Frust UN-limited?

It was a long time a-coming. Even as we feel the de-ja-vu. Stress is among us. 

First I wondered why I had to learn of the recent Stress Survey through Staff News. I have full confidence in Penepole Curling’s interpretation of the survey results, but I would have liked those to be communicated from DHR. Wouldn’t that relieve stress?

Then I wondered whether everyone was one the same stress-page. Some of us deliberately seek the rush of adrenaline in sports, performances and politics. Most of us work better, and deliver better results under stress. And several Staff News authors clearly enjoy the challenge. As Barry Sesnan put it, after the volcano erupted: We in UNICEF Goma were proud of what we did to help. I imagine that this feeling of accomplishment and pride more than compensated for the stress. And who of us will ever have the opportunity to run across flowing lava and hijack a dugout?

While I have no reason to argue with the survey findings, and while I agree with most of Agostini’s recommendations, I am wondering whether it is always clear who the stressor is and who the stressee. For every staff member who feels stressed by his or her supervisor, there is a manager who finds the work or attitude of the supervisee to be the cause of stress. 

What then about workload as the #1 cause of stress? Except for the rare hot-spots, the typical UN office does not exactly strike me as a bee-hive of activity. And I know at least four people who are quite stressed out from doing nothing – or nothing remotely sensible. But why then do some people always work 9 ½ hours, or 12 hours, or 8 hours, come rain or shine? After all, aren’t workplans and PER assignments discussed and agreed? Workload is, also, one’s own making.

So, perhaps we should not be discussing the load of work, but its perceived usefulness and relevance. In a company, you know you are helping improve sales because you haven’t been laid off yet. In the UN this principle doesn’t apply. Not all staff crave for recognition or the proverbial pat on the shoulder. But staff still want to see why they are coming to work and – yes - pitch in some overtime when necessary. Staff want to see the connection between their contribution, the influence on the larger organisational decisions that are being taken or not taken, and – somehow - the results on the lives of children. And here the severity of the itch seems to be inversely proportional to the reach.

Somewhere, this larger scheme of things has cracks, the big plan is in disarray. Who remembers the Mission Statement by heart or knows our particular niche? Who really cares about the quality of our programmes? We may finger-point at UN reform, but we also have to get our own into shape. So, whoever the audience of the frust-survey, note that we stress because we care.

(7 May 2004)

previous         next