Merit pay:

A staff representative and “field manager’s” view

Jean Pierre Cebron, Chair
Standing Committee on Conditions of Service in the Field, FICSA .

As a staff representative and as the director of a small field office, I find it difficult to identify what added value a merit based pay system in the UN would provide, be it in the area of technical competence or productivity, creativity, work ethics or adhesion to UN standards. However, I am well aware of what this system will not achieve and – even worse – of what it will lead to.

ﾀ Technical competence: The small staff I have the privilege of supervising have been recruited on the basis –inter alia – of their ability and knowledge as shown in their educational and employment records. Once working for the Organisation, they are expected to learn our systems and procedures and apply them in their daily work, and to collaborate with a great variety of partners and counterparts, and this is exactly what they do with the support of their supervisors and colleagues. The greatest incentives for all of us are personal pride, team spirit, intellectual challenge, belief in the common cause and a friendly atmosphere within the office; in a well run unit, nobody wants to appear incompetent. The best way to keep the technical level up is through the provision of effective and regular mentoring and the occasional formal training events. I don’t see what improvement a few additional dollars at the end of the year would bring about.

ﾀ Productivity and creativity: The organisation I am serving has become a very productive and creative these last ten years, not only because of technological progresses but also because our mandate has been clarified, our procedures have been streamlined, enthusiastic and well trained staff have been recruited and because we are all conscious of the importance of our individual tasks to save lives or improve the conditions of millions of people.

ﾀ Ethics and ideals: One does not join the United Nations for the same reasons one joins General Motors or a law office. Money is not and should not be a supreme motivation for UN staff. Why are some of us ready to risk one’s life, to suffer hardships, to be separated from one’s spouses and children, to work seven days a week and to sacrifice one’s vacations? Surely not for a handful of dollars….

The fact is that UN staffers, whether nationally or internationally recruited, are reasonably well paid. There are frustration regarding salaries but these stem primarily from the systematic flouting of the Noblemaire and Flemming principles by the General Assembly. This structural problem will not be solved by the granting of occasional bonuses to so-called top performers.

If I grant an individual in my office a special reward that the others will not get, I send the wrong message to the team: I am not telling them that the recipient of the merit pay has done something exceptional but I am telling the other staff members that I regard them as less worthy than the lucky winner and I wreck their self-esteem and their motivation in the process. Whoever is a proponent of the merit pay probably believes in the “divide and rule” way of managing people. Merit pay fosters rivalry by favouring the individual against the team.

Merit pay is an approach that pays no attention to cultural considerations: not all societies where we work are individualistic, and in many countries where the UN operate, the cohesion of the group is more important than the contentment of its individual members. Merit pay would play havoc in these countries.

There is no denying that distrust, antagonisms and jealousy will be the unavoidable outcomes of the so-called “merit” pay. There is no clear, unquestionable definition of merit in the UN context and each individual has his own idea of what merit means. The application of merit pay will therefore open a Pandora’s box of recriminations and, certainly, litigations.

Why would a supervisor want to see his colleagues at each others’ throats? Why should he be requested to make choices which will inevitably be unfair and hard to justify? Why should he spend his working time quelling a civil war in the office instead of implementing his Organisation’s mandate? On what criteria will he decide who is the more meritorious of the GS 2 office driver or the NOC programme officer who both have the same rating? Who will manage the recourses from discontented employees? Who is going to restore serenity and trust amongst the staff?

Merit pay has no merits whatsoever in a civil service. It is a gimmick, a waste of time and its results will be tremendous productivity losses. It is upheld by those who still believe in the old cliché that most UN staff are lazy, spoilt and unfit while good performers are a rare and threatened species that needs to be artificially nurtured. A supervisor who thinks that he needs this system is probably a bad supervisor.

By the way, did you know that a system of career development based on merit already exists in the UN? It’s called yearly step increases and promotions…. And it works.