1 / 15

Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre

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:

pbarry
Download Presentation

Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre Joint UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WFP Executive Boards Presentation 23-26 January 2004

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. RCAC: What is Assessed? • Leadership • Managing Complexity • Managing Relationships • Core Values • Integrity and Commitment • Fairness and Equality • Cultural Adaptability and Sensitivity • Commitment to Learning

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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).

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. % Participants (126) (79) (47) (53) (73) (72) (53) (1) *First-time candidates

  14. % Participants (344) (223) (121) ( 167) (177) (151) (131) (22) *First-time candidates

  15. % Participants (218) (144) (74) (114) (104) (79) (78) (21) *First-time candidates

More Related