When You Work for the UN, Can You Really Speak About What’s Insanely Wrong?

When You Work for the UN, Can You Really Speak About What’s Insanely Wrong?

Here’s a question many UN staff whisper privately but rarely dare to say aloud: Can the things that are painfully, insanely wrong within the system you work for actually be spoken about? Or must silence be learned and labeled “professionalism”?

Take procurement for instance- the backbone of every operation. Mountains of paperwork, certifications, audits, compliance checklists, codes of conduct, sub-codes of conduct, and annexes to those codes are demanded. The bar is set so high that only a small circle of elite suppliers can even afford to play the game. And because they are the only ones who can get through the door, the UN is often charged significantly higher than local market prices. Not because the products are special. Not because the quality is superior. But because the system is structured to reward those who can navigate bureaucracy rather than those who can deliver value. And this is treated as normal.

Then there’s the vehicle situation. Field visits that should cost a fraction of the price are turned into shockingly expensive convoys. A couple of vehicles are rented for a day, a short trip is taken to meet families in need, and the price tag grows into something completely out of proportion to the activity itself. Yet somehow, this too is accepted as “standard practice.”

Layered on top of that is the structural maze of senior positions. Layers upon layers of leadership - some brilliant, some dedicated, and some seemingly placed there to justify their own relevance by complicating the lives of everyone below them. Endless reporting lines, endless sign-offs, endless meetings that exist mainly because someone’s job description requires them to exist. And so staff time is consumed more by reporting what was done than by doing it.

By the time project expenses are reached, the picture becomes heartbreaking. The difference between how much money arrives “for the people” and how much is consumed by processes, consultants, travel, overheads, logistics, and compliance becomes stark. When the number of families who could have been supported is calculated against the number who actually were, something inside is felt to break.

But here’s the most dangerous part: eventually, the situation is adapted to. Reactions stop being shown. It is called “the way things are.” And over time, what felt wrong starts feeling normal. And then - if you’re not careful - it starts feeling right.

So here’s a question that cuts through all the justifications, all the systems, all the job titles:

If you had to donate your own money to help people in need, would you donate it to a UN agency?

I’ll leave you with that question, along with the photo below that speaks for itself (Note: The photo is a random example used to represent the aid required.)