Recently, a UNICEF colleague wrote to me and enquired about
my views on why UNICEF is so resistant to change. I began to write down
possible causes – it became a very long and convoluted list and I hadn’t even
finished thinking. So I looked for what possibly could be the single most
important reason, notwithstanding that there is a lot more at play.
It is the money. More specifically, it is the amount of money that UNICEF has been able to raise over time. UNICEF income has risen from 2. 8 billion Dollar in 2006 to 7.2 billion Dollar in 2020. (see here and here).
This graph looks better than the MSCI World Index. The growth is phenomenal, and therefore things must be in order. You do not want to risk the flow of money by messing up the organization.
Is this what you thought? If so, we know why there is this
resistance to change.
Let us first agree that change is
needed. Not everyone is happy with the way matters are going. Motivation is not
at its peak. Responsibilities are going to be shuffled between divisions and a new
imagining initiative has started, though it is not quite clear where this is
going, too. Those who retired from UNICEF are nostalgic about the good old
days. UNICEF income and the felt need for change are correlated, but not in the
way one would wish.
Rising donations are not in themselves a measure of success in
creating a better world for children – they simply indicate that UNICEF is very
good at fundraising. Fundraising results are not results for children. If you went through the trouble looking at the
Board-approved Integrated
Results and Resources Framework of the UNICEF Strategic Plan, you saw
that for none of myriads of child related results any baselines or targets were
set, but that the amount of money that was needed to achieve those targets has
been calculated at about 7 billion Dollar per year.
Some may argue, that the trust of donors in UNICEF is proof that UNICEF is doing the best possible job. And I am not trying to belittle UNICEF’s overall role in the betterment of child welfare and child rights
across the globe. It is a humongous achievement and I am proud of having been
part of it. But UNICEF is decidedly better at describing the needs of children and
funding gaps than describing how the lives of children changed as a result of
the UNICEF contributions. And country,
regional and divisional annual reports remain as cryptic as ever.
As a money handler, UNICEF has not – according to its Transparency
Portal - achieved greatness. Programme expenditure remains
considerably below income. Expenditure ratio and annual roll-over remain
perennial management headaches even in countries with overall low funding
levels. Of course, there are
explanations, and I am sympathetic to all of them.
Unlike 75 years ago, when nobody really knew what was going
on, when economies were much less entwined and when people thought that poverty
could be eradicated by sending money abroad, it is no longer the lack of money
that prevents the world from becoming a better place for children. It is the
decisions or non-decisions by governments to give the welfare and rights of
children the attention they must have.
But if we are more concerned about income than about results for children, it is unlikely that UNICEF will be changing in the way it should.
Hi Detlef, great thinking as always, and fascinating! And I agree that the funding side of things is a major influence - although at times for innovation as well as stasis.
ReplyDeleteBut let me challenge you a little. What is or are the main changes you see UNICEF as resistant to?
Have you made the case that UNICEF even is so "resistant"?
From outside the bubble, I get the sense of quite a lot of new thinking and initiative, even though this may not necessarily amount to change in real-world practice or roles or impact. But maybe some of it does.
And lastly ...there might be things to be said in favour of some good aspects of an organisation that do not change so much and are not abandoned ...
Perhaps for a forthcoming edition of your excellent series!
I don't know enough about UNICEF today and how receptive or resistant to change it is at present. But I recall UNICEF underwent very significant change - with minimal resistance - during the era of Jim Grant's leadership, and even during the Carol Bellamy era. But not all change or call for change is desirable or positive. Change can be very disruptive. So before embarking on major changes, it is important to outline the vision behind the change and the justification for such change.
ReplyDeleteA case in point, when UNICEF embarked on a major organizational review & reorganization without any clearly outlined vision for the future was during the Ann Veneman period. UNICEF spent a lot of money, staff time and resources, and hired an expensive outside consultant to undertake a major organizational review that recommended quite a few major organizational changes. Most of those recommendations were ultimately rejected by the Board and not particularly welcomed by the staff.
Ann Veneman thought that some of us who questioned the need & timeliness of that major organizational review , were too nostalgic about the past and resistant to change. That may have been partly true, but equally true is the old adage that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I am particularly skeptical of new leaders quickly embarking on big changes simply to distinguish themselves from their predecessors. But any dynamic organization must be ready to change, when its leadership (or staff) makes a convincing case & vision for change first, and then embarks on the changes needed. Not change for change's sake, but change to achieve some clearly articulated & broadly accepted new goals and objectives.
Your insights make one consider the question of why and how organisations change or develop.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of UNICEF one might consider several factors that might indicate a need for change:
1. The external situations faced by UNICEF and by children and their families may be changing.
2. The organisation and its staff may be suffering from frustration and unnecessary stress due to outmoded rules and procedures.
In any event, the discipline of organisation development (OD) has developed methods for diagnosing sub-optimal functioning; and, for planning comprehensive sets of actions needed to help the organisation become more effective and efficient in fulfilling its purpose.