HRM reform, WHO style

So where’s the beef?

Maria Dweggah, WHO

You’ve got a temp problem, WHO has the solution. You’ve got too many contractual arrangements, WHO has managed to find some new ones and rename some old ones. You have a staff low on the morale side, we have just the morale booster – a four year and out rule for temps that’s guaranteed to win the hearts and minds of hundreds. You’ve got fixed term staff who just don’t seem to want to leave, you help them find their way out.

You’ve been feeling frustrated, angry, depressed and vulnerable? You have probably heard of emotional intelligence; well, say hello to emotional resilience, a must if you are to survive the next few years of the reform.

What has the "reform" achieved, really, other than a mechanism to facilitate the exit of the fixed term staff and the long serving temps. And was not this the initial intention after all of the reform--to provide the organizations with the tools needed to manage the workforce effectively and flexibly in support of its programmes? And let us not kid ourselves, this is not about temps versus fixed term, this is about a system where all are in a precarious situation, with some staff having longer shelf lives than others.

The original objectives of WHO’s contractual reform:
- to examine the many complex issues concerning contractual and related HRM reforms, including their legal, financial and human resources implications;
- to propose revised streamlined arrangements based on a review of contractual practices throughout the Organization, and other employers; and
- to recommend an organizational response to the widespread use of long-term short-term staff, who had been abused through a permanent utilization of short- term contractual arrangements.

Moratorium refused: massive hiring of new STs instead

The Staff Representatives stood firm on the fact that no reform could take place without first solving the "temp" problem. They suggested a moratorium on all hiring of temporary staff for at least six months, arguing to place the people we had, to slow down, in particular with regard to support staff and generalists professional staff. The Administration categorically refused – thus, the numbers continued to increase.

The number of temporary staff at WHO Headquarters in Geneva has gradually increased over the past few years while that of fixed term has stayed relatively the same. Some posts have been created to fill a certain demand. According to "official" figures presented to the Executive Board (EB) in January 2002 and at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2002, 41% of the staff as of 31 December 2001 were on temporary contracts. The number could well be considerably higher due to the fact that many contracts are terminated immediately prior to Christmas!

Constructive, concrete proposals ignored

The Staff Representatives strongly objected to the creation of yet another type of contract. They were of the view that WHO could meet all its staffing requirements, for generalists and for specialists, though two types of contracts. They were of the opinion that adding another contract category would not address the inefficiency of the recruitment process but would be detrimental to staff morale, team spirit and productivity. The solution put forward by the Representatives was simple and workable; i.e. if the Administration wanted to go for best practice, which was what they purported, then why not follow the (usually cherished) example of the private sector:
- by keeping temporary contracts for genuine temp functions, such as administrative support staff and professional staff for major meetings and conferences;
- by creating one contract type for everyone, although termination entitlements would be the differentiating factor; and
- by creating a pool of qualified fixed-term generalists, both in the P and G category to fill in gaps as required.

More complex, even more inequitable

We started out with one type of short-term contract, but we ended up with two. We tried to solve the problem of the long- term temporary staff, but ended up with far more complicated and time-consuming procedures; a far cry from the efficiency and the efficacy the reform was supposed to attain. Finally, after all the task forces, the working groups, the reams of reports, the Cabinet papers, the hundreds of dollars spent on consultants, all the unheeded recommendations, the hours of negotiations, and the so-called contract reform, we have been left with the short-term appointment, and the term-limited appointment.

The new category ‘Term-Limited’ is yet another spurious description of a contract designed to keep staff in their place. The total period of service for both types of contract as of 1 July 2002, will be limited to four 11-month periods (44 months out of 48 months) after which, if the temporary staff member hasn’t had the good fortune to be recruited onto a fixed-term post, will have to leave the Organization for one year.

In effect, the one month obligatory contract break has more or less been replaced by a one year obligatory contract break! This is a coup de génie!

This is the "four years and you’re out rule", which bears an uncanny resemblance to the Assignments of Limited Duration (ALDs), which were opposed strongly by the Staff Associations in WHO, and also within the UN System, but which nevertheless many administrations have been trying to force down the throats of their staff. Well, congratulations, WHO, you have succeeded where others failed.

Beyond filling the supermarket trolly

This approach is counterproductive in terms of efficiency and getting the professional and human best of staff. I am not suggesting that quality of performance would suffer or that people on four year temporary contracts would perform less well than their fixed term colleagues. One does not study/train just to land a "contract/food-ticket" and then hang on to it (although, granted, we all need to go to the grocery store and pay our bills) but usually start out in life and on a job with the hope also of living a meaningful and possibly useful life; having some sort of rewarding professional activity (beyond getting one's much needed and much appreciated salary) and some sense of contributing to society; and it is the case that one can hardly develop competence/skills, and build up experience and dedication within a limited (once and for all) four-year horizon. Furthermore, the four years during which a staff member has acquired experience and expertise has been at WHO expense. It should not be wasted !

As for streamlining, we are far from it. These new contractual arrangements are administratively costly, time consuming and anxiety provoking.

Abolition of an acquired right

The other major achievement, seen through the eyes of the Administration, was the abolition of our Reduction in Force (RIF) procedure. Admittedly, the RIF was an incredibly painful and cumbersome procedure; nonetheless, it did prevent the Administration from taking any arbitrary decisions, such as abolishing Posts (which was sometimes perceived as abolishing people rather than Posts), and it did give staff members a right and a certain feeling of security. The abolition of the RIF was not attained by the Administration without serious opposition from the staff. The RIF, contrary to what the Administration believes, reaches the level of an acquired right. Its abolition constitutes a violation of that right. We will just have to wait patiently for the first abolition of a Post to put this to the litmus test.

Conclusion

I fear that what was supposed to simplify the recruitment/selection process will end up being an human resources (HR) nightmare. What was intended to enhance efficiency and efficacy will merely serve to create working conditions where survival of the fittest will be the rule and where nepotism, favouritism and cronyism will prevail. The HRM strategy envisioned human resources policies, organization and processes directed at maintaining excellence and high level performance and providing a stimulating and supportive place of work.

Instead, we are in the process of creating an organizational culture where staff will be too scared about renewal to speak out and express themselves honestly -whether on personnel matters or on technical/policy issues. WHO is a knowledge based organization, its intellectual freedom and creativity should be one of its greatest assets. Let's nurture and protect them! * Human Resources Management (HRM)