UN leadership: relentlessly focused on results?

Questions for candidates for UN Secretary General and other UN agencies

📷 NATO / CC BY-NC-ND

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has recently taken to tweeting, “The mission of the UN is more urgent than ever.” This is certainly true, but not in its current version — replete with process and plans. There is, of course, a reform initiative, called UN80; however, it seems more focused on managerial efficiency and restructuring than results. The UN needs a new mission: Get Stuff Done.

A key lever is leadership. Over the next three years, (at least) three major UN bodies will select (or elect) new leaders: the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2025, the UN Secretariat in 2026, and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2027. The future of the UN may well hinge on whether these new leaders possess one crucial characteristic: a relentless focus on results.

(It would make more sense if the UNDP process was delayed for 18 months and the new Administrator was chosen by a new — and hopefully more results-focussed — UN Secretary-General.)

Each of these organizations plays a vital role in advancing the UN’s mission, from tackling global poverty (UNDP) to global health (WHO), to peace and security and coordination of the UN system (UN). Yet despite their importance, the UN system has often struggled to deliver timely, measurable outcomes—an issue exacerbated by dwindling trust and funding. With Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) badly lagging and support for the UN increasingly under threat, the need for results-focused leadership is more urgent than ever.

The UN desperately needs leaders who are singularly focused on delivering measurable results. Without results, there is no trust; without trust, there is no funding. Results must be the cornerstone of any leadership candidacy.

This results focus is fully compatible with other perspectives that will drive these elections, such as gender and regional representation.

Having had experience with a UN agency election and tried (and not fully succeeded) to help transform a UN agency into one that prioritizes results above all, I witnessed firsthand the barriers that make implementing a results-focused strategy difficult. Drawing on this experience, I would pose the following six key questions to candidates vying for these top UN jobs:

1. Can you give an example of a strategy you developed that focused on measurable results, and what were the outcomes?

This is the acid test. Leaders who have a proven track record of achieving tangible outcomes are more likely to replicate that success at the UN. The UN is awash with process. But there is a gap between planning and execution. Candidates need to provide specific examples of results they have delivered, not just strategies they’ve devised.

2. How did the strategy measure and report on results?

Talking about results is easy; measuring them is not — and yet this is crucial for accountability. In addition to personal examples, candidates should be able to provide compelling analysis and tangible solutions for improving measurable results at the agency they wish to lead. For instance, at WHO, the organization’s strategic plans are now accompanied by a detailed framework for measuring results and WHO now issues annual results reports. However, results still do not drive budget reallocation or governance discussions (as I discuss below).

3. How did you use innovation and data to accelerate results?

With only 17% of the SDGs currently on track, we need to look for ways to accelerate progress. Leaders often talk about speeding up results, but few have a concrete approach to achieve it. From my experience, two elements are essential to fast-tracking progress: innovation and data.

4. How did the results influence budget allocation or reallocation?

A strategy isn’t effective unless it drives real change within the organization. The clearest indicator of such change at the management level is shifting budgetary allocations. UN agencies often rely on historical (not zero-base) budgeting practices, making it difficult to pivot based on results. Just like a business invests more in its most profitable activities, a UN agency should invest more in those activities that achieve the greatest impact.

5. How did you engage governance to monitor results, identify barriers, and help overcome them?

Effective governance is even more important than management. Leaders must work with governing bodies to improve the results focus of the organization. UN governance tends to focus more on planning and process than on execution and results. This must change.

6. How did you change the culture to value results?

As Peter Drucker famously said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Changing the culture of an organization is key to making results-focused strategy, management, or governance sustainable. UN organizations tend to be highly hierarchical, which means leadership has an outsized impact on culture. A successful candidate would demonstrate how they cultivated a results-driven culture in their previous roles, one that values data, action, and accountability.

Conclusion: Improving the UN through more results-focused leadership

The answers to these questions would provide a revealing glimpse into the candidates’ potential to lead the UN or its agencies into the future. Since each of these agencies has a different process for selecting its leader — with varying levels of transparency — its governance should find a way to ask these questions and consider the responses in its selection of the new leader.

As member states, civil society, and donors engage in these critical leadership selections, they must champion candidates who are relentlessly focused on results. The future of the UN depends on it.

I am not so naïve as to believe that results are the only, or even the primary, factor weighing on the minds of member countries selecting UN leaders. Geopolitics also matters — a lot. And sometimes a political result is itself the most important result: such as with the UN’s mandate on peace and security.

Timing also matters: I like to say, only somewhat exaggerating, that in the first year of a new leader’s term, almost anything is possible and by the final year, almost nothing is possible.

Nevertheless, imagine a UN system where, in five years, every agency is led by someone relentlessly focussed on results and on getting things done. It would be a very different—and far more effective and sustainable —UN than the one we see today.