The Best and Worst of the UN

by Michael Bear

category: Humanitarian Relief

Published August 21, 2009 @ 07:16AM PT

Posting a series this week looking at what it's really like to work for various humanitarian agencies.  Asked friends to send in what they thought were the best and worst aspects of various large NGOs and UN agencies for which they'd worked.

Today is the UN - you can also read previous reviews of CARE, IRC and Oxfam. If anyone would like to contribute their thoughts, send an email to change.humanitarian.relief@gmail.com.

Aid Agency Reviews: The Best and Worst of the UN (including UNICEF, UNDP and UNESCO)

To sum up the responses below - the best aspects of working for the UN are the salary and benefits, the institutional prestige and access to key government officials, its multi-national and multi-cultural nature, the availability of funds, and you can smoke inside (tho technically this is verboten).

In the not-so-good category, people mentioned the highly inefficient bureaucracy, poor managers, lack of professional development, a focus on rules rather than results, the fact that everyone smokes in the buildings, and their recruitment / human resource practices.

As for individual agencies - UNICEF was described as the best UN agency, UNDP as "bumbling, weak but occasionally vital," and UNESCO as "most pitiful".

The Best of the UN

- In brief, the pros of working for the UN for me are, I'm sorry to say, the salary, leave, employment conditions more generally, prestige and the institutional authority the UN derives from its principles, ideals, mandate and/or multi-national nature.

- My impression of the UN, both in terms of working for it and by way of an analysis of its effectiveness as an institution, is that its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. That is its multi-national, multi-cultural nature.

- I made a conscious trade-off when I opted to work for the UN vice NGOs. NGOs are generally more effective than the UN, but the employment conditions are normally not as good - there are some exceptions. I've been in the field for a while now and I want to continue to do 'field work', so I traded off a decrease in effectiveness for better employment conditions. I figured it was either that or I would work for another year or so for an NGO then leave the field altogether.

- Exciting and rewarding as you get to see the world and actually do something valuable by working to make people's life better. In that process you learn have the chance to learn a lot about the world and about yourself. (though gotta be said that this varies all depending on which part of the UN you are in and it equally applies to any other similar work with NGOs etc).

- The ability to work with a diverse group of professionals who are all passionate about global causes.

- The UN names open doors with key influential people and organisations in both the public and private sectors.

- Great benefits for employees including: 25 days holiday; 25 days sick leave; paid home leave for foreign staff; tax free payments (except for US citizens, though US citizens receive some payment of their taxes); at higher levels, staff's children receive free or largely subsidized payments.

- Even though you aren't supposed to, you can smoke inside the UN (Vienna cafe and delegates lounge).

- They have money and in principle! you can move a lot more quickly or decide on what you want to do and go for it (much more than NGOs in my opinion besides maybe MSF...). I am not saying that things do not move slowly with the UN, it I just that you have core funds that you can use to do good work and do not have to go and find funds all the time.

- You do have access to government and can really work with them (ok you have to) but it also allows you to really make a difference and improve things at the institutional level.

The Worst of the UN

- The cons are a highly inefficient bureaucracy, poor managers, an absence of opportunities for professional development, a highly subjective and idiosyncratic recruitment and promotion system, very low levels of accountability within the UN (leading to wildly varying work ethics) and institutional ineffectiveness (caused by, among other things, a lack of commitment or support from member states, low standards among some troop contributing countries, varying degrees of competency within the UN and multi-culturalism).

- The downside with a career abroad with the UN is that there is little job stability, and you live a life moving from one place to another. Easily losing your grounding after a while. Difficult to keep a stable private life.

- Working within a system not designed to move quickly or efficiently, with constant back stepping to ensure regulations are met rather than abiding by the spirit of the rules themselves.

- Outsiders see the UN as one entity, but it is many. These agencies have their own budgets and agendas; they do not communicate their working plans effectively, which causes redundancy and confusion with outside partners who simply see it as "The UN."

- Hiring requirements can be strict causing two problems: 1. The UN often hires the most qualified people rather than the most talented. 2. The UN often mislabels staff as "consultants" to avoid headcount and paying for benefits. They abuse this and are outside of US laws that would force them to change.

- Everyone is smoking in the UN.

- You have to work with the government and support them (found that hard to do in Sudan).

- Bureaucratic! yep it is really true and that can really quash incentive and motivation especially of younger people.

UNICEF

Pros

- Hard working: UNICEF is in my opinion the most sincere and results-oriented of the UN system. Staff are generally regarded as the hardest working, putting in so many hours in even development settings that in one office, they shut off the electricity at 18:00 to force staff to go home. It is common to work 12-14 hours a day for UNICEF (in non-emergency situations).

- Model of communications and fundraising: External relations-wise, UNICEF is unequivocally the best in the UN system if not of all time. Part of that is attributed to the fact that children are literally its poster child, making it easy to touch donors’ hearts. In any case, they are still tremendously skilled and have pioneered communications practices that are light years ahead of others.

- Biggest impact on child health?: Something that is impossible to measure however if only in terms of immunizations, UNICEF will forever be a key player. It invests 46% of its funds in immunizations amounting to billions worldwide, for example. You may not get the most bang for your buck with UNICEF but the bang may still be the biggest.

Cons

- Ego distances it from reality: A weakness of UNICEF is its profound ego (more so than others). Its staff benefits package, which is the cushiest of all UN agencies’, adds to its uppity status within the UN. UNICEF tends to be particularly unresponsive to partnering agencies and NGOs, an issue they are admittedly working on. A dangerous repercussion is that they are sometimes so out of touch, it can take decades to realize that a mistake is being made in its global strategy. This also makes it easier for corrupt, external partners to take advantage of UNICEF and build their villas in the process.

- Getting better at emergencies but long way to go: The organization is also trying to fortify its response to emergencies. Ironically the ‘E’ in UNICEF originally stood for ‘emergency’ but has been taken out, distilling the name down to United Nations Children’s Fund. In the last ten years there has been a push to be seen as a key agency for emergencies again although in my opinion the staff is still quite thin on the ground.

For more information, see the report UNICEF’s Strengths and Weaknesses.

UNDP

Pros

- Having the economic ear- Now and then the UNDP plays a role that is so huge in scope and impact, other organizations could only dream of it. It is not uncommon for a UNDP advisor to speak with the president of a country like Timor-Leste behind closed doors. Within half an hour, that advisor may help channel hundreds of millions of dollars in oil funds to an economic strategy that improved people’s lives and helped stabilized the country, for instance (something that will never make the news). That may render him more influential than a host of humanitarian organizations on the ground.

Cons

- Most Bureaucratic- The biggest and the most heavily funded of the UN system, it is extremely bureaucratic. Staff often consider the field to be a capital city or regularly refer to other offices as ‘beneficiaries’. Compared with other UN agencies, the UNDP is more geared towards research and publications which turn out to be quite impotent. Red tape and distance from the grassroots can’t help but render it among the least sincere of the UN agencies. (Caveat: my opinion of UNDP bureaucracy may be skewed because I was working at a regional centre instead the country level.)

- Uncertain future - Many of the departments of the UNDP which focus on publications and ‘knowledge management’ are losing relevance and being shut down. Overall the UNDP is increasingly going out of style in middle-income countries such as China and India who feel they already have enough capacity while its services are still in demand in poorer nations.

UNESCO

Pros

- Not obsolete - There is a need for UNESCO; who else is there to create an international partnership to protect world monuments, and recording dying cultures? Just as, if not more importantly, no other UN agency has stepped up to the plate when it comes to developing the capacity of national and local media the way UNESCO has tried to do.

Cons

- Most pitiful - Go around visiting the UN agencies in a country and the one you will end up feeling the most sorry for and sincerely want to take in your arms will be UNESCO. That will be the agency that has an office falling apart, a budget it can’t adjust (not even a little due to the HQ rules) and only a couple of staff. Its reputation has steadily sunk in the last twenty years due to poor leadership. Also UNICEF has inadvertently cornered the market on much of UNESCO’s mandate on education, for instance.

[Image from www.warwicksu.com]