A Massive reorganization of UNICEF HQ Structure and Functions: To What End? : Nick Alipui, Alan Court, Kul Gautam, Tom McDermott

We have learned in recent weeks that a massive reorganization of UNICEF Headquarters structure and functions is in the offing.  Besides the long-existing headquarters locations in New York, Geneva and Copenhagen, the proposed changes will establish and expand HQ hubs in Istanbul, Nairobi, Budapest, Florence, Brussels, Valencia, etc.

The proposed changes are based partly on studies by external management consultants like KPMG, along with widespread consultation with UNICEF staff at various levels. According to the consultants, these measures will lead to cost savings of some $33 million per year, including around $15m in staff costs, $16m in travel, $2m in real estate. That may sound like a lot of money saved, but for a $7 billion organization, we wonder whether the savings - even if eventually realized - would justify the disruption caused. Instead of cost-savings, the real justification for such major structural changes ought to be seen in operational and programme efficiencies.  We hope so, but are not yet convinced.

The four Deputy Executive Directors outlined the proposed changes to all staff in April under the title of the Headquarters Efficiency Initiative (HQEI). Staff had previously been informed of plans in various progress reports built around an earlier report on “Reimagining Business Models of UNICEF” by the 'Group of 12' and the group’s still earlier report entitled: "The road to 2.3 billion: from some to all”. Taken together, these reports outline a massive overhaul of UNICEF’s internal management systems, particularly at HQ.

The proposals have now begun to appear in the final form. (See the recommendations of the recent PBR). This step signals that major geographic and structural changes may get underway quite soon.

 

Some of UNICEF’s earlier big organizational restructuring exercises were not as productive and impactful as advertised. In fact, they were often very disruptive. They made the organization very process-heavy and results-light. Some of the cost-savings advertised initially turned out to be very illusive and temporary. More often than not, both staffing and other costs eventually increased, rather than decreasing.

The only times when a major organizational restructuring is justified is:

1) when the leadership of an organization comes up with a big and clear new vision and ambitious goals for which the existing organizational structure is considered inadequate, or 

2) when the organization is facing a big crisis and it needs to be rescued from such a critical crisis situation, or 

3) when major new technological changes make the existing organizational structure highly inefficient or dysfunctional, and there are clear and compelling benefits to be derived from the proposed reorganization.

It is not obvious to us that the proposed massive reorganization is the result of any of the above three considerations. It is also a bit surprising that these big changes are being introduced so soon after a new Executive Director took office and has yet to outline her grand vision and ambitious goals that would necessitate such massive restructuring.

As the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. It is not clear why such a major organizational restructuring is needed at this time.  This is especially so when the new ExDir has yet to outline a clear new vision or ambitious goals that necessitate such restructuring. One worries that this reorganization might cause a major disruption, perhaps even inadvertently paralyze the organization for some time, but produce no concomitant gains.

Although well-intended, adding new HQ hubs in new locations and transferring some of the functions of the current HQ Divisions runs the risk of a) adding a new layer of bureaucracy in management and, b) some of the historically influential and consequential HQ Divisions (e.g. the Programme Division) and their leadership feeling dis-empowered and rendered less effective than before.

While some of these organizational changes might generate considerable energy in the new hubs, it is likely that many staff at NYHQ will feel demoralized.  Moreover, UNICEF field offices may feel overburdened dealing with yet another layer of bureaucracy.  We also note that past experience with hubs shows that they may start small, but then quickly grown in cost and numbers of staff.  

We assume that the top management of UNICEF have carefully thought through and judiciously planned this major reorganization.  Amid the changing realities of the post-COVID digital world they no doubt face challenges and opportunities that us old-timers perhaps do not fully comprehend and appreciate.

We note that these big changes at Headquarters come at a moment when country offices are facing a massive new centralization of authority in the hands of Resident Coordinators.  Taken together, the changes at Headquarters and at field level may greatly dis-empower UNICEF Reps.  

These are therefore matters requiring very deep reflection and wide consultation by the new UNICEF ExDir. We wonder whether the new ExDir has really had a chance to undertake such consultation beyond her own front office team.

In the past, whenever the ExDir and the Secretariat have proposed big organizational changes, the Executive Board has exercised its statutory role to critically examine and sometimes even reject or ask for modification of any unwise Secretariat proposals. We recall that was the case when the Board rejected some of the organizational changes proposed during ED Ann Veneman’s tenure. It is to be hoped that the Board will critically examine the current set of fairly radical proposals and offer its guidance to the ED and senior management.

As retirees, it behooves us to give the new leadership of the organization all the benefit of doubt and hope for the best, just as our predecessors did during our own tenures. This commentary is made in the same spirit.