes | 170 Vues
Learn about the evolution of the Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre (RCAC) and its impact on UN leadership quality at country levels, including assessment criteria and improvements over time.
E N D
Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre Joint UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WFP Executive Boards Presentation 23-26 January 2004
Secretary-General’s Reform Proposals:July 1997 • To improve quality of UN leadership at country level by: • “…the selection of Resident Coordinators from all the organizations” of the UN system; • Reinvigorating human resource practices, including selection, development and learning.
UNDG: Resident Coordinator Selection • Fair, objective RC selection, acceptable to UN system; • Competency-based assessment of candidates in selection process; • GA “welcomes” use of competency assessment of RC candidates (Resolution A/53/192 of 25 February 1999); • Resident Coordinator Issues Group oversees competency assessment; • Inter-Agency Advisory Panel advises UNDP Administrator on successful competency-assessedcandidates for specific RC posts.
RCAC: What is Assessed? • Leadership • Managing Complexity • Managing Relationships • Core Values • Integrity and Commitment • Fairness and Equality • Cultural Adaptability and Sensitivity • Commitment to Learning
First generation RCAC: The DDI experience (1998-2000) • Development Dimensions International, a US-based firm, selected competitively to design, develop, administer first Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre: • Launched December 1998; • 134 candidates assessed; • $6,480 fee per participant.
RCAC Evaluation (2000) Pros: • Perceived by UN organizations as fair, open, transparent and enhancing RC selection process; • Designed in accordance with professional standards; • Exercises conducted with precision in non-threatening atmosphere; • Fee reasonable for quality of services provided.
RCAC Evaluation (2000) Cons: • Certain competencies too “soft” (ie. “planning and organizing,” “management of meetings,”) and low on strategic thinking; • Simulation exercises need review to ensure: • Balance between evaluating personal style and substantive content; • Required level of complexity; • Perception of cultural and language bias.
Major changes to RCAC: 2001 • Assessment process re-designed to reflect: • Evolving role of Resident Coordinator in UN reform; • Growing complexity, especially in crisis and post-conflict situations where RC also HC; • Enhanced focus on strategic decision-making. • Continued special attention to cultural, gender and linguistic considerations in assessment process: • Gender and regional balance of assessors; • Special assessor training to ensure cultural/gender-neutral assessment of candidates.
Second generation RCAC: The SHL experience (2001-to date) • Saville and Holdsworth of Canada selected competitively to design, develop, administer upgraded RCAC • 218 candidates assessed, including 40 sitting/former RCs and 21 external candidates; • Assessor pool: gender, regional and language-balanced; • $8300 fee per participant; • Continuing refinements based on ongoing review and feedback.
RCAC Outcomes: 2001 - 3 • Overall success rate: • 70.6% for all candidates (218 participants). • By categories: • 70.3% for female candidates (74); • 63.2% for regional candidates (114); • 57.7% for UN agency candidates (other than UNDP) (78); • 66.7% for external candidates (21).
Is the RCAC Working? • Perception: “new” RCs have profile that largely meets expectations of UN system; • About two-thirds of sitting RCs - appointed since 1999 - are new; • Self-selection process at work.
Is the RCAC Working? Validation of RCAC • 2004 Evaluation; high-level consultant to evaluate effectiveness, fairness, objectivity; • To compare RCAC results with RC performance;(e.g. surveys, performance reports, interviews); • To identify statistically significant variances in results for different categories; • To examine possible factors leading to variances: a) Diversity goals; b) Quality, relevance of profile of UN agency feeder pools; c) Any inherent disadvantage by category.
% Participants (126) (79) (47) (53) (73) (72) (53) (1) *First-time candidates
% Participants (344) (223) (121) ( 167) (177) (151) (131) (22) *First-time candidates
% Participants (218) (144) (74) (114) (104) (79) (78) (21) *First-time candidates