unesco. executive board; 204th; new audits by the external...

204 EX/21.INF.6 PARIS, 20 March 2018 English & French only

Executive Board Two hundred and fourth session

Job: 201800374

Item 21 of the provisional agenda

NEW AUDITS BY THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR

PART VI

AUDIT REPORT ON THE INTERNAL PROCESSES OF UNESCO’s HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

SUMMARY

Pursuant to Article 12.4 of the Financial Regulations, the External Auditor submits the audit report on the internal processes of UNESCO’s human resources management. The short form of this report and the comments by the Director-General are contained in document 204 EX/21 Part VI.

EXTERNAL AUDIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

AUDIT REPORT ON THE INTERNAL PROCESSES OF UNESCO’s HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

External Auditor reference: UNESCO-2017-15

(i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND CONTEXT OF THE AUDIT............................................... 1

II. LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 2

III. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 5

A. Individual performance evaluations ................................................................... 5

1. A recently modernized procedure ................................................................. 5 2. 2014-2015 biennium: highly inadequate implementation

of performance evaluation ............................................................................ 6 3. MyTalent: Software that could be improved but which must not

be used as an excuse ................................................................................... 8 4. Barely credible ratings or overall rating ......................................................... 10 5. Comments that are too heterogeneous, against a background

of minimal involvement of sectors and offices ............................................... 14 6. The failure, already, of the 2016-2017 biennial evaluation ............................ 14 7. Clarifying a purpose, making a process more dynamic and accountable ...... 17

B. Selection and appointment of Heads and Directors of field offices ................. 19

1. A lengthy procedure ...................................................................................... 20 2. A fragmented recruitment process ................................................................ 20 3. The number of stages in the procedure is in itself a cause of delays ............ 22 4. Streamlining the management of the evaluation panel is a priority ................ 25 5. Significant uncertainty regarding the conclusion of the procedure ................. 27 6. Anticipating the recruitment procedure.......................................................... 29

C. Project appointments .......................................................................................... 30

1. Long recruitment periods .............................................................................. 31 2. Periods relating to consideration of applications

which could be optimized .............................................................................. 32 3. Administrative checks to be anticipated and streamlined .............................. 33 4. Creating candidate pools .............................................................................. 35

D. Internal transfers ................................................................................................. 36

1. A process too cumbersome for active internal mobility ................................. 36 2. Promote internal transfers through mobility campaigns ................................. 38

E. Post reclassification ............................................................................................ 39

1. A practice on a significant scale .................................................................... 39 2. Some methods make UNESCO unusual

among United Nations agencies ................................................................... 39 3. Documentation of the obsolete process concerning

financial modalities of reclassification ........................................................... 41 4. Insufficiently standardized process ............................................................... 42 5. Cases of abnormally lengthy procedures which led to exceptions

to the rules on effective dates of reclassifications ......................................... 43

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 45

V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... 46 ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................. 47

204 EX/21.INF.6

I. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND CONTEXT OF THE AUDIT

1. In accordance with the notification dated 16 June 2017, a team of three external auditors evaluated a series of UNESCO’s human resources management processes from September to December 2017.

2. The audit was conducted in accordance with the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions1, established by the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions2, and in accordance with applicable texts, in particular Article 12 of the UNESCO Financial Regulations and the Annex on the Additional Terms of Reference Governing the Audit.

3. Scoping meetings were held with the Bureau of Financial Management (BFM), the Internal Oversight Service (IOS) and the Office of the Deputy Director-General (DDG) in July, and then with the directors of the following sector, divisions and bureaux: the Sector for External Relations and Public Information (ERI), the Division of Field Support and Coordination (FSC), the Division of Knowledge Management and Information Systems (KMI), the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP) and the Bureau of Human Resources Management (HRM) between 30 August and 11 September 2017, so as to determine the scope of the audit. The kick-off meeting was held with the Director of HRM and his management team on 19 September, in the presence of representatives for the Director-General (DDG), BFM and KMI to finalize the audit’s terms of reference.

4. Meetings were then held with the directors of the Education (ED) and Social and Human Sciences (SHS) Sectors, among others. The external auditors had administrator access to the main software packages including System Applications and Products (SAP) and especially MyTalent. Many exchanges took place via email to clarify certain points throughout the progression of the investigation. HRM made a major contribution, both during the meetings and by providing the auditors with access to a sample of paper files they had selected.

5. An exit meeting was held with the Director of HRM and his colleagues on 5 December 2017. The main observations and draft recommendations were presented and discussed and the comments and corrections of HRM were taken into account in this report.

6. In view of the time allotted for the audit, the external auditors selected a limited number of procedures in order to be able to study their implementation in detail. The fact that human resources management procedures are vital to UNESCO’s smooth functioning, that UNESCO services spontaneously mentioned that some of those procedures are a source of concern, and that an initial rapid analysis hinted at possible ways to optimize such procedures led the External Auditor to include five human resources processes in the scope of the audit.

7. This audit also took into account the results of internal audits, and particularly IOS/AUD/2015/07 of September 2015 regarding the recruitment process for international staff, the conclusions of which contributed to the definition of a new recruitment policy disseminated in November 20173.

8. The five following procedures will be evaluated in succession: (A) individual performance evaluation; (B) selection and appointment of heads of field offices; (C) project appointments (PA); (D) internal transfers and (E) post reclassification.

1 ISSAI. 2 INTOSAI. 3 See DG/Note/17/19 dated 27 October 2017 regarding the updated recruitment policy.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 2

II. LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS4

Individual performance evaluations

Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends simplifying the evaluation procedure by eliminating the validation of the evaluation by the second-level supervisor, except in the case of an appeal or at the request of the staff member evaluated. (priority 2) Recommendation No. 2. The External Auditor recommends making the software MyTalent more user-friendly and distributing a simplified user guide. (priority 2) Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor recommends bolstering the obligation to respect the deadlines set for the stages of the evaluation process by coercive measures and incentives. Among them, if the first stage in which the staff member being evaluated has to draw up a set of goals is not completed by the deadline, the task should be assigned to his or her supervisor who would be given access to MyTalent software. (priority 2) Recommendation No. 4. The External Auditor recommends making the performance evaluation more credible by adding, between “fully meets expectations” and “partially meets expectations”, an additional rating, to read: “satisfactory, progress must (or may) still be made in attaining goals”. (priority 1) Recommendation No. 5. For all supervisors, the External Auditor recommends providing access to the individual performance reports of all colleagues for whom they have a supervisory responsibility, either direct or indirect, to enable them to monitor goal attainment. (priority 2) Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends clarifying, for all UNESCO staff members, the principles to be respected in defining their performance goals and those of their colleagues, by recalling: that the goals must be consistent with the SMART framework; that attainment of the goals must be able to be clearly linked to each person’s individual acts; that the goals must be follow the principle of “cascading”, i.e., demonstrating a connection with the Organization’s expected results, to which such goals must contribute. (priority 1) Recommendation No. 7. The External Auditor recommends monitoring specifically in MyTalent the rate at which UNESCO staff is covered by a competency development plan. (priority 3) Recommendation No. 8. The External Auditor recommends clarifying the links between evaluation and salary increases and ensuring consistency in the Human Resources Manual. (priority 2) Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends making compulsory for all staff the announced training on individual performance evaluation, focusing on both the 2016-2017 evaluation process and the setting of individual goals for the 2018 evaluation process. (priority 2) Recommendation No. 10. The External Auditor recommends including as a priority for Assistant Directors-General (ADGs) a goal of 100% of evaluations completed on time for staff members under their authority. (priority 1) Recommendation No. 11. The External Auditor recommends (i) changing from a biennial to an annual evaluation schedule, beginning in 2020; (ii) planning a transition for the 2018-2019 cycle with an interview to readjust goals and assess results, which should take place at the half-way point, at the start of 2019 at the latest. (priority 1)

Selection and appointment of Heads and Directors of field offices Recommendation No. 12. The External Auditor recommends further simplifying the recruitment procedure for heads of field offices with a view to limiting the validations required at each stage,

4 The recommendations are ordered by the process examined. For each one, a priority level is set: - Level-1 priority: fundamental points that require the immediate attention of the governing bodies and

the Secretariat;- Level-2 priority: to be addressed by the Secretariat;- Level-3 priority: points to which the Secretariat should be attentive.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 3

assigning interim decisions to the Director of the Office of Human Resources Management (DIR/HRM) and the Director of the Division of Field Support and Coordination (DIR/FSC) and maintaining, in practice, the planned level of validation. (priority 1) Recommendation No. 13. With regard to the recruitment of directors/heads of field offices, the External Auditor recommends limiting the composition of the selection panel to three people in general, four people if special expertise is needed, and determining the panel composition, at the latest, by the time the job posting is removed, and, at the same time, drawing up the meeting schedule for the panel (interviews one month after removal of the job posting). (priority 2) Recommendation No. 14. The External Auditor recommends formalizing the process of official prior authorization by the host country for directors/heads of field offices, whereby it would be agreed that, in the absence of any objection from the host country within six weeks of the official notification, the director/head of the field office could assume his or her functions. (priority 1) Recommendation No. 15. The External Auditor recommends establishing a pool of managers who would be capable of assuming, in the short- or medium-term, the duties of director/head of field office, for example, by identifying, selecting and monitoring appropriate professional profiles at UNESCO and, more broadly, within the United Nations system. (priority 1)

Project appointments Recommendation No. 16. In respect of project appointments, the External Auditor recommends entrusting the selection of candidates to a maximum of two people in general, three people if special expertise is needed, appointing them as soon as the vacancy notice is posted and holding interviews with the candidates less than one month after the deadline for applications. (priority 2) Recommendation No. 17. The External Auditor recommends planning for validation by the Bureau of Financial Management (BFM) of project appointments by verifying that the necessary funds are available while the vacancy notice is posted and by specifying the maximum amount. (priority 3) Recommendation No. 18. The External Auditor recommends establishing, through campaigns to recruit individuals with skills for which UNESCO has a regular need, a pool of external candidates qualified for project appointments. (priority 2)

Internal transfers Recommendation No. 19. The External Auditor recommends conducting an annual review of staff by managers, and an annual review of senior management by the Senior Management Team to identify staff for possible transfer, and to identify managers demonstrating potential with a view to enrolling them in a career development programme to prepare them to assume increasing responsibilities at Headquarters or in the field. (priority 1) Recommendation No. 20. The External Auditor recommends holding one or two annual internal job opening campaigns to enable the Organization’s staff to position themselves as candidates for some of the vacant posts or for posts that are likely to be vacated owing to the transfer or departure of individuals who have shown interest in a move. (priority 2)

Reclassification of posts Recommendation No. 21. The External Auditor recommends restricting reclassification initiatives to supervisors only. (priority 2) Recommendation No. 22. The External Auditor recommends systematically holding internal competitions for reclassified posts, whether they are occupied or not. (priority 1) Recommendation No. 23. The External Auditor recommends setting up a system whereby the supervisor confirms the availability of funding prior to transmission of a request for reclassification to the Bureau of Human Resources Management (HRM). (priority 3)

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 4

Recommendation No. 24. The External Auditor recommends drawing up a model reclassification request form which would be composed of the most frequently asked questions concerning background information about the post and its funding. (priority 3) Recommendation No. 25. The External Auditor recommends eliminating the possibility of retroactive reclassification that takes effect prior to the date on which the reclassification decision was made. (priority 2)

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 5

III. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

1. A recently modernized procedure

9. Chapter 14 of the Human Resources Manual on performance evaluation was revised in July 2014 following the introduction of a new software application, MyTalent, and a new standard for the 2014-2015 biennium.

10. The new standard explicitly links individual performance with that of the Organization: “The purpose of the Performance Management System is to increase the Organization’s effectiveness through individual performance improvement and to develop the capabilities of teams and individuals. It also aims at reinforcing a culture of results-based management and budgeting by linking individual’s expected results/work assignments to the work units’ performance”.

11. Performance evaluation should make it possible to encourage and facilitate communication between supervisors and staff members concerning performance results and to integrate a development dimension into the performance management system. The principal expected results and work assignments must be specified following the SMART approach.5

12. While the SMART framework is not new to UNESCO, the same cannot be said about the “cascading principle” which was introduced during the 2011 reform. According to the principle, key expected results and/or the work assignments of each individual should be consistent with, and contribute to their team or organizational unit’s performance objectives/expected results. The main expected results and/or the work assignments must correspond to the job description of the person concerned, although corresponding to does not always mean coinciding with.

13. The performance report comprises three parts: the expected results, the competency development plan and an overall performance review. The performance evaluation cycle has in principle two stages: definition of the expected results and the competency plan before 31 March of the first year of the biennium; evaluation of the results achieved before 31 March of the first year of the following biennium. A mid-term review may be added to those two stages, at the initiative of the supervisor. Self-appraisal of the results is encouraged, before the results are discussed with the supervisor, who provides global assessment based on a four-point scale: “exceeds expectations”, “fully meets expectations”, “partially meets expectations”, and “does not meet expectations”. The report is then sent to the second-level supervisor who reviews it and adds his or her own comments, as necessary.

14. The Human Resources Manual provides for a review of all evaluations by a panel and, in the case of a contestation, an appeal submitted to the Director-General, advised by a “Reports Board” , the opinion of which can be challenged before an “Appeals Board”.

15. The external auditors studied the statistics provided by the MyTalent database on the 2014-2015 evaluation cycle and a sample of 50 individual performance reports for that biennium. They also investigated in particular two sectors (Education and Social and Human Sciences) and asked the executive officers of those sectors to submit their views on the process.

16. A close study of staff members’ objective plans and their validation was also made during the 2016-2017 cycle, which is currently under way.

17. The statistics derived from the analysis of MyTalent data, as extracted from the database by the auditors on 31 October 2017, reveal a particularly unsatisfactory rate of staff evaluation

5 That means that they must be specified within the SMART framework, namely: (a) Specific and concise; (b)

Measurable, in relation to specific indicators/results; (c) Attainable (achievable by the deadline); (d) Realistic and (e) Timely (to be carried out within a specific time limit).

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 6

coverage, and significant delays in the implementation of the process. Examination of the sample of performance reports confirms the observation of an insufficient use of the new tool. Supervision of the process is done entirely by the Bureau of Human Resources Management, except for the Education Sector to which authority has been delegated. The way the process is set up makes it appear purely administrative, which does not encourage staff members to get involved in it and explains partially its low rate of implementation, despite the functions, deemed satisfactory, of the MyTalent software.

2. 2014-2015 biennium: highly inadequate implementation of performance evaluation

18. The 2014-2015 biennium performance evaluation focused solely on fixed-term (FT) and projectappointment (PA) staff. A total of 1,790 fixed-term staff individual files and 303 project appointmentstaff files were apparently created in MyTalent. Yet only 1,099 performance report files for fixed-termstaff, or 61% of the total number, are complete: a complete and validated performance report fileindicates that the entire process has ended with the staff member’s approval of his or her appraisal.

19. Similarly, only 79% of project appointment files appear in the MyTalent database.

20. Furthermore, of the 1,099 complete files for fixed-term staff, only 495 of them had beencompleted by 31 March 2016. In fact, the procedure was carried out within the planned deadlines foronly 28% of fixed-term staff, only reaching reached 50% at the end of June 2016.

21. In July 2016, the rate of completed performance reports for fixed-term and project appointmentstaff varied from 100% for the UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE, Geneva), with onlysix staff members, to 84% for the Division of Knowledge Management and Information Systems(KMI), 74% for the Culture Sector (CLT) and 72% for the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS,Montreal), to only 44% for the Education Sector (ED) and 21% for the Sector for External Relationsand Public Information (ERI) (See Graph No. 1 below).

Graph No. 1: Rate at which validated 2014-2015 performance reports were entered into the MyTalent database (in percentage of fixed-term and project appointment staff)

Source: External Auditor, from the MyTalent database

22. The final percentage of validated performance reports is strongly dependent on the sectorconcerned (excluding the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (CIPT) since staff members inTrieste were not incorporated into the database). The rate varies from 100% for the UNESCO

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 7

International Bureau of Education (IBE) and the World Heritage Centre (WHC), which have very few fixed-term or project appointment staff, to 13% for the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP, with an average of 58% for UNESCO as a whole.

Graph No. 2: Rate of validation of performance report files, by sector


23. Similarly, the number of fixed-term and project appointment staff for whom the evaluationprocess has been completed varies greatly from one duty station to another, from 29% of staff to100%, as set out in Table No. 1.

Table No. 1: Rate of validation of 2014-2015 performance reports for fixed-term and project assignment staff, by location

Place % valid. Place % valid. Place % valid. Place % valid.

Bujumbura 100% Bangkok 80% Paris 61% Jerusalem 40%

Doha 100% Jakarta 80% Kinshasa 60% Apia 38%

Lima 100% Kabul 80% Beijing 57% Juba 38%

Phnom Penh 100% Montevideo 80% Kathmandu 57% Santiago 35%

Suva 100% Tashkent 80% Yaoundé 55% Addis Ababa

35%

Rabat 94% Montréal 79% Alma Ata 50% Amman 33%

Abidjan 89% San Jose 77% Baghdad 50% Mexico 33%

Brazzaville 88% Islamabad 75% FRA – other cities

50% New York 33%

Brasilia 84% Brussels 71 Kigali 50% Port-au-Prince

33%

Dhaka 83% Dar es Salaam

71% Libreville 50% Cairo 32%

Tehran 83% New Delhi 69% N’Djamena 50% Hanoi 29%

Accra 82% Dakar 68% Windhoek 50% Kingston 29%

Beirut 82% Other cities 67% Hamburg 45%

Maputo 82% Moscow 67% Nairobi 42%

Harare 81% Geneva 65% Bonn 40%

Abuja 80% Havana 62% Havana 40%


204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 8

24. The argument that technical communication problems makes it difficult to gain access to theMyTalent database, which may be the case in some locations, fails to explain the low number ofvalidated performance reports in the majority of locations that are well connected, such as Paris(only 61% of validated files) and New York (33%).

25. The percentage of completed performance report for staff members filed in the MyTalentdatabase is, however, quite similar at Headquarters and in the field offices – approximately two thirdsin both cases (see Graph No. 3).

26. It is noteworthy, finally, that the overall rate of completed individual performance reports for theperiod 2014-2015 at UNESCO, or 58%, is much lower than that of the United Nations Secretariat,which reached 85% in the same biennium.6

Graph No. 3: Rate of entry into the MyTalent database of performance reports for the 2014-2015 biennium for fixed-term staff members, according to type of post,

as at 31 October 2017 (Field, Headquarters, Institutes)


3. MyTalent: Software that could be improved but which must not be used as an excuse

27. The sectors questioned, the Social and Human Sciences Sector (SHS) and Education Sector(ED), both mentioned that staff members and managers had experienced technical difficulties usingthe MyTalent software, reporting that the tool was not completely reliable. SHS managers did nothave an up-to-date list of their staff members with completed files in the database, and had to requestthe list from HRM. Managers did not have the ratings given to staff members and, even less, accessto the performance reports themselves.

28. With regard in particular to the Education Sector, which benefits from a staff managementdelegation from HRM, the External Auditor provided the Sector on 2 November 2017 with a list forvalidation of 191 staff members who had a completed performance report, 70 staff members whohad begun the performance report but without the validations needed to enter it into the MyTalentdatabase and, lastly, a list of 184 staff members who had not been registered in the MyTalentdatabase.

29. The Education Sector replied on 10 November 2017: “[…] We had to do considerableverification in cooperation with HRM with regard to cases that have been included in attached table,

6 As indicated in a recent report on United Nations human resources management reform (https://undocs.org/en/A/71/323).

https://undocs.org/en/A/71/323

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 9

owing to the challenges we face in dealing with the system. As a result of errors in data extraction, there were gaps in the initially available data, but we were able to rectify our data with the help of HRM. Consequently, 13 staff members lack a performance report for the 2014-2015 biennium. Most of the performance evaluations were carried out within the system; however, owing to connectivity difficulties and problems with the system, some of evaluations were done outside of the system (HRM includes them manually in the system). Furthermore, many colleagues who have not finished a complete rating cycle at the same location or who were not assigned to the same supervisor have short-term performance reports which are outside the scope of the system. [...] In addition, it should be noted that during the preparation of retroactive statistics in the MyTalent database, staff members who were recruited in the 2016-2017 biennium were automatically included in the statistics, even if the request is linked to an earlier period”.

30. Examination of a sample of 50 performance reports demonstrates that implementation of thisnew tool by staff members has been very uneven. The report provides, for example, a system forrating the achievement of results, in the form of percentages, but either the item is not filled out(score of 0%) or it is filled out uniformly and all the results are given a score of 100%. Commentsmade by second-level supervisors are quite rare and most often brief. At the same time, whensecond-level supervisors do intervene, the result is significant delays (one month for certain casesof the sample studied by the external auditors). A few cases of material errors in the presentation ofperformance reports (targets stated twice) seem to reflect manipulation errors of MyTalent, anddifficulties in the use of the software by some supervisors.

31. The external auditors, using administrator access, did not encounter any difficulties in usingthe software. They therefore asked to test the software using access rights of supervisors andemployees undergoing evaluation. The demonstration took place in the presence of HRM and EDmanagers, and the external auditors wish to thank them for their availability on that occasion.

32. The auditors concluded that the MyTalent software had been greatly improved since it wasinitially installed, but could still benefit from becoming more user-friendly and more flexible.Nevertheless, as presently configured, it can still be used by staff and supervisors. It guidessupervisors through all the stages of the process, with deadlines and automatic sending of messagesthrough the workflow function. Even though it could be improved, MyTalent should not be used asan excuse for the poor execution of performance evaluations.

33. In fact, the process is blocked as soon as the deadline for each stage of the process has beenmissed, at which point access to the software is automatically locked. Access for those who havemissed a deadline, either staff members being evaluated or supervisors, is only available by makingan individual request to the Bureau of Human Resources Management (HRM) and unlocking theprocess manually.

34. The data presented above reveal that the various stages of the process, when they are carriedout, are rarely carried out by the deadlines. This means that most of the staff members evaluated,the supervisors and the Bureau of Human Resources Management, which, since the financial crisis,has allotted a reduced number of staff to performance evaluation, are obliged to engage in manualwork and follow-up. Failure to respect the deadlines leads therefore to a significant loss of evaluationfiles and a pointless and considerable waste of energy for all the staff members involved.

35. This waste of energy will be even greater because, according to HRM 7 , in 2018 theperformance report will consist of five stages for 1,400 staff members, who will be graded by boththeir first-level supervisor and their second-level supervisor (the highest second-level supervisorbeing the Assistant Director-General (ADG)), while only 669 staff members will be evaluated solelyby their first-level supervisor (evaluation in three stages).

7 Message from HRM dated 5 December 2017.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 10

Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends simplifying the evaluation procedure by eliminating the validation of the evaluation by the second-level supervisor, except in the case of an appeal or at the request of the staff member evaluated. (priority 2)

Recommendation No. 2. The External Auditor recommends making the software MyTalent more user-friendly and distributing a simplified user guide. (priority 2)

Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor recommends bolstering the obligation to respect the deadlines set for the stages of the evaluation process by coercive measures and incentives. Among them, if the first stage in which the staff member being evaluated has to draw up a set of goals is not completed by the deadline, the task should be assigned to his or her supervisor who would be given access to MyTalent software. (priority 2)

4. Barely credible ratings or overall rating

36. The analysis then focused on overall rating statistics of fixed-term and project appointmentstaff members whose evaluation has been validated in MyTalent. The overall ratings schema hasbeen reviewed above. The corresponding ratings in the MyTalent database, which will be usedbelow, are 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0, respectively: “exceeds expectations”, “fully meets expectations”,“partially meets expectations”, and “does not meet expectations”.

37. According to the Human Resources Manual:

– The rating 1.0 is given to staff members whose performance can be considered outstandingover the reporting period, based on specific and tangible achievements and/or thedemonstration of an exceptional and sustained level of professionalism and commitment;

– The rating 2.0 corresponds to a consistently good level of performance, considered assatisfactory;

– The rating 3.0 is given to staff members whose performance has been lower than theexpected level, in which case a performance improvement plan must be drawn up;

– The rating 4.0 corresponds to a staff member whose quality and quantity of the workproduced have fallen well short of the goals that have been established.

Graph No. 4: Ratings as a function of type of post (Field, Headquarters, Institute) and UNESCO as a whole


204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 11

38. Out of a total of 1,245 staff members (FT and PA) whose evaluation was validated, 157received a grade of 1; 1,071 a grade of 2; only 13 received a rating of 3; and two received a gradeof 4, or, respectively, 13%, 86%, 1% and 0.2% of staff members with validated evaluations. As shownin Graph No. 4, ratings of 3 (partially meets expectations) nearly always correspond to field officestaff (14 staff members out of 15) while they represent only one third of all fixed-term and projectassignment staff at UNESCO.

39. Rating statistics also vary from one sector to another. The distribution of fixed-term and projectassignment staff according to their rating (1,244 staff members rated) or absence of rating (912 staffmembers) is presented by sector in Table No. 2.

Table No. 2: Distribution of ratings (or of non-validated files) for the 2014-2015 evaluation cycle for fixed-term and project assignment staff, by sector

Sector/ Overall rating

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Abs

ence

of

ratin

g

TOTAL Sector/ Overall rating 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Abs

ence

of

ratin

g

TOTAL

AFR 0 3 0 0 8 11 IEP 2 9 0 0 16 27 BFM 12 143 3 0 78 236 IOC 11 17 0 0 14 42 BSP 0 4 0 0 26 30 IOS 2 10 0 0 7 19 CI 9 45 1 0 27 82 KMI 1 58 0 0 9 68

CLT 17 97 4 0 14 132 LA 2 2 0 0 8 12 ED 21 165 1 0 151 338 MSS 7 100 0 1 34 142 ERI 9 26 0 0 113 148 ODG 2 16 0 0 14 32 ETH 0 1 0 0 2 3 SC 18 90 0 0 74 182 FSC 17 116 5 0 79 217 SHS 11 58 1 0 13 83 GBS 1 6 0 0 2 9 TCP8 - - - - - 153 HRM 4 38 0 1 12 55 UIS 8 43 0 0 14 65 IBE 0 6 0 0 0 6 WHC 1 0 0 0 0 1

IED 2 18 0 0 44 64 TOTAL UNESCO 157 1071 15 2 912 2157

% TOTAL evaluated 13% 86% 1% 0% 27%


40. The distribution of ratings above shows that 98.6% of UNESCO staff members, or nearly allthe them, are either outstanding or fully meet their targets. Indeed, after oral exchanges with HRM,it appears that the rating “fully meets expectations” is not taken literally but rather is given when 50%or more of targets have been achieved. A rating of 3.0 does in fact give rise to significant additionalwork for the supervisor, to the point that such a rating is hardly used except as a lead-in to adismissal. For example, in response to the auditors’ questions about what happed to staff membersrated 3.0 in the Education Sector, all of whose files had not been entered into the MyTalent database,the answer given was that the only fixed-term staff member rated 3.0 had been given that rating“owing to the recent nature of his assignment and not necessarily his performance”, which is amisunderstanding on the part of the supervisor, while the four other staff members rated 3.0 wereproject appointment staff who had since left the Organization.

41. There are nevertheless variations in outstanding ratings for staff members, depending on thesector, which can be better seen in Graph No. 5 in which sectors are classified according to ratings.While on the average nearly 13% of UNESCO’s fixed-term and project appointment staff members

8 The data in the table were determined on the basis of the MyTalent database. HRM informed us that when the overall ratings for 2014-2015 were being deployed, data for TCP was being transferred from STEPS to MyTalent, and the process was not completed until the end of 2016. According to the Administrative Officer of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), the evaluations would have been done on paper. Not having examined those files, the external audit team was unable to verify the portion of evaluations completed under the same conditions as in MyTalent, hence, the incomplete information in the table for the TCP Sector.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 12

were described as having an “outstanding level”, the percentage varies from 100% for the World Heritage Centre (WHC) (only one person evaluated) to 50% for the four staff members, out of a total of 12, evaluated at the Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs (LA), 39% for the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), 26% for the Sector for External Relations and Public Information (ERI) and, in comparison, only 11% for the Education Sector, 9% for the Bureau of Human Resources Management, 8% for the Bureau of Financial Management (BFM) and 2% for the Division of Knowledge Management and Information Systems (KMI). The high level of heterogeneity in the “outstanding” ratings according to sector is an additional sign of the Organization’s lack of any real policy in the field of individual performance evaluation.

Graph No. 5: Distribution of ratings for fixed-term and project appointment staff, by sector


42. The same heterogeneity of “outstanding” ratings can be found in the data by location, as shownin Graph No. 6. This subject will be discussed later in the report.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 13

Graph No. 6: Distribution of individual ratings for the 2014-2015 cycle, by location


43. The absence of an official rating which might be worded as “adequately meets goals”, meaningwork that results in the attainment of more than half the goals, but for example less than threequarters of them, undermines the credibility of the individual performance reports of UNESCO staffmembers. The rating of 2.0, which formally corresponds to “fully meets expectations” and is given to86% of the Organization’s staff does not in fact describe the reality and is an obstacle to improvingperformance. As explained earlier, the rating of “partially meets expectations” gives rise to too manyautomatic consequences to be used in any other than exceptional cases, leading almost always toseparation with the staff member receiving such a rating. Such a procedure implies that the heading“progress”, currently set aside, would need to be filled in.

44. HRM reminded9 the external auditors that in the past, the evaluation system had five ratinglevels, which were decreased to three for the purposes of simplification. The number was raisedagain to four, as it currently stands, following the recommendation of the External Auditor. Thepresent auditors nevertheless consider that the current system does not always have adequatecredibility. It does not help to identify staff members who need to be encouraged to make progressand, in addition, it projects a negative image of the Organization’s efforts to be accountable forimproving its performance.

45. Both the disproportionate number of “outstanding” ratings and the strategies to avoid the issueof poor professional performance of staff members are not exclusive to UNESCO. The reportmentioned earlier (footnote 6) demonstrates that the distribution of ratings from 1.0 to 4.0 is evenmore disproportionate for the United Nations Secretariat, with respective percentages of 28%, 71%,0.5% and 0.06%. The conclusion of the United Nations report is that supervisors’ performancemanagement skills need to be improved. For the present auditors, such a process is certainlynecessary but remains insufficient, for the reasons expounded earlier.

9 Interview with the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources Management (HRM) on 4 December 2017.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 14

Recommendation No. 4. The External Auditor recommends making the performance evaluation more credible by adding, between “fully meets expectations” and “partially meets expectations”, an additional rating, to read: “satisfactory, progress must (or may) still be made in attaining goals”. (priority 1)

5. Comments that are too heterogeneous, against a background of minimal involvementof sectors and offices

46. The examination of the sample of 50 performance reports, mentioned earlier, confirms thatinvolvement in the process is very uneven. The reports are very heterogeneous in terms of theircontent. The results achieved section is sometimes accompanied by detailed comments by both thestaff member and the supervisor. In other reports, however, such comments are briefer or arefocused on the overall rating.

47. The heterogeneous nature of performance reports can be found within the same sector oroffice. That can be explained by weak supervision of the evaluation process at the sector or officelevel. The executive officers of the Education and Social and Human Sciences Sectors that the auditteam met with said that they had no specific role in the process and did not have access toperformance reports in their sector.

48. The example of the only two staff members rated 4.0 is significant because both worked for astaff union. The first staff member was given that rating by her supervisor because she had made aserious accounting error and was not discreet enough, which the staff member contests. Shereturned to her original sector. The other staff member rated 4.0 is the previous supervisor, a staffrepresentative, evaluated as dong no work in his sector. The latter rating corresponds to thecomment already made about a supervisor’s mistaken rating of a staff member at 3.0 because hehad only been recruited six months before the evaluation.

49. The MyTalent software has simple enough data functions but only the Bureau of HumanResources Management possesses the administrator profile which authorizes use of them. TheBureau’s supervisory role seems however to be focused essentially on issuing reminders aimed atincreasing the evaluation coverage rate. The auditors were not informed of any measures intendedto make the evaluation contents more homogeneous or to harmonize the ratings. The review panelprovided for in Chapter 14 of the Human Resources Manual does not appear to be functioning.

Recommendation No. 5. For all supervisors, the External Auditor recommends providing access to the individual performance reports of all colleagues for whom they have a supervisory responsibility, either direct or indirect, to enable them to monitor goal attainment. (priority 2)

6. The failure, already, of the 2016-2017 biennial evaluation50. Even though in principle, the first stage of a biennial individual performance evaluation cycle,which consists of setting objectives under individual plans, should be completed by 31 March of thefirst year of the biennium, the Bureau of Human Resources Management announced the launchingof performance evaluations for 2016-2017 only on 27 April 2016 10, providing the deadlines inMyTalent:

- deadline for staff members to register individual plans: 31 May 2016;- deadline for validation of the individual plan by the supervisor: 20 June 2016;- deadline for final validation by the staff member: 30 June 2016.

10 Message from HRM through workflow (Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:37 PM; Subject: Launch of 2016-2017 Objective Setting).

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 15

51. This timetable was then already three months behind schedule on launch.

52. The 2014-2015 evaluation cycle was the first that used the procedure described above, usingthe MyTalent software. As much as delays and poor comprehension of the procedure wereunderstandable in 2014, the second cycle should no longer have surprised UNESCO staff members.

53. The external auditors found that a total of 2,802 names had been registered in the MyTalentdatabase, including in particular all the service contract (SC) staff. Service contract staff were askedto fill out their training plan and, on a trial basis, their goals. Information about the trial did not appearto have been disseminated by an official note to sector managers. As at 31 October 2017, 45% ofSC staff had a completed objective plan in their file (13% by the deadline of 30 June 2016).11

54. In order to compare the data more easily with data from the previous biennium, the analysisfocused solely on fixed-term and project appointment staff, or 2,054 employees.

55. By the deadline of 30 June 2016, only 35% of the 2,054 staff members had their objective planvalidated in the MyTalent database. The results according to sector were as heterogeneous as inthe previous biennium, with those meeting the deadline being in a small minority, as shown in GraphNo. 7.

56. The Assistant Directors-General presented a different picture. Eight of them had a 2016-2017SMT performance agreement validated by the Director-General by the deadline. It is interesting tonote that two of them list respecting deadlines for individual evaluations in their sector as one of theirgoals.

Graph No. 7: Validation in 2016 of individual objective plans for different sectors (as a % of number of fixed-term and project assignment staff members)


57. As at 31 October 2017, only 64% of UNESCO staff (fixed-term and project assignment) hadtheir goals validated for, it should be recalled, an evaluation covering the years 2016-2017. Thissituation significantly reduces the scope of the evaluations that will be carried out for the biennium,since performances in 2016-2017 are being evaluated in the light of goals fixed at the end of thatperiod.

11 The audit identified 119 service contract staff members assigned to a Sector for Administration that no longer exists. Following verification, HRM found that this group consisted of administrative staff in offices who, in error, had not been registered in the database as a member of the sector to which they belonged (message from HRM of 3 November 2017).

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 16

58. Just as in the 2014-2015 biennium, the situation varies greatly from one sector to another (seeGraph No. 8) with, for example, on 31 October 2017, a rate of 88% for the Internal Oversight Service(IOS) and only 21% for the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP).

Graph No. 8: Percentage of objective plans for fixed-term and project assignment staff validated by the deadline and by 31 October 2017


59. An equally wide distribution corresponding to respect for validation dates is seen in the field,with some field offices validating all or nearly all the evaluations by the deadline of 30 June 2016(Hamburg, Beirut), while at Headquarters (Paris), the deadline was only respected in the case of36% of staff members. As shown in Graph No. 9, as at the date of the present audit, at the end ofthe biennium, for field offices with more than four staff members (covering a total of 2,001 fixed-termand project appointment staff members), only seven of those offices had all the objective plansvalidated (corresponding to 8.5% of the staff members concerned); Headquarters had only 65% ofplans validated for its 1,052 staff members registered in the MyTalent database.

Graph No. 9: Percentage of 2016-2017 objective plans validated by the deadline of 30 June 2017 and by 31 October 2017, for field offices with more than four

fixed-term and project appointment staff members


60. The non-respect of the evaluation obligations set by the Organization, both at Headquartersand in the field, represents a significant failure for UNESCO. It undermines the credibility of its effortsto improve performance. Those efforts have been neglected, and left to a single sector, the Bureau

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 17

of Human Resources Management, by the highest level in the Organization’s hierarchy, leaving UNESCO staff members to believe that it is simply an administrative and bureaucratic constraint, without consequences. Yet, according to the Human Resources Manual, evaluation is a fundamental aspect of UNESCO’s management and communication efforts, which should be carried by senior management.

7. Clarifying a purpose, making a process more dynamic and accountable

61. In addition to those shortcomings, the purpose of the individual performance evaluation atUNESCO has not been adequately clarified for the staff.

62. The claimed link with results-based management is very unevenly demonstrated from one fileto another and neither the SMART principles nor the cascading of objectives are properlyunderstood. The expected results do not actually represent individual goals but instead reflect, withsome exceptions, the more general objectives of the sector or office. They are sometimes uniformfor one category of staff (heads of field offices, for example). In other cases, the expected resultscorrespond to the staff member’s own goals but are not linked to the general objectives of the sector.They are then often similar to, or an exact copy of, ongoing assignments listed in the post description,without being specific to the biennium under consideration.

63. In order to facilitate the implementation of this recommendation at all levels of the Organization,the Bureau of Human Resources Management should, for example by means of circulars,disseminate practical examples for different type of post (in terms of levels of responsibility and thenature of the assignments: project management, support functions, etc.).

64. The evaluation also does not help to develop competencies. None of the evaluations consultedcontains a competency development plan. The lack of funding for training is sometimes invoked toexplain that situation, but it seems unfortunate for the Organization not to carry out a needsassessment, which would make it possible to prioritize the small amounts of funds available.

65. The links between the evaluation and remuneration on the one hand, and promotion on theother, mentioned in Chapter 14 of the Human Resources Manual, seem rather weak. The overallevaluation remains a mainly formal exercise. None of the files examined by the auditors containeda proposal for a salary increase within the same grade. In cases of reclassification of occupied posts,discussed in section E, the promotion of the incumbent may be confirmed after a year in some caseseven though the incumbent’s evaluation for the previous biennium has not been carried out.

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends clarifying, for all UNESCO staff members, the principles to be respected in defining their performance goals and those of their colleagues, by recalling: that the goals must be consistent with the SMART framework; that attainment of the goals must be able to be clearly linked to each person’s individual acts; that the goals must be follow the principle of “cascading”, i.e., demonstrating a connection with the Organization’s expected results, to which such goals must contribute. (priority 1)

Recommendation No. 7. The External Auditor recommends monitoring specifically in MyTalent the rate at which UNESCO staff is covered by a competency development plan. (priority 3)

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 18

66. In view of the centrality of the individual performance evaluation, the External Auditor considersit vital for the Organization to make the individual evaluation process more dynamic. That calls forstaff involvement and, consequently, a better knowledge of the issues. It appears that efforts to thatend have slowed down, or even ceased, since the 2011 financial crisis. The External Auditortherefore welcomes the very recent 12 announcement by the Director of the Bureau of HumanResources Management concerning voluntary training sessions “in order to help staff members tounderstand the evaluation process” in a message to staff informing them of the launch of the overallperformance evaluation for the period 2016-2017. However, the exercise no longer makes muchsense for 2016-2017, given that most staff members did not have objectives defined at the beginningof the biennium, and nearly one quarter of them still do not have them at the end of the biennium(more precisely, 27% as at 31 October 2017). The training must therefore at this point focus on thenext evaluation process in 2018 (see above) and must initially be made compulsory.

67. In addition to observing the deadlines recommended above and an acceleration of stafftraining, the External Auditor considers that the process must be energized (1) by making theOrganization’s highest supervisory level accountable, a point that at least two Assistant Directors-General mentioned in their performance goals, and (2) by making it an annual exercise.

68. The United Nations report on human resources mentioned above (see footnote 6)recommends that “second reporting officers are required only to approve ratings rather than providewritten comments. On the other hand, the second reporting officers should prioritize performancemanagement throughout the year by supporting first reporting officers in implementing each step ofthe performance management system in a timely manner, resolving potential disputes between firstreporting officers and subordinates, and ensuring consistency in ratings”. This audit alsorecommends constant performance monitoring, not by the second-level supervisor (seeRecommendation No.1) but systematically by the sector manager.

69. The process of monitoring individual performance must finally become much more dynamicand be regarded by staff as an ongoing, or even permanent, requirement. To reach this goal, theevaluation cycle should be shortened from two years to one. Ideally, such a measure should takeeffect beginning in 2019 without waiting for the end of the 2018-2019 biennium. In its response tothe provisional report, the Bureau of Human Resources Management indicated that it would betaking this recommendation into account in its revision of the performance management policy, which

12 Workflow message from the Director of HRM, Thursday, 23 November 2017 2:40 PM, Subject: Information sessions – 2016 – 2017. Overall Performance Evaluation

Recommendation No. 8. The External Auditor recommends clarifying the links between evaluation and salary increases and ensuring consistency in the Human Resources Manual. (priority 2)

Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends making compulsory for all staff the announced training on individual performance evaluation, focusing on both the 2016-2017 evaluation process and the setting of individual goals for the 2018 evaluation process. (priority 2)

Recommendation No. 10. The External Auditor recommends including as a priority for Assistant Directors-General (ADGs) a goal of 100% of evaluations completed on time for staff members under their authority. (priority 1)

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 19

will be conducted in 2018 but take effect at the start of the 2020 cycle. If the Bureau of Human Resources Management considers that it would be difficult to apply the measure in 2019 since the procedure for the determination of goals for that cycle will have already begun, the External Auditor still takes the view that interim measures would be desirable, and possible, for the 2018-2019 cycle. It would be appropriate, for example, to introduce an interview at the “half-way point” between staff member and manager, at the start of 2019 at the latest, making it possible, if necessary, to readjust objectives and conduct a preliminary assessment of results.

B. SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF HEADS AND DIRECTORS OF FIELD OFFICES

70. UNESCO has 53 field offices, 31 of which are run by directors (28 at grade D-1 and three atgrade D-2) and 22 by heads of field office (all at grade P-5).

71. For the analysis of the recruitment procedure, the External Auditor based his study on the dataavailable for all the field offices13 and on the more detailed study of a sample of 13 files.14 Unlessotherwise mentioned, the data presented in this section go up to 4 October 2017.

72. The source of heads of field offices currently in office is as follows:

Table No. 3: Source and method of recruitment of heads of field offices, serving as at 4 April 2017

Internal transfer

Recruitment by competitive procedure Vacant post internal candidate external candidate

13 20

of which nine following an internal post vacancy15

10 of which five from the United

Nations system 10


73. Ten field offices (nearly 20%) are in an interim situation, which has lasted for an average of7.5 months. A new head of office is being recruited for each post.

74. The average length of service of the 43 heads of field offices is two years and eight months;28 of them were appointed in 2014 and 2015.

13 Including procedure used, dates of publication of the vacancy notice, if applicable, date of the incumbent’s entry into service.

14 The External Auditor had initially planned to study 22 files but it turned out that the files were not available in a format that lent itself to study for the audit and that the reconstitution of the recruitment files would have meant considerable work for HRM. The External Auditor therefore limited his examination to 13 files, or 18 procedures, the first publication of the vacancy notice having been declared unsuccessful in five cases.

15 Option which was eliminated by a resolution of the General Conference in 2015, implemented by circular AC/HR/49 of 8 April 2016. Since that date, posts are always open to internal and external candidates simultaneously. Internal transfers remain possible.

Recommendation No. 11. The External Auditor recommends (i) changing from a biennial to an annual evaluation schedule, beginning in 2020; (ii) planning a transition for the 2018-2019 cycle with an interview to readjust goals and assess results, which should take place at the half-way point, at the start of 2019 at the latest. (priority 1)

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 20

Graph No. 10. Year of entry into service of heads of field offices, serving as at 4 October 2017

Source: External Auditor, from UNESCO data

1. A lengthy procedure

75. A study of the data available for all the field offices demonstrates that, excluding transfers, therecruitment procedure, between the advertisement of the post vacancy and the entry into service ofthe incumbent, takes an average of 338 days, or more than one year for the entire procedure if thatincludes the time required to finalize the post vacancy notice, prior to its publication.

76. The calculation of this average length of the procedure does not, however, take into accountcases where the procedure is deemed unsuccessful and the post vacancy is re-opened, whichmeans starting the process over from the beginning (advertising the post, or even revision of thepost vacancy notice) and considerably lengthens the total recruitment time (see para. 109).

77. The process is shortened, on the other hand, when UNESCO decides to fill a post of head ordirector of field office through an internal transfer (13 cases out of the 43 managers in service),without advertising the post (see para. 83).

78. The length of the recruitment procedure leads to posts being vacant for considerable amountsof time. Considering the sample of 13 files examined, and excluding from it the two cases for whichthe post has not yet been filled, the average post vacancy was 410 days, or 13.5 months,16 withextreme cases of up to two years (Abuja), or even nearly two-and-a-half years (Quito). With regardto the standard amount of time in these posts, which varies from two to six years, these time periodsappear excessive and could well diminish the quality of UNESCO’s work. Prolonged interimsituations are by definition sources of increased risk.

2. A fragmented recruitment process

79. Recruitment of heads of field offices is governed by the provisions of the Human ResourcesManual, in particular, Item 5.3 which was revised in November 2017 to take into account the newUNESCO recruitment policy (see para. 7 of the introduction). The files examined during the auditpredate the new policy; the recruitments were conducted according to the previous provisions of theHuman Resources Manual and the procedure set out in administrative circular AC/HR/41 of 8 August2014.

80. The procedures in force at that time entrusted the Assistant Director-General for StrategicPlanning (ADG/BSP)17 with the main responsibility for the conduct of the recruitment process. The

16 This average post vacancy time, compared to an average length of service time of five years and four months (twice the average length of service), corresponds to an average vacancy rate of 21%, close to the rate observed (20%), which confirms the consistency of the results obtained, despite the small amount of data.

17 And to DIR/ODG for the Liaison Offices in New York, Geneva and Brussels.

0

5

10

15

20

2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 21

Director of the Division of Field Support and Coordination (FSC) replaced ADG/BSP in 201618 (this is the case which is described below19). The texts provide for:

(a) preparation of the job description and the vacancy notice by the Director of FSC*, thenclearance by BFM (budget availability) and HRM (classification of the post, translation,and final validation) prior to publication;20

(b) advertisement of the post vacancy for one month;21

(c) pre-screening of applications by HRM;22

(d) establishment of an Evaluation Panel by the Director of FSC* as supervisor of the post,23

composed in theory of four persons24 (five for field offices in Africa), and then five to sixpersons beginning in February 2017;25

(e) pre-selection of candidates by the Evaluation Panel, which submits a list of candidatesproposed for interview to ODG;26

(f) implementation, possibly, of complementary assessment methods (assessment centres,content tests, and so forth);27

(g) interviews with candidates on the list approved by ODG, conducted by the EvaluationPanel, which then makes recommendations to ODG concerning the candidatesevaluated.28 FSC* must also gather reference checks for the external candidates;29

(h) selection by the Director-General of the candidate, following additional interviews, asneeded;30

(i) official clearance from the host country, which ERI (or AFR for field offices in Africa) isresponsible for obtaining, at the request of HRM;31

(j) administrative preparation of the appointment by HRM/staffing, HRM/management andBFM;32

(k) appointment of the director/head of field office by a Director-General’s Note prepared byDIR/HRM (or DIR/ODG for liaison offices).33

81. Implementation of this long and complex procedure requires nearly six months, in the best ofthe cases examined (Brazzaville, Doha) and, as mentioned above (paragraph 75), one year on theaverage.

18 See DG/Note/15/32 of 1 December 2015, which transfers to the new FSC division the functions of support and coordination of the field office services from 1 January 2016.

19 The reference FSC* therefore corresponds to FSC from January 2016, ADG/BSP before that, and DIR/ODG when reference is made to a liaison office. The parts of the Human Resources Manual to which reference is made are those of the version previous to the revision of 1/11/2017 that is, for Item 5.3, the version of 30/03/2015 applicable since 8/08/2014, pursuant to circular AC/HR/41.

20 Paragraph 13, Item 5.3-B of the Human Resources Manual. 21 Part C of Item 5.3 of the Human Resources Manual and circular AC/HR/49 of 8 April 2016, as at that date. 22 Paragraph 66, Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 23 Paragraphs 68 and 69(c) or (d), Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 24 The Director of FSC* of his/her representative, a representative of a sector, a representative of BSP, a

representative of HRM. In addition, a representative of ADG/AFR for field offices in Africa. Prior to the reorganization, the composition was of ADG/BSP, sector, HRM, DIR/ODG, AFR, as necessary.

25 By an email dated 1 February 2017, the Director /HRM a.i. requested that two representatives of the sector, rather than one, be members of the panel.

26 Paragraphs 71 (a) to (c), Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 27 Paragraph 79, Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 28 Paragraphs 71 (d) and (e) and 80, Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 29 Paragraph 77, Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 30 Paragraphs 76 and 82, Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 31 Paragraph 88, Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 32 Paragraphs 114 and 115, Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual. 33 Paragraph 85, Item F.3-F of the Human Resources Manual.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 22

Graph No. 11: Length of the recruitment procedure for heads of field offices (from advertisement of the post to appointment)

Source: External Auditor, from UNESCO data (30 cases)

82. The length of the procedure tends to be shorter when the post has only been advertisedinternally at UNESCO. Since April 2016,34 pursuant to a resolution of the General Conference at its38th session in 2015, posts are systematically35 opened simultaneously to internal candidates andcandidates external to the Organization, for one month. While it enables the Organization to bring innew talent, this decision, in particular its systematic aspect, should be looked at with regard to thetwo additional months of recruitment it requires on average, and bearing in mind that it only resultsin the recruitment of an external candidate in less than one case out of two.

Table No. 4: Duration of the recruitment procedure according to type of advertising (in number of days)

Average duration, in days

Internal advertising only (9 cases)

External advertising (21 cases)

External advertising resulting in selection of an external candidate (10 cases)

Average duration 312 335 383

Average duration, excluding the longest

case

271 327 370

Source: External Auditor, from UNESCO data

83. When UNESCO decides to fill a post of head or director of a field office through an internaltransfer, the transfer proposal generally is issued by FSC*or by HRM, and is validated by the Officeof the Director-General; only the stages (h) to (k) described above are implemented.36 Naturally, thisprocedure does not make it possible to replace one for one each departure from the Organization,but it contributes to internal mobility, which the Secretariat rightly desires.

3. The number of stages in the procedure is in itself a cause of delays

84. The recruitment procedure described earlier in paragraph 80 consists mainly of stages whichare executed successively, one after another. Only the pre-screening of applications (c) is usuallyconducted parallel to the establishment of the panel (d), and the administrative preparations (j) in

34 Circular AC/HR/49 of 8 April 2016. 35 Except in the case of a transfer. 36 There is very little data on which to base an objective calculation of the length of the process. Only five cases out

of 13 were able to be evaluated: in two cases (Nairobi, Harare), the new head of the field office was appointed the day after his predecessor departed. In two cases (Libreville (95 days), Brussels (170 days), remained vacant for a significant period of time, but still much less than the average. In one case (Venice (427 days), the post remained vacant during a period close to the average.

02468

101214

6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Number of months

nombre de casnumber of cases

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 23

parallel with obtaining the approval of the host country (i). Each stage consists of a series of validations and involves incessant hand-overs between UNESCO services, all of which are not computerized. Even if each service appears to be quite responsive, and even very responsive in simple cases,37 the multiplicity of interventions makes the accumulation of a large number of short delays inevitable, which in the end can represent weeks or months.

85. Furthermore, the multiplication of stages makes it inevitable that in the current circumstances,there will be waiting periods between stages: there is nothing in the Organization that guaranteesthat those in charge of initiating a stage will be immediately available to do so as soon as it becomesrelevant. That is particularly true for the initiation of the process itself (see paragraph 114 below) andfor establishment of the panel and planning of its meetings (see paragraph 95). A considerableamount of time is “lost” for that reason.

86. Moreover, it appears that, for some stages, a higher degree of validation than that provided forunder the procedure is sought. For example, the vacancy notice is systematically validated by theOffice of the Director-General even though the procedure does not stipulate intervention at that level(validation by FSC*, BFM and HRM). Similarly, validation by the Office of the Director General issought for the composition of the panel even though according to the procedure that responsibilitybelongs to FSC*.

87. Finalization of the job description and the vacancy notice calls for additional comments. Whilethe job description does not, in most of the cases examined, get validations other than those providedfor under the procedure, in contrast the vacancy notice gives rise to a very large number ofexchanges, which reach as far as the Office of the Director General. In the simplest cases, thevacancy notice requires six signatures (Director of FSC, HRM services, Director of HRM, sector(s)concerned, ERI or AFR, ODG) and that process of validation is implemented fully, even when theprocedure has been unsuccessful and the identical 38 post vacancy is being re-advertised (seeparagraph 109). In other cases, the modifications made by the various individuals whoseauthorization is sought can lead to the examination of up to four successive versions of the vacancynotice, which can result in more than a dozen validations.39 Moreover some of these transmissionsare made through the circulation of a printed document within the Organization, which containshandwritten comments and signatures. The visas and received date stamps of the internal mailservice make it possible to follow documents through the various services and reveal that while thedocuments are only exceptionally retained in a particular service, it often takes several weeks beforethe vacancy notice is validated, given the number of stages and the time it takes to transmit40 internalmail, which means that transmission times become a dominant factor. Furthermore, advertising thepost also requires the development of a questionnaire to be filled out by the candidates, which helpsto make the initial screening process somewhat automatic. The questionnaire itself is also the sourceof multiple exchanges. Lastly the documents must be translated, and the translation validated byHRM and FSC*.

88. The entire administrative process of validation prior to advertisement of a post takes onaverage nearly two months (50 days on average for all of the cases examined; 58 days excludingcases where the same post is re-advertised).

89. The External Auditor can only endorse the recommendation, made by the InternalOversight Service (IOS) after the internal audit conducted in 2015 (see para. 7 of theintroduction), to draw up generic post descriptions, which should be extended to vacancyannouncements and candidate questionnaires. Even in the case of heads of field offices, a

37 Response time is usually less than three days, or even less than 24 hours. 38 Case of Santiago in December 2016 to January 2017 or of Abidjan in October 2017, for example. 39 Case of Santiago between March and July 2016, for example. 40 It is not unusual that a validation dealt with in 24 hours needs exchanges lasting four to six days (Day 1: transmission

of the document by service A; Day 2: arrival of the document in service B; Day 3: validation of the document by head of B; Day 4: departure of document from service B; Day 5: return of the document to service A or arrival in service C).

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 24

standard vacancy notice, of which only one passage would need to be adapted according to the type of field office (national office, regional office, multisector..), making reference, when relevant, to strategic documents by country41 published elsewhere would be a beneficial replacement, in terms of quality/duration ratio, for the current vacancy notices containing specific elements relating to the priorities of each field office. Such passages are in fact a source of a very large part of the exchanges in the validation procedure, even though they are superfluous with regard to the information available and already validated concerning the main issues. Similarly, a generic candidature questionnaire should be able to be drawn for heads of field offices, consistent with the missions to filled and competencies sought, and in conformity with the Human Resources Manual,42 since just a few really specific questions would be helpful during the pre-screening of the applications. Furthermore, standard documents will make it possible to reduce translation time.

90. Once the vacancy notices no longer contain new strategic elements not validated elsewhereand the post description has not been significantly modified, there would appear to be less of a needfor validation by HRM and BFM and at the Organization’s highest level, especially since suchvalidations, which are in paper form, take several days owing to the time needed for internaltransmission of paper documents. Such documents could be drawn up by DIR/FSC*, with supportfrom HRM.

91. Similarly, there does not appear to be a need for high-level validation of the composition of thepanel as long as the rules (plurality of geographical origin, and gender balance, servicesrepresented, supervisory level) are clear. Composition of the panel should be entrusted to HRM, tobe validated by Director/HRM.

92. In order not to burden UNESCO services with unnecessary administrative procedures, theimplementation of a simplified procedure during the first part (stages (a) to (g), as described above),limited to necessary validations, assigning to DIR/HRM and DI/FSC*43 the interim decisions, usingas little paper as possible,44 seems highly desirable:

- verification by FSC* that the job description, the vacancy notice and the standardquestionnaire, transmitted by HRM, are still up to date, and corrections if necessary.It is incumbent on FSC* to take the initiative to consult HRM and BFM if, and only if,a significant change in the nature of the post justifies reviewing its definition orclassification;

- translation and advertising of the post by HRM;

- in parallel, establishment of a panel and of a timetable for its meetings, under theresponsibility of DIR/HRM (see paragraph 95 below);

- selection of candidates to be interviewed by DIR/HRM and DIR/FSC*, following a pre-screening by HRM;

- interviews by the panel, chaired by DIR/FSC*45;

- recommendation to the Director General jointly by DIR/FSC* and DIR/HRM.

41 In particular the UNESCO Country Programming Document (UCPD). 42 Which was usefully clarified on this point in November 2017 (see circular AC/HR/59 and Items 5.2 and 5.3 – A of

the Human Resources Manual). 43 DIR/FSC or ADG/AFR or DIR/ODG, depending on whether it involves an office in Africa, or a liaison office, but in

any case, a single one of those three managers. 44 A computerized workflow would be useful although not necessary. Transmission by email would make it possible

to reduce the time needed for internal transmission, which is sometimes greater than that needed for the actual handling of the document.

45 Without any other interim validation, except if DIR/FSC*, as delegate, deems it necessary.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 25

93. With regard to the end of the procedure, the amount of time that it takes to obtain approvalfrom the host country (stage (i)) is the determining factor (see paragraph 106 below). At that point,the time spent on administration (stage (j)) is masked and does not result in any additional time beingspent. Once the procedure for obtaining approval from the host country has been optimized, it willbe appropriate for UNESCO to consider the administrative procedures (see section C-3 of thepresent report).

94. In its response to the interim report, UNESCO indicated that it considers that the newrecruitment policy initiated in November 2017 goes further than some of the actions recommendedby the External Auditor46, in particular Recommendation No.12 above. The new recruitment policyand the corresponding modification of the Human Resources Manual have indeed brought welcomesimplifications, some of which are mentioned in the present report. Nevertheless, the ExternalAuditor stresses the need to limit even further the stages and the validations, to use standarddocuments, to eliminate the need for certain interim validations (in particular validation at the levelof the Director-General of the list of candidates to be interviewed) and to leave the initiative for suchvalidations to the person launching the procedure, when he or she deems it necessary, and aboveall the importance of respecting in practice the level of validation stipulated by the procedures. Theauditors observed in several files that many validations were requested (for example, on the postvacancy or on the composition of the panel) from a high level in the Organization, in a rathersystematic manner, even though such a step was not provided for in the version of the HumanResources Manual applicable at the time.

4. Streamlining the management of the evaluation panel is a priority

95. The establishment of a panel to evaluate the candidates and the scheduling of its meetingsare at present regarded as sequential actions, which takes a significant amount of time owing tosuccessive pauses in and resumption of the procedure. In total, the time from the end of the postadvertisement to the communication of the panel’s recommendations to the Director-General isnearly 5.5 months (162 days) on average.

96. The composition of the panel is sometimes decided as soon as the post is advertised,47 butmore often it is regarded as something that is decided at the end of the advertising period, within avariable amount of time (two to 30 days in the cases examined). Several exchanges are sometimesnecessary to determine the composition, and validation by the Director-General is sought, eventhough it is not stipulated in the Human Resources Manual. The time needed to validate the panelis on average 30 days, and the time that elapses between the final day of advertising and the dateon which the panel is validated is on average more than one month.

97. It is only afterwards that a date for the meeting to pre-select the candidates is set, and thatmeeting is held on average 2.5 months after the end of the advertising period. The list of pre-selected

46 “Some of the recommended actions have been superseded by the promulgation of the updated Recruitment policy issued on 1 November 2017”.

47 For example for Abidjan (initial advertising in April 2017), Bamako (initial advertising in August 2016) and Hanoi (April 2016).

Recommendation No. 12. The External Auditor recommends further simplifying the recruitment procedure for heads of field offices with a view to limiting the validations required at each stage, assigning interim decisions to the Director of the Office of Human Resources Management (DIR/HRM) and the Director of the Division of Field Support and Coordination (DIR/FSC) and maintaining, in practice, the planned level of validation. (priority 1)

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 26

candidates is submitted to the Director-General for validation, and it is only after validation is obtained that the candidate interviews are scheduled. The interviews are therefore held five months (153 days) on average after the application deadline.

98. This is a significant period of time, even though it is true that there are a large number ofapplications to review: in terms of the 14 procedures examined for which this data was available, onaverage, more than 140 applications were received. This number varies from 84 to 25148, out ofwhich there are six to 30 internal applicants. The amount of files to review might be a difficulty initself, but UNESCO has optimized this analysis by using Taleo, a software application whichautomates the initial examination of applications on the basis of the candidates’ responses to thepre-selection questionnaire accompanying the post vacancy notice. This computerized initialscreening of the applications has led to significant gains in productivity, although UNESCO does notfully benefit from it since the composition of the evaluation panel and the scheduling of its firstmeeting now determine de facto the critical stage of the process.

99. It is therefore essential to optimize the work of the evaluation panel. Firstly, the panel’scomposition must be refocused on the basics: evaluate the candidate’s supervisory, representationaland management skills and, where relevant, their expertise. To do so, it does not seem useful toincrease the number of panel members - at present, five, to six, or even seven, in the files examined.The new recruitment policy provides a welcome decrease in the number of panel members, exceptprecisely in the case of heads of field offices, for which it is planned that the evaluation panel willcomprise representatives of FSC, two sectors, HRM, BSP, as well as AFR in the case of field officesin Africa, and sometimes ODG, or five to seven members. It would be preferable to limit the panel tothree members, including the Director of FSC*, in regular cases, or four members when specificexpertise is being sought. The panel should be composed of members with a variety of high-levelcompetencies and experience (in management, field office management, human resources) ratherthan of representatives of services in particular, except for FSC*. Those who are called upon to siton the panel should receive brief basic training in recruitment techniques and bias.

100. Secondly, and to avoid the delays resulting from the overly sequential nature of the procedure,the Director of HRM, in cooperation with the chairperson of the panel, should determine thecomposition of the panel as soon as the post is advertised, as well as the two meeting dates: thepre-selection meeting in restricted committee, if necessary, two to three weeks after the job postingis removed,49 in order to give HRM the time to complete the pre-screening of applications, andinterviews by the panel with the pre-selected candidates two weeks later. This schedule will enableUNESCO to gather the recommendations it wishes to obtain on external candidates50 and will enablethe candidates themselves to make arrangements to be available for the interviews, all of which aredone by videoconferencing. The approximate schedule for the interviews could, furthermore, beannounced in the vacancy notice.

48 Except for Brazzaville, where the post was only advertised internally at UNESCO. 49 Under the new recruitment policy, pre-selection of candidates is carried out by the Director of FSC, with support

from HRM and participation of ADG/AFR for posts in Africa. This phase may not necessarily call for an actual meeting and may be conducted by computer-based exchanges.

50 In the files examined, the recommendations are often obtained in seven to 10 days, by email. In an optimized procedure, the requests for recommendations should be sent immediately after the pre-selection has been completed.

Recommendation No. 13. With regard to the recruitment of directors/heads of field offices, the External Auditor recommends limiting the composition of the selection panel to three people in general, four people if special expertise is needed, and determining the panel composition, at the latest, by the time the job posting is removed, and, at the same time, drawing up the meeting schedule for the panel (interviews one month after removal of the job posting). (priority 2)

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 27

101. Implementation of these two recommendations (Nos. 12 and 13) should make it possible to cut by two thirds the length of the initial phases of the procedure: from more than eight months on average at present51 to approximately 2.5 months (two weeks to draft, translate and publish the vacancy notice, one month to advertise it, one month to review the applications and conduct the interviews).

102. Obviously, the panel should hold its deliberations following the interviews and sign its recommendations that same day, as was the case in some of the dossiers examined.52

103. The Human Resources Manual provides that an external evaluation of the candidates may be used (stage (f) of the procedure described above). This option was for example used in 2016 for recruitment of the head of the field office in Hanoi: in that case, it meant adding nearly six months to the procedure for a post that had already been vacant for several months. Recourse to such a specialized evaluation increases the independence and professionalism of the recruitment process. However, it needs to be rationalized to avoid lengthening the process to that extent. To do so, a purchase order contract should be negotiated with one or more suppliers so that an evaluation can be done within a very short period when such an evaluation is needed, and the purchase order should stipulate that the external supplier(s) agree to a rapid evaluation turnaround, on the order of three weeks.53

5. Significant uncertainty regarding the conclusion of the procedure

104. The lengthiness of the current process is compounded by the fact that the recruitment procedure does not always result in the appointment of a candidate. It may be impeded by at least three situations: (i) the chosen candidate may withdraw his or her application; (ii) he or she may not receive official prior endorsement from the host country of the field office; or (iii) UNESCO may decide not to select a candidate among the applications received. The External Auditor notes that these reasons for the procedure to fail occur frequently; the available data show that they have arisen in about one case in four.54 While such situations cannot be completely prevented, it should at least be possible to implement some appropriate measures to minimize them.

105. Firstly, wherever possible, the selection panel should identify not one but two or three candidates capable of filling the post. This would reduce the time wasted in situations (i) and (ii). In practice, UNESCO already implements this measure in some cases; this point has been clarified in the new version of the Human Resources Manual, and it should be applied systematically.55.

106. Regarding the official prior approval of the host country (ii), UNESCO notes that this process, corresponding to a diplomatic practice, has never been formalized as such. Consideration of the sample of files has shown that the formality can cause additional delays, which averaged just over a month but with considerable disparities. In over half the cases, endorsement was received within less than three weeks; in other cases, it took over two months, and the response was sometimes negative. The latter situation, although relatively rare,56 was highly problematic because it meant that the whole recruitment process had to be restarted, except in cases where an alternative

51 On average 252 days for the 13 files examined, excluding transfers. 52 Beijing in July 2015, or nearly (one to three days) for Geneva in May 2013, Havana in December 2014 and

September 2015, Jakarta in July 2015. 53 This implies not only that such an effective evaluation and written report process exists but also that it can be

adapted to the availability of the candidates so that the necessary appointments can, if need be, be set up quickly. This is a standard service offered by specialized companies.

54 For at least 13 of the 53 heads of field offices in service or currently being recruited, the procedure initially resulted in failure.

55 Paragraphs 91, 47, 66 and 105 of Item 5.3 E and F of the Human Resources Manual revised in November 2017. 56 Taking the offices as a whole, the latest appointments received negative responses in four cases (Abuja,

Baghdad, Windhoek and Phnom Penh). In the case of Abuja, the negative response was received almost a year after the request.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 28

candidate could be recommended; in any case, that back-and-forth process led to months of additional delay.

107. To the extent that the candidate selection process is open and transparent and the Secretariatmanages its human resources in accordance with the rules and guidelines adopted by the GeneralConference, there is no reason to assume a priori that the host country’s approval can causeproblems. It would therefore be more appropriate for the Secretariat and Member States to agree tomodify their practice so that, unless the host country objects within a given deadline, thedirector/head of office can take up his or her position, at least provisionally. That deadline would notprevent the host country from opposing an appointment which might be highly problematic from asecurity or diplomatic viewpoint, without creating unnecessary delays in the recruitment of heads ofoffice in most cases. Indeed, it is in the interest of the Member States directly concerned thatmanagement posts in field offices should not remain vacant.

108. Initially and experimentally, a maximum deadline of six weeks could be considered, with a viewto reducing it subsequently to three weeks or a month, for example, on the basis of feedback.

Recommendation No. 14. The External Auditor recommends formalizing the process of official prior authorization by the host country for directors/heads of field offices, whereby it would be agreed that, in the absence of any objection from the host country within six weeks of the official notification, the director/head of the field office could assume his or her functions. (priority 1)

109. The most frequent failure is where, during candidate pre-selection or following interviews, theoffice of the Director-General chooses to close and restart the recruitment procedure. Declaring thatthe procedure has been unsuccessful means restarting it from scratch, which significantly extendsthe recruitment period. Of the sample of 13 files examined by the auditors, five procedures wereclosed and restarted in that way.57

110. The Santiago office, for example, has been in an interim situation since November 2016. Aninitial recruitment procedure which had been launched in advance in March 2016 was declaredunsuccessful at the pre-selection stage in November 2016, even though 84 applications had beenreceived, and the process was restarted in February 2017; this second procedure was declaredunsuccessful in November 2017.

111. For the Beijing, Bamako and Havana offices, the total duration of the procedure, from the firstproposal for a vacancy announcement to the appointment of a staff member after a secondprocedure, was 15 months, 21 months and 23 months, respectively.

112. While it is understandable that quality applicants are sometimes difficult to attract for locationswhich are particularly difficult from the standpoint of security or living conditions, the External Auditoris surprised that recruitment procedures fail so often for locations which do not seem to besystematically the least attractive.

113. Such situations should only arise from time to time if UNESCO implemented a forward-lookingmanagement system for filling such posts, based on identification and follow-up of staff withmanagerial potential within the Organization and on a search for appropriate profiles within theUnited Nations system. Management of that type would draw attention in advance to cases for whichthe Organization might not find suitable candidates, so that appropriate profiles could be activelysought out, upstream, with the help of a specialist agency if necessary. Establishing a pool of

57 Abidjan in October 2017, Bamako in December 2016, Havana and Beijing in December 2014 and Santiago in November 2016 and then again in November 2017.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 29

potential candidates would also mean that the members of the pool could undergo external evaluation ahead of any recruitment procedure.

Recommendation No. 15. The External Auditor recommends establishing a pool of managers who would be capable of assuming, in the short- or medium-term, the duties of director/head of field office, for example, by identifying, selecting and monitoring appropriate professional profiles at UNESCO and, more broadly, within the United Nations system. (priority 1)

6. Anticipating the recruitment procedure

114. The application of Recommendations Nos. 12 to 15 (above) should significantly reduce thetime taken to recruit heads of field offices: it should be possible to implement this process withinfour months in the great majority of cases,58 compared to the current period of one year, and itshould not be necessary to repeat the procedure.

Graph No. 12: Recruitment process for a head of office

* Average periods, not including transfers and procedures deemed unsuccessfulSource: External Auditor.

115. Pending the implementation of the recommendations and, subsequently, to take account ofcases where it will not be possible to avoid an extension of the process, it is essential that thebeginning of the recruitment process should be very significantly anticipated in all cases where thedeparture of the incumbent can be expected (retirement, planned movement). For retirements, thisprovision has already been included in the new recruitment policy,59 with an anticipation period ofnine months. It should be extended to other cases where a staff movement can be foreseen; a periodof one year should be preferred, so that all notice periods can be used to minimize vacancy for headof office positions and ensure that posts are filled as efficiently as possible.

116. When UNESCO has a candidate pool, in accordance with Recommendation No. 15, it wouldthen be possible, and in most cases preferable, to fill head of office posts vacated with a short noticeperiod through internal transfers, except in cases where the management of the field office is notconsidered as critically important.

58 The goal of four months is consistent with the 130-day goal announced by the Director-General (DG/Note/17/19 of 27 October 2017) in connection with the implementation of the new recruitment policy. That 130-day period, counted from the launch of the procedure until the appointment, is achievable, even for most recruitments of heads of field offices, provided that the simplification of procedures and advance planning of stages are fully implemented as recommended, so that the Organization can select a candidate in approximately 2.5 months.

59 Paragraph 4 of Administrative Circular AC/HR/59.

Proposal of a job description

Makeup of recruitment panel validated

Selection of a candidate

Interviews

Pre-selection of candidates

Approval from host country

Begins work

Current procedure averages one year*

Optimized procedure

Four months in most cases

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 30

C. PROJECT APPOINTMENTS

117. UNESCO employs over 350 people through project appointments (PA). The role of PA staff isto carry out duties of clearly limited duration, attached to one or more projects and generally financedby extrabudgetary funds. They are recruited for a period between one and two years and theirappointments may be extended. The process of recruiting PA staff is seen as too lengthy by someof their clients (sectors and field offices), particularly in relation to the duration of the projects to whichthey contribute, which is often limited (two to three years).

118. As early as 2016, the internal audit (IOS/AUD/2016/09) of crisis situations noted that, even inthe context of post-conflict or post-disaster programmes, the recruitment period averaged aroundeight months (in 18 cases considered in detail), from the publication of the vacancy notice to theassumption of duties. At the time, IOS recommended that generic vacancy notices should beprepared and that an accelerated procedure should make possible the priority recruitment of thehuman resources needed for such projects.

119. Project appointments are governed by the UNESCO Human Resources Manual, particularlyItem 13.4 and Appendix 13-B bis, applicable since May 2012. The process used resembles asimplified and more flexible version of the one relating to heads of office described in para. 80 above;however, the process is decentralized, conducted under the responsibility of the manager of thesector (ADG), of the Headquarters service or of the field office, or by the Institute director, and fromthe endorsement of the host country is not required. Appendix 13-B bis of the Human ResourcesManual divides it into four steps.60

120. The audit l 94 persons who received project appointments between 1 January and 6 October2017.

Graph No. 13 Distribution of project appointments by location and sector, 1 January-6 October 2017

Source: External Auditor, on the basis of data from UNESCO

121. The auditors sought to collect the available data relating to these appointments in order toassess the corresponding recruitment periods:

- list of the persons appointed, with their dates of appointment (HRM);- data from the HR workflow software with the start and end dates of the process;- data on the job descriptions published (manual processing – HRM);- data on the projects for which the PA staff were hired (BFM);- 22 files examined (manual processing – auditors).

60 Step 1: project finalization, definition of the need for a PA, preparation of project documents, funding guarantee; Step 2: Recruitment and selection; Step 3: Administrative action: verification by BFM and HRM; Step 4: Appointment.

30%

38%

32%Instituts cat. 1

Hors-siège

Siège

30%

16%

13%

9%

10%

22% ED

IIEP

CLT

SC

ICTP

utres

Cat. 1 Institutes

Headquarters

Field

Others

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 31

122. While not exhaustive, these lists provide a variety of data. Headquarters services areoverrepresented, however, because data relating to field offices and category 1 institutes are lessoften processed electronically and archived at Headquarters. The values, tables and figuressubsequently presented are based on those data.

123. The following data on average recruitment periods can be deduced:

Table No 5. Recruitment periods derived from the data collected Period Number of data Average duration min-max publication period 29 24 d 13-34 dperiod between the end of publication and the appointment of the staff member

35 166 d 45-308 d

period of the administrative HR workflow (see para. 0) 64 17 d 1-98 d

Source: External Auditor, on the basis of data from UNESCO

124. The functioning of the upstream step (Step 161) is difficult to establish based on the datacollected during the audit. They essentially show that the duration of this step is highly variable (upto several months) and that projects often begin with staff hired under contracts of other types (suchas temporary assistance, short-term or service contracts), pending the arrival of longer-term staff.

1. Long recruitment periods

125. The recruitment period for PA staff, from the publication of the vacancy notice to theappointment of a candidate, averages 190 days, or just over six months. While this figure is aslight improvement over the results of the IOS audit in 2016, it is still a lengthy period given thenature of the posts to which these staff are appointed – projects of limited duration and from whichdonors expect rapid results – and given the length of their contracts, which do not exceed two years.

Graph No. 14 Period between the end of the publication of the post and the appointment (months).

Source: External Auditor, based on data from UNESCO (35 cases)

126. This average value conceals major disparities. The duration of the vacancy announcement isrelatively standard, between two weeks and a month; on the other hand, the period between the endof the announcement and the appointment of a candidate varies from 1.5 to 10 months.

127. The periods observed also vary by sector: the UNESCO International Institute for EducationalPlanning (IIPE) (14 cases) showed an average period of 162 days, very close to the general average,whereas the average period for the Education Sector (ED) (seven cases) was 209 days and that for

61 Validation of the project, definition of the need for a PA, identification of the funds to be raised, drafting of the post description, etc.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0123456789

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 9mois

nombre de cas

cumul (%)

Average5.5

months(166 days)

Median: 160 days

Number of cases

Cumulative total

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 32

the Culture Sector (CLT) (six cases) stood at 134 days. There were not enough data on cases in other sector to deduce averages.

2. Periods relating to consideration of applications which could be optimized

128. It was not possible to evaluate the period relating to the consideration of applications for allrecruitments in 2017, given the lack of available data in electronic form. Examination of two samplesof applications yielded detailed data on the functioning of the process.

Table No. 6: Periods determined based on data collected from the sample considered (days)

Period in days Number of cases min-max Average End of the publication of the post -> recommendation of a candidate 10 25-185 73

End of the publication of the post -> interviews with candidates 8 17-150 60

Interviews with candidates -> recommendation of a candidate 8 1-119 26

Recommendation of a candidate -> initialization of HR workflow 13 0-34 19

Source: External Auditor, based on UNESCO files.

129. The period between the end of the publication of the post and the interviews with candidates,averaging around two months but sometimes rising to five months, seems particularly long. Theapplications received are indeed often very numerous, between 33 and 224 for the sampleexamined, but the waiting period before the interviews, which mostly involves the selection ofcandidates for interview, does not correlate with those numbers. The interviews for the post for whichthere were 224 applications62 took place 24 days after the end of advertisement, whereas in the caseof a post for which there were “only” 39 applicants,63 that period was 119 days. There is also nocorrelation with the post’s level of classification.

130. The process chosen for the prior selection of applications and the organization of interviews isthe main reason for the lengthy delays. Although the guidelines in the Human Resources Manual(Appendix 13-B bis) do not require the establishment of a formal selection committee, a panel wasset up in most of the cases considered. These panels had three to five members (occasionally two),and their composition was not fixed, in most cases, until after the end of the post’s publication. Theirmeetings were then scheduled sequentially and interview dates were not decided until the list ofselected candidates was complete. Thus, the main source of delays was the fragmentation of theprocess into separate and sequential stages.

131. The need to ensure fair and transparent selection among numerous applications received forposts published externally is a requirement for UNESCO and is in itself constraining. There is,however, some room for manoeuvre to make the process more efficient. For other staff categories,the Secretariat already uses Taleo, an online tool for advertising posts and for applications, whichmakes candidate pre-screening partially automatic (see para. Error! Reference source not found.,above). UNESCO should consider using Taleo for PA posts, given that the numbers of applicationsreceived is comparable with other types of recruitment. To this end, a simplified use of the softwareshould be planned and it should be deployed in field offices.

132. A number of additional improvements should also be envisaged, in a way comparable withwhat is recommended above for the recruitment of heads of office:

62 Post 4AFED 0011PA. 63 Post 5IQBFM0001PA.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 33

- entrust the selection of applications and the conduct of interviews to a maximum of twopersons (one qualified in human resources management and one who understands theskills needed for the post, ideally the reporting officer), or occasionally three (adding aperson specializing in the area, if considerable expertise is needed for the post), and theyshould be designated at the end of the publication of the post, at the latest;

- schedule the interviews as early as possible, as soon as the panel is established, and holdthem three to four weeks after the end of the publication of the post;

- send requests for references within two days of the selection of candidates to beinterviewed;

- make the recommendation on the day of each interview.

Recommendation No. 16. In respect of project appointments, the External Auditor recommends entrusting the selection of candidates to a maximum of two people in general, three people if special expertise is needed, appointing them as soon as the vacancy notice is posted and holding interviews with the candidates less than one month after the deadline for applications. (priority 2)

133. The application of these measures should reduce the time needed for collecting and examiningapplications (Step 2) from the current average figure of over three months to less than two months(two weeks for publication and three to five weeks to analyse applications and hold interviews).Shortening that period will also reduce the danger that the best candidates may in the meantimechoose other employment opportunities.

134. In its response to the provisional report, UNESCO states that, given that the recruitmentprocess for PA staff is flexible and delegated to managers (ADGs or directors of sectors or offices),it does not wish to prescribe specific modalities or a level of formality equivalent to that for recruitingpermanent staff. Delegating the process to managers seems unlikely to be an obstacle totransmitting the guidelines to them on the efficiency measures to be applied.

3. Administrative checks to be anticipated and streamlined

135. Once an applicant has been selected, administrative formalities relating to him or her (Step 3)are a matter for HRM and BFM. For that part of the process, UNESCO has HR workflow, virtualprocedure management software; it is not, however, deployed in the institutes or in field offices. Forfield recruitments, the software is generally used through the administrative units of the sectorsconcerned; if not, a printed form (HR 5-3) is used. Of the 94 recruitments examined during the audit,64 were processed using HR workflow. It was on those 64 cases that the duration of theadministrative process was analysed.64

136. Within the overall duration, the time taken by the administrative formalities, from the start ofthe HR workflow process to the appointment of the staff member is usually the lesser period – theaverage is 60 days, but with wide disparities (from 765 to 25766 days). Fewer than 25% of cases wereprocessed in less than one month.

137. The HR workflow process itself takes an average of 17 days, less than a third of the timeneeded for administrative formalities.

64 And on the basis of supplementary, but incomplete, data from the manual examination of the sample of files. 65 Post 4AFCLT0006PA. 66 4INEDPA025GI.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 34

Graph No. 15: Duration of the administrative process conducted through the HR workflow programme

Source: External Auditor, on the basis of data from UNESCO (extracted from HR workflow – 64 cases)

138. Although half of the files are processed through HR workflow in less than 12 days, 16% takeover a month. For the 18 files examined by the External Auditor, in most cases (eight of the 11 in therepresentative sample, 12 of the 18 examined in all), the process consists of a series of successivevalidations (from the sector (administrative unit and directorate), from BFM (services and hierarchy)and from HRM), without particular observations, which nonetheless takes an average of nearly ninedays67 owing to the number of validations to be collected, without real value added.

139. A minority of cases give rise to observations, which result in much back-and-forth contactbetween BFM, HRM and the sector concerned, almost always for questions of availability of funds,either because they have not been allocated from the correct appropriation line,68 or, occasionally,because they have not been identified at a sufficient level.69 For such cases, nearly 20 actions canbe recorded in HR workflow, a considerable number.

140. The validation requested from BFM, having to do with checking that the funds are available,70

should be anticipated so that any adjustments are made during time that is masked during therecruitment itself. The guarantee of the availability of funds, indeed, is a verification which shouldtake place during Step 1 of the recruitment process.71 It would not be desirable for it to be a priorcondition for the publication of the post, but it should be carried out and recorded early in therecruitment procedure, for example by initiating HR workflow when the post is advertised and statingthe maximum financial amount, so that it is not necessary to come back to it. Financial simulationsshould also be anticipated at the preselection stage if there is any doubt for certain preselectedcandidates.

141. The validations to be collected after the selection of the successful candidate should thereforebe significantly streamlined and processed in parallel.

Recommendation No. 17. The External Auditor recommends planning for validation by the Bureau of Financial Management (BFM) of project appointments by verifying that the necessary funds are available while the vacancy notice is posted and by specifying the maximum amount. (priority 3)

67 The average duration of processing by BFM was 3.3 working days for the 65 cases processed in the HR workflow between October 2016 and August 2017. Source: BFM.

68 For example, cases 10137548 and 10141664. 69 For example, case 10146209. 70 UNESCO Human Resources Manual, Appendix 13-B bis, para. 30. 71 Ibid., Step 1.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

5

10

15

20

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 >40

nombre

cumul (%)

Average17 days

Median: 12 days Days

Number Cumulative

total

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 35

142. The period between the end of the HR workflow process and the appointment of the successfulcandidate is highly variable. This may be due to a variety of reasons, including:

- negotiation by the selected candidate of conditions of remuneration or of credit for previousservice,

- time needed for the medical examination,- time for obtaining a work visa in the country concerned, where necessary,- time for travel preparations,- notice period in previous employment.

143. On average, this period is comparable for Headquarters and field posts, at around 49 days,72

with a maximum of almost five months for the files examined. While there are some useful actionsto be considered, such as anticipating and accelerating the finalization of conditions ofremuneration73 or the medical examination,74 it would be difficult to optimize this part of the processvery significantly, given the variety of causes of delay and the fact that they are mostly outsideUNESCO’s control.

4. Creating candidate pools

144. Implementing the suggestions and recommendations in this report will enable thereduction approximately by half of the recruitment period for PA staff (from the publicationof the post to the appointment of a candidate), from six months currently to less than threemonths, at least in the majority of cases.

145. Nonetheless, aside from the fact that it appears difficult to ensure open and transparentrecruitment within a period significantly shorter than three months, UNESCO will also still be subjectto the variable duration of the final formalities for the selected candidate (such as the medicalexamination, visas and period of notice).

146. Initially, then, UNESCO should anticipate the recruitment of PA staff as much as possible, assoon as a new project comes into being, or six months before the desired entry date in the case ofa renewal or a new requirement for a project already under way.

147. In order to find candidates quickly to begin new projects, UNESCO should also set up pools ofpeople with profiles suited to the functions and themes which are most often needed. Recruitmentcampaigns could be conducted by the units concerned by recurring needs for specialized profiles(particularly sectors) and, for administrative or cross-cutting profiles, through HRM or via the UnitedNations Global Centre for Human Resources Services which is being set up.

Recommendation No. 18. The External Auditor recommends establishing, through campaigns to recruit individuals with skills for which UNESCO has a regular need, a pool of external candidates qualified for project appointments. (priority 2)

148. UNESCO should also consider creating, within its structure, pools of project leaders amongthe permanent staff, who would be available immediately for starting up new projects pending therecruitment of dedicated staff, and setting up a mechanism to reimburse projects to the regularbudget.

72 Average of the representative sample. 73 Requesting the necessary documents as soon as the candidate is chosen. 74 Early contact with the candidate and optimizing the process of validation by the UNESCO Medical Service.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 36

D. INTERNAL TRANSFERS

149. Internal transfers are particularly important for UNESCO. They are needed in order to adaptthe Organization to its evolving tasks and the major budgetary restrictions it has seen since 2011.

150. UNESCO has also defined a geographical mobility policy, revised in July 2016,75 which it seesas an essential element in its human resources policy and the career development of its staff. Thatmobility policy is applicable to staff members having fixed-term contracts at or above the Professionallevel. The Secretariat, however, considers that it has not yet been possible to implement fully thegeographical mobility policy owing to budgetary restrictions, which are an obstacle to the spendingresulting from international moves by staff members.

151. The External Auditor examined the internal transfer processes applicable to fixed-term staff.The scope of the audit included the 793 staff appointments which took place between January 2014and early October 2017 (see Annex 4), representing 450 internal movements and 343 externalrecruitments.

Graph No. 16: Distribution of internal movements by grade and location

Source: External Auditor, on the basis of UNESCO data (January 2014-October 2017).

152. Analyses by external auditors were based on data available by extraction from electronicdatabases (date and type of movement, date of departure of predecessor) and on examination of arepresentative sample of 18 files.

1. A process too cumbersome for active internal mobility

153. Examination of the types of movements recorded by the Organization offers two correlatedindications of the type of movement, one relating to the post and the other to the person.

Table No. 7: Analysis of types of internal movements (January 2014-October 2017) Type of movement (post)

Type of movement (pers.)

Not defined

Internal recruitment

Transfer (2014) Transfer76 Transfer

with post Total

Transfer 5 20 139 84 1 249

Transfer with post 64 64 Transfert with promotion 137 137

Total 5 157 139 84 65 450

Source: External Auditor, based on UNESCO data

75 See Item 5.11 of the Human Resources Manual. 76 Beginning from 2015.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 37

Table No. 8: Analysis of movements by type and year (January 2014-October 2017)

Not defined Internal recruitment Transfer Transfer with

post Total by year

2014 27 139 27 193 2015 44 24 10 78 2016 5 59 50 27 141 2017 (partial) 27 10 1 38 Total by type of movement 5 157 223 65 450

Source: External Auditor, based on UNESCO data

154. Although these data are not fully consistent, they show that, except for 2014, internal mobilityis basically linked to recruitment to advertised posts via a competitive procedure internal to UNESCOor open externally,77 which in 157 cases resulted in the selection of an internal candidate. The mainmotivation for these movements was the opportunity of promotion (137 cases out of 157). Theavailable data relating to predecessors’ departure dates show that the average vacancy period78 forposts filled by internal recruitment was high (321 days), although it was lower than that for postsfilled by external recruitment (359 days). These values are higher if the focus is on data for 2017(see Annex 4); this may result from the reopening in 2016 and early 2017 of posts which hadremained “frozen” since the reorganizations of 2013-2014.

155. The recruitment process for fixed-term staff was outside the field of the audit and has not beenconsidered in detail. External auditors have observed long vacancy periods for posts, owing both toa voluntary “freezing” policy to control spending and the lengthy nature of the staff recruitmentprocess, resembling those described above for heads of field offices and PA staff. They have notedthat a new recruitment policy had been in place since early November 2017, one of whose goalswas to make the process more fluid. An audit of its implementation may be conducted beginning inearly 2019.

156. A significant fraction of the internal movements were linked to reorganizations. This wasparticularly true in 2014, when there was a major staff redeployment exercise following the budgetcuts caused by the crisis of 2011. Since then, a series of reorganizations has continued, as well asa flow of internal transfers to posts without advertisement. To consider only the almost 1,700 fixed-term staff members,79 that flow involved only 2% to 5% of that staff per year (10% in 2014).

157. Such movements are governed by Chapter 5 of the Human Resources Manual, mainly Items5.9, on promotion and 5.10, on transfer.

158. The sample of files examined by the external auditors reflects the variety of procedures used:these include recruitment open internally (four cases) or externally (two cases), transfer within grade(three cases), redeployment following the abolition of posts (four cases, sometimes with a reductionin grade) and reorganization of a unit (two cases).

159. The analysis of the files confirms that recruitment procedures, whether internal or external,require several months (six to 16 months for the cases examined) and involve substantial selectioncommittees (three to five persons), and that posts published outside the Organization attract largenumbers of applications (over 150). As for transfers without publication, there is nothing in the filesexamined to suggest that they were initiated by the staff members themselves. The initiative, whereit is reflected in the file, has come from the manager of the unit concerned or from HRM.

77 Since April 2016, all posts have systematically been announced outside the Organization. See paragraph Error! Reference source not found..

78 This excludes atypical values, in excess of 1,000 days of vacancy, which relate to the greatly delayed reopening of posts “frozen” for several years and which cause distortion in the results.

79 There were 1,687 FT staff members registered in MyTalent in November 2017 for the 2016-2017 evaluation cycle.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 38

160. Apart from movements with promotion then, current modalities of internal movement in theOrganization are unable to bring about a significant flow of internal mobility. Mobility is seen byUNESCO as the result of a variety of movements with differing causes, rather than as a global policyconsidered as such.

2. Promote internal transfers through mobility campaigns

161. If UNESCO wishes to promote internal mobility, which can be functional rather than onlygeographical, a proportion of post openings should be dedicated to it and staff members should beencouraged to benefit from it.

162. To that end, one solution would be to organize periodical internal mobility campaigns, duringwhich posts which are about to become vacant or are likely to do so (because their currentincumbents have expressed interest in internal movement) would be proposed for mobility, via thetransfer procedure or a highly simplified competitive procedure.

163. To ensure that the campaigns are effective and benefit both the staff and the Organization,managers must share information with the members of their teams regarding their intentions, so thatposts likely to become vacant can be detected, and must also help to work out with each of themtheir prospects in the short and medium term; this could be done through an annual interview.Mobility campaigns are all the more effective if a significant number of posts likely to become vacantcan be offered.

164. The creation of pools of managers available to occupy the main supervisory functions withinUNESCO would also require the construction of career paths which would necessarily involvemobility, so these should be promoted.

Recommendation No. 19. The External Auditor recommends conducting an annual review of staff by managers, and an annual review of senior management by the Senior Management Team to identify staff for possible transfer, and to identify managers demonstrating potential with a view to enrolling them in a career development programme to prepare them to assume increasing responsibilities at Headquarters or in the field. (priority 1)

Recommendation No. 20. The External Auditor recommends holding one or two annual internal job opening campaigns to enable the Organization’s staff to position themselves as candidates for some of the vacant posts or for posts that are likely to be vacated owing to the transfer or departure of individuals who have shown interest in a move. (priority 2)

165. In its response to the provisional report, UNESCO indicates that a review of mobility policy isplanned for 2018 and that a revised policy may be implemented in September 2018. In this context,consideration will be given to create annual mobility campaigns which would offer transfers withingrade for staff recruited internationally. The External Auditor takes note of these plans, emphasizingthat promotion opportunities are motivating factors for mobility, which suggests that mobilitycampaigns should also offer such opportunities, and underlining the benefits for the Organization ofimproved forward planning of the profiles and careers of its permanent staff, which is the subject ofRecommendation No. 19.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 39

E. POST RECLASSIFICATION

1. A practice on a significant scale

166. According to Chapter 3 of the UNESCO Human Resources Manual, “Post Classification is theaction of determining the grade of a post based on the complexity of duties and responsibilitiesassigned to the post by the responsible manager. The process consists in analysing the elements ofa job, including its placement in the organizational structure, and measuring these elements againstthe applicable classification standards promulgated by the ICSC.” Posts are classified in categories:(D for directors, P for Professionals, NPO for national administrators and G for service and officestaff) and, within the categories, in grades (for example, P-1 to P-5 for Professionals).

167. A post reclassification occurs when, following evaluation of an updated job description, a postis classified at a higher or lower grade, owing to a significant increase or decrease in the complexityof the duties and responsibilities that the administrator in charge assigns to it.

168. Between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2018, 209 post reclassifications, about which thedecisions had been made prior to 1 October 2017, took place or were scheduled to take effect withinUNESCO.80 This concerned all categories:81 ADG and D (5), P (81), G (104), NO (19). Seventy-three reclassifications took place in 2014, 35 in 2015, 79 in 2016 and 18 in 2017.

169. Of those reclassifications 125 concerned vacant posts, and 84 occupied posts. Among thevacant posts, 104 were downgraded: 75 to the grade below, 10 posts moved down two grades, twomoved down three grades and 15 were moved to a lower category. Twelve vacant posts moved upone grade, two moved up two grades and five were reclassified into a higher category. All theoccupied posts were upgraded, usually to a higher grade within the same category. Two occupiedposts moved up two grades and three were reclassified into the next highest category.

2. Some methods make UNESCO unusual among United Nations agencies

170. According to information provided to the external auditors by HRM, reclassification methods atUNESCO make the Organization doubly unusual compared to other United Nations agencies.

171. First of all, at UNESCO, reclassification may be requested either by the supervisor or by theincumbent. In the latter case, HRM must process the request even if the supervisor has expressedan unfavourable opinion. If the request is admissible, the procedure may then take the form of anaudit of the post by an external consultant. The classification specialist in HRM notes that the onlyother known agency where it is possible to request a reclassification without the supervisor’sagreement is the International Labour Organization (ILO).

172. These situations lead to long and costly processes (often involving an initial unfavourabledecision and an appeal), for results which are in the end seldom favourable for the staff membersconcerned (three cases, all in the same service, since 1 January 2014).

Recommendation No. 21. The External Auditor recommends restricting reclassification initiatives to supervisors only. (priority 2)

173. At UNESCO, reclassification while in post is an alternative path to promotion, as against thecompetitive mobility processes for vacant posts at a higher grade.

174. Chapter III of the Human Resources Manual explicitly provides that: “When a post is upgraded,i.e. classified at a level above its current grade level, the promotion of the incumbent to that grade

80 The decisions taken into account by the audit end on 30 September 2017, but their effective dates may be later. 81 In case of a change of category at the time of the reclassification, the category quoted here is the initial one.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 40

level shall normally ensue, provided that the promotion criteria are met, pursuant to Chapter 5, Item 5.8 (paragraphs 3-5) of the HR Manual.” These criteria imply that “In the case of reclassification, the incumbent of the post concerned must have performed the functions at a level higher than their present post for at least one year.” In practice, the auditors found no cases at UNESCO where the incumbent of a reclassified post was not confirmed in the post within a year.

175. In most of the other agencies the promotion, without any competitive process, of an incumbentwhose post has been reclassified is usually limited to certain cases, or sometimes prohibited outright(see 0).

Table No. 9: Promotion by reclassification of an occupied post, in various United Nations agencies

Principle Exception(s) Agency82

A reclassified post is open to competition

None ICAO, UNDP, HCR, Secretariat

Gradual increase in responsibilities in the same post

FAO, UNFPA

The incumbent of a reclassified post is promoted in-post

Change of category IAEA, IOM, WHO, WIPO Promotion by two or more grades IAEA, ILO, IOM, WHO, WIPO

Second reclassification of the same post with the same incumbent

WHO, WIPO

Negative skills test ILO Source: UNESCO (HRM)

176. The external auditors considered two sectors, Education and Social and Human Sciences,regarding any obstacles there might be within UNESCO to systematic competition for reclassifiedposts. The Executive Office of the Education Sector stated that it did not reclassify occupied posts.That policy has been generally applied since early 2014, with two exceptions (one in Brazil in 2014and the other at Headquarters in 2016). The Executive Office of the Social and Human SciencesSector, which does reclassify occupied posts, sees the promotion of the incumbents as inevitable,given the difficulty of finding openings within the Sector for any ousted incumbents. The ExternalAuditor sees that argument as questionable, given that the aforementioned difficulty could beovercome by promoting exchanges with organizations needing related skills, as it alreadyrecommended in its report on IOC. 83 That mobility would be positive not only for the careerdevelopment of the staff members concerned but also for the diversity of their experience and skills,to the benefit of any entities employing them.

177. The external auditors consider that systematic promotion of incumbents when already-occupied posts are reclassified has deprived the process of its initial goal in relation to supportingorganizational development.

178. Furthermore, reclassification is a lever of staff mobility policy, since it motivates staff whoreceive promotions as a result. This procedure must not be hijacked to award promotions withoutcompetition and for posts which have not evolved significantly. Internal competition for occupiedposts which are reclassified should therefore be seen as a good practice and should be obligatoryin all cases.

82 ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization; UNDP: United Nations Development Programme; HCR: Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees; FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization, UNFPA: United Nations Population Fund; IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency; IOM: International Organization for Migration: WHO: World Health Organization; WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization.

83 See the external audit report contained in document 200 EX/20 INF.2 on the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (2013-2016), particularly Recommendation No. 10.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 41

Recommendation No. 22. The External Auditor recommends systematically holding internal competitions for reclassified posts, whether they are occupied or not. (priority 1)

3. Documentation of the obsolete process concerning financial modalities ofreclassification

179. The reclassification process described in Chapter III of the UNESCO Human ResourcesManual comprises four or five steps:

- a reclassification request which may come from the post’s supervisor, 84 or from theincumbent him- or herself,

- an opinion from the supervisor, where the request is made by the incumbent,- an examination by the HRM classification specialist, which may be complemented by an

external audit of the post,- a decision by the Director-General, communicated to the post’s supervisor and, where

appropriate, to the incumbent,- arrangement of the funding of the reclassification by the supervisor in collaboration with

BFM, taken from the Reclassification Reserve.

180. The external auditors examined a sample of 38 reclassifications decided upon before1 October 2017, which took place or should have taken place between 1 January 2014 and 1 January2018. Twenty files were selected at random. The other 18 were selected to cover particular risks,such as the upward or downward reclassification of director-level posts, reclassification in the seniorcategory of occupied posts and reclassification of occupied posts by two grades.

181. The examination of those files revealed that the conduct of the process generally complieswith the steps described in the Human Resources Manual, except in relation to the funding ofreclassifications.

182. The Reclassification Reserve having been abolished, the HRM classification specialist nowhas to seek an opinion from BFM before proposing a decision to the Director of HRM and theDirector-General.

183. In some cases, where the reclassification has not been correctly budgeted, that opinion fromBFM may be a source of significant delays. The external auditors examined one case where,although the classification specialist had issued a favourable opinion on 5 October 2015, a fundingsolution was not found with the field unit concerned until 25 February 2016, delaying the Director-General’s decision until 25 March 2016.

184. The reclassification funding modalities described in the Human Resources Manual, therefore,no longer match UNESCO’s current working conditions. While the latter tend to attach greaterimportance to verifying the availability of funding for the reclassification, that verification still takesplace too late and on the initiative of HRM, whereas it should be the responsibility of the supervisorupstream of his or her proposal.

Recommendation No. 23. The External Auditor recommends setting up a system whereby the supervisor confirms the availability of funding prior to transmission of a request for reclassification to the Bureau of Human Resources Management (HRM). (priority 3)

84 ADG of the sector, office director, head of field unit or Institute director, depending on the case.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 42

4. Insufficiently standardized process

185. The process of post reclassification is considered too slow by all its clients and toodiscretionary by some.

186. For requests which succeeded, the sample examined by the auditors reveals highly variedlead times, from a few days in some cases initiated by senior management to almost two years incases where there were disagreements between units or with the incumbent of the reclassified post.

187. When they appear necessary, desk audits by external consultants appear to be a significantsource of delay (averaging around six months). The length of that sub-process is due to contradictionbetween the supervisor and the incumbent, but also to the lack of an appropriate contractualinstrument (of the “contract purchase orders” type) and the excessively long periods taken by someexperts to draft final reports.

188. The other major source of delay is the lack of standardization in the process, in both itstimetable and the elements of analysis required for the decision.

189. In order to speed up the process, in its response to the provisional report, HRM states that itis considering seeking help from the United Nations Global Centre for Human Resources Services.85

Unless a positive result is obtained by that means, UNESCO should envisage entering into a“contract purchase orders” agreement with deadline commitments for the auditing of posts byexternal consultants.

190. Chapter III of the Human Resources Manual describes in principle the four cases in which theclassification or reclassification of a post may be requested at the initiative of the supervisor: thepreparation of the budget, the creation of a post, the vacancy of a post where its functions arechanging or when the classification dates back over four years, and the reorganization of a unit.

191. In practice, since the abolition of the Reclassification Reserve, the link betweenreclassifications and budgetary procedure has become looser, but reclassifications of occupiedposts are proposed by supervisors without necessarily being linked to reorganizations. Conversely,reorganizations are sometimes announced to the staff concerned without prior consultation withHRM on the classification of new posts. In particular, the auditors observed such communicationproblems with institutes having administrative and financial autonomy.

192. Chapter III of the Manual also states that reclassification requests at the initiative of supervisorsmust be supported by an updated job description, an updated organizational chart of the relevantunit and, where appropriate, a description of the reorganization in which the reclassification is takingplace. No financial element is expressly requested.

193. The auditors noted that many files initially contained only the updated job description, whichwas increasingly often in the form of a generic job description. Complementary elements such asthe context in the Organization and funding aspects were subsequently provided by supervisors atthe request of the HRM classification specialist or BFM in the form of a series of exchanges. Thereclassification request form is presented essentially as a cover page for the updated job descriptionand contains no section for a homogenous presentation of those elements in all requests.

85 The aim of the Global Centre, starting work in January 2018, is the consolidated, centralized delivery of a select range of HR-related services on behalf of and for the participating organizations of the United Nations common system (cf. https://jobs.undp.org/cj_view_job.cfm?cur_lang=en&cur_job_id=75147 ).

https://jobs.undp.org/cj_view_job.cfm?cur_lang=en&cur_job_id=75147

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 43

Recommendation No. 24. The External Auditor recommends drawing up a model reclassification request form which would be composed of the most frequently asked questions concerning background information about the post and its funding. (priority 3)

5. Cases of abnormally lengthy procedures which led to exceptions to the rules oneffective dates of reclassifications

194. Chapter III of the Human Resources Manual states that “Classification decisions shall becomeeffective as of the 1st day of the month of the receipt by the Classification Section of a completeclassification request.” (…) “Under exceptional circumstances, a classification decision may beretroactive. However, the effective date of the classification decision may not be more than one yearprior to the date of the receipt of a complete request. In no case, can the reclassification take effectprior to the beginning of the biennium.”

195. Compliance with the normal effective date of decisions is difficult to assess, since the notionof date of receipt of the complete request is subject to interpretation, given the lack of formalizationof initial submissions. In any event, the lengthy nature of certain reclassification procedures leads tomajor gaps between the dates of decisions and their effective dates.

Graph No. 17. Number of submissions (and cumulative total in %) by duration, in months, between the reclassification date and the date of acceptance by the DG (or HRM)

Source: External Auditor, based on 38 files examined.

196. Of the 38 cases considered, the auditors were able to determine that quantity for only 24 ofthem, using the date of acceptance by HRM for six of them, for a total of 30 cases (see Graph No.17). Seven had an effective date at least six months before the decision by the office of the Director-General; in two cases, the effective date was over 18 months before.

197. In the first case, a reorganization was announced to ICTP staff in January 2014 but the firstreclassification request, incomplete, was sent to HRM in September 2014. Following numerousexchanges between HRM and the management of the Institute on the context of that reorganization,the new classification was not validated until July 2016, with an effective date of 1 October 2014.

198. In the second, changes which had long existed in the functions of a staff member in the Brasiliaunit were the subject of a request as late as August 2015, and no budget had been earmarked forthat reclassification. A favourable decision was not issued until March 2016, in light of the fundingplanned for the following biennium, with an effective date of 1 August 2014.86

86 This case is the same one mentioned in para.0.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 44

199. The logical solution would be that UNESCO should at least strictly apply the rules governingthe retroactivity of effective dates of reclassification decisions. Decisions with retroactive effectshould be seen as abnormal in the context of the Organization’s difficult financial situation. That roomfor manoeuvre should be removed, since it would not violate staff regulations of organizations linkedto the United Nations.

Recommendation No. 25. The External Auditor recommends eliminating the possibility of retroactive reclassification that takes effect prior to the date on which the reclassification decision was made. (priority 2)

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 45

IV. CONCLUSION

200. The audit focused on a limited number of procedures, its aim was not an overall analysis ofhuman resources management, which could not be conducted without also studying, in particular,the recruitment policy for staff members (fixed-term status), and skills management. The reportnonetheless presents three major findings:

- serious weaknesses in terms of accountability, which neither the methodology nor thesoftware used can explain;

- – significant potential for simplifying and rationalizing the procedures studied;- – a post reclassification procedure that has been diverted from its original aim.

1 - The definition of individual objectives, the conduct of individual performance evaluations and the credibility of the assessment scale must be improved.

201. The individual performance evaluation system follows good practices by incorporating an initialplanning phase, where individual objectives arising from the Organization’s priorities are set out bythe staff member and his or her supervisor. Nonetheless, it does not follow them with regard to theperformance evaluation itself, which should include monitoring throughout the year, with anevaluation at the end of the year. Furthermore, analysis of the evaluation files demonstrates thatin most cases there is a failure to understand the principles of cascading and individualizedgoal-setting, although these are explicitly stated in the Human Resources Manual; goals are oftena simple copy of the strategic axes or items in the post description.

202. The audit revealed an unusually low rate of completed individual evaluations. The rateduring the last biennium (2014-2015) was only 58%. The vast differences between sectors, six ofwhich had 84% or more validated cases, while in five sectors less than 33% of staff had beenevaluated, and between locations, practically eliminates any systemic methodological causes ortechnical software problems and points rather to a failure of supervisors to meet their commitments.87

203. The non-submission of individual goal plans for the 2016-2017 biennium prefigures the failureof the evaluation procedure under way: by the deadline of 31 March 2016, only 35% had beenfinalized and that figure reached 64% on 31 October 2017, namely, at the end of the biennium. Inaddition to the fact that no plan was submitted for one quarter of the staff, the definition of goals foranother quarter of the staff during the last phase of the two-year period is hardly meaningful.

204. The grades given for the 2014-2015 biennium, all of which tended towards excellence orthe full satisfaction of goals, are too optimistic. It reflects more a sign of supervisors avoidingaddressing the question of under-performance than of the actual extent to which staff membersattained their goals. Such a situation, although not specific to UNESCO among United Nationssystem organizations, is an obstacle to good human resources management and affects the imagethat the Organization projects to the outside world, and especially to its Member States.

205. The audit’s requirements and recommendations in this field are aimed at: greater staffcommitment to the importance of accountability, including the obligation of training; making thegrading system more credible; making heads of sectors more responsible for ensuring that all theirstaff respect the performance evaluation process; and energizing the process by making it annual,thus nearly continuous. Commitment to a culture of performance by supervisors and line staff mustbecome one of the Organization’s priorities.

87 Furthermore, ICTP in Trieste appears to be outside the evaluation system. While it is true that scientists should be subject to specific peer-evaluation modalities, support staff, administrators, technicians and engineers should be required to follow the rules of UNESCO and be integrated into the MyTalent base.

204 EX/21.INF.6 – page 46

2 - Drastic reductions in recruitment periods for heads of office and PA staff can be achieved.

206. The processes for recruitment of heads of field offices and PA staff examined by the auditorsare exceedingly long: the average vacancy for posts of head of field office is greater than 13 months,and it takes more than six months to recruit a project appointment employee, whose contract will notlast longer than two years.

207. The suggestions and recommendations in this report should enable UNESCO to reducerecruitment delays by 50% or 75%.: simplification of administrative procedures, delegation ofauthority at the appropriate level, refocusing of selection panels on their basic function and planningfor the examination of applications, among other things, will make the procedure more efficient, limitthe amount of waiting time involved and enable it to be completed much more rapidly. Simplificationof the procedures will also lead, with the elimination of superfluous tasks, to cost savings.

208. Some of the recommendations, in particular Recommendation No. 14, require the involvementof Member States, which are both stakeholders in the procedure and direct beneficiaries ofUNESCO’s action.

209. Beyond that, the External Auditor has made several recommendations concerning theestablishment of pools and the introduction of regular staff member reviews. Implementation ofthose recommendations will help to optimize the processes of recruitment and internal mobility bymaking them easier, secure and more predictable and will also provide UNESCO with importantbenefits in terms of human resources management. By highlighting skills and professionaldevelopment, UNESCO will have a greater chance of identifying talent that it can mobilize in themedium term and will lend visibility to staff members’ own professional development. This will leadto a significant increase in the Organization’s performance and flexibility.

3 - The post reclassification procedure has gone off track.

210. The reclassification procedure, which has too often been applied to occupied posts, nolonger makes sense. Such reclassified posts do not actually reflect an organizational developmentbut rather represent promotions without competition, in posts that have not significantly changed innature. To avoid such circumvention and transform reclassification into another tool for mobility, theExternal Auditor recommends a systematically competitive procedure for post reclassification.

V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

211. The audit team extends sincere thanks to the teams of the Secretariat, particularly those of theBureau of Human Resources (HRM) and the administrative offices of the sectors contacted, for theirconstant availability and the responsiveness with which they provided the required documents andinformation to the auditors.

End of audit findings

204 EX/21.INF.6 Annex 1

ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY

ADG Assistant Director-General AFR Africa Department BFM Bureau of Financial Management IBE UNESCO International Bureau of Education, Geneva BSP Bureau of Strategic Planning CI Communication and Information Sector ICTP International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste CLT Culture Sector DDG Deputy Director-General DG Director-General DIR Director ED Education Sector ERI Sector for External Relations and Public Information ETH Ethics Office FSC Division of Field Support and Coordination FT Fixed-term appointment GBS Secretariat of the Governing Bodies HRM Bureau of Human Resources Management IIEP UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission IOS Internal Oversight Service KMI Division of Knowledge Management and Information Systems LA Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs MSS Bureau for the Management of Support Services CAB Office of the Director-General PA Project appointment HR Human Resources SC Natural Sciences Sector SHS Social and Human Sciences Sector UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WHC World Heritage Centre


ANNEX 2 – ORGANIZATIONAL CHART


ANNEX 3: CONTRACT TYPOLOGY

Type Category Duration Status

A.

Fixed-term contract

Fixed-term “established post”

1 year minimum, generally 2 years, renewable

Staff member

B. Junior Professional Officer/Associate Expert (JPO/AE)

1 year minimum, generally 2 years, renewable; maximal duration 3-4 years

C. Secondment to UNESCO Idem; maximal duration 4 years

D. Project appointments (PA)

1 year minimum, 2 years maximum; renewable

E. Temporary contract

Temporary appointment

Idem, but 6 months minimum, “generally” 12 months maximum with a maximal duration of 24 months within a 36-month period

F. Short-term contract Short-term

0.5 days minimum, 20 working days maximum; 180 days maximum/calendar year

Non-staff member G. Consultants Individual consultant and other specialists

1 day minimum, 11 months maximum within 12 consecutive months

H. Service contract 1 month minimum, 12 months maximum, 24 months maximum within a 36-month period (only at Headquarters)

I. Other contracts

Short-term for freelance interpreters and translators

Conditions of employment: agreements with the International Associations of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) and Translators (AITC)


ANNEX 4

Data pertaining to the transfers of fixed-term staff between January 2014 and October 2017

Table 1: Scope of the data examined by type of appointment

Type of appointments Number Established 753

T (Emergency Fund) 31 Temporary 9

Total 793 Source: External Auditor according to UNESCO data –2017 data up to 2/10/17

Table 2: Scope of the data examined by year and type of transfer

Year of transfer External Appointment Transfer Transfer

with post

Transfer with

promotion

Total per year

2014 47 139 27 27 240 2015 104 32 9 37 182 2016 100 64 27 50 241 2017 (partial) 92 14 1 23 130

Total per type of transfer 343 249 64 137 793

450 internal transfers

Source: External Auditor according to UNESCO data – 2017 data up to 2/10/17

Table 3: Average vacancy time of posts according to the type of transfer (in days)

(in days) … External

Appointment Internal

recruitment Transfer

2014 2015 374 292 183 2016 0.6 321 296 151 2017 383 416 120 Average 2015-2017 0.6 359 321 157

Source: External Auditor according to UNESCO data – 2017 data up to 2/10/17

Printed on recycled paper

unesco. executive board; 204th; new audits by the external...

Documents