STU/68th Council/19/004
1 March 2019
The STU saw the new mobility policy as an opportunity to provide UNESCO staff with new professional experiences, while responding to the Organization’s operational needs. The STU also saw the new policy as an opportunity to introduce long-awaited career planning and development in the Organization and to link mobility to career advancement for staff stagnating at the same level. The new UNESCO Strategic Transformation also lists the mobility exercise as a possible way to improve efficiency within the Organization.
Unfortunately, the new mobility policy is starting off on the wrong foot, as the letters sent by HRM on 25 February seem to confirm. The letters inform colleagues who have reached their Standard Duration of Assignment (SDA) that their posts are being advertised for the upcoming mobility cycle. It seems that the process is being launched hastily to meet HRM’s internal deadlines and its staff’s work objectives, without transparent and clear procedures in place. In addition some field staff (UIS) do not have access to UNESCOMMUNITY where the information on Mobility, including FAQ, is being disseminated.
HRM seems to have underestimated the effect of such an announcement, many colleagues now suffering from a high degree of anxiety and uncertainty. It is not clear to staff what objective criteria were used to make decisions on posts. If certain posts are included in the pool of posts for mobility and others are not the reasons are not transparent. Without transparency the choices seem arbitrary.
The staff unions were indeed consulted on the draft mobility policy and welcomed the initiative. Mobility can be valuable to an Organization and should even become a right for staff members, particularly those having accepted assignments in difficult duty stations. However, STU made a number of observations on the process and implementation, none of which were taken into account.
Moreover, it was never made explicit that the administration would actually announce occupied posts for mobility or that it would notify the incumbents that their posts were going to be advertised! In addition, the categorization of mobile and non-mobile posts seems arbitrary and unclear, based on the list of unaffected posts which was circulated on February, 20th 2019.
HRM has embarked on a mobility exercise based on unclear objectives, questionable selection of candidates and posts, and complex procedures that, for a long period of time, will foster anxiety, uncertainty and demotivation, while offering no incentives or prospects for career advancement. By jeopardizing job stability, this will have an impact on staff concentration, motivation and ultimately on overall performance and programme delivery on the ground. Imposed mobility could ultimately be detrimental to the efficiency and effectiveness of UNESCO in our Member States!
What does UNESCO gain from imposing unwanted moves to demotivated staff? Wouldn’t it be more effective to offer attractive mobility incentives to motivated individuals wishing to move?
STU urges the Administration to reconsider the observations provided on the mobility policy, particularly the establishment of clear criteria to be transparently and systematically used for the review exercises. In addition, alternative incentives should be urgently introduced, particularly for staff having reached the last step of their grade. But above all, taking into account the limited number of moves that can actually be financed per biennium (UNESCO is not UNDP!), a simple, positive and transparent procedure should be quickly defined and introduced.
THE ORGANIZATION SHOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM THE PAST REDEPLOYMENT EXERCISE, LET US NOT REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKES!!
Best regards,
The STU Council.