an organizational development tool for the united nations ... of an Effective... · profile an...

OF

AN

EF

FE

CT

IVE

DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

an organizational developmenttool for the united nations

Office of Human Resources ManagementD I V I S I O N F O R O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T

profile

an organizational developmenttool for the united nations

OF AN EFFECTIVE DEPARTMENT

Office of Human Resources ManagementD I V I S I O N F O R O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T

2 PROFILE OF AN EFFECTIVE DEPARTMENTAn Organizational Development Tool for the United Nations

introduction

T his profile identifies the key attributes of an effective department within theUN Secretariat. The profile has been developed to:

Provide a framework for defining departmental performance that is sharedacross the organization.

Assist departments in assessing their current level of effectiveness.

Guide departments in developing their own capacity in order to increasetheir effectiveness.

The profile is flexible, and can be applied to large and small departments, aswell as to Regional Commissions, and Offices away from Headquarters.

1. The term ‘department’ includes other significant organizational entities such as an Office or a Regional

Commission

3PROFILE OF AN EFFECTIVE DEPARTMENTAn Organizational Development Tool for the United Nations

model of departmental effectiveness

Departments differ greatly in terms of their mandate, their size and complexity,the cultural and geographic context in which they operate, and the nature of

their activity. In spite of these differences, a number of performance elements,outlined below, are applicable to all departments.

EffectiveProcess

Responseto ClientNeeds

PartnershipDevelopment

Skilled&

CommittedPeople

ClearPurpose

&Direction

Leadership Results

Accountability

Organizational Learning,Innovation & Change

Well-ManagedResources


defining departmental effectiveness The profile is based on the assumption that an effective department achieves

key performance results at three levels.

It delivers the planned outputs and services.

It achieves the outcomes that meet the needs of its clients and stakeholders.

It achieves a long-term impact.

degrees of freedom

T he profile takes into account what might be called departmental ‘degrees offreedom’. In other words, it has been designed with the understanding that

each department operates within the context of the organization as a whole, andthat governance structures and mechanisms, central policies and processes, as wellas rules and regulations outside the department’s direct control do have asignificant impact on its performance.

how the profile can be used

T he profile may be used by Heads of Department, managers and staff in thefollowing ways:

To identify those areas of departmental capacity that are strongest as well asthose that need improvement.

To measure changes in the department’s capacity over time.

To act as a discussion tool to draw out different views within the departmentregarding its capacity, drawing out different perspectives that may existbetween staff and managers, for example.


assessment instruments and processes associatedwith the profile

Anumber of assessment instruments and processes, based on the profile, havebeen developed to assist departments in developing their capacity.

Organizational Effectiveness IndicatorChief among these instruments is the Organizational Effectiveness Indicator, an

electronic staff survey designed to provide departments with an overview of theirperceived level of effectiveness in all performance areas of the model. Followingthe participation of staff in the survey process, reports are produced presentingresults both at the level of the department as a whole and at the level of signifi-cant work units, such as divisions or branches.

Interpretation Guide and OD Plan of ActionTo assist departments in responding to the results of the Organizational

Effectiveness Indicator, an Interpretation Guide and OD Plan of Action allowthem to set specific targets for organizational development, and to identifyappropriate actions to achieve those targets.

Assessment processesTo supplement the survey process of the Organizational Effectiveness Indicator,

a number of structured assessment processes have also been defined which allowa more in-depth assessment of various areas of departmental performance than ispossible through the use of a survey instrument.

levels of development

T o assist departments in guiding their own development, four levels areidentified in the profile. Each of these levels is associated with a number of

tangible indicators, enabling department to assess both where they currently are,and to determine where they aspire to be.

g

On the following pages, each component of the model of departmental effec-tiveness is associated with a number of indicators associated with each of theabove levels.

Clear needfor increaseddevelopment

Basiclevel

ofdevelopment

Moderatelevel

ofdevelopment

Highlevel

ofdevelopment


leadership—head of department and/orsenior management team

Head of department —passion and vision

Head of department —leading change, creating alignment

Head of department —personaland interpersonal effectiveness

senior management team —ethics

Seniormanagement team — use of authority

Senior managementteam — cohesion andteamwork

Clear need for increaseddevelopment

Does not communicate aclear vision for the future;fails to generate a sharedunderstanding of wherethe department is going

Is reluctant to change thestatus quo; mandateschange but does not leadit; delays decision-making

Consistently fails to showrespect for others; maybe openly judgmental orcritical; has difficultyinfluencing without usingauthority; has difficultybuilding trustFails to provide ethicaland transparentleadership; toleratesinappropriate politicalinfluence in decisionmaking and staffappointments; turns ablind eye to ethical andperformance issuesCentralizes power anddecision-making;reserves the right tomake decisions whichshould be made at alower level; micromanagesand over-controls; createsa culture of fearCentralizes power anddecision-making; reservesthe right to makedecisions which shouldbe made at a lower level;micromanages and over-controls; creates a cultureof fear

Basic levelof development

Sets and communicatesa sense of purpose anddirection; aligns othersaround achieving thevision

Leads organizationalchange processes;promptly addressesissues that arise in thechange process

Earns the respect ofothers; takes time tobuild relationships; haspresence; is able toinfluence and buildsupport

Rejects inappropriatepolitical influence indecision making and staffappointments; addressesethical and performanceissues

Delegates authority andresponsibility; holds itselfand others accountable;makes tough decisionsas required

Encourages co-operationon a project/programbasis

Moderate level of development

Is constantly, visiblycommitted to thedepartment and toachieving its vision; cre-ates excitement andenthusiasm in othersDevelops and implementsactions to overcomeresistance to change; isable to move rapidly fromdecision to action; makesthings happenIs respected and soughtout by others for adviceand counsel; has strongpresence and leadershipability; uses multipleapproaches to get buy-in

Consistently makestransparent and ethicaldecisions

Encourages leadership atall levels; builds a cultureof learning

Builds a sense ofcoherence and a sharedvision on aproject/program basis

High level of development

Is contagiously energeticand highly committed;lives the department’svision; enables others tosee how they can achievethe visionCommunicates acompelling need forchange; creates a senseof urgency; aligns theentire department tosupport the change effortIs viewed as an outstand-ing ‘people person’;inspires others andachieves impact; continu-ally self-aware; activelyworks on personal learn-ing and developmentIs respected for itstransparency and integrity

Builds a culture ofempowerment andparticipation

Promotesinterdependence andthe achievement ofoverarching goals andobjectives


Clear purpose and direction

Vision

Overall strategy

Goals/performance targets

Program and service relevance


Little shared understandingof what the departmentaspires to become orachieve; contra-dicting/conflicting ideas ofwhat the departmentshould be doing

Strategy is eithernonexistent, unclear orincoherent (largely a setof scattered initiatives);strategy has no influenceof day-to-day behaviour

Targets are non-existent orfew; targets are vague orconfusing; targets are tooeasy or impossible toachieve; targets changefrom year to year, unrelatedto strategy; targets areunknown or ignored by staff

Programs and servicesseem scattered andunrelated to each other;no determination todiscontinue programswhich are no longerrelevant


Somewhat clearunderstanding of whatthe department seeks toachieve; lacks specificityor clarity; held by only afew; exists on paper, butis rarely used to directactions or set prioritiesStrategy exists but is notlinked to vision; strategyis not easily actionable;strategy is not broadlyknown

Realistic targets exist insome areas; targets maylack ambition or be short-term; targets are oftenrenegotiated; staff may ormay not know and adopttargets

Most programs andservices are well definedand can be linked withthe mission and goals;programs somewhatscattered and not fullyintegrated into a clearstrategy; existingprograms are continuedwithout questioning theirrelevance


Clear and specificunderstanding of whatthe department seeks tobecome or achieve; heldby many in the depart-ment; often used todirect action and set pri-oritiesCoherent strategy hasbeen developed and islinked to mission andvision; day-to-daybehaviour is partly driven by it

Quantified, ambitioustargets exist in mostareas; targets are knownand adopted by moststaff who usually usethem to broadly guidetheir work

Core programs andservices are well definedand aligned with themission and goals; pro-grams fit together wellas part of a clear strate-gy; programs with limit-ed or no relevance arequestioned


Clear, specific and com-pelling understanding ofwhat the departmentaspires to become orachieve; broadly held andconsistently used to directaction and set priorities

A clear, coherent medi-um-and long-term strate-gy exists; strategy isactionable and is linkedto mission, vision andoverarching goals; strate-gy consistently drivesday-to-day decisionsLimited set of quantified,genuinely demandingperformance targets in allareas; tightly linked tostrategy; staff consistent-ly adopt targets and workdiligently to achieve them

All programs and servicesand well defined and fullyaligned with the missionand goals; synergiesacross programs are cap-tured


Responsiveness to client and stakeholder needs

Needs identificationand feedback

New programand servicedevelopment/adjustment of existing programsand services

Benchmarking/adoption of ‘best practice’

Communication andinformation flow


Little or no identificationof client needs andexpectations; feedback isnot sought; departmentoperates on the assump-tion that it knows what itsstakeholders expect with-out asking themNo assessment of gaps inability of current programor service to meetclient/stakeholder needs;limited ability to create newprograms or respond innew ways; new programscreated largely in responseto funding availabilityMinimal interest in orknowledge of other playersand alternative models forprogram or service delivery

Communication andinformation flow to clientsand stakeholders isprimarily ‘reactive’, only asrequired; often significantlydelayed


Some attempt to identifyclient needs and seekfeedback throughoccasional surveys orother data gatheringmeans

Limited assessment ofability of current programor service to meetclient/stakeholder needs;some ability tomodify/discontinue exist-ing programs and createnew ones

Basic knowledge of play-ers and alternative mod-els for program and serv-ice delivery; limited abilityto adapt program orservice delivery based onacquired understanding

Communication andinformation flow is proac-tive in some cases, reac-tive in others


CRegular identificationof client needs andexpectations using avariety of methodolo-gies; feedback is soughtand listened to; thedepartment is not afraidof criticismOccasional assessmentof ability of existing pro-grams or services tomeet client/stakeholderneeds; demonstratedability to modify andfine-tune existing pro-grams or create newprogramsSolid knowledge of play-ers and alternative mod-els in program and serv-ice delivery; identifica-tion of benchmarks andstandards for delivery;not always met

Periodic informationupdates provided toclients; communicationis proactive rather thanreactive


Continual assessment ofclient needs and satisfac-tion; processes and pro-cedures are adapted tomeet the needs of clientsand stakeholders

Continual assessment ofability of existing pro-grams or services tomeet client/stakeholderneeds; ability to createtruly innovative programsand services

Benchmarks and per-formance standards areset in accordance withidentified ‘best practice’in program or servicedelivery; ability of depart-ment to meet standards ismonitored regularlyConstant flow ofinformation to clients,keeping them informed ofprogress or setbacks


Partnership development/external relationship building

Partnerships andalliances

Department’s credibility and reputation

Influencing of policy making

Public relations and marketing


Limited use of partnershipsand alliances; departmentbelieves in its ownuniqueness

Department’s has littlecredibility inside theorganization or outside of it

Department does not havethe ability or is unaware ofpossibilities for influencingpolicy-making; never calledon in substantive policydiscussions

Department makes no orlimited use of PR/market-ing; sees little need orvalue for PR/marketing,and has no developmentto engage in it


Early stages of buildingrelationships andcollaborating with otherdepartments, UNagencies, NGOs and civilsocietyDepartment credibility issomewhat established,and generally regarded aspositive within the largercommunity;Department is aware ofits possibilities toinfluence policy-making;some readiness and skillin participating in policydiscussions; rarely invitedto substantive policydiscussionsDepartment takesopportunities to engagein PR/marketing as theyarise; some internal skillsand experience available


CEffective relationshipswith some relevant part-ners; some relationshipsmay be precarious or arenot fully win-win

Department reasonablywell known within thelarger community andpositively perceivedinside the organizationDepartment is fullyaware of its possibilitiesto influence policy-making; is active inpolicy discussions atvarious levels

Department considersPR/marketing to beuseful and actively seeksopportunities to engagein these activities; criticalmass of internalexpertise exists


Strong, high-impact rela-tionships with a varietyof relevant parties; rela-tionships are stable,long-term and mutuallybeneficialDepartment widely knownwithin the largercommunity and verypositively perceived

Department pro-activelyand reactively influencespolicy-making, in a highlyeffective manner on sev-eral levels; often called onto participate in substan-tive policy discussions

Department continuallyand actively engages inPR; broad pool of PRexpertise exists internally,or efficient use is made ofexternal resources


Skilled and committed people

Human resourcesplanning

Implementation of organization-wide HR policies and programs and departmental HR targets

Effective use of staff resources

Learning and development

Staff involvement

Dialogue and communication


Lack of HR planning; HRplanning limited to meetinggender and geographicrequirements set byOHRM

Organization-wide HRpolicies and programs areflagrantly ignored;departmental HR targetsare not met

20% of the staff perform80% of the work; manystaff are marginalized orgrossly under-utilizedStaff are viewed in a staticway, with little potential fordevelopment; limitedtraining, coaching andfeedback; no meaningfulperformance appraisal

Large numbers of staff feelthat they have no say; theiropinions and input are notsolicited

Key information can onlybe obtained ‘through thegrapevine’ or in thecorridor; fear and mistrustexists; people do not feelthat they can raiseimportant issues


Some efforts atdevelopment of an HRplan; HR plan loosely ornot linked todepartmental vision orstrategy; plan has someimpact on HR activities

Lip service is paid toorganization-wideprograms; departmentalHR targets are pursued

The workload isreasonably distributed; nostaff are marginalized

Some training and otherdevelopmentopportunities exist forsome staff; staff have apersonal learning anddevelopment plan

Many staff members feelthat they are consultedon decisions that affectthem

Information is generallyshared; some attemptsare made to discussdifficult issues andproblems; attempts aremade to resolve conflicts


HR planning carried outregularly; plan linked todepartmental strategyand goals; plan is usedto guide HR activities

Organization-widepolicies and programsare implemented;departmental HR targetsare met

Workload is fairlydistributed; all staff areexpected to make ameaningful contributionRelevant training, rota-tion, coaching/ feed-back, and consistentperformance appraisalare in place; departmentactively identified poten-tial sources of new talentMost staff members arewell informed, and feelconsulted in decisionsthat affect them; they feelrecognized and cared for

Open communicationand sharing ofinformation exists at alllevels; difficult issuesand problems arediscussed in an openway; conflicts are openlyaddressed


Department has a con-crete, realistic, and detailedHR plan; HR planningexercise carried out regu-larly; plan is tightly linkedto departmental strategyand systematically used todirect HR activitiesOrganization-wide policiesand programs are openlysupported; departmentalHR targets and exceeded

Workload is fairlydistributed; staff who lackrequired competence arecoached and supportedStaff are encouraged togrow and develop througha variety of means;department takes anactive interest inmanagerial development

Staff at all levels feelempowered; they areinformed and consulted;they have the authority touse their judgment andtake action in their area ofresponsibility; staff at alllevels are expected toassume leadership rolesOpen and authenticdialogue is the norm;there is a climate of trust;tough issues are tackled


Effective processes and systems

Planning—strategic

Planning—financial

Planning—operational

Work processes/standard operatingprocedures

Decision making framework

Inter-functional/inter-divisionalcoordination

Organizational and job design


Limited ability and attemptsto develop a strategic plan;either internally or withassistance; if a strategicplan exists, it is not used

No or very limited financialplanning; general budgetdeveloped; performanceagainst budget looselymonitored

Constant crisis mode pre-vails, with no clear directionor focus; no short-term orlong-term plan; planning istreated as a perfunctoryexercise to satisfy bureau-cratic requirementsLimited set of agreed-toprocesses (e.g. informationsharing, reviews) available;use of processes/procedures is variable orflagrantly ignored

Decisions made largely onan ad hoc basis by oneperson and/or whoever isaccessible

Different programs andorganizational units functionin silos; little ordysfunctional coordinationbetween them

Jobs and organizationalunits are not designed, orare created toaccommodate individuals;roles and responsibilitiesare not clear


Some ability and tendencyto develop a high-levelstrategic plan; strategicplan roughly directs man-agement decisions

Limited financial plans, adhoc update; budget utilizedas an operational tool; per-formance-to-budget moni-tored periodically

Operational planningloosely linked to strategicplanning and used roughlyto guide operations

A basic set of processesand user-friendly man-agement tools is avail-able; limited monitoringand assessment ofprocesses, resulting infew improvements

Appropriate decisionmakers known; decisionmaking process fairly wellestablished and process isgenerally followed butsometimes breaks downInteractions betweendifferent programs andunits are generally good,although coordinationissues do exist; somepooling of resources

Some organizationalentities are clearly defined,others are not; most rolesand responsibilities oforganizational entities andjobs are defined, but maynot reflect reality;organizational charts andjob descriptions may beoutdated


Strategic planning carriedout regularly; plan is usedto guide management deci-sions; some internal plan-ning expertise exists or useis made of external expertiseSolid financial plans; regu-larly updated; budget inte-grated into operations;performance-to-budgetmonitored regularly

Robust operational planningprocesses exist which resultin the identification of mean-ingful and measurableresults; goals and objectivesare linked and cascadedthroughout the organizationSolid, well-designed pro-cesses in place in core areasto ensure smooth, effectivefunctioning of the depart-ment; processes/ proceduresare known and accepted bymany; contribute to increasedimpact; occasional monitor-ing and assessment ofprocesses, with someimprovements madeClear, largely formallines/systems for decisionmaking; decisions aregenerally appropriatelyimplemented or followed

All programs and unitsfunction together effec-tively with sharing of infor-mation and resources; fewcoordination issues

Organizational entities andjobs are clearly defined;all roles and responsibili-ties of organizational enti-ties and of jobs aredefined but do not neces-sarily reflect realities;charts and job descrip-tions may be outdated


Strategic planning carriedout regularly; plan is usedextensively to guide man-agement decisions; plan-ning is carried out usinginternal or external expertiseVery solid financial plans;continuously updated;budget integrated fully intooperations; used as astrategic tool; perform-ance-to-budget closelyand regularly monitoredOperational planningis tightly linked to strate-gic planning and system-atically used to directoperations;

The department is man-aged in a highly profes-sional manner; robust,lean and well-designedprocesses in place in allarea; processes/proce-dures are widely known,used and accepted; moni-toring is systematic andimprovements are made

Clear, formal lines/systemsfor decision making thatinvolve as broad a partici-pation as practical andappropriate; decisionsalways implementedConstant and seamlessintegration between differ-ent programs and organi-zational units with fewcoordination issues; rela-tionships are dictated byorganizational needs (ratherthan hierarchy or politics)Roles and responsibilitiesof organizational entitiesand job are formalized andclear; organization chartsand job descriptions arecomplete and reflect cur-rent reality


Well managed resources

Financial resources

Physical infrastructure(buildings and office space)

Technologicalinfrastructure—informationtechnology (phones, computer, fax, etc.)

Knowledgemanagement


Basic financialtransactions are carriedout; bills are paid, notalways paid on time;supporting documentationis kept on recordInadequate physicalinfrastructure, resulting inloss of effectiveness andefficiency (e.g. insufficientworkspace for individuals,no space for teamwork)

Poor condition or limitednumber of computers andother informationtechnology is animpediment toeffectiveness andefficiency; limited use ofcomputers or othertechnology in day-to-dayactivity

No formal systems tocapture and documentinternal knowledge


Financial activities aretransparent, clearly andconsistently recorded anddocumented; appropriatechecks and balances exist

Physical infrastructurecan be made to work wellenough to suit the depart-ment’s most importantneeds; a number ofimprovements wouldgreatly help effectivenessand efficiencyAdequate informationtechnology available tomost staff; may lackcertain features thatwould be helpful;information technology isused to support internalcommunication andinformation

Systems exist in a fewareas but are not user-friendly or comprehensiveenough to have animpact; systems areknown only by a fewpeople, or onlyoccasionally used


Formal internal controlsgoverning all financialoperations; fully tracked,supported and reported

Fully adequate infra-structure for the currentneeds of the depart-ment; infrastructure doesnot interfere with effec-tiveness and efficiency

A strategy for managingtechnology in support ofdepartmental policy is inplace; solid hardwareand software infrastruc-ture accessible to allstaff; limited sharing ofequipment; high usageof IT infrastructure bystaff; alternative andemerging technology isused to its full potentialA strategy for managinginformation and knowl-edge is in place; well-designed, user-friendlysystems in some areas;not fully comprehensive;systems are known bymany people within thedepartment and oftenused


Robust systems and con-trols are in place governingall financial operations andtheir integration with budg-eting, decision-making andorganizational goalsPhysical infrastructure welldesigned to thedepartment’s current andfuture needs; welldesigned and thought outto enhance efficiency andeffectiveness

Technology is used tosupport and improve theperformance of thedepartment; state-of-the-art fully networked com-puting hardware withcomprehensive range ofup-to-date software appli-cations; all staff have indi-vidual computer accessand email; used regularly

Well-designed, user-friendly, comprehensivesystems to capture, doc-ument, and disseminateknowledge internally in allrelevant areas; all staff areaware of systems, knowl-edgeable in their use, andmake frequent use ofthem


Organizationallearning

Innovation andchange

System-widechange


Organizational defensesexist, blocking thepossibility of learning;group think prevails; seniormanagers are not informedabout problems, includingproblems in their ownbehaviour; organizationaldefenses existThe status quo is adheredto; ineffective systems andprocesses are perpetuatedwithout question

There is no concern forchange beyond theboundaries of thedepartment; thedepartments has a ‘silo’mentality


Some willingness existsto identify ‘lessonslearned; committees andtask forces are created toaddress problems,sometimes to deferaddressing problems

Products, outputs andprocesses are improved;incremental changesoccur, although notnecessarily in asystematic way

Some interest exists insystem-wide changealthough there is nosystematic support for it


‘Lessons learned’ is astandard process in allareas of the department;‘after action’ reviewstake place; peer-to-peerconsulting exists

Dissatisfaction existswith the status quo;there is a constant drivefor innovation andchange

System-wide changesare identified andadvocated


Department-wide dia-logue /system-wide dia-logue takes place; thedepartment builds andassociates itself withinternal and external‘communities of practice’

The departmentanticipates changes in itsexternal environment andpro-actively makeschanges; opportunities forbreakthrough changes areidentified and treated aspriorityCoalitions are created tobring about system-widechange

Organizational learning, innovation and change


Performance as a shared value

Performance measurement

Accountability—personal and managerial conduct

Accountability—organizational


Staff are hired, rewardedand promoted for no clearreason; geographicaland/or gender targets areapplied without referenceto merit; decisions aremade on the basis ofpersonal affinity/favoritism,or ‘gut feeling’Very limited measurementand tracking of perform-ance; department collectssome data on programactivities and outputs buthas no impact measure-ment (measurement ofoutcomes)Accountability standardsdo not exist for individualstaff; accountability isexpected of some but notof others; there are noconsequences associatedwith a lack of accountabilityor poor performanceResponsibility andaccountability are unclear,including at senior levels;lack of accountability is notaddressed


Individual performancedata is used to makedecisions about hiring,rewarding or promotingstaff; contribution to theachievement of broaderorganizational goals isoccasionally considered

Performance partiallymeasured and progresspartially tracked; depart-ment regularly collectssolid data on programactivities and outputs, butlacks data-driven impactmeasurementAccountability standardsexist for professionalbehaviour and managerialbehaviour, but are notalways enforced ormonitored

Some clarity existsaround responsibility andaccountability; lack ofaccountability is notalways addressed


Staff contribution toachievement of impor-tant results is the keycriterion for reward orpromotion decisions

Performance measuredand progress tracked inmultiple ways;multiplicity ofperformance indicators;impact is measured

Accountability standardsexist for personalbehaviour, in accordancewith the organization’svalues, and are enforcedand monitored

Responsibility andaccountability are clearlydefined; lack ofaccountability isgenerally addressed


Day-to-day processesand decision making areembedded in comprehen-sive performance think-ing; performance is con-stantly referred to

Well-developed, integrat-ed system used for measuring department’sperformance and progresson a continual basis

Accountability standardsexist and are consistentlyand universally applied;lack of accountability isaddressed in a systematicway; open bookmanagement is the norm

Clear delegation andaccountability frameworksexist; lack of accountabili-ty is addressed in a sys-tematic way

Accountability and organizational performance management

Developed in collaboration with OHRM and managers and staff of the organisation by Mannet S.A.R.L.

United NationsO F F I C E O F H U M A N R E S O U R C E S M A N A G E M E N T

an organizational development tool for the united nations ... of an Effective... · profile an...

Documents

Transcript of an organizational development tool for the united nations ... of an Effective... · profile an...