The United Nations is at a moment of reckoning. Facing underfunding, political constraints, and structural fragmentation, the UN is being tested by the very crises it was created to address—from Gaza to Haiti to Sudan. Too often, its response has been patchy, politicized, and too slow. A sweeping internal reform initiative—dubbed UN80—seeks to break this pattern and deliver the kind of transformative change that has long eluded the system.

As reported in the press, in this publication, and reflected in internal consultations, emerging ideas associated with the UN80 initiative suggest a bold reimagining of the system’s architecture. Initial suggestions captured in an internal memo from the UN80 task force include envisioning the consolidation of peace, development, humanitarian, and human rights functions; the creation of a centralized Executive Secretariat to unify administrative and policy support; and a major reconfiguration of the resident coordinator system. Some hail this as the most ambitious overhaul since the Brahimi Report or the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission. Others worry it is just another bureaucratic reshuffle prompted by shrinking budgets.

During my decades serving in UN leadership roles—from coordinating post-conflict recovery in Liberia to overseeing policy reforms at headquarters—the organization has been inundated with wave after wave of reform initiatives. Each arrives with high hopes and new blueprints, but too often the cycle repeats: structures are tweaked, acronyms are changed, and the system settles back into familiar habits.

For UN80 to be different, it must go beyond organizational charts. Real reform must tackle how the UN behaves, makes decisions, and delivers results.

This is not theory. In 2021, I led the UN Integration Review, commissioned by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General to respond to concerns about persistent fragmentation and assess whether UN integration efforts were delivering results across diverse country contexts. It engaged over 200 practitioners across mission and non-mission settings. We found that fragmentation undermined impact—but so did poorly executed integration. What mattered most was not structure but whether leaders had the mandate, capacity, and behavioral tools to work together.

What UN80 Gets Right

Current reform ideas suggested in the UN80 task force internal memo diagnose systemic dysfunctions: mandate overlap, bureaucratic sprawl, slow decision-making, and a disconnect between headquarters and field realities. The multiplication of senior posts and competition among entities have undermined collaboration and confused partners on the ground.

The reformers have rightly called for consolidation, decentralization, and a stronger role for resident coordinators. They recognize that donor-driven competition breeds inefficiency; handovers between peace operations and UN country teams often falter; and mandates too rarely reflect ground-level needs.

Yet meaningful reform has remained elusive.

Five Priorities for Getting Reform Right

The UN80 reform discussion represents a critical opportunity—but real change depends not just on structures, but on leadership, culture, and context. Drawing from the 2021 UN Integration Review, five priorities can guide the way forward.

1. Require a System-Wide Business Case Protocol

The 2021 Integration Review was clear: integration must serve a purpose specific to country contexts. What works in Sierra Leone may fail in Yemen or Kazakhstan. Past reforms imposed one-size-fits-all structures in the name of efficiency, overlooking the reality that the UN is not a multinational corporation. Its presence must be context-sensitive, and structure must follow function.

That is why we recommended a system-wide business case protocol: a requirement that integration decisions be based on demonstrated value in a given setting. The current UN80 reform concepts remain largely system-level in focus. While understandable, reforms not grounded in country-specific needs and political dynamics risk becoming performative.

2. Strengthen Leadership Selection and Accountability

The Integration Review found that leadership was the single most decisive factor in successful integration. Where resident coordinators, special representatives and agency heads worked in concert—with mutual respect and a shared sense of purpose—integration worked, regardless of formal structures. When UN leaders failed to act as a unified team, no structural reform—no matter how well designed—could overcome the resulting fragmentation.

The idea of rotating leadership of UN country teams among agency heads, as discussed in the reform memo, risks undermining coherence. Rotating leadership may foster inclusivity, but in practice it weakens accountability and impedes the consistency required for long-term strategic engagement. While such rotation may appear to promote shared ownership, it can dilute accountability and continuity—two qualities essential for integrated leadership. The resident coordinator must remain the designated anchor for coherence, empowered and accountable for system-wide performance.

At the same time, integration must be a shared responsibility across the UN system—not the task of resident coordinators alone. A system-wide mechanism is needed to promote coherence, ensure follow-through, and resolve institutional blockages. The integration steering group, under the leadership of the deputy secretary-general, brought together key UN departments and entities to coordinate support for field settings. While useful, it lacked sustained authority and visibility. Building on that precedent, UN80 should establish a standing mechanism—formally mandated, adequately resourced, and empowered to assess performance, support country-level leadership, and ensure system-wide accountability for integration.

3. Embed Cultural and Behavioral Change

Perhaps the most overlooked lesson of the Integration Review is that behavior, not structure, is the main driver of integration success or failure.

We identified seven behavioral barriers: siloed identities, rigid protocol, leadership avoidance, lack of trust, conflicting incentives, weak accountability, and information hoarding. Without changing how people work, moving boxes around on an organigram will not lead to impact. It may even make things worse.

UN80 must embed a strategy for cultural change. For all senior appointments—from the secretary-general downward—priority must be placed on leaders who can integrate. Performance reviews should reward collaboration. Career paths should enable cross-entity movement, and staff should be supported through joint training and exchanges. Without these measures, no structure will deliver on its promise.

4. Modernize Systems and Tools

Structural reforms must be accompanied by changes to the systems—such as information management and staffing—that influence incentives, decision-making, and collaboration across entities.

Separate funding streams and donor-driven competition undermine collaboration. Expanding pooled funding, as discussed in the internal memo, is a positive step. But pooled resources must be linked to integrated country strategies, with flexibility to reward cross-sector cooperation.

Information systems must also be interoperable. Data sharing should be the default. Too often, information remains locked within silos. And IT systems and budget processes must be modernized to allow cross-entity planning and delivery.

5. Invest in Field-Level Coherence and Transition Planning

Decentralization—another key plank of early ideas around UN80—is overdue. Integration works best closest to the field, where staff are focused on real needs rather than headquarters politics. But decentralization must be accompanied by discretion, capacity, and support.

Transitions, particularly peacekeeping drawdowns, remain some of the UN’s weakest moments. These handovers are often late, under-resourced, and poorly coordinated. UN80 must ensure that transitions are planned well in advance, with integrated teams that span political, development, and humanitarian expertise.

Conclusion

Ultimately, no secretary-general can do this alone. UN80 reforms that touch mandates, funding, and governance require member-state leadership. Many of the dysfunctions UN80 seeks to fix were created by political compromise. To address them, governments must provide coherent mandates, flexible funding, and political backing for integration.

Member states must also hold themselves accountable. The tendency to micromanage from afar, to preserve turf through earmarking, and to treat reform as a way to cut costs rather than to enhance the UN’s mission must be resisted. Otherwise, even the best-designed reforms will falter.

UN80’s success will not be measured by departments merged or posts abolished, but by whether the UN delivers more coherent, effective, and principled support to those it serves. That will require reform not only of structure, but of behavior, leadership, and the compact with member states. The stakes are high—and the window for action is narrow. This time, the system must not settle back into familiar habits.

Jordan Ryan is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and former Vice President for Peace Programs at The Carter Center. He served as UN resident coordinator in Vietnam, deputy special representative of the secretary-general in Liberia, and director of UNDP’s Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery. In 2021, he led the UN Integration Review commissioned by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General.