 |
I was a Chief of Planning at the time and a member of the Country Management Team (CMT) when the Ethics Office contacted our office. Having encountered several ethical breaches myself, I was passionate about the subject. The Ethics Office set up calls with country office teams to discuss this new focus.
I remember one of the first calls where HQ staff provided examples of misconduct. First, they described a driver cheating on a logbook. Then, they cited a driver lying about dependents to claim extra paternity leave. Finally, they gave an example of a driver caught selling fuel.
As I looked around the room and saw our amazing drivers with frowns on their faces, I grew frustrated. I asked, "Why are all the examples of ethical breaches centered on drivers?" I pointed out that, at that very moment, there were active investigations into Representatives abusing their privileges—one of whom had recently been dismissed. I was aware of past instances of massive corruption where "heads rolled" at the Rep and Regional Director levels. So, why were the only examples of violations attributed to drivers? The HQ facilitator became frustrated and dodged the question. After the call, my own Representative took me aside and told me I should have kept those comments to myself.
That was almost 20 years ago, but I have never shaken off that frustration. I will never forget the frowns and side glances of our drivers as example after example pointed the finger at them. Why did we find it so difficult to use an example of a Representative cheating on entitlements or a Supply Division staffer running a side company to rig UNICEF bids? They faced dismissal and prison for their actions—yet the training only featured the drivers.
I remember one of the first calls where HQ staff provided examples of misconduct. First, they described a driver cheating on a logbook. Then, they cited a driver lying about dependents to claim extra paternity leave. Finally, they gave an example of a driver caught selling fuel.
As I looked around the room and saw our amazing drivers with frowns on their faces, I grew frustrated. I asked, "Why are all the examples of ethical breaches centered on drivers?" I pointed out that, at that very moment, there were active investigations into Representatives abusing their privileges—one of whom had recently been dismissed. I was aware of past instances of massive corruption where "heads rolled" at the Rep and Regional Director levels. So, why were the only examples of violations attributed to drivers? The HQ facilitator became frustrated and dodged the question. After the call, my own Representative took me aside and told me I should have kept those comments to myself.
That was almost 20 years ago, but I have never shaken off that frustration. I will never forget the frowns and side glances of our drivers as example after example pointed the finger at them. Why did we find it so difficult to use an example of a Representative cheating on entitlements or a Supply Division staffer running a side company to rig UNICEF bids? They faced dismissal and prison for their actions—yet the training only featured the drivers.
Any thoughts?
You put your finger on a central point. Ethical breaches occur in every organisation, public, private, and humanitarian. The test is not whether they happen, but how they are handled.
ReplyDeleteWhen misconduct is confronted openly, investigated properly, and followed by clear consequences, the organisation usually emerges stronger. Staff understand that standards matter, and trust can be rebuilt.
But when cases are quietly buried, managed through discreet transfers, or settled with comfortable exits, the damage spreads far beyond the original offence. The message received by staff is unmistakable: appearance matters more than integrity. Over time, this corrodes morale, weakens accountability, and ultimately undermines the very mission the organisation claims to serve.
UNICEF was better at dealing with minor infringements than with misconduct higher up the hierarchy. That imbalance is not unique to UNICEF; it is a common institutional reflex. But it is precisely the kind of reflex that organisations committed to ethical leadership must work hardest to overcome.
Transparency may be uncomfortable in the short term. Silence, however, is what slowly eats organisations from within.
When I was Director of personnel in the late 80’s and early 90’s there was no Ethics Office but we treated misdeeds by staff more seriously, I personally fired three Reps and made the case for a fiourth dismissal. We worked very closely with the Audit Office so that cases were well documented and verified. Staff members at higher grades were not given a free ride .
ReplyDeleteIt is useful to hear that perspective, and I know that serious efforts were made at times to address misconduct.
DeleteHowever, colleagues who worked in the system over the decades will remember cases that were handled rather differently. Some involved repayment arrangements for misappropriated funds; others ended with quiet departures; and some resulted in individuals effectively leaving the workplace while remaining on the payroll. These episodes left a strong impression on the staff who witnessed them.
That is why Rob’s observation resonates. The issue was rarely the absence of rules or procedures. The difficulty was the consistency with which they were applied.
Most of us who spent long careers in the system can recall both sides of the picture: instances where action was taken decisively, and others where the resolution was discreet, acknowledging that record is not about settling old scores. It is about understanding why discussions of ethics sometimes provoke a degree of scepticism.
The problem with ethics is that it is much easier to focus n a driver's log book than if a regional director berated staff, hired buddies, or held a RMT that was excessive. I can give countless examples of RDs with such conduct with no consequences vs drivers punished for log book dicscrepencies. UNICEF has been penny wise and pound foolish in cracking down on unethical behavior aiming its sights on log books vs extravagant RMTs, global meetings, or other expenses. Of course there are some examples of some high level dismissals - but these are few and far between. But for a driver, if not dismissed or sanctioned - an office can simply abolish their posts during the CPD or MTR in the name budget cuts- one of the most underhanded tools in the arsenal.
ReplyDeleteThe underhanded tool you refer to was extensively used in place of good management
DeleteThe first ever UNICEF ethics officer, after the position was created, was the former ethics officer of a very large public service cooperation in the Metropolitan Area of New York. She was enthusiastic but resigned after three months. In her own words: ‘Senior management was not serious’.
ReplyDeleteI congratulate Rob for raising this important issue, ably supported by Thomas Ekvall and others. The problem extends beyond unethical practices to include wasteful expenditure within UNICEF—and indeed across the UN system—despite strong advocacy for business-like management and the highest standards of ethical conduct. Good practices must start at the top, yet the principle of “leading by example” has too often been overlooked when it comes to enforcing both accountability and ethics.
ReplyDeleteI was among the first members of the supply fraternity to be trained as an Ethics trainer in the Supply Division in Copenhagen around the year 2000, through a Canadian agency, even before the formal establishment of the Ethics Office at headquarters for global implementation. However, the actual implementation fell far short of expectations. Ironically, I myself became a victim of the very system I sought to uphold. I recall a telling remark made by a Resident Coordinator toward the end of my service, who said to my wife at a dinner at our home: “Your husband should have gone with the SYSTEM.”
Much before that, I had witnessed the severe punishment meted out to a Supply Division staff member referenced by Rob. I had interacted closely with him during my 14 years in the Water and Sanitation programme and had long suspected questionable conduct. I used that case as a teaching example for my subordinates, colleagues, and trainees to emphasise the importance of ethical behavior and responsible stewardship of UNICEF funds. My guiding principle was simple: money saved is money earned.
Throughout my career, I encountered numerous instances of wasteful expenditure—though not directly under my authority, which in itself came at a cost. In one case, I uncovered a cartel of clearing agents who had inflated their bids to $1.5 million for in-country distribution during an emergency. The Programme Chief insisted on proceeding at that price, arguing that “we have funds”—though, of course, not her own. By resisting this pressure, inviting fresh bids, and blacklisting the existing agents, I was able to reduce the cost to $250,000, saving UNICEF $1.25 million—and avoided to later face the displeasure of auditors.
In another instance, senior management unsuccessfully attempted to pressure me into awarding a single-source contract worth $1.2 million for school construction. These examples were not isolated. Over my 27-year career, I witnessed numerous cases of waste and unethical conduct, often driven by a culture where “who you know” outweighed “what you know.”
In conclusion, while unethical practices may exist in any organization, it was deeply disheartening to witness such behavior within a non-profit institution like UNICEF, where donor funds are meant to serve the most vulnerable, yet are sometimes treated with alarming disregard.