Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre 11/7/2018 Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre Joint UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WFP Executive Boards Presentation 23-26 January 2004 11/7/2018

Secretary-General’s Reform Proposals: July 1997 To improve quality of UN leadership at country level by: “…the selection of Resident Coordinators from all the organizations” of the UN system; Reinvigorating human resource practices, including selection, development and learning. 11/7/2018

UNDG: Resident Coordinator Selection Fair, objective RC selection, acceptable to UN system; Competency-based assessment of candidates in selection process; GA “welcomes” use of competency assessment of RC candidates (Resolution A/53/192 of 25 February 1999); Resident Coordinator Issues Group oversees competency assessment; Inter-Agency Advisory Panel advises UNDP Administrator on successful competency-assessed candidates for specific RC posts. 11/7/2018

RCAC: What is Assessed? Leadership Managing Complexity Managing Relationships Core Values Integrity and Commitment Fairness and Equality Cultural Adaptability and Sensitivity Commitment to Learning 11/7/2018

First generation RCAC: The DDI experience (1998-2000) Development Dimensions International, a US-based firm, selected competitively to design, develop, administer first Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre: Launched December 1998; 134 candidates assessed; $6,480 fee per participant. 11/7/2018

RCAC Evaluation (2000) Pros: Perceived by UN organizations as fair, open, transparent and enhancing RC selection process; Designed in accordance with professional standards; Exercises conducted with precision in non-threatening atmosphere; Fee reasonable for quality of services provided. 11/7/2018

RCAC Evaluation (2000) Cons: Certain competencies too “soft” (ie. “planning and organizing,” “management of meetings,”) and low on strategic thinking; Simulation exercises need review to ensure: Balance between evaluating personal style and substantive content; Required level of complexity; Perception of cultural and language bias. 11/7/2018

Major changes to RCAC: 2001 Assessment process re-designed to reflect: Evolving role of Resident Coordinator in UN reform; Growing complexity, especially in crisis and post-conflict situations where RC also HC; Enhanced focus on strategic decision-making. Continued special attention to cultural, gender and linguistic considerations in assessment process: Gender and regional balance of assessors; Special assessor training to ensure cultural/gender-neutral assessment of candidates. 11/7/2018

Second generation RCAC: The SHL experience (2001-to date) Saville and Holdsworth of Canada selected competitively to design, develop, administer upgraded RCAC 218 candidates assessed, including 40 sitting/former RCs and 21 external candidates; Assessor pool: gender, regional and language-balanced; $8300 fee per participant; Continuing refinements based on ongoing review and feedback. 11/7/2018

RCAC Outcomes: 2001 - 3 Overall success rate: 70.6% for all candidates (218 participants). By categories: 70.3% for female candidates (74); 63.2% for regional candidates (114); 57.7% for UN agency candidates (other than UNDP) (78); 66.7% for external candidates (21). 11/7/2018

Is the RCAC Working? Perception: “new” RCs have profile that largely meets expectations of UN system; About two-thirds of sitting RCs - appointed since 1999 - are new; Self-selection process at work. 11/7/2018

Is the RCAC Working? Validation of RCAC 2004 Evaluation; high-level consultant to evaluate effectiveness, fairness, objectivity; To compare RCAC results with RC performance;(e.g. surveys, performance reports, interviews); To identify statistically significant variances in results for different categories; To examine possible factors leading to variances: a) Diversity goals; b) Quality, relevance of profile of UN agency feeder pools; c) Any inherent disadvantage by category. 11/7/2018

*First-time candidates % Participants (126) (79) (47) (53) (73) (72) (53) (1) *First-time candidates 11/7/2018

*First-time candidates % Participants (344) (223) (121) ( 167) (177) (151) (131) (22) *First-time candidates 11/7/2018

*First-time candidates % Participants (218) (144) (74) (114) (104) (79) (78) (21) *First-time candidates 11/7/2018