We had a GLOWing time!

Interview with Robert Toe,

Needs Assessment Team Coordinator

Every major event within UNV begins with a needs assessment (NA). That’s the right thing to do, isn’t it? Unless we know what needs to be done at the event, how do we prepare for it? But there has been this buzz in the recent months that there’s a “NA fatigue” among the colleagues, especially after a very low response to the NA survey for this year’s General Staff Retreat. So when GLOW was announced, NA kind of became a taboo word! But, surprise, surprise, there’s a Needs Assessment Team even for GLOW!

The GLOWeb Editor recently interviewed Robert Toe (right in the photo above), Needs Assesment Team Coordinator, to find out what his team has done to overcome the “fatigue” and energize the colleagues to participate in the needs assessment exercise. And how it has made a difference. Read the interview because it does spring up more surprises!

Q: What is keeping the Needs Assessment Team busy right now?

A: The Needs Assessment Team’s role is to hold consultation with a representative range of stakeholders and participants to the GLOW. So far, we have conducted a needs assessment survey among our colleagues in the field and we have organized focus group discussions among colleagues at the HQs to understand their needs, expectations and concerns about GLOW. We have also sent out a personal information questionnaire to participants from Country Offices in order to collect personal data that will be needed for logistical arrangements, such as travel, hotel and social activities. We’re soon going to send out this questionnaire to participants from the HQs too.

Right now we’re busy processing and analyzing the feedback that we have received in the NA survey and FG discussions. Once we complete the process, we’ll prepare a report and share it with everyone.

Q: What kind of response did you receive to the NA survey and FG discussions?

A: The NA survey was conducted among all field colleagues - including PMs, POs, COAs and FPs -, colleagues in the Liaison Offices and a few colleagues at the HQs who could not be present during the FG discussions. Out of 213 people who received the survey questionnaire, 153 filled in, amounting to about 72% response.

The FG discussions took place at the HQs in nine groups. Out of about 130 colleagues here, 75 participated in the discussions, which again comes to about 58% participation. Given the fact that many colleagues had already left on Easter holidays when the discussions took place, we can consider it a high participation rate.

To give you an idea of the size of the feedback we’re processing right now, here are some ballpoint figures: We asked 10 questions in the NA survey, all but one of them open-ended, allowing three to five answers for each. This means, from that survey itself we have received more than 4,000 responses in three languages. And we’re reading through each and every response of it!

In the recent years, needs assessment surveys within the organization have not seen such high level of participation. In fact, the response level has been going down steadily over the years. This time we have seen a level of participation and response, which is the highest in recent history of UNV.

Q: What, in your opinion, are the reasons behind such a good response this time?

A: I think the form and the tools we used for seeking colleagues’ inputs made the difference. For the first time, we used an online tool for conducting the NA survey. For the first time also, we offered the options to fill it in one of three main languages: English, French or Spanish. We ensured that the survey allowed colleagues to give their inputs anonymously and it definitely encouraged them to participate.

At the HQs, we were especially conscious of the low level of participation in the NA survey for this year’s General Staff Retreat. So we instead decided to have face-to-face discussions in Focus Groups. And it worked. At the end of the discussions, we asked participants to indicate their preference of NA tools, and most of them said they would prefer FG discussions to surveys in the future.

Another reason for higher participation, I would think, is higher interest in GLOW itself….

Q: Why this higher interest?

A: I think colleagues in both the field and at the HQs recognize GLOW as a rare moment for all to come together, learn together and work together for taking UNV forward as an organization. Colleagues are very keen to participate in the event and contribute to it in their own individual ways. And our survey and discussions reflect that interest.

Q: Congratulations to the NA team for this excellent job! Now that we’ve received such a good response, what are the challenges facing you at the moment?

A: The results from the NA survey feed into everything that shapes GLOW. The biggest challenge we’re facing right now is to process the inputs from the survey and FG discussions and formulate the inputs into clear suggestions that will feed into the GLOW agenda. And that too, in the short timeframe that we have….

Although we designed the FG discussions along the lines of the NA survey questionnaire to ensure we receive matching responses from the two exercises, the two mechanisms are different in nature and that poses some challenges.

For example, with the NA survey, we have such a high number of answers (more than 4,000) to scan through, filter and analyze. The fact that they’re in three different languages only adds to the huge task.

In case of the FG discussions, we’ve the feedbacks already filtered by the group facilitators, which makes life easier for us to analyze them. But at the same time, we don’t have an idea of how frequently a particular issue was mentioned or if there was a difference of opinion about an issue before it was listed. We’ve to keep in mind that unlike in the NA survey, in the FG discussions, the issues listed are the result of discussions and they may not reflect all participants’ views.

Q: We’re all eagerly waiting for the results of the NA survey and FG discussions. Can you give us some of the highlights that you may have seen already?

A: Yes. Though we used two different mechanisms, there are some common issues that have come up from the colleagues in the field and at the HQs. Most prominent among them are: people issues, communication and issues around UNV as an organization.

Colleagues all across have highlighted future challenges for UNV, though the focus is slightly different. Colleagues from the field have focused on resource mobilization while HQ colleagues have focused more on UN reforms.

Francophone colleagues, notably, have laid higher emphasis on the Conditions of Service (COS), otherwise there are not much regional variables in other areas.

Q: What else would you like to convey to GLOWeb readers?

A: I want to thank all colleagues who participated in the survey and the discussions. Especially to those POs and PMs who consulted the volunteers for their inputs. And thanks to Focal Points who responded to the survey even with the knowledge that they may not be able to join us at GLOW due to limited resources.

While technology has helped us a lot this time to gather inputs from colleagues quickly and efficiently, human intervention is needed to assess and interpret the individual answers. It’s a big challenge for us, given the huge number of answers and the short timeframe. I want to stress that despite that we’re scanning each and every answer. All our colleagues’ inputs are being taken into consideration in the final analysis.