> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:34:57 +0300
> From: "Michael Keaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If Wolfensohn really is inflicting such "damage" on the World Bank,
> should he not get some sort of PEN-L award in recognition?
Nah. Since whatever excellent destruction of that institution's
esprit de corps is accompanied by co-option of both Northern and some
Southern NGOs and trade unions, and deepening the profoundly
destructive relations the Bank enjoys with comprador finance
ministers and other leaders in the South, the overall balance is net
negative.
Forgive me if you disagree, but I have to start marketing a book that
will be out in a couple of weeks from Univ.ofCapeTown Press and Pluto
Press: *Against Global Apartheid: South Africa meets the World Bank,
IMF and International Finance,* which perhaps gives some fresh
insights into Wolfy-as-huckster.
Meantime, this verified-real memo is an organic expression of bad
management. More, please!
***
The following memo--in its entirety--was leaked to
the public in early February. It comes from the
WB's Middle East and North Africa staff.
Feedback from MNA staff and managers
The President has asked for staff views on the
reasons for disconnect between external views on
the Bank that he gets when he travels and the
almost fatalistic malaise that prevails inside the
Bank. This note reflects the consensus views that
emerged from discussions among the managers
and staff of the MNA region.
We all share Mr. Wolfensohn's perception. All
of us feel energized when we are in the field
dealing with real problems for real clients in real
time. But like him, virtually all of us are
demoralized and frustrated when we return to HQ.
There is a deep and growing cynicism and to
some extent even a sense of resignation among
staff. We are overburdened with growing,
uncoordinated and un- or under-funded mandates
that are given to us all the time. We are
disheartened by the lack of any clear direction.
And we are concerned that the management
rhetoric of teamwork, culture, ethics,
accountability are the mantra adopted by senior
management but which we see practiced far too
rarely. These are deep problems that require clear
management and leadership to resolve. They do
not need yet more studies and task forces. These
are not issues of "culture" as seems to be
suggested by some. It is a problem that can only
be fixed with better management and leadership.
The Bank has always had a larger degree of
negativity and cynicism than what may be
considered "normal" for a large organization. But
we feel that the Bank has now reached a low
point of staff morale not seen before. One can
offer many reasons for this state of affairs. Our
discussion highlighted five inter-related reasons:
President's management and leadership style
An overload of institutional mandates and a
lack of clear direction
Problems at senior management levels
Inadequate resources for the work
These issues are exacerbated by:
The high degree of negativity among staff
Of these five issues, we believe the first one is by
far the most important and which the President
must deal with personally. The President sets the
tone and style through his personal conduct and
we would not be optimistic about the other issues
being dealt with without the President making a
real effort to deal with this issue. But equally,
Bank staff must make a greater effort to move
beyond skepticism and looking at everything in a
negative light.
The specific points that emerged in the
discussions under each of these issues are
summarized below.
President's management and leadership style
The President has put forward many ideas,
some with great zeal and vigor (CDF, global
gateway, GDLN, inter-faith dialogue are some
examples). These ideas, while perhaps
individually worthwhile, have tended to diffuse
the Bank's focus. Their importance in
individual countries often unclear. The ideas
have not been accompanied by adequate
resources for implementation. Yet, coming
from the President, these are treated as
"mandates." These have contributed to the
Bank losing its focus. There is no honest
debate on the merits or priorities.
We do not think that the President receives
honest feedback from his senior managers. He
does not welcome criticism or tolerate dissent,
be it from the Board, or the managers or the
Staff Association. Managers at all levels live
under fear. Many have learnt that it serves
them to agree with him. He is thus isolated
from reality.
The atmosphere of fear that now pervades
the Bank is based on numerous day-to-day
experiences of staff and managers in their
interaction with Mr. Wolfensohn. He is quick
to rebuke and humiliate managers, often in
open meetings. Such instances generally
become known quickly around the Bank and
contribute to the climate of fear mentioned
above. He does not practice the values and
behaviors he espouses for the rest of us.
Despite pronouncements from time to time
that staff are our most valuable resource, Mr.
Wolfensohn continues to have a low opinion
of Bank staff and often expresses it to outside
audiences. These statements too invariably find
their way back to Bank staff. While this has
earned him temporary support from some of
the Bank's critics, such statements are
demeaning and demoralize staff.
Institutional mandates
The Bank today has no focus and is driven
by an ever growing list of mandates imposed
on it through a variety of means -- President's
favorite subjects as mentioned above, Board
sentiments as discerned from time to time,
public pressures, ideas generated by internal
constituencies, and even fads. These are all
cumulative with nothing ever taken off. Bank
Management has failed in taking a clear stance
on this issue. The Country Assistance Strategy
(CAS) has become not a more but less focused
document which tries to satisfy all these
interests. The lack of budget further
exacerbates the issue. But besides the budget
issue, there is a much more important issue of
the Bank losing its purpose and focus. Staff
are genuinely at a loss to decide what is
expected from them.
No initiative that starts as a pilot is ever
considered a failure because of a lack of any
honest evaluation. If the initiative comes form
the President, the climate of fear referred to
above forecloses any possibility of an honest
evaluation. If it originates from one of the
special interests, the evaluation is often done
by the same people. And even when an
initiative might have been successful, its
relative priority in relation to other tasks is
almost never questioned. All initiatives
inevitably end up with a decision to
"mainstream."
The list of fiduciary tasks is being
constantly enlarged with increasing
requirements that are burdensome both on our
borrowers and staff. The list has grown from
environment and resettlement a few years ago
to now also include social assessment,
financial management, procurement.
Monitoring and evaluation will no doubt in
due course be added to the list. And so on.
While no one can question the importance of
these issues, staff have been put unnecessarily
in a straight jacket in how they must approach
these issues through detailed "guidelines"
enforced by an army of "reviewers." The
KPMG recommendation of "fewer but better
implemented" fiduciary controls has gone by
the wayside. The mechanical application of so
called fiduciary requirements are not only
causing staff stress but also driving some of
our clients to seek other sources of finance.
The Bank is increasingly being drawn into
activities which are politically sensitive
(participatory processes, involvement of civil
society, corruption, and so on). There is no
doubt about the importance and relevance of
each one of these for development and success
of Bank assistance, but staff are not well
prepared to handle these issues which creates
more anxiety and stress.
Management issues
We see a lack of cohesion among senior
management. Stories of the President being
openly critical of individual MDs abound.
There is discord among the MDs. Some MDs
have no clear or useful roles and
responsibility. Only one MD has any real Bank
experience. MDs are isolated from staff and
have few occasions for substantive or
meaningful interaction with staff.
The perceived lack of cohesion between
management and the Board worries staff as it
reduces the credibility of the signals and
directions taken.
The matrix management has failed. We have
experienced all the pitfalls of the matrix and
are yet to see any benefits. The periodic
attempts to fix the matrix have not been able
to fix the problem. It continues to be a cause
for confusion and stress among staff and
managers alike.
This failure of the matrix management, as
originally envisaged, has naturally led to the
introduction and accumulation of corrective
processes and controls. Bank processes, far
from being simplified as was promised under
the KPMG review, are more complex than
ever. The responsibility for decision making
today is even more diffused than it was 3
years ago.
The Networks have been inserted in various
processes, whether operational or HR. But
their usefulness is yet to be demonstrated,
which is particularly striking in view of the
significance of their budgets. This further
demoralizes staff who are having to live with
constantly shrinking resources.
Budget
By far the biggest cause of demoralization
in the Bank has been in our view a lack of
budget to carry out even the basic tasks. A
large number of mandates and requirements
were added during the Strategic Compact. The
Compact also provided funding for these. At
the end of the Compact, all these requirements
remain and have even been expanded. But the
budget resources have disappeared. Clearly,
the assumption of "budget neutrality over three
years" that underpinned the Compact was
wrong. In addition to the loss of Compact
resources, we have seen additional cutbacks
for operational work to make room for other
initiatives. It is difficult to motivate staff to
work under strain when they see resources
being channeled to questionable initiatives.
The appointment of a Director for Inter-faith
dialogue is just one such example.
Unless Bank Management deals with the
budget issue squarely through significant
additional allocations and/or reallocations by
defining priorities, it is difficult to see any
progress.
The budget pressure has also created once
again the issue of redundancies. It is difficult
to have motivated staff when they live
constantly under the threat of being declared
redundant. It is even more difficult when the
managers themselves feel that the redundancies
are not justified on work program grounds but
purely to be forced to live within an arbitrarily
shrinking budget envelope.
Staff attitude issues
Bank staff have always tended to dwell on
the negative, focusing on the half-full rather
than the half-empty part of the glass. We are
in the habit of erring on being over critical,
not acknowledging our successes enough.
There is also unnecessary competition and not
enough cooperation among staff. All these feed
the negativism currently prevailing in the
institution.
Concurrent with efforts senior management
undertakes to improve things, staff need to
organize themselves and provide direct and
ongoing feedback on both what is working and
what is not working. The emphasis should be
on problem-solving rather than just finger
pointing.
Conclusion
We fully agree with the President that the Bank is
in deep trouble. Bank staff today are more
demoralized than ever. This does not make for a
productive environment in which staff can be
challenged to work towards the important goal of
"world without poverty" that we all espouse. Even
the achievements on the external front will prove
transient if staff morale continues to be low, and
staff surveys have been giving clear warnings for
some time. There is a need for better management
and leadership at all levels, starting with the
President himself. There is a need to create a
stable environment for staff in which they can be
productive. We need to get out of the "culture of
fear" reinforced by the constant threat of
redundancy.
We recognize that it is not senior management
alone that needs to act. Managers at all level and
staff also need to do their part. We believe that if
there is willingness from the top to change in
substance and not just form, staff and managers
are prepared to address the problems
constructively. They are looking for a visible lead
from the top.
