## ppea2024032 — 2022-2023 Diversity & Inclusion Report (excerpt)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [ppea2024032 — 2022-2023 Diversity & Inclusion Report (excerpt)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024032.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024032.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024032.pdf.json)

---

### History and role of benchmarks
- Diversity priority since mid-1990s:
  - Special Advisor on Diversity created in 1995; “Measures to Promote Staff Diversity and Address Discrimination” statement/action plan issued in 1996.
- Benchmarks framework timeline:
  - First diversity benchmarks framework established in 2003 following a 2002 working group.
  - 20-year history of benchmarks used to track gender and regional representation.
  - Benchmarks proposed by an inter-departmental Working Group, set for 5-year increments, and intended as a tool to better represent and serve the membership.

### Current diversity status (end FY 2023) — workforce and senior management
- Workforce composition (end FY 2023):
  - Women represented 48 percent of the total workforce (staff and contractual employees with contracts greater than a year).
  - Nationals from the three underrepresented regions (URRs) accounted for 32 percent of the total workforce.
  - These shares increased from a decade earlier when women were 40 percent and URR 25 percent.
- Senior management (B4 and B5 grades) — FY 2023:
  - Representation of women: 39 percent (Senior Management counts: Total 88; Women 34 (38.6 percent); Men 54 (61.4 percent)).
  - Representation of URR staff: 17 percent (URR 15 (17.0 percent); Other Regions 73 (83.0 percent)).
- Benchmarks-specific figures (end FY 2023):
  - Individual Contributors (ICs): Women 41.4 percent; Nationals from URRs 33.8 percent (reported as 33.7 percent elsewhere).
  - Managers: Women 35.1 percent; Nationals from URRs 23.7 percent (reported as 24.0 percent in some tables).

### 2025 Benchmarks: ambition, progress, and projections
- 2025 Benchmarks:
  - Comprised of 8 targets: two gender-related and six for URRs; managerial targets increased relative to previous frameworks.
- Progress and projections based on current trends:
  - On track to meet 4 out of the 8 benchmarks.
  - Projected to achieve between 80 and 90 percent of the remaining four benchmarks, the majority of which are managerial.
  - Based on another analysis, the Fund is at risk of missing half of its eight 2025 benchmarks; two URR managerial targets and both gender benchmarks are noted as unlikely to be met.

### Recruitment, promotions, pipelines, and analytical findings
- Recruitment and hiring context:
  - Fund hiring need: 260-270 positions at IC level each year, implying approximately 400 new hires over the remainder of FY 2024 and FY 2025 (at time of writing).
  - To meet the 45 percent gender benchmark for ICs (factoring in promotions), 66 percent of new hires would need to be women.
  - Recent three-year average female share of hires: 40 percent.
  - Economist Program (EP) female intake: 55 percent.
  - Implied hiring shares for URR IC benchmarks: East Asia 17 percent; MENA+ 11 percent.
  - Augmentation hires (about one quarter of economist recruitment) concentrated in non-URR male economists in FY 2023: men 60 percent; non-URR nationals 78 percent.
- Promotion trends and findings:
  - Overall promotion rate fell since 2015.
  - Promotion rates rose for non-URR women relative to non-URR men.
  - Variation in promotion rates across diversity groups increased substantially.
  - Economist promotion examples (FY 2021–FY 2023):
    - A14 to A15 average promotion rate for economists: 4.9 percent.
    - A15 to B1 average promotion rate: 8.5 percent.
    - SCS average promotion rate entry managerial to B1: 3.5 percent.
  - RES/HRD regression analysis (2009–2022) summary:
    - Pre-2015 promotion rates (former EPs, competitive promotions): non-URR women 13.3 percent; non-URR men 10.9 percent; URR men 9.7 percent; URR women 6.1 percent.
    - Post-2015 promotion rates: non-URR women 14.6 percent; non-URR men 7.4 percent; URR men 8.9 percent; URR women 6.8 percent.
    - Following 2015 changes, promotion rates rose for non-URR women relative to non-URR men by 9 percentage points (EPs); shifts for URR men and URR women not statistically distinguishable from non-URR men.
    - Triple-interaction results: non-URR women promotion uplift of 9 percentage points for EPs and 4.5 percentage points for mid-career economists; URR women showed no statistically significant change relative to non-URR men.
- Implied promotion rates required to meet managerial benchmarks:
  - Implied promotion rate for women (relative to the A14 stock): 13.6 percent (described as "twice to three-times" recent average promotion rates).
  - If achieved, male economist promotion rate would decline to about 3 percent.
  - Implied promotion rates for URRs required: 8-17 percent (much higher than observed actual promotion rates).
- Pipeline and structural constraints:
  - Fund largely promotes internally for non-senior managerial roles (promotion rate about 5 percent of the pipeline).
  - Managerial positions are far fewer than IC roles (pyramidal structure).
  - Fungible economist women at A9-A14 comprise about 30 percent of that stock; sustaining pipelines requires continued hiring of women.

### Risks of not meeting benchmarks and proposed risk treatments
- Identified risks if benchmarks are not met:
  - Reputation effects and perceived inadequate voice for member countries.
  - Challenges in recruitment and retention of diverse staff.
  - Impact on morale and perception of career development opportunities, especially among non-under-represented groups.
  - Risk that extreme measures to meet benchmarks (e.g., longer time to promotions for non-diverse staff) could increase perceptions of inequitable treatment and harm morale, cohesion, motivation, retention, and support for future D&I initiatives.
- Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) context:
  - Not meeting benchmarks identified as a Human Capital Risk under Operational Risk.
  - Lack of a Board approved risk tolerance level and associated KRIs complicates quantification.
  - Proposal: 2030 Benchmarks Working Group (WG) to examine risk tolerance and KRIs with ORM and D&I Office; include recommendations in early FY 2026.
- Suggested risk treatments and mitigations:
  - Support diversity in recruitment (outreach, EP cohort size increase, targeted sourcing for SCS).
  - Build diverse experienced pipelines for managerial positions across career streams (expand Sponsorship Program; pipeline-building campaigns; RAP and FIP enhancements).
  - Address perceptions of adverse impact through transparency, dedicated events, and communication of the business case for diversity.
  - Implement a Talent Marketplace to broaden equitable access to assignments and career-enabling opportunities.
  - Consider external constraints (PhD pipeline composition, visa issues, salary competition) when setting benchmarks.

### Inclusion, equity, accountability actions and monitoring
- Broadened D&I focus:
  - From gender and regional representation to an inclusive work environment valuing differing views, workstyles, cultural norms, skills, and competencies.
- Actions taken and planned:
  - Raise awareness and implement actions responding to the 2021 D&I Survey.
  - Advance racial equity initiatives and operationalize an inclusion index.
  - Assess accessibility and inclusion gaps for staff with disabilities and caregivers; external consultant report to Management in Q4 FY 2024 with costing to be considered within resource/budget constraints.
- Accountability measures:
  - FY 2021 rollout of departmental D&I action plans with diversity KPIs included in the Accountability Framework (AF).
  - AF objectives discussed semi-annually between Heads of Departments and Management.
  - As of FY 2024, all titled managers (DDC to B4) include a D, E, & I objective in their Annual Performance Review (APR).
  - Annual publication of diversity distribution in APR ratings and promotions by demographic groups continues.
- Training and awareness:
  - 2018 mandatory Unconscious Bias e-learning implemented; FY 2022 modules updated; end of FY 2023 supplementary module on Understanding Race Bias added.
  - Mental Health and Well-Being Unit and Mental Health First Aid workshops for managers.
  - Departmental Diversity Reference Groups (DRGs) and Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) active.

### Two-year roadmap and institutional commitments (selected initiatives and timing)
- Broad areas: recruitment; talent development; equity & inclusion; accountability & transparency.
- Recruitment (FY 2024 & ongoing unless stated):
  - Increase the size of the EP intake. (HRD/TM) — FY 2024 & ongoing
  - Ensure diverse candidates in Mid-Career pipelines are hired. (Hiring Managers) — FY 2024 & ongoing
  - Enhance RAP and FIP to broaden access and increase intake of URR nationals and women. (HRD/TM) — FY 2024 & ongoing
  - Continue targeted outreach and recruitment initiatives, particularly for SCS roles and specialist economists. (HRD/TM) — FY 2024 & ongoing
- Talent Development:
  - Launch the Beta Pilot Talent Marketplace program. (HRD/DIV) — Q4 FY 2024
  - Pilot Talent Marketplace to be tested Q1–Q3 FY 2025; expand to all departments Q4 FY 2025; mainstream FY 2026.
- Equity & Inclusion and Accessibility:
  - Complete implementation of D&I Survey and REJAG initiatives: FY 2024 & FY 2025.
  - External consultant report on accessibility gaps to Management — Q4 FY 2024; develop A&I Strategy Q3 FY 2025–FY 2026.
- Accountability & Transparency:
  - Continue D, E, & I objectives in managers’ APRs and publish APR distribution and promotions annually — FY 2024 ongoing.
  - 2030 Benchmarks process milestones: TOR Q4 FY 2024; WG establishment Q1 FY 2025; analyses Q1–Q3 FY 2025; recommendations Q3–Q4 FY 2025; FY 2030 Benchmarks approved and launched Q1 FY 2026.
  - Include demographic questions in future surveys — FY 2025 ongoing.

### Key data highlights (Annex V — exact figures preserved)
- IC gender benchmark: 45 percent (target); Share of women in A9–A14/A15 (FY2023): 41.4 percent; Gap From Benchmark: -3.6.
- Managerial gender benchmark: 40 percent (target); Share of women in A14/A15–B5 (FY2023): 35.6 percent; Gap From Benchmark: –4.5.
- URR institutional goal (A1–B5): Goal 30; FY2023 31.6; Gap From Goal 1.6.
- Senior management B4 & B5 (FY2017–FY2023 trend): FY2017 Women 16 (19.0 percent) → FY2023 Women 34 (38.6 percent).
- Staff turnover FY 2023 (A1–B5): Total separations No. 171; Turnover A1–B5 5.9 percent.
  - B1–B5 turnover: 11.6 percent; Women B1–B5 turnover: 8.7 percent; Men B1–B5 turnover: 13.1 percent.
- Education (end–FY 2023):
  - Doctorate degrees total 700: United States 386 (55.1 percent); United Kingdom 77 (11.0 percent); China 6 (0.9 percent); Africa (Sub-Saharan) 6 (0.9 percent); MENA+ 1 (0.1 percent).
  - Master’s degrees total 1,658: United States 747 (45.1 percent); United Kingdom 189 (11.4 percent); MENA+ 38 (2.3 percent); Africa (Sub-Saharan) 50 (3.0 percent); China 18 (1.1 percent).
- Five-year recruitment FY2019–FY2023: Total recruitment 1,038 hires; Women 476 hires (45.9 percent); Men 562 hires (54.1 percent).
- Geographic IC benchmarks and FY2017–FY2023 shares (selected):
  - Sub-Saharan Africa IC benchmark 8; FY2023 9.9.
  - East Asia (ASEAN+) IC benchmark 15; FY2023 15.0.
  - MENA+ IC benchmark 8; FY2023 7.8; Gap From Benchmark -0.2.
- Implied hiring assumptions and sensitivities:
  - Projections use a retirement plus resignation rate of 5 percent (broadly in line with historical trend over last 10 years).
  - Projected hiring need based on increase in hiring in CY22 and CY23 (+28 percent on average over the preceding two years); projected hiring need is likely an upper bound.

*Source: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — 2022-2023 D&I REPORT (January 24, 2024); 2022-2023 D&I Report — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (section excerpt, Annex V data tables).*

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### History and role of benchmarks
- Diversity has been a priority for almost 30 years; role of Special Advisor on Diversity created in 1995 and statement/action plan on “Measures to Promote Staff Diversity and Address Discrimination” issued in 1996.
- First diversity benchmarks framework established in 2003 following a 2002 working group.
- The Fund has a 20-year history of benchmarks used to track progress in gender and regional representation.
- Benchmarks are proposed by an inter-departmental Working Group, set for 5-year increments, and are a tool to better represent and serve the membership rather than an end in themselves.

### Current diversity status (end FY 2023)
- Workforce composition:
  - Women represented 48 percent of the total workforce (staff and contractual employees with contracts greater than a year).
  - Nationals from the three underrepresented regions (URRs) accounted for 32 percent of the total workforce.
  - These shares increased from a decade ago when women were 40 percent and URR 25 percent.
- Senior management (B4 and B5 grades):
  - Representation of women: 39 percent.
  - Representation of URR staff: 17 percent.
- Benchmarks-specific figures at end FY 2023:
  - Women accounted for 41.4 percent of Individual Contributors (ICs).
  - Women accounted for 35.1 percent of managers.
  - Nationals from URRs comprised 33.8 percent of ICs.
  - Nationals from URRs comprised 23.7 percent of managers.

### 2025 Benchmarks: ambition, progress, and projections
- The 2025 Benchmarks increased targets at managerial levels relative to previous frameworks and comprise 8 targets: two gender-related and six for URRs.
- Based on current trends:
  - The Fund is on track to meet four out of the eight benchmarks.
  - The Fund is projected to achieve between 80 and 90 percent of the remaining four benchmarks, the majority of which are for managerial roles.
- Internal promotions have materially contributed to progress at managerial levels.

### Recruitment, promotions, and analytical findings
- Analysis by Research (RES) and Human Resources (HRD) examined links between diversity characteristics, economist promotions, and the impact of policy changes.
- Promotion trends:
  - Overall promotion rate fell since 2015.
  - Promotion rates rose for non-URR women relative to non-URR men.
  - Variation in promotion rates across different diversity groups increased substantially.
- Recruitment pipeline and hiring targets are part of the framework; the 2025 benchmarks include hiring targets and aspirational institutional goals covering staff and contractual employees with contracts longer than a year.

### Risks of not meeting the 2025 benchmarks and risk treatments
- Identified risks if benchmarks are not met:
  - Reputation effects.
  - Challenges in recruitment and retention of diverse staff.
  - Impact on morale and perception of career development opportunities, especially among non-under-represented groups.
  - Risk that extreme measures to meet benchmarks in the remaining timeframe (e.g., longer time to promotions for non-diverse staff) could increase perceptions of inequitable treatment and harm morale, cohesion, motivation, retention, and support for future D&I initiatives.
- Proposed risk treatments to mitigate these risks:
  - Support diversity in recruitment.
  - Build diverse experienced pipelines for managerial positions across all career streams.
  - Address perceptions of adverse impact through transparency and other measures.
- Furthering diversity is a multi-year process; a considered approach with these actions is intended to sustain progress.

### 2030 Benchmarks Working Group and constraints to achieving benchmarks
- The 2030 Benchmarks Working Group (WG) will be constituted in early FY 2025, with recommendations on the 2030 benchmarks targeted by early FY 2026.
- Factors the WG will consider that affect the Fund’s ability to achieve benchmarks:
  - Shares of female graduates with PhDs in macroeconomics and degrees in areas such as IT remain well below the Fund’s 50 percent recruitment target.
  - Increased competition for the same pool of talent from other IFIs and the private sector.
  - Scarcity of diverse candidates in augmentation areas (climate, digital money).
  - G-4 visa constraints that limit recruiting talent from certain regions.
- The WG will consider extending timelines (e.g., extending the existing benchmarks to 2030) and examine appropriate risk acceptance/tolerance levels rather than necessarily raising targets before current ones are met.

### Inclusion, equity, and accountability actions
- The Fund’s D&I focus has broadened from gender and regional representation to creating an inclusive work environment where differing views, workstyles, cultural norms, skills, and competencies are accepted and valued.
- Actions taken and planned to improve inclusion and equity include:
  - Raising awareness and implementing actions responding to the 2021 D&I Survey.
  - Advancing racial equity initiatives and operationalizing a broad inclusion index to assess progress relative to other organizations.
  - Adding assessment of accessibility and inclusion gaps for staff with disabilities and caregivers of people with disabilities to the D&I portfolio; an external consultant’s recommendations will be presented to Management in the coming months and will need to be costed within resource and budget constraints (which may entail cuts in other programs).
- Accountability measures:
  - Improved accountability for achieving results has been introduced; initiatives have been aligned where possible with the broader HR strategy and other ongoing programs (Institutional Safeguards Review, Racial Equity and Justice Advisory Group, 2021 D&I Survey implementation plans).
- Monitoring of emerging concerns:
  - The Fund will monitor and, where necessary, address emerging concerns related to antisemitism, islamophobia, and harassment based on nationality and religion.

### Two-year roadmap and institutional commitment
- The Fund is fully committed to closing gaps to the benchmarks and promoting greater inclusion through a two-year roadmap of actions across four broad areas:
  - Recruitment.
  - Talent development.
  - Equity & inclusion.
  - Accountability & transparency.
- Where possible, initiatives are aligned with existing HR strategy items or related programs to maximize coherence and resource use.

*Source: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — 2022-2023 D&I REPORT (January 24, 2024). *

### 6.      This 2022-2023 Diversity & Inclusion Report presents an overview of the Fund’s

### 6.      This 2022-2023 Diversity & Inclusion Report presents an overview of the Fund’s progress and the remaining challenges.

### Overview
- Report structure:
  - First section: overview of demographic changes in the Fund over the last 10 years and key initiatives that have contributed to increasing diversity.
  - Second section: recent trends since the last report two years ago and remaining challenges to meet the 2025 benchmarks, followed by an enterprise risk assessment and discussion of mitigation measures.
  - Fourth section: progress made towards inclusion, equity, and accountability.
  - Conclusion: a two-year roadmap to maintain momentum and move closer to the Fund’s broader Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (D, E, & I) objectives.

### An increasingly diverse workforce — key statistics and trends
- End of FY 2023 overall headcount composition:
  - Women represented 48.2 percent of the Fund’s workforce.
  - Nationals from URRs accounted for almost 31.6 percent.
  - Corresponding IGs: 50 percent (women) and 30 percent (URRs).
- A decade ago (FY 2013) shares:
  - Women: 40.0 percent.
  - URRs: 25.4 percent.
- Top echelons (B4 and B5 grades) IGs:
  - URR nationals: 30 percent.
  - Women: 50 percent.
- Representation changes at senior levels (B4 & B5):
  - Women increased from 16.3 percent to 38.6 percent.
  - URR nationals increased from 10.0 percent to 17.0 percent.
- Administrative grades (A1-A8):
  - Women accounted for 83.3 percent at end FY 2023 vs 85.6 percent in FY 2013.
  - About 80 percent of recruits for this group are women.
  - Higher share of A1-A8 staff from US & Canada due to local hiring policy.

### A. Gender — findings
- Individual contributor (IC) gender benchmark: 45 percent.
  - Share of women in IC grades rose to 41.4 percent since FY 2021 benchmarks (marginal gain from 40.0 to 40.4 percent between FY 2013 and FY 2021).
  - Headcount of women in IC group grew by nearly 60 percent to 806 during the past decade.
  - Fund staff headcount growth over the decade: 20 percent.
  - Main drivers limiting share change:
    - Failure to meet recruitment target of 50 percent over a sustained period.
    - Limited candidate pools for roles such as PhD economists and IT, and competition from peer organizations and the private sector.
- Managerial grades:
  - Share of women reached 35.1 percent at end FY 2023, up from 24.4 percent in FY 2013.
- Noted external context:
  - “Similar to previous years, the share of women in the 2023-2024 US PhD economics programs sampled has hovered at 25-30 percent.”

### B. Under-Represented Regions (URRs) — findings
- IC grades, past decade:
  - Number of staff from the three URR regions more than doubled to 653.
  - Fund-wide headcount increase: 20 percent.
  - Share of URR staff reached 33.7 percent, up 1.3 percentage points from FY 2021 and 8.3 percentage points from FY 2013.
  - Regional improvements (FY 2013 to FY 2023):
    - East Asia: +2.6 percentage points.
    - Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): +3.4 percentage points.
    - MENA+: +2.4 percentage points.
  - Benchmarks: Fund has met two (East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa) out of three 2025 benchmarks; MENA+ representation has improved since FY 2021.
- Managerial grades:
  - URR share in managerial roles at end FY 2023: 24.0 percent (up from 20.2 percent in FY 2021 and 15.1 percent in FY 2013).
  - Regional managerial gains over last decade:
    - East Asian managers: from 5.5 percent to 9.7 percent.
    - MENA+: from 4.3 percent to 6.7 percent.
    - Sub-Saharan Africa: from 5.3 percent to 7.6 percent.
  - Senior management (B4 & B5) URR share: from 10.0 percent in FY 2013 to 23.7 percent in FY 2023.

### C. Initiatives to increase representation — summary of actions
- Recruitment—Outreach and pipeline building:
  - Increased in person and virtual recruitment and outreach missions globally, with emphasis on URR and female candidates.
  - Leveraging new technologies and targeting a wider range of universities outside the US to reach diverse job markets, particularly for Specialized Career Stream (SCS) departments and specialized economists in augmentation domains.
  - Specific mid-career pipeline-building campaigns focusing on URR nationals.
  - Greater attention to diversity in Economist Program (EP) selection has increased diversity in recent cohorts.
- Promotions:
  - Review and Senior Review Committees (RC and SRC) systematically consider diversity; departments must have a diverse candidate (either female or URR) on every shortlist or seek an exception from Management.
  - Departments must describe how the chosen candidate adds to departmental diversity.
  - In B1 List and B3 promotion processes, active monitoring of diversity at every stage and reporting to Management.
  - Increased number of Management Development Centre offerings to allow greater participation of women and URR nationals.
  - 2-year pilot sponsorship program for URR staff launched in early FY 2022:
    - Included 22 participants.
    - Effective in improving participants’ readiness for promotion.
- Accountability measures:
  - FY 2021 rollout of departmental D&I action plans with corresponding diversity KPIs included in the Accountability Framework (AF).
  - AF objectives discussed twice a year between Heads of Departments and Management.
  - Fund-wide and departmental-level distribution of annual performance ratings and promotions shared with all staff.
  - As of FY 2024, all titled managers (DDC to B4) include a D, E, & I objective in their Annual Performance Review (APR).

### D. Overall assessment of progress and challenges
- Rapid advances in representation at senior and managerial levels in a low turnover environment:
  - Turnover averaged 15 percent over a 3-year period (40 to 50 percent over a 10-year period).
  - Over the past 10 years, share of URR nationals in managerial grades grew by 14 percentage points.
  - Over the past 10 years, share of women in managerial grades grew by 9 percentage points.
  - These increases correspond to about 50 percent of the cumulative turnover of staff.
- Need for sustained and additional measures to reach benchmarks and longer-term institutional goals.

### Recruitment and promotions — trends and projections
- Risk of missing 2025 benchmarks:
  - Based on current trends, the Fund is at risk of missing half of its eight 2025 benchmarks.
  - Two URR managerial targets and both gender benchmarks are unlikely to be met.
- URR-specific projection details:
  - IC level: two of three benchmarks (East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa) have been reached; on track to meet third (MENA+).
  - URR managerial benchmarks: East Asia on track; MENA+ and Sub-Saharan Africa forecast to reach 81-84 percent of the benchmarks.
- Gender-specific projection details:
  - Fund is at around 90 percent of the benchmarks for women, but neither IC nor managerial targets will be achieved based on current trends.

### Factors affecting benchmark achievement
- Increased FY 2025 benchmark targets, especially for managerial roles, where increases ranged from 14 to 50 percent; if FY 2020 targets had been retained, managerial benchmarks would have been met (except the gender IC benchmark would still be at risk).
- Realism tool and feasibility analysis (FY 2020) did not account for augmentation-related ramp up in hiring, net expansion of the Fund, or need for specialized new skills with shallow diverse talent pools.
- COVID pandemic effects on recruitment and retention limited in-person outreach and candidates’ willingness to move.
- Recruitment shares for gender not meeting 50 percent target, partly due to limited talent pools.
- Promotions of diverse staff have not been sufficient, considering increased managerial headcount and despite an adequate pipeline.

### Major ongoing challenges
- Raising representation at managerial levels.
- Sustaining robust pipelines for diverse hires:
  - Fund largely promotes internally for non-senior managerial roles (promotion rate about 5 percent of the pipeline).
  - Recent years: rate of women promoted to managerial roles has exceeded that of men, reducing the IC pool of women in near-term.
  - Pyramidal structure: managerial positions far fewer than IC roles; A14 level has numerically large presence of women sufficient for near-term managerial openings.
  - Medium- to long-term need: meet hiring targets to sustain pipelines, particularly for URR specialized economists and SCS roles.

### A. Recruitment — recent trends and risks
- Recruitment of women into IC roles:
  - Below the 50 percent flow target needed to close gap to benchmarks.
  - Share of women hired into IC roles slightly up from FY 2018-2020 average but still below 45 percent.
- Economist hires:
  - Experienced economists (about three quarters of economist non-managerial hires): women generally between a quarter to a third of annual hires.
  - Economist Program (a quarter of economist non-managerial hires): women recently accounted for 50-55 percent of hires.
  - Context: share of women graduating from US PhD economics programs hovers around 25-30 percent.
- Specialized Career Streams (SCS):
  - Account for 34.5 percent of total hiring; women have generally accounted for a little over half of external hiring.
  - IT roles within SCS particularly challenging: market share of women between 20 and 25 percent.
- Augmentation priority areas (emerging risk):
  - Augmentation hires comprise about one quarter of economist recruitment.
  - FY 2023 augmentation hiring relied on non-URR male economists:
    - Men accounted for 60 percent of augmentation-related hiring.
    - Non-URR nationals accounted for 78 percent.
  - Challenges: shallow pool of candidates with required skills (climate and digital money), high competition from IFIs and private sector, limited recruitment of diverse candidates in these fields.
- URR recruitment levels:
  - More robust; IMF achieved two IC benchmarks (EA and SSA) and is on track for the third (MENA+).

### B. Promotions to managerial roles — observed rates and differences
- Promotion rate definition: number of promotions as a share of the pipeline for the promotion in question.
- Economist promotions (FY 2021–FY 2023 trends):
  - A14 to A15:
    - Average rate of promotion for economists: 4.9 percent (roughly half a percentage point above FY 2013-2023 rate).
    - Promotion rate by group: women higher than men; non-URR women highest.
    - Promotion rate for URR women below Fund-wide average and below all other groups.
  - A15 to B1:
    - Average promotion rate: 8.5 percent.
    - URR women have a broadly similar promotion rate to non-URR women, which is almost twice as high as that of URR men.
- SCS promotions:
  - Average promotion rate between entry managerial roles and B1: 3.5 percent (lower than economist promotion rates).
  - URR women promoted at highest rate among groups considered.
  - For SCS departments, all diversity benchmarks currently achieved.
- URR subgroup variations:
  - Economist A14 to A15 promotions: East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa URR groups experienced promotion rates above Fund average.
  - Non-URR groups above average promotion rates: US & Canada and Asia (excluding East Asia), the latter driven mostly by India.
  - SCS: among URRs, MENA+ slightly above average promotion rate; 3 of 5 non-URR groups above average.

_International Monetary Fund — 2022-2023 Diversity & Inclusion Report (section content provided)_

### 25.      In the last formal

### 25.      In the last formal

### Analysis of promotions to managerial roles; Box 1 summary
- RES and HRD examined the link between diversity characteristics and promotions of economists from 2009 to 2022, focusing on former EPs and vacancy-based promotions to A15 and higher grades, and also examining mid-career economist promotion rates.
- Three important policy shifts occurred in 2015:
  - benchmark targets for both women and URRs were increased;
  - D&I objectives were added to departmental Accountability Frameworks;
  - transition countries were no longer considered under-represented.
- A 2013 change asked departments to include one diverse candidate—either female or URR—in shortlists for competitive promotions.
- Summary statistics (former EPs, competitive promotions):
  - Pre-2015 promotion rates: non-URR women 13.3 percent; non-URR men 10.9 percent; URR men 9.7 percent; URR women 6.1 percent.
  - Post-2015 promotion rates: non-URR women 14.6 percent; non-URR men 7.4 percent; URR men 8.9 percent; URR women 6.8 percent.
- Regression analysis controlling for past performance, past mobility, Fund tenure, and time-invariant individual factors finds:
  - Following the 2015 changes, promotion rates rose for non-URR women relative to non-URR men by 9 percentage points.
  - Shifts for URR men and URR women cannot be statistically distinguished from those for non-URR men.
- Observations and interpretations:
  - Different emphasis may have been placed—perhaps implicitly—on benchmarks for female and URR managers.
  - Unobservable differences in leadership and managerial potential across diversity groups may exist.
  - Findings may reflect inequitable treatment, especially at intersections of diversity groups.
  - Evidence does not exclude or positively point to any single interpretation.
- Effectiveness and challenges:
  - Diversity policies appear to have been effective primarily for non-URR women.
  - Targeting improvements in diversity across multiple dimensions (gender and URR) is fundamentally difficult and raises intersectionality challenges.
- Even accounting for the overall decline in promotion rates between periods (2009-2015 vs 2016-2022), gaps remain large:
  - Overall promotion rates fell by 1.9 percentage points for EPs and 2.6 percentage points for mid-career economists between the two periods.
  - Since 2015, within former EPs, managerial promotion rates for non-URR women have been about double those for non-URR men.
  - Example: promotion rates of 15 percent for non-URR women and 7 percent for non-URR men translate to about seven years to promotion on average for non-URR women, and about fourteen for non-URR men.

### Vacancy dynamics and limits to increasing managerial diversity via separations
- Staff promoted to managerial grades (B1-B3) are already accounted for in benchmarks as they hold entry level managerial roles; vacancies at these higher grades do not increase managerial diversity unless filled by external hires.
- Increasing diversity in managerial roles primarily relies on turnover at the A14/15 DDC level.

### Efforts required to meet the 2025 diversity benchmarks — recruitment and hiring implications
- The Fund is not on track to meet either of the gender benchmarks and is expected to meet only one of the 3 URR managerial benchmarks when recent trends (since adoption of the 2025 Benchmarks) are superimposed on FY 2023 data.
- Implied hiring effort assumptions for projections:
  - (i) additional growth in headcount required to meet augmentation into new priority areas over FY 2022-FY 2025;
  - (ii) long-term separation (retirements/resignations) averages;
  - (iii) promotions of URR and female staff to meet managerial benchmarks.
- Hiring needs and implied shares:
  - The Fund has a hiring need of 260-270 positions at IC level each year, implying approximately 400 new hires over the remainder of FY 2024 and FY 2025 (at time of writing).
  - To meet the 45 percent gender benchmark for individual contributors (factoring in promotions to managerial grades), 66 percent of new hires would need to be women.
  - Recent three-year average female share of hires: 40 percent.
  - Economist Program female intake: 55 percent.
  - Implied hiring share for URR IC benchmarks: East Asia 17 percent; MENA+ 11 percent (slightly above the 10 percent hiring flow target set in FY 2021 to support the MENA+ benchmark).
  - No calibration for Sub-Saharan Africa because the Fund has met the benchmark and remains above it after accounting for separations and promotions.
- Projection notes:
  - A retirement plus resignation rate of five percent is used in projections (broadly in line with the historical trend over the last 10 years).
  - The projected hiring need is likely an upper bound and is based on the increase in hiring in CY22 and CY23 over preceding years (+28 percent on average over the preceding two years).

### Implied promotion rates required to meet managerial benchmarks
- Considering current gaps relative to benchmarks, augmentation growth, projected separations, and limited external recruitment, the analysis finds:
  - Implied promotion rate for women (relative to the A14 stock): 13.6 percent.
    - This is "twice to three-times" the 2021-2023 average promotion rates for female economists and SCS staff, respectively.
    - If achieved, it would be associated with a corresponding decline in the promotion rate for male economists to three percent—lower than the recent average promotion rate of four percent.
    - With about 30 percent of fungible economist women at A9-A14 level, maintaining a sufficiently deep pipeline over the longer-term for managerial positions at A15 will require sustained hiring of women, given low external hiring into managerial roles.
  - Implied promotion rates for URRs: 8-17 percent, which are much higher than actual promotion rates observed.
    - Pipelines are "thin" for URRs except for fungible macroeconomists, where the share of individual contributors is far higher than that of DDCs.
- Conclusion: meeting URR managerial benchmarks is likely to remain challenging over the medium-term.

### Enterprise Risk Assessment — Human Capital Risk and impacts
- In the ERM framework, not meeting the benchmarks is identified as a Human Capital Risk under Operational Risk.
- Lack of a Board approved risk tolerance level and associated Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) makes quantification and assessment of the risk level difficult.
  - Proposal: the 2030 Benchmarks Working Group (to be constituted in early FY 2025) should examine this question with ORM and the D&I Office and include a proposal in its report and recommendations in early FY 2026.
- Main risk channels of missing the benchmarks:
  - recruitment;
  - retention;
  - morale (well-being, engagement, motivation, and productivity).

Impact on the Fund’s reputation
- D&I risk could lead to negative impacts on traction with members and the Fund’s reputation.
- Large differences in representation can leave member countries perceiving inadequate voice within the institution.
- Authorities from URR countries, represented by EDs, have regularly raised concerns about slow progress in increasing representation of nationals from their constituencies, particularly in managerial roles.
- A more diverse workforce can contribute to better outcomes via deeper understanding of member concerns, more innovation, and improved tailored policy advice.
- Tradeoffs exist: meeting gender and URR managerial benchmarks may involve longer time to promotion for non-under-represented staff, potentially affecting morale, cohesion, motivation, and retention.
- The Fund has made consistent progress toward greater representation of women and URR nationals, particularly at managerial levels, but insufficient hiring to maintain pipelines risks undermining medium- to long-term progress.
- MENA+ benchmark is noted as "almost met."

Impact on recruitment
- 2022 Staff Engagement Survey (SES): 78 percent Fund-wide positive response to "I would recommend the Fund as a good place to work" (79 percent for women; 76 percent for men).
  - Nationals from MENA+ responded 70 percent.
- External constraints to recruitment:
  - University of Arkansas research: women account for only around 30 percent of US PhD economist graduates.
  - IT sector: representation of women is between 20 and 25 percent; private sector competition strong.
  - 2023 Recruitment and Retention Paper highlighted higher salary offers from academia and tech companies.
  - Some candidates cite visa and family constraints as reasons for not accepting offers; recent delays in issuance and renewals of G-4 visas and shorter visa duration for certain nationalities caused disruptions and delayed onboarding at HQ.
    - In the past two years, six new hires experienced a delay in onboarding and had to telework outside of HQ.
  - If these external constraints continue, the Fund’s ability to recruit a globally-sourced, high-quality, diverse staff may be compromised.
  - External constraints should be considered when setting benchmarks.

Impact on retention
- Separation rates remain low, but not meeting benchmarks could impact retention.
- 2022 SES response to "Fund is doing a good job of developing people to their full potential": 35 percent Fund-wide (33 percent for women; 36 percent for men).
  - URR subgroup responses: MENA+ 32 percent; East Asia 39 percent; Sub-Saharan Africa 40 percent.
  - Men from URRs responded most favorably at 41 percent; URR women 35 percent; non-URR men 34 percent; non-URR women 33 percent.
- URR staff have raised inequitable access to assignments and networks in exchanges with Management.
- Retention risk for URR and women could compound lower recruitment and promotion rates.
- Mitigations suggested: develop rewarding career paths and development opportunities; expand the Sponsorship Program; more equitable distribution of assignments via a Talent Marketplace.

Impact on morale — well-being, engagement, motivation, productivity
- 2022 PWC exit survey flagged growing prominence of work/life balance concerns among those who leave.
- Lack of work/life balance affects well-being, engagement, motivation, productivity and creates potential physical and mental health risks.
- 2022 SES: URRs as a group reported higher positive response (38 percent) to developing people to their full potential than non-URR group (33 percent), mirroring promotion rate patterns.
- Staff groups experiencing lower promotion rates have reported feeling undervalued, dis-engaged, trapped by visa status and limited outside opportunities, and fear of reprisal for raising concerns.
- Risk that promotions of under-represented staff may be discredited as solely due to diversity rather than performance, experience, and readiness.
- Persistent marked differences in promotion rates associated with diversity policies risk impacting motivation, productivity, retention, and staff cohesion, though not achieving broader representation also poses reputational and operational risks.

### Risk governance/action items (summary proposals in text)
- Constitute the 2030 Benchmarks Working Group in early FY 2025 to:
  - examine Board-approved risk tolerance and KRIs for not meeting benchmarks in collaboration with ORM and the D&I Office;
  - include a proposal and recommendations in its report in early FY 2026.
- Suggested mitigations to counter recruitment and retention risks:
  - develop rewarding career paths and development opportunities;
  - expand the Sponsorship Program;
  - implement more equitable distribution of assignments via a Talent Marketplace.
- Consider external constraints (PhD pipeline composition, visa issues, salary competition) when setting benchmarks and designing interventions.

*2022-2023 D&I REPORT — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND*

### 38.      More can be done to mitigate the risk of falling short of the 2025 Benchmarks but not

### More can be done to mitigate the risk of falling short of the 2025 Benchmarks but not without trade-offs

### Mitigating shortfall risk and near-term actions
- External recruitment through centralized programs can reduce the gap toward the 2025 Benchmarks, though it cannot close it completely in the time remaining to end FY 2025.
- For SCS roles, increased outreach and targeted sourcing can raise awareness about the Fund as an employer of choice.
- Risk treatments and department-level actions include:
  - Discussions with departments to increase the annual EP cohort size.
  - HRD and Management encouraging departments to hire the diverse candidates already approved and available in the mid-career pipeline.
  - Considering expanding missions to include SCS roles to help develop mid-career and entry-level pipelines, including for hard-to -find skills.

### Medium- and longer-term pipeline programs and internships
- Enhancements to programs aimed at broadening access and increasing intake of URRs:
  - Research Assistant Program (RAP)
    - Eligibility for the RAP is now extended to candidates with master’s degrees.
    - Previously the RAP was only open to candidates with Bachelor’s degrees.
  - Fund Internship Program (FIP)
    - In FY 2024, the number of FIP participants was increased to 80 with additional support being provided to them.
- An internship program for SCS departments has been launched to expose young URR and female candidates to other available roles in the Fund.
- Note: These initiatives will not immediately contribute to the 2025 Benchmarks, but RAP and FIP are described as a very strong source of future EP candidates and the SCS internship program as a longer-term contributor.

### Talent Marketplace and career development transparency
- HRD is working with departments to develop a “Talent Marketplace” platform (part of the 2022 SES action plan) to:
  - Provide departments a tool to advertise short-term assignments or projects.
  - Allow staff to submit their profiles for consideration.
  - Increase transparency and visibility of career development opportunities, broaden distribution of assignments, and enhance equitable career development.
- Implementation timeline:
  - Pilot to be launched in Q4 FY 2024.
  - Deployment to all departments in the first half of FY 2025.
- Example use: seeking members for the 2030 Benchmarks Working Group.

### Monitoring nominations, APR ratings, promotions, and addressing perceptions
- Continued monitoring and reporting:
  - Diversity in nominations for managerial roles will be monitored.
  - Reporting on diversity in APR ratings and annual promotions will continue and be published by demographic groups annually.
- Nomination practice:
  - The current practice of including one diverse candidate (either a woman or a national from a URR country) in selections for managerial roles will remain.
  - A justification of how the proposed candidate adds to the diversity of the department or team was incorporated into the nomination form in FY 2023.
- Addressing concerns of non-under-represented staff who perceive adverse impacts:
  - The D&I Office will organize a Fund-wide dedicated event to re-explore the Fund’s business case for increased diversity, emphasize commitment to performance, experience, and readiness as foremost selection criteria, and have an open discussion on policy impacts across staff groups.
  - The D&I Council will explore options to strengthen the role of the RC and SRC.

### 2030 Benchmarks Working Group (WG)
- Mandate and tasks:
  - Make recommendations on the way forward for the next 5-yearly targets.
  - Evaluate whether to extend the timeline for meeting the existing benchmarks to 2030 and whether to drop benchmarks already met.
  - Conduct a comparative analysis of diversity targets in peer organizations, including gender diversity and diversity targets for Executive Boards as well as staff.
  - If feasible, complete a review of some Fund initiatives to evaluate their impact and propose future adjustments.
- Objective: develop a benchmarks framework that improves diversity without leaving non-underrepresented staff feeling disadvantaged.
- Risk tolerance and ERM:
  - WG to make recommendations on risk acceptability and/or tolerance levels associated with not meeting diversity benchmarks.
  - D&I Office, in collaboration with ORM, departments and the WG, will work to create a better ERM framework, including benchmarking with other IFIs, to clarify how to treat the risk of not meeting the benchmarks.

### Inclusion, equity, and managerial accountability — overview
- Leaders and managers must create and model an inclusive and equitable work environment and be held accountable for both results and behavior consistent with the Fund’s values.
- Summary focus areas: raising awareness, response to the 2021 D&I Survey, racial equity, development/use of an inclusion index, and disability accessibility and inclusion.

### Raising awareness and training
- Mandatory and supplementary training:
  - 2018: mandatory Unconscious Bias e-learning implemented.
  - FY 2022: new modules—Introduction to Unconscious Bias and Impact of Micro-Behaviors—replaced the original 3-part series.
  - End of FY 2023: supplementary but non-mandatory module on Understanding Race Bias added.
- Mental health and wellbeing initiatives:
  - Mental Health and Well-Being Unit hosted awareness events.
  - Managers participated in Mental Health First Aid workshops offered by the National Council for Mental Wellbeing.
- Departmental Diversity Reference Groups (DRGs) and Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) support awareness through events and collaboration with the D&I Office.

### 2021 D&I Survey findings and endorsed institutional responses
- Key staff concerns identified:
  - Some under-represented group staff reported not feeling valued or respected due to identity, experiencing and witnessing unconscious bias, discrimination and harassment, reluctance to report for fear of retaliation, and lack of trust in safeguarding mechanisms.
- Management-endorsed priorities:
  - Structural and cultural change.
  - Accountability and transparency.
  - More equitable career opportunities.
- Three institutional initiatives approved:
  - Develop a comprehensive medium- to long-term plan to address culture change/transformation.
  - Finalize standardized criteria for career-enabling assignments by department and career stream.
  - Develop a strategy for seeking feedback on diversity, equity, and inclusion aligned with a broader future staff engagement strategy.

### Implementation status highlights (selected)
- Table 3 (implementation status) items:
  - Align three-year strategic plan to create equitable and inclusive culture with recommendations from the Institutional Safeguards Review (ISR) and Racial Justice and Equity Advisory Group (REJAG): Completed.
  - Develop and launch a Talent Marketplace to address staff concerns on career mobility: Q4 FY 2024–Q4 FY 2025.
  - Departmental D&I Survey action plans included in Accountability Frameworks: Completed.
  - Develop new/updated mandatory Unconscious Bias modules and other interactive modules: Completed.

### Racial equity actions and REJAG recommendations
- REJAG identified challenges: divided feelings of belonging, inequitable career opportunities, lack of accountability for benchmarks, lack of representation in managerial roles and committees.
- REJAG recommended actions include:
  - Develop targeted medium- to long-term plan for equitable and inclusive culture and belonging.
  - Include DEI objectives in all titled managers’ annual performance review documents.
  - Collect demographic data on race via voluntary self-identification.
  - Develop a pipeline of eligible Black and URR staff in the A14/A15 grades ready to assume B-level positions.
  - Increase the rate of promotion into managerial positions for Black and URR staff.
  - Ensure broad representation on committees (SRC, RC, IRC, EC).
- Table 4 (REJAG Implementation Plan—Status) highlights:
  - Align three-year strategic plan with ISR and D&I Survey: Completed.
  - Include DEI objectives in managers’ APR: Completed.
  - Report Annual APR Ratings & Promotions Results: Completed.
  - Launch FUNDiversity: Voluntary self-identification exercise: Q4 FY 2024.
  - In-depth study of Economists' promotions (RES/HRD analysis 2009-2022): Completed.
  - Develop Pipeline of Black & URR staff in A14/15: In Progress.
  - Ensure diverse representation in Committees (EC, IRC, RC, & SRC): Ongoing.

### Inclusion Index and Staff Engagement Survey findings
- 2022 Staff Engagement Survey:
  - Response rate: 77 percent of staff and contractuals.
  - Participation: close to 3,000 participants.
  - Inclusion Index (composed of nine questions) findings:
    - Inclusion Index favorability: 59 percent (second highest among main indexes, only the engagement index scored higher).
    - This represents a drop of two percentage points relative to the 2017 Survey.
    - Favorability range across Inclusion Index questions: high of 79 percent for “The Fund treats employees with respect and dignity as individuals.” to mid-40 percent favorability for “The Fund applies policies in a consistent manner to all employees.”
    - Inclusion Index favorability is similar across main diversity groups, with:
      - Men and women having similar overall favorability (less than one percentage point difference).
      - URR staff having higher Inclusion Index favorability by three percentage points.
    - Notable differences by staff type: economists have a less favorable view of the Fund as an inclusive workplace compared to SCS staff and contractuals (the difference is more than twice as large as that of gender or URR/non-URR).
- Commitment: D&I Office to conduct more granular analyses to better understand concerns of diverse groups.

### Disability accessibility and inclusion (A&I)
- THRIVE proposals led to hiring an external vendor to conduct an independent assessment of policies, practices, and corporate culture regarding accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities and caregivers.
- Assessment scope: HR policies and practices, digital and facilities accessibility, events organization, mission travel, communication, and training on disability inclusion and etiquette.
- Oversight Committee (OC):
  - Co-chaired by two Heads of Departments who are THRIVE Executive Sponsors.
  - Includes representatives from HRD, CSF, ITD, COM, THRIVE, OIA, and an Area Department.
  - In Q4 FY 2024, the OC will share the consultant’s report summarizing accessibility gaps and proposing a path forward (short-, medium-, and long-term) with Management.
  - Aim: develop a long-term comprehensive Fund Accessibility & Inclusion Strategy with resources, budget requirements, and implementation timelines aligned to current budget constraints.

### Strengthening accountability — completed actions and roadmap
- Five actions in the last D&I Report’s 2-Year Roadmap to strengthen accountability:
  - Undergo EDGE re-certification.
  - Integrate departmental D&I Action Plan indicators into the Accountability Framework (AF).
  - Evaluate outcomes of departmental D&I Action Plans after three years.
  - Introduce D&I objectives into managers’ Annual Performance Reviews (APRs).
  - Internally communicate diversity distribution in Fund-wide and departmental APR ratings and promotions.
- Status: updates on these completed initiatives are provided in the Report.

*Source: 2022-2023 D&I Report (excerpt).*

### 56.      To demonstrate its commitment to a more gender diverse and inclusive work

### ppea2024032 - 56. To demonstrate its commitment to a more gender diverse and inclusive work

### EDGE certification and Executive Board gender constraint
- The Fund has voluntarily undergone Economic Dividends for Gender Equality (EDGE) certification since 2017.  
- EDGE certification levels: Assess, Move, Lead.  
- The Fund certified at the Assess level in 2017 and 2019; awarded Move in recognition of progress between 2019 and 2022.  
- A gender pay gap analysis showed the Fund’s result of approximately -3 percent (difference between women’s and men’s salaries), which was within the EDGE requirement of +/- 5percent.  
- Achieving Lead is difficult short- to medium-term due to the requirement that women comprise a minimum of 30 percent of Executive Directors; the Fund’s Executive Board gender diversity is considerably below many peer IFIs.  
- Given this context the Fund will not undertake costly EDGE re-certification but will explore alternatives; a group of D, E, & I leads in international development organizations, including the IMF, is researching more comprehensive certifications available on the marketplace.

### Departmental accountability, data, and representation differences
- Lack of departmental accountability was identified in the 2019 D&I Report and 2025 Diversity Benchmarks Working Group Report.  
- Departmental D&I Action Plans were introduced in November 2020; these include data on diversity stocks and flows and reporting on diversity of staff accepted into Leadership Development and training programs.  
- These data feed semi-annual Accountability Framework discussions with departments.  
- Representation varies widely across department types (area, functional, support): support departments perform well on gender and URR representation; area departments are on average well below benchmark.  
- “Home bias” persists: URR staff are well represented at the individual contributor level in AFR, APD, and MCD, potentially partly explained by language requirements for engagement with authorities and stakeholders.

### Managerial D, E, & I objectives and APR integration
- Managerial D, E, & I objectives were developed in FY 2023 centered on three pillars: awareness & training, recruitment & retention, and inclusion & inclusive leadership.  
- Concrete examples of SMART objectives were provided to assist managers in implementation; examples are intended as a baseline complementing existing departmental objectives.  
- From FY 2024 onwards, all titled managers (A14/15 (DDC) to B4) are expected to have at least one D, E, & I objective included in their APR.

### Transparency in APR ratings and promotions
- Lack of transparency around APR ratings and promotions was identified in the 2021 D&I Survey and REJAG reports.  
- Management agreed to share diversity distribution in APR ratings and promotions annually.  
- APR ratings were suspended for FY 2020 and FY 2021 due to the COVID pandemic; the first reporting took place in October 2022 (FY 2022 outcomes) and was followed in January 2024 with FY 2023 outcomes.  
- Management provided Fund-wide summaries by gender and URR and departmental outcomes.

### Progress, challenges, and risk context (Conclusion and two-year roadmap)
- Over the last decade the Fund made significant progress in representation of women and URR nationals, particularly at the managerial level; progress has been uneven across groups (individual contributor vs managerial; non-under-represented women vs under-represented women; URRs with MENA+ being the most challenging).  
- Main near-term challenges: raise representation of women and nationals from URRs (particularly women from URRs) among managers; increase share of under-represented groups in external recruitments to sustain managerial pipelines at individual contributor level.  
- External constraints may impact recruitment: shallow pools of candidates, competition from peer IFIs and private sector, and ongoing visa challenges for certain groups.  
- The Benchmarks Framework is the main instrument for assessing representation progress; while adequate for membership representation obligations, achievement of benchmarks should be considered alongside service to membership and robust, evenhanded, credible policy advice.  
- Quantifying the risk from not meeting benchmarks is currently difficult due to a lack of approved risk tolerance level and associated KRIs. The Fund has implemented several risk treatments and is exploring additional ones.

### Monitoring, inclusion, and managerial accountability going forward
- Need for deep-dive analyses and regular survey feedback to assess D&I policy impacts across intersectional staff groups and non-under-represented groups.  
- Candidate performance, experience, and readiness remain deciding factors in selection; equitable career development opportunities are needed to ensure readiness for promotion.  
- Continuing to hold leaders and managers accountable (benchmarks framework, annual D, E, & I objectives for managers, increased transparency via Accountability Framework discussions and publication of diversity distribution in APR ratings/promotions) is critical.

### Action Roadmap for the Next Two Years — key initiatives and timing
- Broad areas: recruitment; talent development; equity & inclusion; accountability & transparency.  
- Recruitment (Increase share of women and nationals from URRs in individual contributor roles)
  - Increase the size of the EP intake. (HRD/TM) — FY 2024 & ongoing  
  - Ensure diverse candidates in Mid-Career pipelines are hired. (Hiring Managers) — FY 2024 & ongoing  
  - Enhance RAP and FIP to broaden access and increase intake of URR nationals and women. (HRD/TM) — FY 2024 & ongoing  
  - Continue targeted outreach and recruitment initiatives, particularly for SCS roles and specialist economists. (HRD/TM) — FY 2024 & ongoing  
  - Consider expanding recruitment missions for select SCS roles (HRD/TM) — FY 2024 & ongoing
- Talent Development
  - Launch the Beta Pilot Talent Marketplace program. (HRD/DIV) — Q4 FY 2024  
  - Refine program parameters in preparation for mainstreaming. (HRD/DIV) — Q4 FY 2025  
  - Launch mainstream program. (HRD/DIV) — FY 2026  
  - Develop platform for departments to solicit interest for short-term career-enriching assignments & projects. (HRD) — Q4 FY 2024  
  - Launch pilot Talent Marketplace to test “fit for purpose”. (HRD) — Q1–Q3 FY 2025  
  - Expand pilot to include all departments. (HRD) — Q4 FY 2025
- Equity & Inclusion
  - Provide training on unconscious bias (HRD/DIV), discrimination, and harassment. (ETO) — Q1 FY 2024 & ongoing  
  - Complete implementation of approved initiatives from the D&I Survey and REJAG Reports. (HRD/DIV) — FY 2024 & FY 2025  
  - Start implementation of ISR Organizational Culture Change initiatives. (HRD/DIV) — FY 2025  
  - Conduct analyses of SES responses by demographic group and share results subject to data privacy protections. (HRD/DIV) — Q4 FY 2024  
  - Monitor D&I implications of the hybrid work model via engagement surveys. (HRD, CSF, Hybrid WG) — FY 2025
- Disability Accessibility & Inclusion (A&I OC)
  - Report external consultant’s findings and recommendations to Management — Q4 FY 2024  
  - Define resources for development of the A&I Strategy — Q4 FY 2024–Q2 FY 2025  
  - Identify short-term/quick-win recommendations and consult departments to agree measures for implementation over one year to 18 months, as approved by Management — Q1-Q2FY 2025  
  - Develop and present a comprehensive Accessibility & Inclusion Strategy, including implementation plan and resource requirements — Q3 FY 2025-FY 2026
- Accountability & Transparency
  - Continue to include D, E, & I objectives in titled managers’ APR documents. (HRD & Departmental Management) — FY 2024 ongoing  
  - Continue to publish diversity distribution in APR ratings and promotions annually. (HRD/DIV) — FY 2024 ongoing  
  - FY 2030 Benchmarks process:
    - Create TOR and seek members of Working Group. (HRD/DIV) — Q4 FY 2024  
    - Establish intra-departmental Working Group. (HRD/DIV) — Q1 FY 2025  
    - Conduct analyses, benchmarking against other IFIs, and exploratory work including risk acceptance and tolerance. (WG) — Q1-Q3 FY 2025  
    - Prepare recommendations for Management approval. (WG) — Q3-Q4 FY 2025  
    - FY 2030 Benchmarks approved (OMD), communicated, and launched. (HRD/DIV) — Q1 FY 2026  
  - Include demographic questions in future surveys on staff engagement and D&I to monitor responses from diverse groups — FY 2025 ongoing

### Annex I (highlight)
- Annex I lists economies classified as Under-Represented Region (URR) economies across Africa (Sub-Saharan), Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+), and East Asia (ASEAN+) (updated October 2015). (Full list preserved in source.)

### Annex II — Fund diversity policies and economist promotions (methodology and findings)
- Promotion impact analysis draws on HRD records over fiscal years 2009 to 2022 for all economists employed by the Fund, including variables: date of last promotion, grade, EP or mid-career hire status, performance ratings, current and previous departments, tenure, years in current grade, gender, and URR status. Focus is on competitive managerial promotions (A14 to A15, A15 to B1, B2 to B3, B3 to B4).  
- Promotion rates in Table 1 compare 2009-2015 and 2016-2022 and across gender, URR, and intersection categories; promotion rates constructed as total promotions over total person-fiscal years eligible (Equation 1). Even the smallest category (female URR) has meaningful counts for analysis.  
- An OLS regression (Equation 2) was estimated to evaluate differential impacts following the 2015 diversity policy shift. Key model features:
  - Indicator P2015 takes value 1 for years following 2015 and zero otherwise; interaction terms with female (F), URR, and countries with changing URR classification capture differential impacts.  
  - RATING is a sum of ratings over the preceding three years, with outstanding or superior coded as 1.  
  - Controls X include mobility (number of unique functional and area departments), total years of service, years in current grade and its square, indicator for prior grade A14, individual fixed effects μi, and year fixed effects θt.  
- Regression results are presented in columns 1 and 3 of Table 2 for EPs and mid-career economists respectively. Findings summarized in source:
  - Strong past performers were promoted faster before the diversity policy changes, and this continued after 2015, albeit more so for EPs than for mid-career economists.  
  - Past mobility has a positive impact on promotion rates.

*Source: 2022-2023 D&I REPORT, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND*

### 5.   To further analyze the impact of the diversity policy shift on the intersection between

### 5.   To further analyze the impact of the diversity policy shift on the intersection between the diversity categories (female-URR, female non-URR, male URR, and male non-URR)

### Methodology: triple-interaction specification
- Equation (Re. 3) augments equation 2 to include triple-interaction terms:
  - 1{PROMOTE}_{i,t} = β1 PPD2015_t × F_{i,t} + β2 PPD2015_t × URR_{i,t} + β3 PPD2015_t × TPRPROMOTE_{i,t} + β4 PPD2015_t × RRR_PROMEE_{i,t}
    + ϕ1 PPD2015_t × F_{i,t} × URR_{i,t} + ϕ2 PPD2015_t × F_{i,t} × TPRPROMOTE_{i,t} + γ1 X_{i,t} + μ_i + θ_t + ε_{i,t}
  - (Equation labeled (Re. 3) in source text)
- Key interaction terms isolate differential effects of the post-2015 diversity policy shift across:
  - Female vs male (F_{i,t})
  - URR vs non-URR (URR_{i,t})
  - Additional promotion-related interaction (TPRPROMOTE_{i,t})
- Controls and fixed effects included: γ1 X_{i,t}, individual fixed effects μ_i, time fixed effects θ_t, and error ε_{i,t}.

### Estimated impacts by subgroup (relative to non-URR men)
- Non-URR women: estimated impact = β1.
- URR men: estimated impact = β2.
- URR women: estimated impact = β1 + β2 + ϕ1.

### Results: changes in promotion rates (reported in columns 2 and 4 of Table 2)
- Non-URR women:
  - Changes in diversity policies lifted the promotion rates by 9 percentage points for EPs.
  - Changes in diversity policies lifted the promotion rates by 4.5 percentage points for mid-career economists.
  - The magnitude for EPs is "as large as the average competitive promotion rate for post-2015" (row 1, columns 2 and 4 in Table 1).
- URR men:
  - There is a small increase in promotion rates for URR men relative to non-URR men.
  - The estimate for URR men is not statistically distinguishable from zero.
- URR women:
  - Promotion rates did not change for URR women relative to non-URR men.
  - The combination of coefficients is -0.8 percentage points for EPs and 0.4 percentage points for mid-career economists.
  - Neither estimate is statistically significantly different from zero.

### Statistical tests and significance
- A test of whether the estimated impact is different for URR women relative to non-URR women:
  - Statistically significant at the 5 percent level for former EPs.
  - Not statistically significant for mid-career economists.
- A test for whether the estimated impact is different for URR women relative to URR men:
  - Not statistically significant for both EPs and mid-career economists.

*Source: 2022-2023 D&I REPORT, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND*

### Annex V. Data Tables

### Annex V. Data Tables (ppea2024032)

### Geographic and Gender Benchmark Indicators and Staff Representation
- 2025 Benchmark indicators and FY2017–FY2023 shares for staff at grades A9–A14/A15 (Individual Contributors and Senior Officers):
  - Africa (Sub-Saharan): 8 (Benchmark); FY2017 8; FY2018 8.3; FY2019 8.5; FY2020 8.7; FY2021 8.8; FY2022 9.2; FY2023 9.9; Gap From Benchmark 10.8 2.8
  - East Asia (ASEAN+): 15 (Benchmark); FY2017 15; FY2018 15.1; FY2019 15.1; FY2020 14.5; FY2021 14.9; FY2022 15.2; FY2023 15.0; Gap From Benchmark 15.1 0.1
  - Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+): 8 (Benchmark); FY2017 4.9; FY2018 5.4; FY2019 5.5; FY2020 5.4; FY2021 5.7; FY2022 5.7; FY2023 7.8; Gap From Benchmark -0.2
  - Asia (excl. East Asia): FY2017 6.2; FY2018 6.0; FY2019 6.4; FY2020 6.3; FY2021 6.4; FY2022 6.6; FY2023 6.6
  - Europe (excl. Transition Countries): FY2017 23.8; FY2018 24.2; FY2019 23.9; FY2020 24.1; FY2021 24.0; FY2022 24.4; FY2023 24.1
  - Other Western Hemisphere: FY2017 12.4; FY2018 12.3; FY2019 12.6; FY2020 12.6; FY2021 12.5; FY2022 11.8; FY2023 11.8
  - Transition Countries: FY2017 9.6; FY2018 9.6; FY2019 9.8; FY2020 9.7; FY2021 9.3; FY2022 9.3; FY2023 9.3
  - United States & Canada: FY2017 19.7; FY2018 19.0; FY2019 18.4; FY2020 18.2; FY2021 17.6; FY2022 17.3; FY2023 14.5
- Share of A14/A15–B5 (Managerial Roles Deputy Division Chief (DDC) Level and Above) FY2017–FY2023 and benchmarks:
  - Africa (Sub-Saharan): 8 (Benchmark); FY2017 5.5; FY2018 5.6; FY2019 5.8; FY2020 6.1; FY2021 6.2; FY2022 6.4; FY2023 7.6; Gap From Benchmark -0.4
  - East Asia (ASEAN+): 12 (Benchmark); FY2017 5.2; FY2018 6.0; FY2019 6.4; FY2020 6.8; FY2021 6.1; FY2022 7.7; FY2023 9.7; Gap From Benchmark -2.3
  - Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+): 8 (Benchmark); FY2017 5.0; FY2018 5.2; FY2019 5.1; FY2020 5.3; FY2021 5.3; FY2022 5.5; FY2023 6.7; Gap From Benchmark -1.3
  - Asia (excl. East Asia): FY2017 10.4; FY2018 10.0; FY2019 9.6; FY2020 10.3; FY2021 10.1; FY2022 9.3; FY2023 8.5
  - Europe (excl. Transition Countries): FY2017 39.0; FY2018 38.5; FY2019 38.5; FY2020 36.9; FY2021 37.1; FY2022 34.7; FY2023 34.2
  - Other Western Hemisphere: FY2017 8.9; FY2018 8.9; FY2019 9.3; FY2020 9.4; FY2021 9.1; FY2022 9.9; FY2023 9.4
  - Transition Countries: FY2017 5.3; FY2018 5.6; FY2019 6.6; FY2020 7.1; FY2021 8.3; FY2022 8.5; FY2023 8.9
  - United States & Canada: FY2017 20.7; FY2018 20.3; FY2019 18.6; FY2020 18.1; FY2021 17.9; FY2022 17.9; FY2023 15.0
- Gender — Female shares:
  - Share of A9 to A14/A15 (Individual Contributors & Senior Officers): Benchmark 45; FY2017 39.1; FY2018 39.4; FY2019 39.5; FY2020 40.6; FY2021 40.2; FY2022 41.0; FY2023 41.4; Gap From Benchmark -3.6
  - Share of A14/A15–B5 (Managerial Roles DDC Level & Above): Benchmark 40; FY2017 29.1; FY2018 30.3; FY2019 31.6; FY2020 32.4; FY2021 34.5; FY2022 34.3; FY2023 35.6; Gap From Benchmark –4.5
- Institutional Goals (2025 Institutional Goal):
  - Diversity Region – URR A1–B5 (including contractuals with 1+ year contract): Goal 30; FY2017 26.2; FY2018 27.1; FY2019 27.2; FY2020 28.3; FY2021 28.2; FY2022 30.9; FY2023 31.6; Gap From Goal 1.6
  - B4 & B5: Goal 30; FY2017 14.3; FY2018 15.3; FY2019 17.6; FY2020 18.2; FY2021 14.3; FY2022 16.7; FY2023 17.0; Gap From Goal –13.0
  - Gender Parity A1–B5 (including contractuals with 1+ year contract): Goal 50; FY2017 46.2; FY2018 46.2; FY2019 46.8; FY2020 47.3; FY2021 47.0; FY2022 47.7; FY2023 48.2; Gap From Goal –1.8
  - Gender Parity B4 & B5: Goal 50; FY2017 19.0; FY2018 20.0; FY2019 24.7; FY2020 26.1; FY2021 33.0; FY2022 35.7; FY2023 38.6; Gap From Goal –11.4
- Recruitment Targets (FY2017–FY2023 and target levels):
  - Women A9 to A14/A15 (Individual Contributors & Senior Officers): Target 50; FY2017 37.1; FY2018 37.6; FY2019 27.0; FY2020 43.8; FY2021 37.0; FY2022 38.4; FY2023 43.0; Gap From Target –7.0
  - MENA+ A9 to A14/A15 (Individual Contributors & Senior Officers): Target 10; FY2017 4.6; FY2018 9.6; FY2019 5.2; FY2020 4.6; FY2021 7.3; FY2022 9.3; FY2023 9.2; Gap From Target –0.8
  - URR A9 to A14/A15 (Individual Contributors & Senior Officers): Target 30; FY2017 27.8; FY2018 34.4; FY2019 25.2; FY2020 32.3; FY2021 32.7; FY2022 39.5; FY2023 31.9; Gap From Target 1.9
- Data sources: PeopleSoft FY17–FY21; Workday FY22–FY23 (includes secondary nationality). Note: Excludes the Board and Independent Offices.

### Staff Turnover by Gender and Diversity Category (FY 2023 as of April 30, 2023)
- Total separations in FY 2023: No. 171; Turnover A1–B5 5.9 percent
  - A1–A8: 24 separations; Turnover 6.0 percent
  - A9–A15: 107 separations; Turnover 4.9 percent
  - B1–B5: 40 separations; Turnover 11.6 percent
- Women (A1–B5): 76 separations; Turnover 5.8 percent
  - A1–A8: 17 separations; Turnover 5.2 percent
  - A9–A15: 49 separations; Turnover 5.6 percent
  - B1–B5: 10 separations; Turnover 8.7 percent
- Men (A1–B5): 95 separations; Turnover 6.0 percent
  - A1–A8: 7 separations; Turnover 9.7 percent
  - A9–A15: 58 separations; Turnover 4.5 percent
  - B1–B5: 30 separations; Turnover 13.1 percent
- Under-Represented Regions (URR) A1–B5: 31 separations; Turnover 3.8 percent
  - A1–A8: 5 separations; Turnover 4.4 percent
  - A9–A15: 23 separations; Turnover 3.6 percent
  - B1–B5: 3 separations; Turnover 5.2 percent
- Africa (Sub-Saharan) A1–B5: 8 separations; Turnover 3.0 percent
  - A1–A8: 1 separation; Turnover 2.5 percent
  - A9–A15: 7 separations; Turnover 3.3 percent
  - B1–B5: 0 separations; Turnover 0.0 percent
- East Asia (ASEAN+3) A1–B5: 15 separations; Turnover 3.9 percent
  - A1–A8: 3 separations; Turnover 4.8 percent
  - A9–A15: 10 separations; Turnover 3.3 percent
  - B1–B5: 2 separations; Turnover 10.0 percent
- Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+) A1–B5: 8 separations; Turnover 5.3 percent
  - A1–A8: 1 separation; Turnover 8.3 percent
  - A9–A15: 6 separations; Turnover 5.1 percent
  - B1–B5: 1 separation; Turnover 4.5 percent
- Other Regions A1–B5: 140 separations; Turnover 6.7 percent
  - A1–A8: 19 separations; Turnover 6.6 percent
  - A9–A15: 84 separations; Turnover 5.5 percent
  - B1–B5: 37 separations; Turnover 12.9 percent
- Separation includes: Resignation - Resignation, Separation and Expiration of Appointment; Retirement - Normal Retirement, Early Retirement and Mandatory Retirement; Other Retirement/Resignation - Death and Disability Retirement.
- Source: PeopleSoft. Note: Excludes the Board and Independent Offices.

### The Fund's Senior Management Profile (B4/B5)
- Senior Management counts and composition by FY:
  - FY 2023: Total 88; Women 34 (38.6 percent); Men 54 (61.4 percent); Under-Represented Regions (URR) 15 (17.0 percent); Other Regions 73 (83.0 percent)
  - FY 2022: Total 84; Women 30 (35.7 percent); Men 54 (64.3 percent); URR 14 (16.7 percent); Other Regions 70 (83.3 percent)
  - FY 2021: Total 91; Women 30 (33.0 percent); Men 61 (67.0 percent); URR 13 (19.0 percent); Other Regions 78 (81.0 percent)
  - FY 2020: Total 88; Women 23 (26.1 percent); Men 65 (73.9 percent); URR 16 (18.2 percent); Other Regions 72 (81.8 percent)
  - FY 2019: Total 85; Women 21 (24.7 percent); Men 64 (75.3 percent); URR 15 (17.6 percent); Other Regions 70 (82.4 percent)
  - FY 2018: Total 85; Women 17 (20.0 percent); Men 68 (80.0 percent); URR 13 (15.3 percent); Other Regions 72 (84.7 percent)
  - FY 2017: Total 84; Women 16 (19.0 percent); Men 68 (81.0 percent); URR 12 (14.3 percent); Other Regions 72 (85.7 percent)
- Source: PeopleSoft HRMS FY17–21; Workday FY22–FY23 (includes secondary nationality). Excludes the Office of the Executive Directors and the Independent Evaluation Office.

### Highest Educational Diversity: Doctorate and Master's Degrees (as of end–FY 2023)
- Doctorate Degrees (Total 700; 100 percent):
  - China: 6 degrees; 0.9 percent
  - Middle East and North Africa + (MENA+): 1 degree; 0.1 percent
  - Africa (Sub-Saharan): 6 degrees; 0.9 percent
  - United Kingdom: 77 degrees; 11.0 percent
  - United States: 386 degrees; 55.1 percent
  - Other: 224 degrees; 32.0 percent
  - Note: Data excludes the Board and Independent Offices and contractual employees. Only the highest level of education recorded is captured. Based on the country where the university is located.
- Master's Degrees (Total 1,658; 100 percent):
  - China: 18 degrees; 1.1 percent
  - Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+): 38 degrees; 2.3 percent
  - Africa (Sub-Saharan): 50 degrees; 3.0 percent
  - United Kingdom: 189 degrees; 11.4 percent
  - United States: 747 degrees; 45.1 percent
  - Other: 616 degrees; 37.2 percent
  - Note: Same caveats as above.

### Staff Nationality by Region, Gender, Career Stream & Grade Grouping (as of end–FY 2023)
- Total staff distribution highlights:
  - Total Economists A1–A8: 396 (13.2 percent of total)
  - Total A9–A15: 2,257 (75.1 percent of total)
  - Total B1–B5: 353 (11.7 percent of total)
  - TOTAL A9–B5: 2,610 (86.8 percent of total)
  - TOTAL A11–A15: 3,006 (100.0 percent)
  - B1–B5 total: 1,429 (47.5 percent)
  - Total staff: 2,689? [Note: table totals presented as 3006 and 1689; preserve data as listed below]
- Regional highlights (selected exact figures):
  - Africa (Sub-Saharan): Total Economists 39; A1–A8 221 7.4; A9–A15 18 0.6; A9–B5 239 8.0; TOTAL A11–A15 278 9.2; B1–B5 132 7.8; Total 143 8.5
  - East Asia (ASEAN+): Total Economists 63 15.2; A1–A8 326 10.8; A9–A15 27 0.9; A9–B5 353 11.7; TOTAL A11–A15 416 13.8; B1–B5 214 12.7; Total 234 13.9
  - China: Economists 9 1.8; A1–A8 142 4.7; A9–A15 7 0.2; A9–B5 149 5.0; TOTAL A11–A15 158 5.3; B1–B5 93 5.5; Total 97 5.7
  - Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+): Economists 11 2.3; A1–A8 130 4.3; A9–A15 21 0.7; A9–B5 151 5.0; TOTAL A11–A15 162 5.4; B1–B5 91 5.4; Total 107 6.3
  - Europe (excl. Transition Countries): Economists 29 8.3; A1–A8 582 19.4; A9–A15 137 4.6; A9–B5 719 23.9; TOTAL A11–A15 748 24.9; B1–B5 452 26.8; Total 554 32.8
  - United States & Canada: Economists 153 37.1; A1–A8 366 12.2; A9–A15 62 2.1; A9–B5 428 14.2; TOTAL A11–A15 581 19.3; B1–B5 134 7.9; Total 175 10.4
- Gender composition by grade grouping:
  - Women: Economists 330 83.3; A1–A8 913 40.5; A9–A15 125 35.4; A9–B5 1,038 39.8; TOTAL A11–A15 1,368 45.5; B1–B5 459 32.1; Total 542 32.1
  - Men: Economists 66 16.7; A1–A8 1,344 59.5; A9–A15 228 64.6; A9–B5 1,572 60.2; TOTAL A11–A15 1,638 54.5; B1–B5 970 67.9; Total 1,147 67.9
- Source: PeopleSoft. Note: Data excludes the Board and Independent Offices.

### Contractual Nationality by Region, Gender, Career Stream & Grade Grouping (as of end–FY 2023)
- Contractual staff totals and breakdown:
  - Total contractual: 373 (43.8 percent) and 478 (56.2 percent) by subgrouping; Total Professional 851 (100.0 percent); Contractual Total 694 (100.0 percent)
- Regional highlights (selected exact figures):
  - Africa (Sub-Saharan): Total 42 4.9; Economists 25 2.9; Specialized 67 7.9; Total Professional 25 15.9; Support 17 2.4; Total 42 6.1
  - East Asia (ASEAN+): Total 54 6.3; Economists 114 13.4; Specialized 168 19.7; Total Professional 18 11.5; Support 36 5.2; Total Professional 150 21.6
  - China: Total 24 2.8; Economists 78 9.2; Specialized 102 12.0; Total Professional 6 3.8; Support 18 2.6; Total Professional 96 13.8
  - Europe (excl. Transition Countries): Total 82 9.6; Economists 25 2.9; Specialized 107 12.6; Total Professional 45 28.7; Support 37 5.3; Total 62 8.9
  - United States & Canada: Total 76 8.9; Economists 140 16.5; Specialized 216 25.4; Total Professional 13 8.3; Support 63 9.1; Total Professional 203 29.3
- Gender composition among contractuals:
  - Women: Economists 172 46.1; Specialized 323 67.6; Total Professional 495 58.2; Total Professional Support 58 36.9; Total 437 63.0
  - Men: Economists 201 53.9; Specialized 155 32.4; Total Professional 356 41.8; Support 99 63.1; Total 257 37.0
- Source: PeopleSoft. Note: Data excludes the Board and Independent Offices.

### Share of Women by Department and Grade Grouping (as of end–FY 2023)
- IMF Total: Economists 330 83.3; A1–A8 913 40.5; A9–A15 125 35.4; A9–B5 Professional 39.8 (table shows ### for percent in one cell — preserve as listed); Contractual 172 46.1; Contractual Professional 323 67.6; Total staff 1,863 of 3,857; IMF Total Share of Women 48.3 percent
- Area Departments:
  - AFR: Contractual 17 81.0; A1–A8 58 28.4; A9–A15 13 38.2; A9–B5 71 29.8; Contractual Professional 2 40.0; Contractual Professional 22 53.7; Total 112 of 305; Share of Women 36.7 percent
  - APD (includes OAP): Contractual 11 78.6; A1–A8 35 36.5; A9–A15 5 21.7; A9–B5 40 33.6; Contractual Professional 3 60.0; Contractual Professional 18 78.3; Total 72 of 161; Share of Women 44.7 percent
  - EUR (includes EUO): Contractual 16 94.1; A1–A8 55 39.3; A9–A15 8 29.6; A9–B5 63 37.7; Contractual Professional 0 0.0; Contractual Professional 18 66.7; Total 97 of 214; Share of Women 45.3 percent
  - MCD: Contractual 13 86.7; A1–A8 37 33.3; A9–A15 5 23.8; A9–B5 42 31.8; Contractual Professional 2 66.7; Contractual Professional 18 69.2; Total 75 of 176; Share of Women 42.6 percent
  - WHD: Contractual 14 87.5; A1–A8 35 31.3; A9–A15 5 26.3; A9–B5 40 30.5; Contractual Professional 1 100.0; Contractual Professional 14 53.8; Total 69 of 174; Share of Women 39.7 percent
- Functional Departments (selected):
  - COM: Contractual 7 63.6; A1–A8 48 62.3; A9–A15 6 46.2; A9–B5 54 60.0; Contractual Professional 12 70.6; Contractual Professional 4 50.0; Total 77 of 126; Share of Women 61.1 percent
  - FAD: Contractual 16 84.2; A1–A8 57 32.6; A9–A15 7 33.3; A9–B5 64 32.7; Contractual Professional 28 43.8; Contractual Professional 41 78.8; Total 149 of 331; Share of Women 45.0 percent
  - FIN: Contractual 22 84.6; A1–A8 63 53.8; A9–A15 4 28.6; A9–B5 67 51.1; Contractual Professional 3 60.0; Contractual Professional 7 70.0; Total 99 of 172; Share of Women 57.6 percent
  - HRD (includes SSG): Contractual 34 94.4; A1–A8 55 68.8; A9–A15 15 71.4; A9–B5 70 69.3; Contractual Professional 9 50.0; Contractual Professional 42 82.4; Total 155 of 206; Share of Women 75.2 percent
  - ITD: Contractual 10 83.3; A1–A8 36 28.3; A9–A15 3 33.3; A9–B5 39 28.7; Contractual Professional 9 25.0; Contractual Professional 5 100.0; Total 63 of 189; Share of Women 33.3 percent
  - OMD (includes DMD, OIC, INV, OBP, OIA, ORM, KMU, SPA, OII, and MDT): Contractual 18 94.7; A1–A8 32 54.2; A9–A15 10 55.6; A9–B5 42 54.5; Contractual Professional 4 57.1; Contractual Professional 4 44.4; Total 68 of 112; Share of Women 60.7 percent
- Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes OED and IEO.

### Diversity Regions (Definitions and Listings)
- Diversity region groupings and economy lists by region (selected examples preserved exactly as listed):
  - Africa (Sub-Saharan): AGO Angola; BDI Burundi; BEN Benin; BFA Burkina Faso; BWA Botswana; CAF Central African Republic; CIV Côte d'Ivoire; CMR Cameroon; COD Democratic Republic of the Congo; COG Republic of Congo; COM Comoros; CPV Cabo Verde; ERI Eritrea; ETH Ethiopia; GAB Gabon; GHA Ghana; GIN Guinea; GMB The Gambia; GNB Guinea-Bissau; GNQ Equatorial Guinea; KEN Kenya; LBR Liberia; LSO Lesotho; MDG Madagascar; MLI Mali; MOZ Mozambique; MUS Mauritius; MWI Malawi; NAM Namibia; NER Niger; NGA Nigeria; RWA Rwanda; SEN Senegal; SLE Sierra Leone; SSD South Sudan; STP São Tomé and Príncipe; SWZ Eswatini; SYC Seychelles; TCD Chad; TGO Togo; TZA Tanzania; UGA Uganda; ZAF South Africa; ZMB Zambia
  - East Asia (ASEAN+): AUS Australia; BRN Brunei Darussalam; BGD Bangladesh; CHN China; FJI Fiji; IDN Indonesia; JPN Japan; KHM Cambodia; KIR Kiribati; LAO Lao P.D.R.; MHL Marshall Islands; MMR Myanmar; MYS Malaysia; NPL Nepal; NZL New Zealand; PHL Philippines; PNG Papua New Guinea; SGP Singapore; THA Thailand; VNM Vietnam; TWN Taiwan Province of China; FRO Faroe Islands
  - Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+): AFG Afghanistan; ARE United Arab Emirates; BHR Bahrain; DJI Djibouti; DZA Algeria; EGY Egypt; IRN Iran; IRQ Iraq; JOR Jordan; KWT Kuwait; LBN Lebanon; LBY Libya; MAR Morocco; MRT Mauritania; OMN Oman; PAK Pakistan; QAT Qatar; SAU Saudi Arabia; SDN Sudan; SOM Somalia; SYR Syria; TUN Tunisia; WBG West Bank & Gaza; YEM Yemen
  - Transition Countries and Other Western Hemisphere and United States & Canada lists also provided in full in the source.
- Note: Diversity Regions table marked "1/ Updated October 2023."

### Five–Year History: Recruitment by Region, Gender, Career Stream, and Grade Grouping (FY 2019–FY 2023)
- Total recruitment FY2019–FY2023: 1,038 hires (100 percent)
  - Economists A1–A9: 175 hires (100 percent)
  - Specialized Career Stream A9–A15: 809 hires (100 percent)
  - B1–B5: 54 hires (100 percent)
  - A9–A15 (subset): 528 hires (100 percent)
  - B1–B5 (subset): 29 hires (100 percent)
  - A1–A8: 175 hires (100 percent)
  - A9–A15: 281 hires (100 percent)
  - B1–B5: 25 hires (100 percent)
- Regional recruitment counts and shares (selected):
  - Africa (Sub-Saharan): 100 hires; 9.6 percent of total; Economists 7 hires 4.0 percent; A9–A15 92 hires 11.4 percent; B1–B5 1 hire 1.9 percent; A1–A8 7 hires 4.0 percent; A9–A15 35 hires 12.5 percent; B1–B5 1 hire 4.0 percent
  - East Asia (ASEAN+): 145 hires; 14.0 percent; Economists 28 hires 16.0 percent; A9–A15 108 hires 13.3 percent; B1–B5 9 hires 16.7 percent; A1–A8 28 hires 16.0 percent; A9–A15 29 hires 10.3 percent; B1–B5 2 hires 8.0 percent
  - Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+): 62 hires; 6.0 percent; Economists 8 hires 4.6 percent; A9–A15 53 hires 6.6 percent; B1–B5 1 hire 1.9 percent; A1–A8 8 hires 4.6 percent; A9–A15 10 hires 3.6 percent; B1–B5 1 hire 4.0 percent
  - Europe (excl. Transition Countries): 252 hires; 24.3 percent; Economists 10 hires 5.7 percent; A9–A15 223 hires 27.6 percent; B1–B5 19 hires 35.2 percent; A1–A8 10 hires 5.7 percent; A9–A15 52 hires 18.5 percent; B1–B5 9 hires 36.0 percent
  - United States & Canada: 209 hires; 20.1 percent; Economists 72 hires 41.1 percent; A9–A15 122 hires 15.1 percent; B1–B5 15 hires 27.8 percent; A1–A8 72 hires 41.1 percent; A9–A15 77 hires 27.4 percent; B1–B5 8 hires 32.0 percent
- Gender composition of recruits FY2019–FY2023:
  - Women: 476 hires; 45.9 percent overall; Economists 140 hires 80.0 percent; A9–A15 314 hires 38.8 percent; B1–B5 22 hires 40.7 percent; A1–A8 140 hires 80.0 percent; A9–A15 147 hires 52.3 percent; B1–B5 13 hires 52.0 percent
  - Men: 562 hires; 54.1 percent overall; Economists 35 hires 20.0 percent; A9–A15 495 hires 61.2 percent; B1–B5 32 hires 59.3 percent; A1–A8 35 hires 20.0 percent; A9–A15 134 hires 47.7 percent; B1–B5 12 hires 48.0 percent
- Source: PeopleSoft. Note: Data excludes the Board and Independent Offices.

*Source: ppea2024032 - Annex V. Data Tables (PeopleSoft, Workday as indicated in tables).*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2024/english/ppea2024032.pdf_