|
OBSERVATIONS OF THE OAS STAFF ASSOCIATON ON THE HUMAN
CAPITAL ASPECTS OF THE STUDY ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE
GENERAL SECRETARIAT CONDUCTED
BY DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Document submitted to
the
Management Study Working Group
April 22, 2004
BACKGROUND
As far as we know this is
the first time in almost thirty years that a Management Study of the
organizational structure and staff of the General Secretariat has been
undertaken in the OAS with a view to improve efficiency and efficacy in the
implementation of General Assembly mandates.[1]
The terms of reference for
this study also state the need to hold the line on personnel costs and on
total costs. This part of the mandate is not new, as witnessed by the
successive reductions in force that have taken place over the past 20 or
more years. These, for the most part, have been haphazard efforts driven
exclusively by financial considerations. The savings achieved in personnel
costs were usually short lived as the departure of permanent staff was
accompanied in many cases by an increase in hiring under the performance
contract modality to perform, in many cases, functions of a permanent
nature.
Since the freezing of
vacant posts coupled with the staff who volunteered to retire usually were
usually enough to meet the desired overall reduction in the OAS payroll,
one of the hidden costs associated with the way this reduction was achieved
was the random impact it had on the staffing situation of the various
dependencies of the General Secretariat and on their ability to continue
fulfilling Member State mandates. In addition, haphazard reductions in
force resulted in the need to consolidate the remaining staff within
existing organizational structures that either remained intact or were
restructured and renamed but essentially remained the same (CIDI is the
classic example) with the remaining staff saddled with the functions of
those who departed, in addition to their own.
What is new, and should be
welcomed, is this latest effort to rationalize the process of improving
efficiency by undertaking an organizational and staffing assessment of the
OAS in terms of its mandates and goals. There is no recent effort to assess
the personnel issues in terms of what is being called the changing profile
of skill requirements as the Organization’s priorities and mandates have
changed Democracy, human rights, drugs, women’s issues and later trade were
and still are some of the political priorities of the Organization to which
substantial technical cooperation efforts and resources have been devoted.
By contrast, traditional technical cooperation areas such as economic and
social development, education, science and technology, tourism, and
culture, together with the priorities that they represent have seen a
substantial decrease in the resources allocated to them and many believe
that they are still not totally in sync with the other political goals and
priorities of the OAS.
Efforts to rationalize
staffing needs in the traditional technical cooperation areas resulted in
the merging of these activities under a new political council (CIDI) that
replaced its two predecessors CIES and CIECC. This however, did not create
new staffing requirements since the priorities in these areas have not
evolved substantially over the past ten or fifteen years. Thus the
assumption that the staffing profile and skills required under the new
technical cooperation system would necessarily require substantial changes
in the competencies of existing staff members, especially those that were
part of the career service, did not hold true. This assumption had some
validity when it came to staffing requirements in those priority areas of
the OAS such as democracy, human rights, drugs, trade, women’s issues,
which fall outside the purview of CIDI. We say some because the General
Secretariat’s success in supporting these priorities and thus raising the
political profile of the Organization can be traced, at least initially, to
the support of career staff members as witnessed, for example, by the
successful support role played by the OAS staff in the observation of the
crucial election of February 1990 in Nicaragua and the subsequent
demobilization and relocation of combatants.
Two reasons explain why,
as organizational reforms were being implemented, the profile of skill
requirements did not necessarily change in some technical cooperation
areas: first, priorities have not changed that dramatically in some of
those areas and, more importantly, the delivery system of technical
cooperation instituted when CIDI was established in 1996 changed
completely. Prior to that date professionals in that area not only ran the
cooperation programs but also provided technical cooperation services
themselves. After CIDI was established, the responsibility and the
resources available for the execution of technical cooperation projects was
transferred wholesale to executing agencies in Member States. The overall
trend was to move away from in-house technical cooperation delivery
capability to outsourcing these services to institutions in Member States,
with the attendant result that the only new skills required for area
personnel were a strengthening of managerial and administrative
competencies. Headquarters professional staff became project managers,
dispensing project funds with extremely limited access to execution on the
ground. Again it was thanks to career staff members who found ways to make
this new system work, putting in place safeguards for the Organization’s
resources (the Execution Contracts) and, later, putting in place a more
rational and equitable programming system.
Just as there was no
recent precedent to a staffing assessment of the OAS in terms of its
mandates and goals we do not know of any prior attempts to focus on
internal management and supervision issues. We believe that any effort at
improving efficiency and efficacy in the implementation of General Assembly
mandates would be incomplete–and perhaps self defeating–if it focused only
on the organizational structure and staff of the General Secretariat. Even
if the most modern organizational structure were to be put in place and
staffed with individuals possessing the best and latest skills, poor
management can lead to an ineffective organization through unfulfilled
mandates, financial difficulties, unhealthy working environment and poor
image and standing with peer organizations. We therefore welcome the
findings of the Management Study of Deloitte and Touche that has brought to
light issues related to the training, skills and competencies required in
modern day management and supervision in the Organization.[2]
Finally we believe that
the single most important measure that will go a long way toward a more
effective utilization of the human capital of the Organization would be to
effect a convergence between the strategic objectives and priorities of the
OAS and the technical cooperation activities it undertakes. The latter
should be intrinsically linked in unequivocal support of the former.
SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS[3]
I.- Most managers
and employees of the General Secretariat do not have a clear understanding
of the OAS’s overall mission and strategic priorities. As a result, there
is little focus on aligning Human Capital Programs and staff allocations
with the Organization’s strategic objectives.
OAS Staff Association
comment:
Unlike Deloitte and Touche
we believe that most managers and employees have a clear understanding of
the OAS’ overall mission and strategic priorities and that quite a few
supervisors do a very good job in aligning the staff in their units and
departments in the pursuit of such priorities.
However, within the
General Secretariat there is insufficient information and reports informing
the staff of the accomplishments of the various programs of the
Organization.
II.- There is too
little communication about human capital policies and practices among the
General Secretariat departments and with Member States. As a result,
perceptions about Human Capital issues are often based on rumour and
anecdotes instead of facts. This lack of information also creates distrust
and damages the credibility of the Human Capital processes.
OAS Staff Association
comment:
We agree entirely with the
options for improvement suggested by Deloitte and Touche and believe that a
transparent hiring and selection process is essential for the credibility
of the current system.
We further fully support
the practice initiated by the current administration of also putting trust
positions up for competition and would hope that this practice will be
continued and expanded, to the extent possible.
III.- The OAS’
staff compensation levels are consistent with the market – neither too high
nor too low- when compared with other employers in the Washington D.C. are,
including PAHO, the IDB, the World bank, the US Government, and the private
sector.
OAS Staff Association
comment:
Notwithstanding the
conclusions of this finding we consider that the Deloitte and Touche study
did not take into account the fact that the already overstretched staff in
some areas is regularly facing additional demands on their time arising
from a constant stream of new Member State mandates.
In order to ensure
fairness and equity, we also believe that an appropriate salary adjustment
mechanism should be devised for those OAS Offices of the General
Secretariat in Member States where the relevant information required for
the maintenance of parity with the United Nations does not exist.
IV.- The OAS
benefit levels are also consistent with the market – neither too high nor
too low-in comparison with other employers in the Washington area.
OAS Staff Association
comment:
When the OAS adopted the
UN compensation system it did not put into effect all of the benefits
enjoyed by the UN Staff, leaving out quite a few currently enjoyed by the
UN staff. We would therefore caution the consideration of options that
would entail a further reduction or curtailment of the current level of
benefits of the OAS staff.
V.- There is little
correlation between job performance and type of appointment , compensation
levels and tenure. The position classification system is sound, but
compensation is based more often on length of service than relative
performance. Career staff tend to be more costly in both salary and
benefits than contract staff and CPR’s.
OAS Staff Association
Comment:
We agree that, to the
extent possible within the UN system, the OAS should strive to link more
closely staff compensation to performance rather than tenure. This requires
an effective personnel policy that incorporates, as one of its aspects, a
properly functioning performance evaluation system that is fair, objective
and effective and whose primary purpose is to be a positive mechanism for
stimulating staff such as the institution of a monetary reward for
outstanding performance.
With regard to the
decision to phase out career staff we would just like to point out that at
least one international organization in the Washington area that already
went down that path is now reversing course. After more than ten years of
having abolished permanent career staff positions, and experimented with
alternative contractual arrangements, in January of 2001 the IDB Board of
Directors decided to establish a new category of indefinite career staff
positions in the Inter-American Development Bank.
We believe that the
Organization would stand to benefit from a staff pool that strikes an
adequate balance between experience and younger staff that possess new
skills and competencies After all, somebody has to be around to transmit
the institutional memory of the Organization to a younger generation that
should be afforded an expectation that their hard work will be rewarded
with career stability. Otherwise, high turnover and loyalty to the
Organizations goals will undoubtedly suffer.
We also believe that the
finding that “career staff tend to be more costly in both salary and
benefits than contract staff and CPR’s” is a universal and fairly well
known statement of fact that does not seem to grasp the value that
experience and loyalty bring to any organization.
VI.- The
Organization does not have effective systems in place to assess employee
performance, develop critical staff competencies, and promptly replace key
workers. The current performance appraisal system could be a good tool, but
managers and employees are not using it consistently.
OAS Staff Association
comments:
The Staff Association
believes that the existence of a fair, objective and effective performance
evaluation system is not only necessary in any organization, but that it is
fundamental for the optimum development of its human potential and
essential to ensure transparency in the decisions regarding the promotion
of staff. In light of the trends observed, the Staff Association expresses
its willingness to collaborate with the General Secretariat in the
improvement of a system that encompasses those characteristics thus
avoiding the limitations noted in the current system.
Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Staff Association also believes that in order for the system
to be truly effective, said evaluation system should be an integral part of
a personnel policy that has as its objectives: the transparent selection of
the most qualified personnel - whether that applies to newly entering staff
or to the promotion of existing staff; the efficient utilization of the
General Secretariat’s human resources; the creation of a workplace
environment free of all forms of sexual or psychological harassment; the
establishment of effective training mechanisms, both for supervisors and
those supervised, as well as effective incentive mechanisms for recognizing
exceptional performance of the staff, among others.
We believe that
unsatisfactory performance is not acceptable. However, extreme care should
be exercised when alleged unsatisfactory performance has been identified
since this has been used in the past by a very small number of supervisors
to create conditions for the dismissal of staff by assigning them
unrealistic objectives or tasks, entirely new activities beyond their
training or expertise and other such similar strategies. Supervisor
integrity is a sine qua non element for the success of any performance
evaluation system.
VII .- OAS focuses
too few resources on training and developing its staff. Managers have
strong technical skill but limited training in management areas such as
project management, financial management, communications, and human
resources. Staff also have few opportunities to develop their skills- both
for their current posts and for higher-level jobs.
OAS Staff Association
comments:
Training and professional
development are clearly insufficient and career development paths should be
quickly developed as part of a comprehensive personnel policy.
We believe that any effort
at improving efficiency and efficacy in the implementation of General
Assembly mandates would be incomplete–and perhaps self defeating–if it
focused only on the organizational structure and additional training to the
already highly qualified staff of the General Secretariat. Even if the most
modern organizational structure is put in place and staffed with the most
up to date individuals possessing the latest skills, poor management can
lead to an ineffective organization through lack of focus, unfulfilled
mandates, financial difficulties, unhealthy working environment and poor
image and standing with peer organizations. We therefore welcome the
findings of the Management Study of Deloitte and Touche that has brought to
light issues related to the training, skills and competencies required in
modern day management that a few supervisors sorely lack.
Finally we would like to
express our appreciation to the members of the Management Study Working
Group of the Budget Committee of the Permanent Council, particularly to its
Chair, Ambassador Ellsworth John, for having afforded the OAS Staff
Association the opportunity to put forward its views on matters affecting
the staff of the General Secretariat.
[1] The first one was the Informe del
Grupo de Expertos en Administraciòn y Finanzas Pùblicas, , C-d-1614
(español), 6 de septiembre de 1968 and the second one was the Report of Hay
Associates on the Comparative Study of the Classification and Compensation
Systems of the General Secretariat of the OAS with those of other
International and Selected Organizations , CP/doc.848/78, June 20, 1978.
[2] It is interesting to note that the
Government of Mexico has recently passed a law requiring that all senior
management positions in the public sector be tested for managerial
competence and, failing those tests, be declared redundant.
[3] In its Staff News # 27 (November 20,
2003) the OAS Staff Association referred to some of the highlights of the
Deloitte and Touche Report.
COMMENTS ON DELOITTE & TOUCHE FINAL
REPORT
(Presented at the request of the Committee)
(CP/CAAP-2699/04 add.1)
|
