The United Nations (UN) will turn 70 in October 2015. It has surely delivered enormously to humanity since it began in 1915. However, is it well positioned to take on the world’s current and future challenges? In an article published on 12 May 2015, Ian Richards, President of the Coordination Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations at the UN in Geneva, expressed his doubts.
UN office in Geneva – © Vogelsp | Dreamstime.com
Too scared of failure, overly centralised, ageing
In the article on the Inter Press Service (IPS), Richards said the UN “has become an organisation too scared of failure, overly centralised, ageing and unsuited to operating in conflicts where our blue flag is seen as a target rather than a shield.” In addition, Richards is not convinced that Ban Ki-moon’s current reforms will make it any easier for staff to help the UN achieve its goals.
Ban Ki-moon – © Markwaters | Dreamstime.com
Where are the young people?
On 2 February 2015, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, told a Youth Forum at UN Headquarters in New York to get involved in shaping a future sustainable development agenda. Later he added “that it is time now to see this huge cohort (of young people) as a force of change that harbours the ingenuity and creativity to help solve the world’s most daunting challenges.“
In contrast to these exaltations, only 0.3% of UN staff are aged between 18 and 24, according to Richards. This figure reflects 2004 numbers showing that only 0.3% of UN professional staff were under 30 years old.
Don’t fail here
Pinned to many office walls in Silicon Valley you’ll find the mantra: “fail fast, fail often”. This culture has contributed to huge innovation and technological progress that most of us have benefited from.
Rejoicing failure is now a well established part of Silicon Valley culture and has produced organisations such as Failcon, a series of global conferences with the tag line: “Stop being afraid of failure and start embracing it”.
Creative destruction – This Apple computer destroyed existing products and was then eventually destroyed itself by better technology. © Kadirlookatme | Dreamstime.com
“UN staff are brimming with ideas but centralised bureaucracy and a culture unsupportive of risk taking, and the failure it entails, means most won’t see the light of day”, said Richards in the same article on IPS.
There are growing numbers of social entrepreneurs operating independently of large organisations such as the UN. This independence offers freedom to experiment and fail as well as recognition for success. This model could already be drawing the most talented socially minded youth, challenging the UN as a crucible for social innovation and progress.
Show us your losers
Progress starts with political institutions that support creative destruction, a process where change inflicts losses on incumbents in favour of overall progress, argue the authors of the book Why Nations Fail. Eighteenth century England saw a new law that broke the monopoly enjoyed by the wool industry. This allowed cotton and linen weavers to compete with woollen textiles. It also inflicted huge losses on the highly protected wool industry, but paved the way for a period of unprecedented innovation and progress that eventually benefited global society as a whole – many new winners emerged at the expense of a few incumbents.
At the same time in continental Europe, those controlling protected monopolies prevailed. There was little creative destruction and none of the same social and economic progress seen in England during the same period. Most of the population remained suppressed by an elite, unmotivated and unable to progress.
Political progress in large organisations such as the UN will create losers in the same way that it did in eighteenth century England and does in business in the pluralistic societies of today. Incumbent losers are part of progress and their absence a sign of little evolution.
The need to include outsiders
Inclusiveness and a level playing field is another key ingredient of progress. When former political outsiders, English cotton and linen weavers were included in the political process, England leapt forward.
Edward Girardet describes the UN’s political outsiders when he highlights the precarious existence of the many contractors at the UN. According to an internal document procured by the Swiss newspaper, Le Temps, nearly 40% of those working with the UN and its agencies are hired on short-term or “non-staff” contracts and are sometimes only told on a Friday that their contract will be renewed Monday.
This large group of UN contractors cannot be expected to take risks and innovate when they sit precariously outside the UN’s political process. A risk followed by failure could mean the end your contract.
Taking inspiration from outside
In another article Edward Girardet, former Editor of Le News, quotes Michael Møller, the Danish diplomat, former aid worker and head of the UN in Geneva saying “We need to act together to put a spotlight on the extraordinary things that this (Geneva) region represents and their impact on the planet.” He would like to see a vibrant new International Geneva that includes not only the UN agencies and NGOS, but also multi-national corporations, Swiss businesses, donors and the local population.
Michael Moller, Acting Director-General of United Nations Office at Geneva
Perhaps an external search for inspiration should include independent social, business and technology entrepreneurs. Their experience and attitudes to risk taking could be of enormous value to the UN. A more politically inclusive system for UN contractors, enabling them to take risks and innovate could be put on the table as well. Like England’s eighteenth century linen and cotton weavers, who took on the wool monopoly and won, greater inclusion of political outsiders could drive the UN’s evolution by bringing about the creative destruction so prized by those failure-loving agents of progress: entrepreneurs.
More on this:
The U.N. at 70: Risk Averse, Unsafe and Too Old (Inter Press Service – in English)
‘2015 is a chance to change history,’ Ban tells UN Youth Forum (UN news service – in English)
Use of non-staff personnel in the United Nations (UN Joint inspection Unit – Geneva 2014 – in English)
For more stories like this on Switzerland follow us on Facebook 
Livia Varju says
The UN should follow the ILO’s example and establish a Tripartite System, i.e., representatives should be from the governments, from NGOs and perhaps the general public. As it is, representatives are appointed by their governments and they push their agenda.
In addition, the veto system in the Security Council must be eliminated because over and over we see descent resolutions being vetoed by Russia and China. The Syrian war is in its 5th year, and the UN is doing nothng about it. What resolutions there have been were vetoed by Russia and China. The UN was establish to end wars, and it has failed.
As for the Human Rights Council, the worst perpetrators of human rights violations are on it, which discredits it entirely.
Besides, salaries are far too high in the UN, consequently many people join to make money.
Sincerely, Livia Varju
Silvia Perel-Levin says
What does “too old” mean? Why equal old with fear and inefficiency? Ageist comments and headlines like these have no place in the UN or the media.
Le News says
Thank you for your comment. This headline was not intended to be ageist. Ageism is a very important issue that affects too many people. A better headline might have been: the UN is not made up of the same cross-section of people by age as it represents. An organisation that has a professional staff where only 3 people out of 1,000 are under the age of 30 (data from 2007 JIU report) seems to have an extreme age bias and isn’t representative of the society it represents. There is a risk that some young people will start to look at this age imbalance and decide that the UN lacks legitimacy because it excludes them and therefore doesn’t represent them. Interestingly the data also show that those over 60 are also poorly represented too, only 4 out of 1,000 professional staff are in this age bracket. It appears there is a double bias at the UN against under 30s and over 60s. Do you know why there are so few over 60s at the UN?
UN pensioner says
compulsory retirement for UN employees is 62 years; one can take retirement from the age of 55 years.
Zeki Ergas says
This article suffers from many major shortcomings, and is a serious misrepresentation of reality. Why? Because: 1. In the UN, real power is in the hands of the five members of the Security Council with veto power, primarily with the United States; no Secretary General can be appointed without their approval. The UN SG is largely a figurehead with little real power. 2. As it is now, the UN operates with in the system of Neo-liberal Globalization; it cannot tackle the multiple problems created by it: Nuclear disarmement and global warming being the two main ones. 3. Comparing the UN with Silicon Valley does not make sense. Ultimately SV is a ‘sum’ of profit-oriented and -driven business organizations. The UN is, or should be, people-oriented and -driven org. 4. Creative destruction, the way it was applied in the US by private equity capitalists, has led to many abuses, and is largely responsible for practically all American manufacturing industries move to China, causing a tremendous job loss. To conclude: It does not matter that ‘the UN is too old and afraid’; what matters is that it does not have any real power.
Le News says
Thank you for your comment. The spirit of this article is that if you get the environment right and create highly inclusive organisations where people feel comfortable taking risks then you’ll get innovation. England developed inclusive rules that leveled the playing field after the Glorious revolution in 1688 which led to the industrial revolution. Places like Silicon Valley have taken some aspects of it further in modern times. If the environment is unsupportive you’ll get fear and self preservation rather than risk taking and innovation. What you describe suggests the type of organisational dysfunction that is unsupportive of innovation thus supporting the article’s point.
It is very true that Silicon Valley is driven by a profit motive but at the same time there are real people, working hard to deliver it. Many regular people have been able to realise amazing innovations in environments such as SV that they couldn’t in other contexts. Governance shifts such as those in 1688 England have huge impact on people and society that go way beyond business and profits. And they are very people orientated. That is why they work. They reward personal risk and innovation. The good people at the UN will respond in the same way if the right environment is in place. The only difference will be that they won’t be measuring their success in profit terms. Having said that many profit-maximising entrepreneurs don’t either. They see profits as a measure rather than an end in itself. It is also important to remember that most entrepreneurs fail and never make any significant money, showing that they are driven by more than dollars.
Your assertion that creative destruction has caused net job losses in the US is not supported by evidence. It creates and destroys jobs. There are winners and losers. Whether a country losses overall usually depends on how well their society and governance adapts. In general the world adapts well to creative destruction and change. Just compare the average quality of life today with 300 years ago.