Internal Oversight Service Audit Section

IOS/AUD/2013/09 Original: English

Audit of the Performance Management

of UNESCO staff December 2013

Prepared by: Craig Nordby Tuyet-Mai Grabiel Flora Moutard

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key Results

Performance management of UNESCO staff has been weak during the current performance cycle. One-third of the staff are working without expected results validated by their supervisor, and two-thirds were not subject to mid-term performance reviews. HRM needs to engage supervisors and bring the process back on track.

For the 2014-2015 cycle, a number of steps can be taken to avoid such problems. These include (i) better monitoring by HRM, (ii) introducing measures for managers who do not fulfil their supervisory responsibilities and (iii) simplifying reporting lines for Heads of Field Office, together with better use of standardized expected results.

This report makes six recommendations to address the current performance cycle and to improve performance management in the coming biennium.

Background 1. Effective performance management is a key benchmark in the accountability frameworks of UN organizations. The management of staff performance in UNESCO is intended to improve overall organizational performance by encouraging a high level of staff participation in the planning and delivery of work.

2. UNESCO’s performance management procedures are based on principles of the International Civil Service Commission for the UN system. Specific requirements are set forth in UNESCO’s Staff Rules and Human Resources Manual together with supplementary guidance for supervisors and staff. These establish a two-year performance cycle consistent with UNESCO’s biennial work programme and highlight four discrete steps in the cycle:

• establishing expected performance results for each staff member at the beginning of the biennium

• conducting a mid-term review at the end of the first year

• completing a final performance assessment at the end of the biennium and

• undertaking a panel review of each final assessment to ensure that supervisors have met standards of quality, consistency and fairness.

3. The assessment cycle is recorded in PerfoWeb, an IT application that documents each phase of the performance cycle. UNESCO is adopting a new performance management software for the 2014-2015 cycle that is to provide additional functions such as 180o and 360o input and improved monitoring features.

Audit Objective 4. This audit was performed to (i) assess compliance with key provisions of UNESCO’s performance management procedures, (ii) identify actions needed to ensure compliance for the current performance cycle and (iii) present lessons to be considered for the coming cycle.

3

Principal conclusions 5. Overall compliance with performance management requirements for the current cycle falls considerably short of satisfactory levels. As shown in the table below, files for most staff are established in PerfoWeb but only two-thirds have expected results entered to the system and validated by the supervisor. Mid-term reviews were to have been carried out at the end of 2012, and only one-third of those were completed. Overall status is summarized below. Figure 1: Status of 2012-2013 UNESCO Staff Performance Appraisals as of November 2013

6. Analysis of compliance shows notable variances across the organization.

• The overall compliance rate in UNESCO’s Field Offices is higher than in Headquarters. Nevertheless, compliance varies sharply across the individual units, offices and divisions.

• In terms of staff categories, compliance rates are highest for the international professional staff and national officers, followed by the general service staff. Directors and above have the lowest compliance rate.

7. A number of reasons have been cited for low compliance including:

• Insufficient monitoring and follow-up of supervisors’ compliance with performance management requirements. Despite having access through PerfoWeb, HRM does not regularly examine compliance data and follow up with those supervisors or units that are behind in performance management duties.

• No practice of sanctioning supervisors that do not fulfil their basic performance management duties. Despite the establishment of clear responsibilities, instances of non-compliance are not consistently addressed.

• The complex reporting lines for Heads of Field Offices require input from multiple managers in Headquarters in order to establish expected results and provide feedback on the results achieved.

• A view among some managers that the system itself is ineffective with over 98 percent of assessed staff in 2010-2011 rated as fully meeting or exceeding expectations. The heavy process for resolving appeals is seen as a disincentive for supervisors to formally engage staff regarding poor performance. Further, performance assessments take place without a direct context of performance incentives such as awards, promotions or dismissals.

• The functional autonomy of Category 1 institutes leads to inconsistent practices. The performance of over 160 staff serving under UNESCO fixed-term contracts at six institutes is not currently managed through PerfoWeb. Most of these staff serve in

653

1 223

1 608

1 529

959

574

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mid-Term Review

Expected Results validatedby supervisor

File created by supervisor

4

the International Centre for Theoretical Physics which uses a separate paper-based process.

8. Summarized below is the status of compliance for major categories of staff for the 2012-2013 cycle as of November 2013, less than 60 days before the end of the rating period. As of this time, all staff are to have a file created in PerfoWeb, expected results validated by the supervisor and, other than the Senior Management Team, are to have had a mid-term performance review.1 Figure 2: Status of 2012-2013 Performance Assessment for the Senior Management Team

Figure 3: Status of 2012-2013 Performance Assessment for the Heads of Field Offices

Figure 4: Status of 2012-2013 Performance Assessment for Staff - Fixed-term Contracts

Figure 5: Status of 2012-2013 Performance Assessment for Staff - Projects Appointments and Temporary assistance

1 HR Manual 14.2 and 14.3 establish that (i) the mid-term review is required, (ii) the date of the review is to be recorded in PerfoWeb and (iii) staff members may add their comments on the mid-term review in PerfoWeb.

3

10

18

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Expected results signed by SMTmember and validated by DG

File created by SMT Member

8

8

44

36

36

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mid-Term Review

Expected resultsvalidated by BFC and ADG

File created by HOFO

606

1 060

1 400

1 201

747

407

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mid-Term Review

Expected Results validatedby Supervisor

File created by supervisor

47

152

190

263

158

120

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mid-Term Review

Expected Results validatedby Supervisor

File created by supervisor

This includes personnel who worked in UNESCO for more than six months during biennium 2012-2013 with one of the following contract modality: Project Appointment, ALD, Temporary assistance, Associate Expert or Secondment (non-UN)

5

Scope and Methodology 9. The audit was performed in accordance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. Methodology was based on a risk assessment conducted during the audit planning phase and included review of procedural requirements followed by extensive data extracts and analyses from (i) PerfoWeb, the performance management application and (ii) STEPS, an SAP-based human resources management information system that supports payroll and staff entitlements. Data reflected in this report was extracted on 8 November 2013. The audit scope focussed on the current performance management cycle (2012-2013) and also considered the previous biennium where relevant in answering our audit objective. The audit did not assess the substantive quality of expected results and corresponding assessments.

Table of recommendations

Recommendation 1: HRM to (i) establish clear deadlines for completing each phase of the performance management cycle, (ii) monitor compliance with key phases and (iii) introduce specific measures or sanctions for supervisors that do not comply with requirements. It is difficult to reconcile, for example, a supervisor being assessed as Fully Meets Expectations when their staff lack validated expected results, mid-terms reviews and/or final performance assessments. Recommendation 2: HRM to instruct those organizational units that are not up to date in the current performance management cycle to engage supervisors and staff to take the necessary actions in PerfoWeb and complete all final performance assessments for the 2012-2013 cycle no later than February 2014. Recommendation 3: HRM to lead, in collaboration with Programme Sectors and BSP, a project to establish an effective performance management process for Heads of Field Offices. This should have the objective of designating a single accountable supervisor for each Head of Field Office reflecting the hierarchy of the field structure and could include performance input from other Sectors and Services. To facilitate objective-setting, standardized or generic expected results could be defined. Recommendation 4: HRM to assess the options and introduce a more effective and efficient second-level review of performance assessments. Options include, for example (i) establishing a single review officer hierarchically above the rating officer to address inadmissible comments and validate the performance assessment or (ii) maintaining the Panel Review for exceptional cases such as only for the lower ratings. Recommendation 5: HRM to include staff serving at Category 1 institutes under UNESCO fixed-term contracts in the new performance management software currently under development. Recommendation 6: HRM to clarify guidance to supervisors in order to better distinguish the four overall ratings categories. Points to specifically consider are (i) the current definition whereby Partially Meets Expectations is to be used for instances where performance is “slightly lower than the expected level” and (ii) the risk of the recently established Exceeds Expectations, the highest rating, progressively becoming the norm. This latter point could be supported by including guidance to the effect that supervisors should normally apply this rating to no more than 15 percent of their respective staff.