Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre

1
Resident Coordinator Assessment Centre

• Joint UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WFP
• Executive Boards Presentation
• 23-26 January 2004

2
Secretary-Generals Reform ProposalsJuly 1997

• To improve quality of UN leadership at country
  level by
• the selection of Resident Coordinators from all
  the organizations of the UN system
• Reinvigorating human resource practices,
  including selection, development and learning.

3
UNDG Resident Coordinator Selection

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

4
RCAC What is Assessed?

• Leadership
• Managing Complexity
• Managing Relationships
• Core Values
• Integrity and Commitment
• Fairness and Equality
• Cultural Adaptability and Sensitivity
• Commitment to Learning

5
First generation RCAC The DDI experience
(1998-2000)

• Development Dimensions International, a US-based
  firm, selected competitively to design, develop,
  administer first Resident Coordinator Assessment
  Centre
• Launched December 1998
• 134 candidates assessed
• 6,480 fee per participant.

6
RCAC Evaluation (2000)

• Pros
• Perceived by UN organizations as fair, open,
  transparent and enhancing RC selection process
• Designed in accordance with professional
  standards
• Exercises conducted with precision in
  non-threatening atmosphere
• Fee reasonable for quality of services provided.

7
RCAC Evaluation (2000)

• Cons
• Certain competencies too soft (ie. planning
  and organizing, management of meetings,) and
  low on strategic thinking
• Simulation exercises need review to ensure
• Balance between evaluating personal style and
  substantive content
• Required level of complexity
• Perception of cultural and language bias.

8
Major changes to RCAC 2001

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

9
Second generation RCAC The SHL experience
(2001-to date)

• Saville and Holdsworth of Canada selected
  competitively to design, develop, administer
  upgraded RCAC
• 218 candidates assessed, including 40
  sitting/former RCs and 21 external candidates
• Assessor pool gender, regional and
  language-balanced
• 8300 fee per participant
• Continuing refinements based on ongoing review
  and feedback.

10
RCAC Outcomes 2001 - 3

• Overall success rate
• 70.6 for all candidates (218 participants).
• By categories
• 70.3 for female candidates (74)
• 63.2 for regional candidates (114)
• 57.7 for UN agency candidates (other than UNDP)
  (78)
• 66.7 for external candidates (21).

11
Is the RCAC Working?

• Perception new RCs have profile that largely
  meets expectations of UN system
• About two-thirds of sitting RCs - appointed since
  1999 - are new
• Self-selection process at work.

12
Is the RCAC Working? Validation of RCAC

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

13
Participants
(126) (79)
(47) (53)
(73) (72)
(53) (1)
First-time candidates
14
Participants
(344) (223)
(121) ( 167)
(177) (151)
(131) (22)
First-time candidates
15
Participants
(218) (144)
(74) (114)
(104) (79)
(78) (21)
First-time candidates