I'm Alison Beard.
And I'm Adi Ignatius, and this is the HBR IdeaCast.
Adi, we talk a lot about how hard change is and the latest research on how to do it successfully.
Today though, we're speaking to a leader who has done it in practice at a large complex, multi-stakeholder organization that you would think is especially resistant to change.
Yeah, there's probably nothing more fundamentally threatening than change.
It disrupts our comfort zones.
It challenges our assumptions about what makes us successful.
And it takes us into the great unknown.
There is a reason companies get locked into their business models for longer than they should.
And that is because change is daunting.
Absolutely.
And our guest today isn't a corporate leader, but there is lots to learn from her about navigating bureaucracy, motivating a workforce and managing pushback.
She is Kelly T. Clements, the Deputy High Commissioner at the UN Refugee Agency.
She's essentially the number two at an organization that protects and supports people around the world.
It's a job that requires impressive people skills, operational savvy and grit.
And, as you can imagine, with aid cuts and increasing global conflict, it's only gotten harder over the past several years.
In the decade that she's been at the agency, its budget has grown by 40, while the number of people dependent on it has doubled.
And during that same time, Kelly has managed internal reform and new innovation around connectivity and climate.
Here's our conversation.
So when you're walking into a long-established organization like the UN Refugee Agency, as you did a decade ago, how do you first identify what changes are needed and figure out if they're even possible?
You know, walking into an agency like this, you do a lot of listening, you do a lot of discussions and it is a time to be a sponge, both in terms of learning what are some of the differences between perceptions that you had coming into the organization and what really happens in an organization?
And you think as well about what the vision, of course, is of the leadership.
The new high commissioner was coming in in 2016.
So obviously a new leadership, not just in the deputy role that I occupied, but also thinking about the vision of where that high commissioner wanted to go with the agency, what was happening in the world at the time.
We had 64 million people that were forcibly uprooted from their homes because of conflict or war or persecution.
We had a budget, a needs-based budget that was substantial, but certainly not the size that it has been in the last couple of years.
And we were looking at an agency that was at that time about 65 years old.
We're about to celebrate our 75th, or mark the 75th anniversary of an agency that started off with a temporary mandate.
And so you come into an agency like this that was built with a particular purpose and very much focused on protection of refugees and people that were forced to flee or persecuted, or stateless people trying to find solutions.
And then you come into an agency where Perhaps it was set up as a much smaller one.
Perhaps it had a different way of working.
There was a certain style, a certain way that decisions were made and executed and so on.
How do you then redesign a way of operating that perhaps you have to be on the spot as an agency trying to meet the needs of those 64 million people at that time?
Many more now.
And that means looking at how the organization's structured, how its decisions are made, how the culture of the place operates.
Are people included in those decisions?
We're very consensus-based organization and as you get bigger and you're in more operational context and there are more people that are dependent on the agency, you actually have to think how do you make decisions in a way that you have the best information at your fingertips to make them, but you also are able to then do it as quickly and as effectively as possible, because you know lives are at stake?
And if you don't get those decisions right, that really people suffer.
And we, over the period of seven to eight years of the last 11, we embarked on the most ambitious transformation program in the organization's history, changing everything from systems and processes, looking at culture, decentralizing decision-making so that those decisions were taken as close as possible to the people that we're working with and for benefiting very much obviously, from refugee voices, displaced voices.
And that, I think, made for a much stronger than organization coming out of it.
And we obviously benefited during that time.
There were changes, innovation, technology.
It was a massive transformation.
And it put us in a better position for what then came in terms of a massive contraction of income for the entire humanitarian and development sector.
So I want to dig into all those different threads of reform.
But first you know how did you work with the incoming High Commissioner to prioritize what you wanted to change first.
Unfortunately, one of those perennial issues through the whole 11 years that I've been associated with the agency, funding has never kept pace with the needs.
The number of displaced and refugee people people forced to flee continued to increase year in and year out.
And so that meant that the budget was increasing and that meant that very, very difficult priorities had to be taken in terms of what we were going to do and what we were not going to do.
We don't make world peace.
You know, it's up to member states, it's up to political actors and so on to help with that.
But we deal with the repercussions when peace doesn't happen.
And we also help to address needs for people when there is peace to help them go home.
And so he, at that stage, really focused very much on solutions.
And even if it wasn't possible for people to go back voluntarily to some of their home countries because there was still conflict, how do you enable people refugees then to take care of themselves, to allow them to rebuild or build a life in their countries of asylum until there's peace or, as they're returning, to be able to rebuild their countries?
And so that was a different set of skills and a different way of approaching what has been a very heavy emergency response and relief side to the organization, which continues to this day to be important, but to really focus as well on solutions.
And so then, with that kind of vision, you can start seeing how the organization could be designed redesigned, restructured and where to put the priority of senior people's time and, as well, to communicate with our colleagues across the globe how we prioritize as well in terms of operational delivery.
So I think a lot of our listeners will identify with the idea of more work to be done and fewer resources to do it with.
Talk about how you instilled sort of more operational efficiency or, as you just said, sort of external partnerships to do more with less.
Yeah, we have.
Unfortunately, the last 18 months, I think the phrase do more with less became do less with less, because it went from already a very constrained resource to one that really experienced very deep, deep cuts.
So we had already been on an efficiency agenda, efficiency journey, with some pretty sizable initiatives within the UN system as a whole.
And that's something that I think is worth noting that When you're kind of steering a ship and a ship is as big as an organization that at one point was 20000 people in these 550 different locations.
That ship moves, you know, rather slowly as it turns in different directions.
But then think about the power of having an entire system move as that ship into a different direction, including efficiency.
And we partnered with the World Food Program a few years ago, for example.
We both had the best offerings when it came to fleet and leasing vehicles, because you know, obviously you know we're trying to save as much money, not spending on ourselves, to be able to spend more on the people that we're working for and with.
And so some of these initiatives then became initiatives that the entire system saw the possibility in terms of those cost savings and reductions and partnering with others.
And we saw significant savings that could then be put into programs.
Maybe one more example.
Traditionally, when we're in a refugee situation, people are moving across the border in very large numbers.
We would be there with core relief items.
Over the years, we've changed these core relief items to those that are more sustainable on the environment.
And we've also changed some of those core relief items to cash support, where then refugees can decide what is best for their families in terms of what they need at that particular moment.
Is it food?
Is it a place to sleep?
Is it clothing for their children?
Is it school fees?
You know, all of these various things.
So moving towards a cash is best approach, which is also more efficient.
It's also less susceptible to fraud.
And we've also looked at different ways to deliver that cash using blockchain, using stable coin and other ways again to deliver humanitarian aid and protection differently.
It's such a complex operation that you must need to rely on the people on the ground for all of those operational efficiency ideas, all those innovation ideas, in addition to sort of top-down thinking.
Right, so how do you make those two work together?
Well, we and I certainly don't take credit for this my predecessor actually established an innovation office.
And the idea of this innovation office is indeed to pull all those good ideas from these 550 different operational contexts to see what works, what doesn't work and what can be scaled up.
We're actually now launching an accelerator of these very good ideas.
And we've had good support also from some of our donors to test these ideas take risks that perhaps, as a UN agency, may be more difficult for us but easier for them.
And what we have done over the last years is really scale up in a number of ways.
One example that I'm particularly proud of is what we've done on connectivity, which is really a lifeline for refugees, as they're on the move, they're fleeing the just atrocious circumstances and they're trying to find immediate life-saving services.
And what do you need in that time?
And what do you see people using during those circumstances, whether that's Chad or Poland?
It's a cell phone.
It's a mobile.
It's trying to connect with family that they may have been separated with.
It's trying to find a safe place to sleep.
It's trying to find services.
And so we've partnered with other UN agencies, in this case most closely with ITU, with the private sector, with GSMA and some of the regulators, mobile service regulators and others to then make it possible for refugees and host communities to be connected.
Our goal is 20 million by 2030, and we're a pace towards that goal.
But this, for us, it's a lifeline.
And that came, that idea came out of an operation several years ago.
It was very clear, certainly in 2015 2016, during the Syria crisis, when we saw large numbers of Syrians leaving Lebanon and Jordan and moving to Europe, that connectivity issues became fundamentally important.
And we knew that if we had UN agencies together with governments, together with the private sector and obviously, refugees themselves, they could design the solutions.
And we could use that also in some of these contexts, in some of these areas where, for example, We have more difficulty providing education, for example.
We could use it for, you know, instant schools, which we've partnered with Vodafone to do over the years.
So earlier on, you mentioned a cultural transformation.
What were the principles that you sort of wanted to instill from the get-go, along with the incoming commissioner, and sort of foster over time?
The UN is very hierarchical.
And your level dictates very much.
You know with whom you engage and who has a seat at the table and who has a voice.
For me this was very important, coming in that you know, if you're invited to a meeting, that you should be prepared to speak.
You know your views are important and they need to be heard.
And I think this was just one example of a way that we went.
Obviously, we needed to take decisions and some of the decision making we streamlined.
But the voices of our colleagues across the globe, the voices of refugees in particular, and changing a dynamic that was top-down Geneva-focused to one that really was a whole-of-agency approach was a very high priority.
And it was one of the reasons why we moved to decentralize much of our decision-making.
So, you know, it wasn't where I'm sitting now from Geneva, Switzerland that decisions were made.
Those decisions were made closest to the people that they were going to affect and with the people that they were going to affect.
And we've done that to this day, and it's some of that shift in terms of culture of which I'm most proud.
There is though, this need, when you're working for a UN agency, to focus on diplomacy and relationship management and consensus building.
So how do you balance sort of that balance?
You know, grassroots decision making moving with speed, with the need to get buy in from all your stakeholders.
Well, this was another shift, because I think traditionally, when people think about relief organizations of any sort, the traditional image is that somehow there's this team that flies in from overseas and basically takes over an operation.
You know, all of a sudden protection and relief is provided to all.
Well, that's really not how it happens, and it shouldn't happen that way.
What happens is you have very strong community responders and it's the community that, where refugees are going into, or displaced people are going into, they're the ones who are providing the immediate relief.
They're the ones that are providing the immediate shelter.
Maybe we are there, or the international community may be there.
In many places we're not because there hasn't been a spike in a conflict that would drive displacement.
So this relationship management operational delivery question is a very interesting one, because you have to know what the context is that you're walking into and what you're supporting.
And some of those early ports of call will be your local counterparts in terms of the government, the local authorities that may be welcoming refugees across a border.
It may be the local responders.
Maybe you have grassroots organizations that have been strongly involved in education or health or other delivery for the community that all of a sudden have a whole new population of people that become part of their clientele.
Those are the people that you're talking to, you're developing relationships with And you're trying to plot strategies to find solutions then, to what is the best way to be able to provide further support.
And it's always to supplement.
It's not to replace.
Because they are there when a crisis breaks out, and they will be there when the crisis abates.
The worst thing to do is to try to replace it.
Thank you for having me.
So how do you deal with shocks like that in the moment and then position yourself for long-term resilience?
Yeah.
Very good question, and a question we've been asking ourselves now for the last 18 months.
Could we have seen the dramatic contraction across the system, by the way?
It may have started with the United States in terms of some of the cuts or freezing of programs or ceasing of bilateral development support, that sort of thing.
But it's not the U.S. alone.
And we've seen it here on the continent of Europe less for development, humanitarian support, more for defense, more for security.
And what we've tried to say is that one does not supplant the other, and you need to have all of those tools used overseas as part of foreign policy in order for there to be a more stable, a more secure world, a more prosperous world.
And I have to say, the shocks that have been felt over those 18 months, I mean we've seen them ourselves in the operational context in which we're engaged.
The program impacts are huge in terms of the suffering that we've seen, the places we can't be and the heavy, heavy responsibility that falls on the shoulders of those communities that are supporting people that they have no means to support.
So this I think you know, in terms of the resilience piece and how to deal with it.
It's step by step, honestly.
I mean, we're an agency that we, part of our bread and butter is contingency planning.
It's planning for the unknown.
It's planning for the conflict that may erupt, but we don't know when, how or what contours it may have.
We took a little bit a similar approach when the cards started to fall last year in terms of the aid cuts.
The High Commissioner was very clear.
He wasn't sure the scope, the breadth, or the length that some of these cuts would take.
And he didn't want for the agency to take really draconian changes early, only to have to reverse them later, which would have meant an even worse impact on people.
We took it also by region by region and even country by country in terms of the impacts.
Where were the strongest bilateral cuts being taken?
What impact might that have on our programming?
What about our sister agencies and our implementers?
Because, of course, in many of these contexts they also rely on other contributors and donors.
And what did the broader context look like?
And also, how can we redouble efforts to mobilize resources, find more efficiencies, contract our agency even more quickly than we were already contracting, and deal with the immediate here and now, but also building the organization for strength later?
And that also meant a wider resource base and a private sector strategy where we were already on the increase year in and year out, where we even redoubled efforts.
So it has been...
You know, it's been a very painful, painful 18 months.
And, most importantly, on the people we serve, but also we've had to see a lot of colleagues depart the organization and depart the system as a whole.
And that means real impacts on people.
But I think only by, you know, again, step by step, can't look at it all at the same time.
There were different signals, different decisions that were being taken at stages during this that we have managed to work through it.
And frankly, we're still working through it.
When you have a workforce that's gone through sort of extended period of organizational transformation and then they're dealing with funding contractions, doing less with less, as you said how do you keep them engaged, resilient?
How do you protect their well-being?
And your own.
I know it's not easy and it's not easy for any of us, because when you see so many people affected and so many people that we're working with affected, you know it's possible with a little bit more resources or more teammates to be able to help with delivery.
That's the frustration for all of us that much more is possible, but it's just not the environment now in which we're living.
But for me, those operational missions, I've said it's like oxygen.
You just feel reinvigorated.
It reminds you what you do, why you're doing it, and why you're doing it with the people around you.
Do you think though, that there's anything that you and other leaders at the agency have done to keep everyone so focused on the mission and upbeat despite the terrible funding cuts and the pain that you're going through?
Or is it just a function of you know?
These are the types of people that would work for a refugee agency.
I think it's probably a combination of the two.
In times like this, it's a kind of a cliche, but you can't communicate too much.
The constant back and forth, whether that's with your own immediate team or it's your broader operation or or your broader organization, to be able to basically say what you know and what you don't know.
And when you see that people are affected, to have that human touch in terms of empathy is so essential.
And I think that we surely have not gotten everything right and we could not have anticipated the pain across the sector that we would have felt.
But I do think that there are people that come to work in this organization and for refugees whether it's with UNHCR or across the relief and humanitarian world protection world that do it because they know that it matters and they know the difference that it makes when we try to change policies, make them more dignified, being able to deliver more quickly, more effectively and importantly, talk to people that are in positions of responsibility and authority who can make a difference and also change those lives.
Are there best practices from the humanitarian world that you think corporate leaders can learn from?
Well, I have to say, we're learning a lot also from corporate leaders, because for private sector, for us, they're also their strategic partners.
So some of what we've tried to do on shared services, on finance hubs.
On some of the technology and AI solutions.
We've done this based on experience, strong experience from businesses.
And we've been able to take that into the UN and then be able to accelerate it, amplify it, scale it.
All of that.
For what I would say on the private sector on the other side, which I think has also been a good part of some of our shared value discussions we have with business, is how much sense it makes to include refugees as employees, as subjects of advocacy, of certainly corporate responsibility and all of that, but because it's not just a corporate responsibility issue.
It's also a way to see the bottom line in terms of the business sense.
You see a very positive trajectory.
We certainly have partners.
I think IKEA would be one that I'd put at the top of the list, where they've invested in a way to support both refugees and hosts with energy, education and other livelihood support, but they've also employed refugees in their stores across the globe, which has meant an even stronger bottom line in terms of resources and earnings of the company.
So they see this as a win-win from the private sector and the business point of view.
I mentioned Vodafone earlier and the instant schools network that we've established, which obviously uses technology that Vodafone is famous for, But it also, you see then, with 300000 refugee children that are educated where it wouldn't have been possible, or teachers trained in very remote parts of the globe that then become part of the economic drivers and builders of that community.
And so I think it's a good codependence, if I can put it that way.
Terrific.
Well, Kelly, thank you so much.
It's been really wonderful talking to you.
Thank you.
That's Kelly T. Clements, the Deputy High Commissioner at the UN Refugee Agency.
Next week, Adi speaks with Kayak founder, Paul English, about a vital part of workplace culture meetings.
Thank you so much for having me.
Thanks to our team senior producer Mary Du, audio product manager Ian Fox and senior production specialist Rob Eckhart.
And thanks to you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast.
We'll be back with a new episode on Tuesday.
I'm Alison Beard.
