GVI BLOG

 

 

Inspiring courage: GVI interview with Fabrizio Hochschild.

Defending the truths of the UN Charter has taken guts, ambition, but above all courage. As such was seen in the legendary bravery of former Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello and former UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld. In efforts to understand these two men and the role courage should play in the UN system, GVI’s Gesù Antonio Báez interviewed UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Colombia, Fabrizio Hochschild to discover more.

 

1)  In your article “In and above conflict: a study on leadership in the United Nations” you begin with the quote “The world needs leaders made strong by vision, sustained by ethics, and revealed by political courage….”: Could you explain what exactly is political courage and is it present in the current UN System?

 

Political courage is akin to moral courage, it is about standing up for those who do not have a voice, it is the courage to speak truth to power in order to uphold the values of the UN Charter.

 

The importance of moral courage – especially among the organization’s senior leaders – is not always adequately promoted and celebrated. There are many examples of it, especially in the field, and I would suggest more among junior colleagues. As we get more senior, many of us grow less willing to speak up and we tend to place a greater value on caution, on maintaining relationships and avoiding controversy.

 

2)  You worked for many years with the late Sergio Vieira de Mello who for many, together with former UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, is viewed as an example of the political courageousness and valiance. What was it about these two extraordinary men that was so unique? Can you identify anyone present in the current system who has these qualities?

 

Sergio I knew well, Hammarskjöld only indirectly, mainly from reading. Both were motivated by many of the same convictions about the UN but were quite different in style and character. Hammarskjöld was a Swedish civil servant and former central banker while Sergio was a Brazilian career UN staffer and former student activist with long work experience in conflict areas.

 

Both were inspired by the notion that the UN served and promoted international values and norms. Both believed strongly in the importance of the independence of the UN Secretariat and the need for staff to be scrupulous in avoiding representing individual member state or regional interests.  Both believed that the main purpose of the UN was to serve the less fortunate, those without access to power or influence and that staff needed to be guided by the values set out in the UN Charter. At the heart of Hammarskjöld´s vision – which inspired Sergio – was his concept of integrity: Integrity not understood in the narrow sense it is often used now but in broader terms, integrity not merely as avoiding breaking UN staff rules, but more importantly as an obligation to pro-actively uphold the standards and norms of the UN especially when it is difficult and controversial to do so.

 

Hammarskjöld was reflective, cerebral and, as “Markings” reveals, quite spiritual. He argued flawlessly based on principle and law. Sergio´s approach and style differed. He relied more on charm, charisma, eloquence and an uncanny ability to empathize with his interlocutor than on principle and conceptual reasoning to win over others to the cause of the organization.  He also drew a lot on his field experience.

 

Both to this day move and inspire staff. I have seen examples of their skill, vision and courage at every level in the organization.

 

3) In life, it is sometimes necessary to take risks in order to achieve a greater good. This, of course, takes courage. However, in the present UN System, many within are afraid of taking those risks for fear of losing job security. What action do you think must happen in order to encourage more courage within the system and generate true leadership? And by which actors (e.g. managers, directors, general staff, NGO’s, etc)?

 

There are a number of things that can be done. The first is that field work should be encouraged, as well as first hand exposure to the conflict situations the UN was created to attend to. This experience is far more likely to light the flame of passion and conviction which nurtures the courage to stand up for what is right. Where staff only know UN service from sitting in an office in New York or Geneva, far removed from those we serve, it is much harder to gain the inspiration and courage that comes with field service. Those who have lived through conflict, witnessed crimes against humanity or been exposed to extreme poverty, know that job security is not what matters most.

 

A second thing that can be done is to look again at our recruitment and promotion processes. We need to value much more integrity in the sense Hammarskjöld understood it in these processes. We don’t value sufficiently the ability of skillfully, tactfully and courageously advancing principled causes where it is difficult and controversial to do so. We need to go back to what Hammarskjöld stood for and what most people want from the UN: The courage, conviction and skill to uphold and promote the implementation of universal values; the disposition to serve those in direst need and to be able to do so under pressure without flinching or undue compromise. We need to seek out and recruit those who have a proven record of this in their CVs. We also need more women in leadership positions.

 

Thirdly we need to re-awaken what made most staff want to join the organization but then too often gets diluted or forgotten as their careers progress. Caution and inaction too often become the default tendencies in light of contradictory pressures and a risk and criticism averse culture. We too rarely risk sticking our necks out until we are sure we are not too exposed and we are part of a pack of powerful interests. We must learn again to work more from a norms and values based perspective and accept that friction and criticism is inevitable when we do that. We also have to think less about how we will be judged today or tomorrow and more about what history will have to say about what we managed to do and the positions we took.

 

And finally, those of us who are senior have to do better at trying to set an example, an example in conviction and persistence, and in terms of independence from member state interests and upholding the international norms when it many be perilous and difficult to do so. We need to try and set an example for younger, more junior staff rather than profiting from their idealism and commitment while not doing enough to nurture it. We have to do more to create a culture where staff feel safe and supported taking initiative and taking risks in pursuit of what the organization stands for.

 

 

 

I want to see you be “brave”: courage in and around the UN system

There’s a catchy new song from the popular singer Sara Bareilles that has hit the radios recently. Entitled “Brave”, the song goes into detail on the singer’s desire for the listener to “say what they want to say” and “be brave”.

 

As the lyrics go:

 

You can be amazing

You can turn a phrase into a weapon or a drug

You can be the outcast

Or be the backlash of somebody’s lack of love

or you can start speaking up

 

Catchy as the song may be, it does leave room for pondering on how inactive we may have been in certain situations in our lives, and makes us wonder how brave we have really been.

 

It also prompts us to ask if there is any relevance of bravery to the actions of those that work in and around the UN system? Recent criticism is that many are not taking risks for fear of being reprimanded or making an unpopular decision. But with the general scope of work involving the need to be purposeful in our roles, where is the courage to vocalize one’s passion?

 

It’s indeed normal for many to be afraid of failure, but given that the work of the United Nations is designed to have an impact on the 7 billion citizens that inhabit this plant, wouldn’t those who work in it be obliged to try and try again, in order to achieve the true potential of both their role and their work within the UN?

 

Nelson Mandela was famous for saying that it was through his greatest failures that he achieved his greatest strengths. But taking risks and preparing for failure takes courage and bravery – above all, it takes confidence and passion. Could this be lacking within the system?

 

In January and February, we will be exploring this topic and trying to understand how we can indeed be brave and take the initiative to rekindle passion and promote positive and purposeful change in and around the UN system

 

 

 

 

Post-2015 Developments in Asia: Impact on the Ground

GVI connected with Sivasubramanian, a thought leader in Internet governance space based in India and currently serves global organizations like ISOC and ICANN at various capacities. GVI spoke with him to understand how post-2015 development efforts are impacting people in the Asia.

 

Do you think the mechanisms for multi­stakeholder engagement in forging the agenda (e.g. the online World We Want platform, the MY World 2015 Global Survey, as well as regional and national consultations) will usher in new ongoing modes of inclusive global governance? Should it?

 

It is good to see multi­stakeholder model being increasingly adopted in the forging and implementing the Developmental Agenda in Global Governance. While the world has been considerably effective in minimizing global conflicts or providing relief on a global scale, its ultilateral process, in the area of economic and social development, during the past 70 years, has been highly politicized in identifying the core issues and in reaching agreements on the developmental priorities; where the issues are identified, the top­down implementation model produced sub­optimal results.

 

Inter­governmental diplomatic process by seasoned diplomats is required in some specialized areas such as global conflict resolution, but at the same time, the global developmental tasks are so enormous and so complex that it is impossible for Governments alone, (in disconnected isolation of other stakeholders) to generate effective and conclusive solutions to problems. In the multi­stakeholder process, not only does stakes are claimed by stakeholders but the expertise from across different stakeholder groups of Business, Academia and other sectors of the Civil Society combine with that of the Government to generate well informed and optimal solutions to various issues.

 

Inclusive Governance does not necessarily imply proportionate inclusion of participants from every region, from every country, from every creed, proportionately across genders. Such a rationale for inclusiveness would generate endless debates on the basis for proportionate representation, for example, inclusion in proportion of population, inclusion in proportion of geographic space etc. By extension there is no single formula for proportionate representation, that could be deemed completely fair. What ought to be the focus is fair global governance, fair for everyone. If there is a fair process where a woman could decide in a manner that is fair for both genders, then it is not required to double a seat where only one is required.

 

Fair global governance is achievable by the multistakeholder process as this process tends to broadly balance the interests, even without proportionate inclusion or representation. As the development process increasingly adopts the multi­stakeholder process, global governance becomes more and more effective.What are your thoughts or what role does you see for the private sector, for philanthropists, other new actors in development? What would be the nature of some of the collaborations, and on what issues?

 

Private Sector has played a role that is much greater than that of governments in global development. While Governments have played the role of a regulator, private sector has brought in innovations and caused progress to happen. The role of Government could be viewed as that of a facilitator or enabler, instead of a regulator, then the roles played by the rest of the actors become more and more effective. Philanthropists could look for similarity of causes and bring together resources where possible for more effective global philanthropy. For a start, there could be a spatial overview of philanthropic missions and programs to minimize redundant allocations and to cover neglected areas of philanthropy. An effective multi­stakeholder process could help channelize or guide the philanthropic resources in a manner that such resources are optimally allocated for global development. Private Sector could consider adopting the social enterprise model more and more, get more involved in the multi­stakeholder process and also support the participation of Civil Society and ther actors who might have participation constraints.

The online stakeholder engagement platforms are valuable tools to engage stakeholders. The platforms need to incorporate more collaborative tools, perhaps with help from the Internet technical community who would be glad to contribute to the efforts to apply their expertise to aid developmental efforts.

Global Participation and the UN: An interview with Otto Spijkers

Global participation has been on the rise, from the protests in Hong Kong to citizens vocalizing their requests through government initiatives to include their citizens in decisions making (e.g.: the European Union). GVI is keen to understand more how global participation itself has begun to penetrate the UN system, including in the current planning for the post 2015 agenda. GVI interviewed Otto Spijkers, Assistant Professor at Utrecht University and author of the article Global Public Participation at the United Nations, to understand more about this.

 

1) What initiated your interest in public participation within the UN and the need for it?

Personally, I always had an interest in examining the individual and his or her role within the global community. If you take the idea of a global community seriously, you have to see it as more than an abstract idea. But compared with a single individual, the global community is, of course, overwhelming in size, and this has as a consequence that individuals might not think much of their role in it. At the same time, more and more individuals are beginning to be more assertive, and they do want to take responsibility and be more actively involved in this large global community .

 

It is truly fascinating; I happen to also be a philosopher and you can relate studies on cosmopolitanism to this. With cosmopolitanism, there is a strand that if you let go of nationality and replace it with nothing else, you become detached from citizenship and ties to a nation and you can wander about free in the global community, without the barriers of nationality. You are free in an almost absolute sense. But there is a second strand of cosmopolitanism, which focuses more on obligations towards the international community, that need to be regulated and institutionalized, rather than on loosening the ties with a particular (national) community.  

 

Do you feel that cosmopolitanism is entering the UN system?

Well, former Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold once compared the UN with a painting. You can either look at the UN as a weird abstraction painted by Picasso, or you can view it as a painting made by the world’s citizens themselves. This is what’s key to the success of the UN system: that the world’s citizens identify with the UN, that they see it as their organization. It should not be viewed as some toothless State construction, not as a deus ex machina to save us all. Instead, the UN should be viewed as an organization people associate themselves with.  People should ask themselves: “how do I see myself as part of the UN system?” Take the Ebola crisis as an example; many are under the impression that it’s the UN’s responsibility to take care of its eradication. But if we are the UN, and if we interpret our role in this way, then we should view it is as our responsibility as global citizens to combat the disease through the UN.  
2) Do you feel the prime setback of the United Nations is its lack of incorporating the general public in the decision making process of various initiatives, such as the MDG’s?

The MDGs weren’t inclusive to begin with as it involved a very select group of experts who came to the conclusion that these goals were priorities for the world at large. The problem with this is that when it comes to decisions that affect the public, you need to have input from the public. But in case of the MDGs, the international community did subsequently embrace these goals, and began to work with them.

 

3) Do you think that the SDG experience represents a significant trend towards more participatory global governance?

I think the SDG drafting process can be viewed as sort of a global laboratory for experimenting with the possibilities of global participation at the UN. It’s testing what was traditionally seen as vital, and examining it against the public’s views. An interestingexample is climate change. For years, NGOs and the likes have claimed it as vital for development goal agendas. But when the general public was surveyed on this, their opinion on the importance of climate change was low in comparison to other priorities such as health and human rights making it to the forefront. However, this is only an experiment, for, in the end, the main decision-making bodies at the UN are still constituted by State representatives, which is very conservative and traditional.

 

4) You mention different types of participation in your article – “co-author”, “rubber-stamp”, etc.  How would you characterize the SDG UN experience of consultations?

There are indeed many types of participation. With “rubber stamping” in general, participants are only asked to approve a particular policy after it has been made by the institution. Not really policymaking, but it has them approve or not approve a decision, which is not present in the decision making process for the post 2015 SDG goals.

Another kind of participation is problem finding, which instead involves the participants being asked to define the problem themselves. This is present within the SDG formation with online, national and international consultations taking place. Thematic consultations involve experts who are asked to express their views, for example on the topic of water or maternal health. And those with relevant experience are asked to clearly state the problem. The overall idea is, bluntly put, that the poor know best what it is like to be poort. Then there is the advisory type of participation that is the most important for the SDG process. These advisors provide expertise or experience to the decision making process in determining how to go forward with the 2015 agenda. For example, the SDG’s solution network, which is representative of the scientific community, would draft reports based on their research, and these would be used to steer decisions through processes related to the SDG’s, such as working with policy makers on deciphering whether of not the considered goal is feasible.

 

 

5) What kind of participation do you think will be most prevalent in the future at the UN, and why?  Will the post-2015 process be the game changer in this respect?

 I feel that now that we’ve opened the Pandora’s box for participation, there is no way back once initiated. Nobody would ever say that global participation doesn’t work in understanding global needs. That being said, we need to streamline this process and make it more effective. We need to look critically to see who the stakeholders are, i.e.  those that create policy and those affected by it. Some well-known NGO’s have the loudest voices, but the loudness of your voice should not be decisive in who gets to participate and how. So the UN may have to actively look at other stakeholders, and encourage their participation.

 

And there are many types of stakeholders; these can consist of corporations, small NGO’s, organizers of the process (UN subsidiary organs and regional agencies) and the scientific community. The UN should take into consideration who it would like to participate within the development process and invite them, instead of facilitating ways only for the loudest NGO’s to participate.

 

In the end, the most important stakeholder is the general public. They are the uninvolved, yet potentially affected stakeholder. But as they don’t present themselves to the UN, it would be up to the UN to invite and encourage them to participate.

 

To read the full article of Prof. Otto Spijkers, click here.

 

GVI Guest Blogger Gemma Burford: Will post-2015 development be truly holistic?

Gemma Burford is Research Fellow, Values and Sustainability Research Group, University of Brighton

 

Most contemporary development work focuses on what is visible from the outside (e.g. observable behaviour change, tangible outputs, or measurements of complex system dynamics).   An Integral Sustainable Design approach balances these exterior perspectives with discussion of interior dimensions – how people feel, what their subjective experiences are, and what’s valued within a particular organisation or community.  This is essential because human beings don’t usually analyse situations scientifically before taking action: many of our decisions are based on emotions and deeply held values.

An Integral approach is also distinctive in its recognition that different people are motivated by different things, and that we have to meet them where they are – not where we wish they were. If we don’t make space for subjective dimensions such as values, emotions and personal experience in the design of our projects, they may come back to haunt us later, like the thirteenth fairy in the story of Sleeping Beauty.  Social, environmental and economic projects are all equally susceptible to the consequences of neglecting subjective realities:

–          A new water pipe stands unused, because the women’s morning walk is the high point of their day – they value social bonding, and paying their respects to the spirit of the mountain spring, far more highly than `efficiency’ or `convenience’.

–          A microcredit initiative has disastrous consequences because the well-meaning founder is outnumbered by self-centred committee members, motivated by their desire for wealth and social status.

–          A coordinator is hired for a conservation program based on indigenous ecological knowledge, but constantly undermines it with her fundamentalist belief that there is only one ‘right way of knowing’. While Integral Sustainable Design is already becoming established in fields such as architecture, there is an urgent need to apply its insights to international development.

The emergent post-2015 process offers a unique opportunity to shape the global development agenda for the next 15-20 years, but most of the discourse is still centred on deciding whether goal A is more important than goal B: “Would you rather feed your children, educate them, cure them of malaria, protect them from rape, or mitigate climate change so they can survive to adulthood?”   Despite knowing in our hearts that these issues are all complex, messy and profoundly interconnected, we still persist in treating them as separate and attempting to rank them in order of priority.   An Integral Sustainable Design lens can help us to recognise the common roots of many global problems: outdated systems, egocentric values, feelings of apathy and despair, and destructive or unproductive human actions. With this in mind, the response looks very different.

We can stop designing projects to tackle one problem at a time, and focus on finding ways to foster individual and collective ‘mindshifts’ – from self-centred to planet-centred worldviews – to eliminate the root causes of multiple problems.  We can stop obsessing about what’s not working right now, and get on with empowering people whose vision is already planet-centred (and my guess is that there are plenty of those around…) to start co-designing and co-creating the futures that they actually want. There’s still time to campaign for a radical and genuinely holistic post-2015 agenda – but the windows of opportunity are rapidly closing.  To all Integral thinkers out there: this is our time to stand up and be counted.  Every minute that we don’t speak up brings us one minute closer to a global development agenda set out in the same old way, perpetuating the same old patterns.  Who can we talk to, who can we e-mail, what can we tweet, to infuse the post-2015 decision-making process with a new vision before it’s too late?

 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Equitable and meaningful collaborations

“Not everyone thinks like you because we’re not all the same”

 

It’s a quote that’s obvious when hearing it but to put it into use is another thing. How often do we take this quote into practice? Especially within our own line of work, how often do we consider using projects and methods used in one setting and adapt it to another, even though the settings are different but the problems are the same?

 

As the post-2015 agenda continues to be a focal point of discussion as we near the end of the MDG’s, it has been stressed continuously that developed countries will be included in the post-developmental plans along with under-developed regions in efforts to highlight the need for a global collaboration in ending common world issues. For years, the work of UN branches such as UNICEF, UNDP, and UNFPA have been focusing on under privileged world regions, but with these new discussions at hand, will there be a need for collaborations to be made in efforts to bring this work to developed regions as well?

 

Will the focus on global partnerships mean more equitable and meaningful collaboration on development goals among developed and developing countries? And amongadvantaged and disadvantaged groups at the national level?

 

All nations suffer from levels of health issues for example (i.e.: AIDS, maternal mortality, etc), despite the variations from country to country. Such as the case with child mortality – while 4 in 1,000 newborns die from preventable anomalies and diseases in Sweden, it’s 260 in 1,000 in Sub-Saharan Africa. With this, it’s clear to see that a united effort would be needed, as well as a partnership, in effort to change these outcomes in both countries to make a change regardless of the scale in each country.

 

One example of a united effort being done within a first world context is in Australia, where despite the development of the nation and its first world status, it suffers from inequality among its aboriginal population. From education to health services, these people have been driven to the remote states of Australia and have fewer opportunities presented to them to change their circumstances. One concern is the lack of ultrasound scanning being done by mid-wives in the aboriginal communities.A main cause is lack of education. Recently, the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), a part of the Partnership for Maternal, Child, and Newborn Health division of WHO, have begun conducting workshops in basic ultrasound in OB/GYN training in these aboriginal regions. For the project, ISUOG partnered with ASUM (the Australian Society of Ultrasound in Medicine) who have previously worked in Papua New Guinea to provide humanitarian outreach, for the first time in a developed region.

 

The effort is to train these midwives so they can properly conduct scans and detect fetal anomalies so as to take preventive measures to increase the child’s chances for life upon birth. Before then, the aboriginal community had never been exposed to such technology, which led to the deaths of many babies – deaths caused by something that was easily treatable.

 

This one partnership is an example of how collaboration can be done to bring work even to developed regions and collaborate to achieve developmental goals – in this case, MDG goals number 4 and 5.

 

Will this be just an isolatedexample, or will the focus on global partnerships mean growth in more equitable and meaningful collaboration on development goals among developed and developing countries?

 

Can progress towards participatory global governance, global partnerships and a holistic systems approach to child mortality and maternal health transform the outcomes?

Since the initial set up of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s), a typhoon of initiatives, partnerships, alliances, and statements have been launched in effort to both promote awareness of the issues at hand and urge governments in developing nations to action. Most in particular, the push for the fulfillment of goal number 4 and 5 have led UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNFPA, UNDP and UN Women to launch campaigns that highlight the importance of these goals, given the touched upon child health and maternal mortality.

 

As we approach 2015 and the rushed consideration for how to proceed beyond the deadline becomes the main focus for all talks, a key  question to ask ourselves is whether, and how, progress towards participatory global governance, global partnerships and the holistic systems approach to child mortality and maternal health can transform outcomes?

 

The WHO had created the Partnership of Maternal and Newborn Child Health (PMNCH) division, which brought together NGO’s and international health organizations that focused on maternal health. The division highlighted that a global partnership was needed in order to tackle maternal health issues in countries such as Papua New Guinea and India while also supporting the unique differences of each organization to help contribute to the big picture. For example, the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), with their Outreach programs focusing on ultrasound in OB/GYN training in under-served regions, joined forces with WHO in providing details of ultrasound needs worldwide and the particular benefit of the technology in improving perinatal and maternal mortality ratios.

 

This helped transform outcomes, through giving insight into a particular niche within women’s health that proved crucial in helping identifying issues and anomalies that could be prevented with this technology, and ISUOG has collaborated with other organizations of the partnership (i.e.: FIGO, UNFPA, etc) to deliver ultrasound technology or offer aid to doctors in OB/GYN.

 

But is this the most systemically effective method towards achieving both sustainable results post-2015 and help under-served countries finally improve their levels of female mortality? Are partnerships vital in general to help reach desired outcomes?

 

Let’s get the discussion following and answer below!

 

 

Relevant information:

 

They’ve posted and now it’s time to vote! Submitters have entered GVI’s Photo contest to show us what inspires them to continue to pursue their work within or around the UN system and how a project in mind helps fulfill their purpose. The prize for the winner is $1,000 in support money to fund it.  So help us pick the best and vote on which picture truly showcases their purpose and passion. To vote in the Photo Contest, click here.

A second chance: both for goals and development

It’s not always easy to see it, but sometimes we’re given second chances just when we’ve given up.

And it’s only natural at times to just give in. After weeks, maybe even months or years, of simply pushing and trying to make a dream or a project work, the reality of it all sets in and you realize that it might not be meant to be after all.

“What’s the reason for me even doing this?” you find yourself wondering. Maybe you begin to doubt the effectiveness of the purposeful role you had sought after and won within or around the United Nations system.

But that second chance kicks in to just change it all. In our lifetimes, this can be finally meeting “the one” after years of heartbreak and hardships. For others, this could be that magic day when after trying so hard for years that blue line in the pregnancy test appears – and your life is changed forever.

For our line of work, the blue line of new beginnings comes when a new breath of hope is released into a project or a purposeful mission that we’ve been pressing on for years. Securing ultrasound machines for a maternal clinic in your UNFPA division in Upper Mongolia? Receiving the support for more UNICEF “Education in a box” support from government aid investors so more can be given to Syrian refugees in Lebanon? Whatever the task, it’s always encouraging and hopeful that the purpose you felt you were set out to do when you decided to work under the banner of the United Nations or its networks is finally kicking in.

And that second chance can come as simple as taking a photo. Take part in the GVI Photo Contest and post a picture today that reflects your passion and purpose for why you are committed to working within or around the UN System and you could win up to $1,000 to finance a project of yours that helps you fulfill that sense of purpose.

And if you don’t have a project quite yet then worry not for more are bound to arrive. With the new development plans for post-2015 in the making, countless second chances are being offered to those who felt they were forgotten. Perhaps your mission is to bring funding on raising the momentum of adolescent importance? Or maybe your project was highlighting high rates of maternal mortality in the Western World, while others only saw it in developing countries?

Post-2015 brings change – but above all, it brings a second chance.

Relevant information:

You can sign up to enter the photo contest to show us what inspires you or how your project helps fulfill your purpose within the UN system and you can win $1,000 in support money to fund it. To participate in the Photo Contest, click here.

Back to work blues? Fresh ideas and possibilities with just a picture

 

The day back into the office post-vacation can always be a bit brutal with a swirl of thoughts flooding your head as you make your way through the familiar corridors and offices of your department. You sit back down at you desk, which feels familiar but at the same time completely alien to you. And for a second, as you try to log into your computer, you completely forget your password.

 

Such are the instances of returning to work after having spent four meticulous months away and catching up with all of life’s simple pleasures; friends, old hobbies, book, and the latest episode on from your favorite sitcom. But while you may be releasing a sigh of despair as you check back into reality, there are still endless possibilities that can be revealed on that first day back.

 

You could have finally gotten that email from the contact you been trying to reconnect with on a particular project.

 

You superior may have finally gotten back to you on the results of a long awaited decision item.

 

Or better yet, a whole new possibility for a new project; something that you can do for you.

 

Without a doubt, GVI’s Newsletter has greeted you as you are skimming through the incalculable number of emails that have blasted your inbox. But while most of the messages relate to past projects or inter-department communications, GVI’s Newsletter offers a fresh new start – and all through the Photo Contest.

 

Have you ever had a project that you wanted to get initiated but couldn’t get the funds? Or maybe the budget for one that you’ve been working on for a while now isn’t just enough to properly get it to the level you want it to be.

 

Well fear not – you’re off to a new start.

 

You began your career at or around the UN with purpose and a sense of will to make a change.

 

You believe that and so does GVI.

 

Take part in the Photo Contest and post a picture today that reflects your passion and purpose for why you are committed to working within or around the UN System, and you could win up to $1,000 to finance a project of yours that helps you fulfill that sense of purpose.

 

Submit your photos and viewers will cast their votes and rate their favorite picture against yours to reflect the passion of each submission in pursing their purpose within or around the UN system. The picture with the most votes will receive $1,000 to support a purpose-driven project and give inspiration to continue to succeed.

So why not? You’re back from vacation and with a new fresh mind, so with fresh ideas and fresh initiatives, anything is possible.

 

Relevant information:

 

You can sign up to enter the photo contest to show us what inspires you or how your project helps fulfill your purpose within the UN system and you can win $1,000 in support money to fund it. To participate in the Photo Contest, click here.

A little more: the difference that could help reach your goals

Just a little more.

It’s for that project that you’ve been working on. It’s taken you weeks of planning – maybe even months – and the proposal has been through all the major heads of department to review.
The problem is that they tell you it’s too ambitious, or maybe even too complex and too expensive? Perhaps if you only had that additional set of funds – $500 or $1,000 extra to support the work you’ve been wrapping your brain around for what seems like an eternity – it could be funded.

 

You believe in this project because you feel it defines everything you believe your role within the UN system has set you out to do. The project has given you that purpose; that drive and creativity which makes you feel like for once, you’re finally doing something right.

 

What if you received that help? What if that extra support could be given to you? What if you were told that all you had to do was take a photo and it’s yours?

 

You’re shaking your head; not so easily convinced, it seems? Well, it’s not as farfetched as it might look. Global Vision Institute believes in your project but wants you to show us that you do as well. Post a picture (or even a selfie) that describes your purpose for working in or around the UN and why you believe your project fulfills that goal for you – to potentially win $1,000 in support of your project.

 

A picture says a thousand words but will yours accurately describe the passion you have for this goal of yours?

 

Post your picture today and have viewers cast their votes and rate their favorite picture, to reflect thepassion of each submission to continue in pursing their purpose within or around the UN system. The picture with the most votes will receive $1,000 to support a purpose-driven project and give inspiration to continue to succeed.

 

 

Relevant information:

 

You can sign up to enter the photo contest to show us what inspires you or how your project helps fulfill your purpose within the UN system and you can win $1,000 in support money to fund it. To participate in the Photo Contest, click here.

Page 3 of 41234

E-Newsletter

GVI produces publications on substantive issues from a values perspective, and linked to current events on the UN agenda. GVI also solicits and hosts articles by UN system actors, so you can hear your own voice in the conversation.

The Blog

Twitter Feed

Donate

Support us in supporting you. GVI is a tax exempt 501(c)3 organization so your contributions are tax deductible. We invite you to make a safe online donation.