Delegation of Authority, performance measurement and Accountability for HR Management 12 May 2016

DFS VISION, FPD & MISSION DFS Vision: We help peace operations succeed by providing support solutions that are rapid, effective, efficient and responsible. FPD Mandate: to design, recruit, develop and retain a high-quality civilian workforce for UN peace operations. Support, nurture and monitor strong HR management in the field to ensure consistency and standardization across missions while allowing for unique mission challenges; Provide strategic direction, clear guidance, customized mission plans and frameworks, thoughtful advice, useful tools and comprehensive HR capacity; Empower missions to take the necessary actions in HR to attract and retain the best talent to support the fulfilment of their mandates within their budget; Advocate for a field perspective with our partners and foster enhanced communication with internal and external stakeholders. Mission: Strive to be recognized for operational excellence. Mission Mission

Service Delivery Model Aligning Human Resources Functions under GFSS GSC FPD, UNHQ Perform Global HR functions [ EG, FCRB, RVU, Training Centre] Provide missions with strategic advice and support in planning and management of human resources Oversight of delegated authorities, policy guidance and Business Intelligence/information management Talent Management, business partnership Global RSC/Back Office Mission Transactional processes at regional level Sub delegated authorities from client missions Strategic Advisory Services and HR guidance to mission leadership Career counseling, staff management relations Support recruitment and operational workforce planning Coordinating decisions making in delegated authorities to ensure appropriate staffing and other administrative decisions Local Regional Transactional Strategic

Delegation of Authority in the UN Since 1994, DM and OHRM formally delegated authorities to DPKO and DFS As the UN has grown and expanded, divided and established new components, the system of delegating authorities has not kept up speed New ST/SGB/2015/1 on Delegation of Authority Administrative Instruction still in the works, no comprehensive compendium enumerating the authorities that have been delegated to the various entities within the UN (FPD prepared one for the field) Current delegations are often not aligned with rules/regulations/policies. A number of important HRM functions and authorities are retained at HQ (SG, DM, OHRM, DFS) for example: Terminations (SG, DM, OHRM) Suspension with/without pay (DM, DFS) Special leave with full/half pay (OHRM) Disciplinary measures (SG, OHRM) ASG OHRM maintains authority to grant any exceptions to the HR rules and regulations

Delegation and Accountability “Delegation does not mean abrogation” Accountability is critical due to significant managerial and financial risks associated with the delegation of authorities. Although most HRM authorities have now been delegated to missions, DM/OHRM and DFS remain accountable for the exercise of HRM functions and decisions stemming from this delegated authority. At the same time, with acceptance of the delegation mission management also assumes accountability for the proper exercise of the delegated HRM authorities at the mission level. Any delegated authority must be exercised with integrity, professionalism and strict adherence to established regulations, rules, policies. The continuing accountability at HQ translate into a responsibility to monitor the delegated functions and provide support to missions in the exercise of the delegations. At the mission level and service center level, acceptance of delegation translates into a responsibility to self-monitor.

Legislative Basis for Monitoring and Accountability The importance of monitoring of HR authorities has been recognised in several GA Resolutions and also SG Bulletins (GA Res. 53/221, 57/305, 61/244, ST/SGB/2004/8). GA Resolution 53/221 requested the Secretary-General to “ensure, before delegating authority to programme managers, that well-designed mechanisms of accountability, including the necessary internal monitoring and control procedures, as well as training, are put in place”; and GA Resolution 57/305 requested the Secretary-General to “…continue to develop a comprehensive monitoring system…”

Accountability Measures Challenge: As opposed to finance/procurement, no clear rules on accountability in the HR space; no globally applicable accountability framework. How does the organisation ensure accountability for proper exercise of delegation of authority. Examples: MEU (DM) issues accountability memoranda in cases where decisions were found to be not in line with applicable legal framework. Requesting explanations, recommending training, providing guidance/lessons learnt on specific issues Revocation of authority (example recruitment requiring endorsement by HQ) Referal to oversight bodies (OIOS for investigation) Disciplinary measures Administrative measures Performance management (challenge are the current reporting structures)

Delegation of HR Authority – DFS to the Field Authority to recruit – USG/DFS to Head of Mission USG DFS may delegate the HR Authority for Recruitment to the Head of Mission (HoM). This entails decision-making authority for recruitment and selection of international staff up to and including the D-1 level, national staff (including national professional officers), consultants and individual contractors. The delegation is functional. Authority to approve and process HR actions Director of FPD/DFS may delegate processing authorities to the DMS/CMS of a mission or to the Head of a Service Centre. The delegation is functional. Examples are: Travel Appointments and extension Special post allowance Special leave without pay Non renewal of appointments

Opportunities and Challenges Strengths/Opportunities Decentralization of authorities increased accountability More alignment of authority with responsibility Decision making at the mission level where the issues arise Challenges/Weaknesses Incorrect exercise of delegations may lead to legal liability and potentially monetary compensation to staff members Decentralization leading to inconsistent practices Limited reporting capabilities and access to data due to major changes in HR IT systems Timeliness of issuance of monthly statistics Fear of cases sometimes prevents sound HR decision making

Delegation of Authority before the UNDT Jurisprudence If no proper delegation, decision is overturned Delegation should be explicit Delegations of authority must be published in order to take effect Sub-delegations must be provided for in the original delegation Revocation

Previous Monitoring Arrangements and Tools Existing monitoring arrangements and tools Joint OHRM-FPD support visits Reports from oversight bodies (OIOS, JIU, BOA, MEU, AOJ, OMS) HR Insight, WIRe, Nucleus, FSS, OPPBA monitoring reports Global/Mission Operational Dashboards FPD custom built monitoring tools FPD monthly staffing statistics HRM Scorecard

Risk Assessment and prioritization Legislative basis Governance Key Performance Indicators Monitoring Levels Approach and Phases Monitoring Plan Templates InterventionTraining and Support Framework has the following elements to become part of annual monitoring plans…

Support to be provided to field missions, service centers and support back offices Development and delivery of training programs Provision of policy advice and clarification (Guidelines); legal support Reporting and business intelligence Monitoring, intervention, targeted capacity building, accountability measures

Global Performance and Accountability Framework FPD’s Performance and Accountability Framework is an effort to strategically manage all monitoring and performance activities in the HR space. The Framework and Field Analytics Workspace are designed to facilitate this vision by supporting a more data-driven approach to work for improved, responsible and more insightful decision making. Facilitate strategic thinking and decision making in HR area: understanding our current status, identifying goals, setting clear and measurable targets, and establishing priorities. Achieved through Integrated and holistic reporting and analysis; Improved service delivery processes; Enhanced transparency; Improved oversight; and Effective compliance monitoring

Performance and Accountability Framework Civilian retirements and extensions beyond retirement Performance and Accountability Framework These initial 24 indicators are guiding our framework. They consist of key HR indicators aligned with compacts, HR scorecards, and the unique HR needs at the field level.

performance measurement

Dashboards & Related Reports on new platform Global Performance and Accountability Framework Dashboards & Related Reports on new platform In collaboration with the OUSG, FPD has piloted HR dashboards and related reports tied to our framework on the Field Analytics Workspace. Currently, these products cover a total of 7 indicators: Civilian Staffing Mix Vacancy Rates Gender Balance TCC/PCC Representation Recruitment Timeline Performance Documents Staff Approaching/Beyond Retirement

Planning for Staffing Requirements

Planning Cycles Start-up phase Sustainment phase Downsizing/liquidation phase Dependency on international staff with experience and expertise, managerial responsibilities are complex and environment uncertain Office procedures well documented and established. Substantive activities wind down National staff unfamiliar with UN workings Opportunities for outsourcing Expertise in Liquidation Tasks Large role for UNVs in critical substantive activities (UNVs would play a capacity building role for national staff) Trained and experienced local workforce - Nationalisation Liquidation plans implemented 11/10/2018

Budget as a Planning Tool FPD’s role in reviewing Staffing Requirements of Missions’ budget is to ensure that staffing requirements are justified in terms of levels, categories, functional titles, reporting lines of the posts and classification standards based on the guidelines for the staffing structures, legislative requirements on staffing and the workforce planning objectives. Factors driving staffing review Changes in mandate, RBB frameworks Change in concept of operation Change in troop strength Expectations of member states External factors affecting mission activities Service improvements relating to management initiatives Changes in mission life-cycle

Budget Review – Mission Support/HR HR should be fully engaged in the development of staffing requirements of the entire mission to ensure that they are in line with the relevant guidelines. Mandate informs the budget and staffing. When you review your staffing needs you must ensure the following: reflect the strategic priorities, along with the realities on the ground in regards to mandate implementation; include wider change management initiatives; comply with legislative requirements from our governing bodies and expectations of Members States (i.e. nationalization, outsourcing etc) Budget guidelines help with determining what level, category of staff. Classification standards have to be complied with; generic JDs available to help with levels functions expected to be performed. GOOD LUCK WITH THE EXERCISE TOMORROW!

UNITED NATIONS | FIELD SUPPORT