1. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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