Every step on our journey adds to what we know. But it also reveals there is no end to knowing.
(From the 2000 IMF Diversity Annual Report)
IMF Workplace and Environment
Annual Reports on Diversity at the IMF
Diversity Annual Report 2000|
Use the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files.
Diversity Annual Report 2000
The Fund's systematic approach to diversity management was initiated in 1996 when the Managing Director issued his diversity statement and action plan and asked departments to prepare their first annual diversity action plans. The diversity infrastructure was strengthened in early 2000 when diversity action plans were integrated into annual human resource plans. The Fund's diversity strategy is inclusive, balances quantitative and qualitative objectives, and seeks to mainstream diversity into the day-to-day implementation of human resource management. Excellent policies are in place to meet diversity objectives. Still missing is consistent implementation, with sufficient accountability of individual supervisors reflected in performance reviews, promotion decisions, and merit pay.
Over the past five years, the representation of developing country nationals in economist career stream grades A9 to A15 has remained steady, with the share slightly exceeding the regional quota(1) of 37.9 percent; at the B level, developing country representation has risen to 33.2 percent. The share of developing country nationals drops sharply from the A1 to A8 grade group to the A9 to A15 grade group, and further in the B grades in most departments. English-speaking candidates and staff from industrial countries have an advantage at the Fund, specifically in the functional and support departments.
Regionally, the Middle East continues to be the most underrepresented staff group in all grade categories and career streams. Compared with the regional quota of 8.6 percent, Middle Eastern staff account for only 5.3 percent of staff in grades A9 to A15 and 5.8 percent of staff in the B grades. Africa's representation in grades A9 to A15 is 6.1 percent and in the B grades 3.8 percent, relative to the regional quota of 4.2 percent. The share of Asian staff has gradually increased to 14.9 percent in grades A9 to A15 and 15.9 percent in the B grades, still below the regional quota of 17.4 percent. Nine departments have no B-level Middle Eastern staff and 13 departments have no B-level African staff. In absolute terms, the small number of staff from the African and Middle Eastern regions makes these calculations subject to great variation with retirements and other individual career choices.
The promotion rate of staff from industrial countries exceeded that of developing country nationals in most grade groups in 2000. Following important gains in promoting African staff to B-level economist positions from 1996 to 1998, promotion rates for that group dropped in 1999 and 2000. The promotion rate of Middle Eastern staff was below the Fund average in grades A9 and above, particularly so in the B grades.
Regional grade profiles indicate slight improvements in Grade A15 for underrepresented staff groups, with shares of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern economists increasing in 2000. The A15/A14 ratio is still highest for U.S. economists, but has improved for African and Middle Eastern economists.
From a gender standpoint, women economists' concentration in lower grades and lower representation overall (22.9 percent in grades A9 to A15 and 9.2 percent in the B grades) continues to be a concern, despite improvement over the past several years. In the specialized career streams,(2) women account for 55.6 percent of staff in grades A9 to A15, but only 21.1 percent of B-level staff, showing no improvement since 1996. Women's share in EP (Economist Program) recruitment achieved a record high—over 40 percent—in 2000, but recruitment into grades A12 to A15 dropped to just under 20 percent. Women's share at the B-level Fundwide (11.7 percent) showed no increase in 2000. As of end-2000, EXR (the External Relations Department) did not employ any women at the B level and EU2 (the European II Department), FAD (the Fiscal Affairs Department), INS (the IMF Institute), LEG (the Legal Department), MAE (the Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department), and RES (the Research Department) employed only one woman in that grade group. Compared with other international institutions, the Fund's performance with respect to gender diversity is average.
HRD (the Human Resources Department) has introduced a number of policy reforms that support diversity efforts Fundwide. New interview methods and related training have been designed to better assess competencies and improve culture- and gender-sensitivity. In January 2000, the First Deputy Managing Director provided guidelines for departments to intensify external diversity recruitment to fill an unusually high number of openings that year. Departments' actual recruitment outcome was disappointing from a diversity standpoint, however. While recruitment of developing country nationals and women to the EP program was exceptionally high, it was otherwise uneven across career streams and grades. Regardless of the relatively large pool of qualified candidates identified by the interview panels, very few Middle Eastern and African staff were hired.
Newcomers have benefited from mentoring services provided by departments and the Diversity Advisor's office. In 2001, HRD will be launching a Fundwide mentoring program for mid-career newcomers, with special attention to African and Middle Eastern staff and women. Other enhancements include improved orientation programs and guidelines that provide time for new staff to settle their families before being sent on mission. Family-friendly policies previously reserved for women have been extended to male staff, a childcare center for children of Fund staff opened in 2001, and domestic partners of Fund staff are now entitled to medical benefits. Finally, the adoption in 2000 of the CWS (Compressed Work Schedule) contributes greatly to efforts to reduce work-related stress and improve the work/private life balance for staff.
The IMF's "Diversity Week" takes place three times a year and provides a myriad of departmental and Fundwide workshop opportunities. Despite positive feedback, participation remains low; management enforcement is needed to raise the importance of training. Staff development and management training programs have been revised gradually to incorporate a diversity perspective. Programs to strengthen English language and writing skills—particularly beneficial to minority staff groups—need to be strengthened.
Diversity management components have been integrated into management assessment tools, including the 360-degree SAM (Subordinate Assessment of Managers). The APR (Annual Performance Review) form has been revised to leave less room for subjective, biased assessment and language. Performance review and promotion procedures are now more structured, transparent, and balanced. Further progress will require greater accountability on diversity items in management assessments, including consequences.
The Fund demonstrated exceptional courage in its 1997-1999 review of individual discrimination cases. The experience indicates that a specific definition of discrimination is needed to supplement management's previous statement on zero tolerance of discrimination, the IMF's Policy on Harassment, and the Code of Conduct. All staff must feel confident that the Fund is protecting them as an employer. More open dialogue on sensitive topics such as racism is also needed.
Overall diversity results continue to vary widely department-to-department. Some departments have developed best practices that were later adopted Fundwide, such as the managerial standards prepared by EU1 (the European I Department). Several departments have developed databases for career planning. Others have increased performance feedback frequency, which is particularly beneficial for minority staff less familiar with the Fund's working culture. Far too few departments, however, make an extra effort to support underrepresented staff.
Year 2000 marked the fifth anniversary of the Fund's systematic diversity efforts. The diversity culture has evolved significantly during this period, and the Fund has become a source of many best practices in its diversity and broader human resource management. The ongoing challenge for the Fund is implementing these policies and practices in an efficient manner by increasing awareness, honing necessary skills, and demonstrating unfailing will across the organization.
Departments have been made responsible for their own diversity efforts, supported by assistance from HRD and the Diversity Advisor. Diversity data—more extensive and transparent than ever before—have revealed varied progress department to department. Partly to blame is the lack of sufficient accountability for diversity actions in merit pay or promotion decisions. Although diversity items are now included in performance competencies, the lack of consequences may risk the credibility of the Fund's commitment. Chronically low participation rates in diversity and other management development programs exacerbate those concerns.
Statistics indicate that more remains to be done. In 2000, women's share in total Fund staff did not increase; the developing country staff share in economist grades A9 to A15 dropped; and, although the share of developing country nationals at the B level improved, it is still significantly lower than the combined country quota. In the B grades, the Fund currently employs only 13 Africans—four of whom will retire in the next two to three years—and 20 Middle Eastern staff. These figures reflect vulnerability and significant gaps that will be difficult to fill without intensified efforts in development and career planning. Without strong external recruitment to mid-career and B grades, the Fund will not be able to make adequate progress.
Although some slowing of momentum is expected after five years of diversity efforts, the unevenness of departmental progress and the persistence of long-standing diversity concerns signals a lack of sufficient accountability, incentives, and commitment. Diversifying staff entails change, struggle, and extra effort. It requires firm actions to overcome resistance to changing individual and cultural mindsets. Prospects for success rest on individual supervisors' ability to understand and convey the rationale and business case for shifting the status quo. The Fund has excellent policies and practices in place, and many departments—although still too few—have adopted the diversity management mindset. That mindset needs to be broadened and deepened through the daily implementation of diversity-related policies Fundwide and a more open dialogue on topics such as discrimination, racism, and harassment.
1. Strengthen supervisors' accountability for diversity efforts, including concrete actions and quantitative progress. Enforce that accountability in performance appraisals, promotions, and merit pay decisions. (Management)(3)
2. Within the framework of human resources planning, track applicant pools, candidates, and appointments by grade group, gender, and nationality. (Departments, HRD)
3. Provide comprehensive writing training to all non-native English speakers in order to compensate for language disadvantages, develop writing skills, reduce work-related stress, and ensure high quality, timely departmental output. Sufficient training and coaching should be available to any staff member whose formal or informal performance assessment refers to writing skills development needs. Supervisors should collaborate closely with individual staff members, SDD (the Staff Development Division), and writing testers to ensure seamless support for staff. (Management, Departments, HRD)
4. Ensure diversity in the composition of all recruitment missions and panels. All panel members should have participated in RSD (the Recruitment and Staffing Division) and SDD training by end-2002. (Departments, HRD)
5. Make management and diversity training—including topics such as harassment and discrimination—available for staff at earlier stages of their careers and make such training a prerequisite for promotion. Make cultural diversity training an element of mission preparation. (Management)
6. Strengthen HRD and EXR cooperation to improve the Fund's public image as an employer and facilitate recruitment of the most desirable candidates. Monitor the Fund's reputation as an employer and intensify public relations efforts during recruitment missions. (HRD, EXR)
7. Define the Fund's zero tolerance of discrimination policy in specific terms to ensure that all managers and staff understand the concept of discrimination and recognize the rationale of the policy. Managers and staff must be aware of the nature of discrimination; their responsibility to intervene in discriminatory situations; and the available support systems the Fund has in place. While the discrimination policy would supplement the IMF Code of Conduct, the Policy on Harassment, Management Standards, and the forthcoming Mission Code of Conduct, it should stand on its own as an individual policy statement. (Management)
Staff diversity is a fundamental personnel principal at the IMF. Achieving a level of diversity that reflects all 183 member countries sets high demands on the institution. Equal rights and opportunities are frequently challenged. Good intentions and policy statements do not suffice; management, through its leadership and interactions with staff, translates words into action. All staff members are responsible for demonstrating sensitivity, awareness, tolerance, and respect. Ensuring fairness and justice requires extraordinary efforts, given the deep roots of discrimination in society and in every work community.
In the Fund, the concept of diversity has gradually evolved from a focus on geographical representation to an approach that encompasses a broad range of staff characteristics, including gender, language, race, religion, family status, physical ability, and sexual orientation. The Fund has set two main goals for its diversity efforts: (1) promote higher shares of women and underrepresented nationalities and (2) ensure that all individuals are respected and recognized, have equal opportunities, and are provided positive support and career development options. The Fund implements internationally accepted—but typically Western—human resource practices. Within this framework, the Fund is doing its best to fully integrate a variety of diversity approaches. The aim is to take advantage of existing diversity and to ensure that all staff are fully equipped to perform well and contribute to the Fund.
In 1995, the Managing Director created the position of Special Advisor on Diversity to address concerns identified in various studies, to assist management, and to track progress. In 2000, the Advisor's contractual position was converted to a fixed-term staff appointment. The Diversity Advisor reports to management and collaborates closely with the newly restructured HRD. The objective over the next three years is to fully integrate diversity into the Fund's human resource management. While diversity programs are developed and monitored by the Diversity Advisor and HRD, implementation depends on the efforts of departmental supervisors, review committees, and recruitment panels. Sustainable change takes place in day-to-day operations and management practices; in that regard, accountability is crucial.
The Fund's diversity program was formally established in 1996 in the Managing Director's statement on "Measures to Promote Staff Diversity and Address Discrimination." The statement emphasized the importance of:
Human resource indicators are carefully monitored to assess diversity status and trends, thereby providing a framework for measuring quantitative progress. The personnel data system (PeopleSoft) compiles data on citizenship, gender, age, education, and language of the country of citizenship (native-language). Fund staff can view human resource indicators on the Fund's intranet. Efforts are underway to further develop qualitative and quantitative indicators.
From 1996-1999 each department prepared an annual diversity action plan and follow-up report, which the Diversity Advisor monitored to assess changes in management practices, in equity and transparency of procedures, and in the working culture. In 2000, management requested departments to prepare comprehensive human resources plans, including diversity aspects. Diversity programs and reviews now have a two-fold focus: (1) to integrate diversity into Fundwide human resource management functions (mainstreaming) and (2) to address specific equity issues as they arise.
This 2000 Diversity Annual Report is the fourth progress report since departments developed their first diversity action plans in 1996. Progress is measured by trends over time.
The objectives of this report are to:
The diversity strategy is built upon the following principles:
The goal is to achieve a balanced distribution of diverse staff at all grades in all career streams. In that context, fairness, equality of treatment, zero tolerance of discrimination, and opportunity for all staff and applicants are required. Every staff member should feel respected and valued; have opportunities to develop and demonstrate individual skills and potential; obtain guidance, support, and constructive feedback; and see that prospects and success depend on individual effort and team performance. As a result, the Fund's organizational flexibility improves, its ability to adjust to changes is enhanced, and its institutional innovativeness and problem solving capacity are strengthened.
The Fund's diversity accomplishments over the past five years can be broadly grouped into the areas of data, planning and reporting, recruitment, newcomers' support, work/private life policies, staff development, management training, APR and promotion process reforms, and efforts to reduce discrimination and harassment.
Recognizing the strong role of data in the Fund's work culture, the Diversity Advisor has developed specific diversity indicators and reports for SPMs (Senior Personnel Managers), AOs (Administrative Officers), and HRD. HRD has developed software that consolidates core diversity data for planning and monitoring. This important step in mainstreaming diversity has been adopted as a best practice in many other institutions, including in the private sector. The Fund now publicly signals its commitment to diversity and transparency with the inclusion of more comprehensive data on staff diversity in its Annual Report. Enhanced transparency has improved trust significantly, stimulated interest in diversity issues, and empowered staff to take initiative. However, some staff groups, including sub-Saharan African and Arab staff, still express concern that hidden inequality and discrimination exists; these concerns should be openly discussed.
The Fund's systematic approach to diversity management was initiated in 1996 when departments prepared their first diversity action plans. The diversity infrastructure and departmental accountability were strengthened in early 2000 when diversity action plans were integrated into annual human resource plans. This new approach streamlined reporting, simplified information flow between departments, HRD, and the Diversity Advisor's office, and set the stage to integrate diversity into overall human resource management and day-to-day supervisory practices. The Diversity Advisor's work in 2000 focused on (1) mainstreaming diversity into human resources management and (2) promoting the recruitment and career progress of African and Middle Eastern staff.
Responding to SPMs' requests, in 1999 the Diversity Advisor developed the first Diversity Pipeline Reports, which consolidate career-relevant information on underrepresented staff in each grade. Those reports, updated biannually and supplemented by additional reporting as needed, are designed to facilitate departments' diversity staffing and career planning and to increase the visibility of diverse staff Fundwide. Unfortunately, many departments have not made use of the pipeline reports in their planning, relying instead on more limited, traditional recruitment channels and personal contacts.
Recruitment has traditionally been the most visible diversity function. RSD has contributed greatly to diversity efforts over the past five years, including by developing an electronic database of underrepresented candidates, contacts, and professional associations and strengthening other channels of outreach to non-traditional candidates. Proper maintenance of the database is crucial to ensure its effectiveness. Elsewhere, RSD has designed new interview methods and training to better assess technical and behavioral competencies and to improve sensitivity to and interpretation of cultural and gender differences in interview situations. In 2000, HRD introduced an Internet-based application system to improve documentation, efficiency, and transparency of the recruitment process; the system will also facilitate reviews of equal treatment of applicants and candidates. Care will be taken to ensure that every candidate, regardless of Internet access, can still apply. Perhaps most importantly, in January 2000, the First Deputy Managing Director provided guidelines for departments to intensify external diversity recruitment in a systematic manner to fill an exceptionally high number of openings that year. Despite these combined efforts, excessive workloads and time pressures appear to have hindered proper staff planning and conflicted with good diversity intentions.
Stress is one of many factors in the work environment that influences diversity. Indeed, the higher the stress levels, the less tolerance there is for differences. Vacancies have had to be filled quickly and new staff have been expected to understand the Fund's culture and expectations without guidance. In those circumstances, managers tend to view it as safer and easier to hire from traditional pools of candidates.
Newcomers' early experiences in the Fund have a long-lasting impact on their outlook and overall work performance. Since 1997, the Diversity Advisor has arranged mentoring for individual newcomers, usually upon request of the new staff members themselves. While the focus has been on underrepresented staff, no staff member has been turned down. Supervisors appear to be recognizing the value of mentoring, illustrated in 2000 by the increase in supervisor-initiated requests for mentoring services. As described in Chapter IV, several departments have developed their own mentoring programs for newcomers. In some of those cases, specifically at the mid-career level, efforts need to be strengthened. In an important step forward, HRD will be launching in 2001 a Fundwide mentoring program for mid-career newcomers, including mentor training, with special attention paid to staff in underrepresented categories. Other initiatives to support newcomers include improved orientation programs and guidelines that provide time for new staff to settle their families before being sent on mission. The IMF Spouse/Partner Association also provides support for families upon relocation to Washington, D.C. In 2000, SBD (the Staff Benefits Division) developed a well-targeted relocation program for new staff, which was, unfortunately, not funded in the 2001 budget.
Issues related to work/private life balance have become more prominent in the Fund as global developments and budget constraints have increased pressures on staff. The institution's culture demands hard work, long hours, and total commitment to any and all requests from management and the Executive Board. Several policy reforms have been introduced over the past five years in an attempt to offset those pressures. A 1996 revision of GAO (General Administrative Order) 15 enabled the Fund to establish more flexible working hours, part-time work, job sharing, and work-at-home arrangements in all career streams. An emergency childcare system was also put in place for sick children of Fund staff. As a result of extensions of family-friendly policies previously available only to women, male staff are now able to take adoption leave and formal guidelines restrict the travel of male staff around the time of the birth or adoption of a child. In 2000, medical benefits were extended to domestic partners of staff members and additional benefits are under consideration. The successful experience in 2000 of the CWS pilot resulted in the approval of the policy Fundwide (to be implemented in 2001). Finally, a full-time childcare center for children of Fund staff opened in March 2001, providing an especially valuable asset for the Fund as an international employer with many dual career families. However, many staff have yet to take advantage of these important policy reforms, particularly flexible work arrangements. Senior staff who role-model healthier work/private life balances by implementing available flexibility in their own schedules have a crucial influence.
Staff development programs have been revised gradually to incorporate a diversity perspective. Diversity is now an explicit element in the orientation program for new staff. Supplementary e-learning programs are currently being designed to ensure that all Fund staff, regardless of hectic workdays, have access to learning opportunities. The IMF's "Diversity Week" takes place three times a year and provides a myriad of departmental and Fundwide workshop opportunities on topics such as delegation of work, providing feedback, exploring cultural assumptions, gender in the workplace, and communication. Despite positive feedback from workshop attendees, participation continues to be low. Most Fund staff members do not have training in human resources management and would clearly benefit from such learning opportunities if provided sufficient time and incentives. Current low participation in diversity and other management development programs not only compromises the diversity commitment but is also a waste of HRD's limited budget resources.
Recognizing the benefits of supplemental English language and writing training, SDD and individual departments developed writing programs and guidelines for staff. However, some staff members have confronted situations in which supervisors note language skill weaknesses in the individual's performance assessment, but language experts' tests and interviews do not result in recommendations for training. This gap may have a negative influence on equal opportunities for non-native English speakers and should be reviewed by HRD.
Diversity items have been incorporated into management training programs—including the Management Development Center—and linked to management competencies in the APR system and promotion standards. Diversity management components were integrated into the SFE (Supervisory Feedback Exercise) and into its replacement, the SAM (Subordinate Assessment of Managers) instrument. In evaluating the performance of department heads, SPMs, and all other senior-level supervisors, SAM's 360 degree assessments highlight the importance of people and work management. Integrated diversity management makes those skills essential elements in the Fund's supervisory practices. SDD studied gender differences in SFEs and will follow up with a SAM review in 2001. Those findings will be made available to staff in due course. In addition to classroom training and performance assessments, supervisors can now receive individual coaching, including on diversity awareness and skills, for longer periods than before; division chiefs are now eligible for two years and directors and SPMs from two to five years of coaching.
In 1999, the Diversity Advisor followed up on a 1994 study of gender differences in written APRs and shared those findings with supervisors and staff groups during the APR period in 1999 and 2000. A similar study on geographic groupings, focusing on underrepresented staff groups, will be conducted in 2001. Various reviews and surveys have resulted in a revised APR form that is well-structured and based on objective competencies. The form leaves less room for subjective, biased assessment and language, even though some sections still require narrative evaluation. Several departments have increased the frequency of feedback to ensure clarity and transparency of performance standards, which is especially helpful for minority staff. Assessments of department heads are now part of the APR system and the related database is very comprehensive. These accomplishments benefit not only the Fund, but also provide best practices for other international institutions. Further progress will require greater accountability on each management competency, including diversity items. Without accountability and sufficient consequences, these initiatives will lose their influence.
Career progress poses equity challenges in any organization. The review committees, in cooperation with HRD, reformed their procedures to develop a more structured, transparent, and balanced competency-based evaluation and promotion process. The mobility program was strengthened to enhance career opportunities for staff who have spent an extended period of time in their current positions. Vacancy announcement and selection procedures have also been revised. However, most of the latest career advancement improvements benefit economists. Recognizing that bias, in 2000 management assigned the Working Group on Specialized Career Streams to review such issues as qualifications, recruitment and retention, development and succession planning, promotions, and leadership. From a diversity perspective this is important; equitable treatment and opportunities can only be promoted in an inclusive culture that acknowledges all staff groups equally.
The 1994 Status of Women in the Fund study highlighted grade and salary discrepancies in the female-dominated career ladders—Accounting, Human Resources, and Writing and Editing. A 1998 follow-up study indicated that the Fund had significantly improved equity in those ladders. To further improve transparency in assessments and merit increases, HRD's Staff Compensation and Benefits Policy Division has committed to conducting gender and nationality-grouping reviews on a regular basis.
The Fund demonstrated exceptional courage in the 1997-1999 review of individual discrimination cases. Previously unacknowledged discrimination issues were discussed and remedies to address biases were defined. While increasing transparency and communication, the exercise also led to some disappointments and individual grievances that continue to be under review. The experience indicates that discrimination needs to be clearly defined and more precise guidelines given on appropriate behavior and responsibility to intervene in discriminatory situations. Related to discrimination, the Policy on Harassment was revised in 1999 and serves as an excellent example of an inclusive approach to harassment, rather than separating sexual and other harassment aspects. The Fund issued a Code of Conduct in 1998 and appointed its first Ethics officer in 2000, signifying that the institution takes seriously its responsibility to educate staff and effectively address misconduct. These initiatives need to be strengthened with a detailed policy on discrimination. The lack of such a policy may send a signal to staff that the topic of discrimination is considered to be unimportant.
Finally, the Fund's increasing acceptance of diversity was illustrated in 1999 when gay and lesbian staff established IMF/GLOBE, a forum to advance non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The existence of IMF-GLOBE testifies to increasing tolerance and also serves as an encouraging signal to potential employees to whom these issues are relevant. This is a promising start for a more open culture.
This chapter assesses trends at the departmental level, reviewing both quantitative progress and qualitative changes relative to previous years' indicators. Data are drawn from the PeopleSoft database and departmental diversity and human resource reports.
In January 2000, the First Deputy Managing Director advised department heads about
The same memorandum outlined new guidelines on external recruitment to fill roughly 300 openings—twice the normal recruitment volume—in the coming year. Given this unique opportunity to improve staff diversity, departments were requested to intensify efforts to identify and hire qualified women, nationals of developing countries, and nationals of underrepresented industrial countries. The First Deputy Managing Director noted that external recruitment for B1 to B4 positions should be preceded by a systematic search process to ensure that shortlists for these positions include minority as well as majority candidates. Progress in that regard would be reviewed in department heads' APRs. Actual recruitment outcomes in 2000 were disappointing from a diversity perspective, however, particularly at the mid-career level (see Chapter V for more details on recruitment).
Diversity results continue to vary widely department to department. A broad overview since 1996 highlights a few prominent trends. Area departments generally have high representations of staff from the regions they cover. Staff from developing countries continue to have higher representations in economist departments—45.4 percent in area departments, 44.1 percent in functional departments—than in support departments (34.9 percent). In most departments, the share of developing country nationals drops sharply from the A1 to A8 grade group to the A9 to A15 grade group, and further in the B grades; area departments—with the exception of EU1 and EU2—and INS have the most evenly spread distribution across grade groups. Since 1996, only APD (the Asia Pacific Department) and EU1 have demonstrated consistent improvement at the B level, whereas support departments as a whole have not been able to improve their developing country staff representation. HRD is the only department that does not employ any B-level staff from developing countries (Figures 1, 2a, and 2b; Table 3 in Attachments).
Fundwide, the most underrepresented regions in higher grades continue to be Africa and the Middle East. Thirteen departments have no B-level African staff and nine departments have no B-level Middle Eastern staff. European nationals are heavily overrepresented at the B level in MED (the Middle East Department), OMD (the Office of the Managing Director), and TRE (the Treasurer's Department), as are U.S. citizens in all support departments, LEG, RES, and TRE. Of all departments, the INS boasts the best nationality balance across grade groups (Table 4 in Attachments).
Native language bias—specifically English vs. non-English—has become prominent in the diversity dialogue. English-speaking candidates and staff have an advantage in the Fund's work environment, where strong writing skills and persuasive oral communication are crucial competencies. In functional and support departments, career progression to the B level seems to strongly favor English-speaking industrial country backgrounds; in the area departments, other languages are more prominent in the B grades.(4) In the functional departments, the share of English-speaking industrial country nationals jumps sharply from 32.3 percent of staff in grades A9 to A15 to 57.3 percent in the B grades. In support departments the share increases from 56.4 percent in grade group A9 to A15 to as high as 62.7 percent in the B grades. Area departments have a more balanced share across grade groups (Figure 5; Table 6 in Attachments).
With respect to gender, in economist departments women's share in higher grades is very low, while staff in grades A1 to A8 are almost exclusively women. In support departments, the gender balance across grade groups is better, though far from ideal. No area department has a "critical mass" (30-40 percent) of women in grade groups A9 and above. Functional departments have a somewhat better gender balance in grades A9 to A15 but not in B grades (Table 2 in Attachments).
Of the area departments, MED has the highest proportion of women economists (28.3 percent) followed by EU1 (26.9 percent), although both of those shares are lower than 1999 levels. Among functional departments, INS, LEG, and TRE each have around 50 percent of women in the professional grades. Support departments have over 50 percent women in those grades. Fundwide, only 11.7 percent of B-level positions are filled by women. Nine departments—AFR (the African Department), EU2, EXR, FAD, INS, MAE, OMD, RES and WHD (the Western Hemisphere Department)—are below the Fund average of women's representation at the B level. Only HRD has managed to reach a critical mass with its 40 percent share of women at the B level (Figures 3, 4a, and 4b; Table 5 in Attachments).
In addition to monitoring data, it is essential to evaluate the whole range of actions surrounding diversity issues to get a full picture. The wealth of diversity data now available allows departments to progress with their diversity agendas independently. In 2000, HRD adopted a new partnership role with departments, including customized service provided by Business Advisors and guidance on staff diversity in coordination with the Diversity Advisor. Overall, the actions undertaken by departments are in line with the recommendations of the 1994 Status of Women in the Fund Study and the 1999 review of individual discrimination cases. Having said that, most departments need to develop bolder diversity initiatives and targeted actions. Departmental diversity actions currently focus on:
A new employee's reputation is established within the first few months on the job, as are his or her impressions of the organization's working culture. Immediate actions and monitoring are therefore needed to address the needs of new staff—particularly those of minority staff members without established networks. Departments have made a lot of progress in that regard. According to the departmental human resource updates of 2000, AFR, APD, EU1, EXR, HRD, MAE, MED, RES, SEC, STA (the Statistics Department), TGS (the Technology and General Services Department), TRE, and WHD offered mentoring programs for newcomers, some of which were supplemented by newcomers' orientation seminars and Starters' Kits. In some departments, however, mentoring programs are so informal and insufficiently communicated that not all new staff receive the information. Matching of mentors and mentees has not always been handled with sufficient care. Only a few departments provide training and guidance to ensure that mentors are aware of the responsibilities and have the necessary skills for the assignment. WHD should be acknowledged for developing a mentoring program for assistants, a staff group that too often is ignored. Overall, departmental mentoring programs are an excellent start and would be even more beneficial if they were better designed and administered. Other commendable efforts on behalf of newcomers—reported in a particular by EU1 and TRE—include the introduction of new staff members on departmental Web sites, Newcomers' Teas, and other welcome events.
The quality of individual development, career planning, and performance management—particularly important to women and minority staff—seems to be improving. Several departments, including APD, EU1, HRD, MED, PDR (the Policy Development and Review Department), STA, and TRE, have developed databases on career experience and mobility of their staff, supplemented by documentation of career development requests expressed by individual staff members. Far too few departments, however, make an extra effort to support their minority staff, which easily leads to cultural biases on the part of both managers and employees. The Diversity Pipeline Reports prepared twice a year by the Diversity Advisor have not been effectively used in many departments. Several departments have increased performance feedback frequency by introducing mid-year feedback discussions and/or improved transparency of performance ratings and merit pay. This is especially beneficial for staff who are less familiar with the Fund's style and working culture. In 1999, APD, EU1, INS, and PDR prepared departmental guidelines for conduct and management, which served as a foundation for Fundwide standards implemented in 2001.
English language skills, specifically writing skills, are essential for Fund staff to perform well. Most staff from non-native English backgrounds benefit from language training and writing assistance. Difficulties extend beyond language per se to differences in cultural preferences in expressing thought, structuring presentations, and communication styles. According to update reports from the past few years, AFR, EU1, HRD, MAE, STA, and WHD have provided writing training and editorial support for their staff. More recently, however, budget constraints have reduced such support.
Quantitative diversity indicators monitor personnel data on nationality (grouped by region and into developing/industrial countries), gender, and the language of the country of nationality. In each of those categories, trends are followed with respect to staff count, recruitment,(5) mobility, promotions, time-in-grade, and pipeline profiles. Fund quota shares of member countries and regions have customarily been used as informal yardsticks to assess nationality representation.(6) Gender recruitment and representation are evaluated by monitoring the share of graduating female macroeconomists in major universities and by reviewing comparable data in other international institutions. Consideration is being given to broadening these comparator benchmarks.
This chapter draws on data from 1996 through 2000 to assess changes in staff profiles and possible patterns. Diversity annual reports and comprehensive diversity data covering the past ten years are available to staff on the Diversity and Human Resource Indicators Web sites. The On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) software is also available to departments to facilitate their diversity efforts.(7)
The representation of developing country nationals in economist career stream grades A9 to A15 has remained steady over the past several years, with the share slightly exceeding the regional quota of 37.9 percent; at the B level, developing country representation has increased to 33.2 percent. In the specialized career streams, developing country nationals are underrepresented in grades A9 to A15 (35.8 percent) and significantly so in the B grades (14.1 percent) (Figures 6 and 7; Tables 7 and 8 in Attachments).
From a regional perspective, the Middle East continues to be the most underrepresented in all grade categories and career streams, with a total of only 125 staff. Compared with the regional quota of 8.6 percent, Middle Eastern staff account for only 5.9 percent of economists and 4.3 percent of specialized career stream staff in grades A9 to B5. The share of staff from Arab countries in those grades is as low as 3.2 percent, compared with a sub-regional quota of 8.1 percent (Figure 8; Table 7 in Attachments). The number of African staff has increased steadily in recent years, but still totaled only 158 in 2000. Africa's representation in grades A9 to A15 of the economist career stream increased from 6.3 percent in 1996 to 6.7 percent in 2000 relative to the regional quota of 4.2 percent; at the B level of the economist stream, the African share dropped from 4.5 percent to 4.4 percent during the same period. Africans account for only 3.8 percent of B-level staff Fundwide, while at the World Bank Africans account for 6.2 percent of staff of comparable seniority. The share of Asian staff in the economist stream has dropped slightly over the past five years to its current level of 14.6 percent, compared with the regional quota of 17.4 percent. In the B grades, 15.9 percent of economists are Asian, compared with 14.3 percent in 1996.
Broadly speaking, the share of European nationals in the economist career stream is in line with the regional quota, but the United Kingdom is significantly overrepresented in the B grades in both the economist and specialized career streams. The Western Hemisphere continues to be overrepresented in staff profiles, a consistent trend over the past decade. The United States is chronically overrepresented in staff shares of B-level economists relative to its quota of 18.2 percent. U.S. overrepresentation is even more pronounced in the specialized career streams; in both the A9 to A15 and B-level grade groups, U.S. staff account for over 42 percent of all staff (Figure 8; Table 7 in Attachments).
Nationality distribution within regions is uneven. The most under- and overrepresented nationalities are presented below.
Women's low representation continues to be a concern in the economist stream, although it has improved steadily over the past five years. Women comprise 22.9 percent of A9 to A15 economists and 9.2 percent of B-level economists, compared with 17.9 percent and 6.1 percent respectively in 1996. In the specialized career streams, women account for 55.6 percent of staff in grades A9 to A15 but only 21.1 percent of B-level staff. In 1996, the respective shares were 58.7 percent and 22.2 percent. Fundwide, 35 percent of A9 to A15 staff and 12 percent of managers are women, while women make up 85 percent of support staff (Figures 9 and 10; Tables 7 and 9 in Attachments). Women's share at the B level showed no increase in 2000.
At the time of the Status of Women in the Fund Study in 1994, the Fund had not yet appointed any women to the position of department head. By end-2000, three women department heads had been appointed, one of whom later accepted a position outside the Fund; a fourth female department head was appointed in early 2001. Pipelines in the core functions are slowly improving, but the Fund has yet to achieve a critical mass of women in the higher grades.
Women's regional representations are low from African and Middle Eastern countries compared with other regions in the professional grade categories. Women from the United States comprise 24 percent of B-level women economists and 46.7 percent of B-level women in the specialized career streams. In grades A9 to A15, women from the United States account for 39.2 percent of women in the specialized career streams; European women are significantly underrepresented in the specialized career streams, despite the large supply of qualified European candidates in the market (Table 10 in Attachments). Attention needs to be paid simultaneously to gender and geographical origin to make balanced progress.
The Fund has faced significant increases in its workload due to economic crises, more complex demands, and expanding initiatives. Recruitment efforts have been strengthened to support those demands, focusing on broadening the range of expertise, increasing the total number of staff, and promoting diversity. Meeting these goals has been challenging under current work pressures.
In 2000, recruitment of developing country nationals to the EP program was exceptionally high (over 50 percent), but was otherwise uneven across career streams and grades. In fact, recruitment of A12 to A15 economists from developing countries dropped to 33.7 percent, below the regional quota. More positively, the share of developing country staff recruited into B grades was 43 percent (Figure 11, Table 12 in Attachments).
Because annual recruitment totals by region are low, data must be monitored over time to show meaningful trends. Over the past five years, Middle Eastern staff recruitment has remained low—less than 4 percent in the economist A9 to A15 grades and 4.3 percent in the B grades, compared with the regional quota of 8.6 percent. Although recruitment from the African region had been more successful over the previous five years, results in 2000 were disappointing. RSD's targeted efforts identified 16 Middle Eastern candidates and seven African candidates who passed the interview panels. However, none of the Middle Eastern candidates and only three African candidates were hired by Fund departments as of end-2000. EP recruitment from these regions was also disappointing, with only one African and one Middle Eastern national among EP hires. Asian staff recruitment has been strong in the economist career stream, but not in the specialized functions. Recruitment of Western Hemisphere, other than U.S., economists during the five-year period greatly exceeded the regional quota, as did recruitment of U.S. staff in the specialized career streams, further increasing overrepresentation of those staff groups.
Women's share in EP recruitment achieved a record high—over 40 percent—in 2000. Having said that, women's share in recruitment into grades A12 to A15 dropped to just under 20 percent (17 out of 86 hires) and only one out of a total of seven hires to the B level was female. Only two women, compared with 21 men, have been recruited externally to B-level economist positions over the past ten years; in the specialized career streams, about 35 percent of grade A9 to A15 and B-grade hires have been women (Figure 12; Table 13 in Attachments).
Mobility is crucial for professional development and promotion in the Fund's career system. Mobility raises the visibility of staff members, develops stronger networks, and provides better access to supportive mentors. The findings on mobility do not indicate systemic patterns from a developing/industrial country perspective. From the gender standpoint, women's mobility at grades A9 to A15 has been lower, and in the B grades higher, than men's mobility during the past five years (Figures 13 and 14; Tables 14 and 15 in Attachments).
Promotion rates represent the share of promoted staff out of total staff in each category and grade group.(8) In 2000, the promotion rate of staff from industrial countries exceeded that of developing country nationals in most grade groups (Figures 15 and 16; Table 16 in Attachments). Following important gains in promoting African staff to B-level economist positions from 1996 to 1998, promotion rates for that group dropped in 1999 and 2000. Relative to other regions, the average promotion rate of African economists to the critical pipeline grades A13 to A15 was lower in 2000, but in junior grades A11 to A12 it was higher. For Middle Eastern staff, the promotion rate in economist B grades was significantly low, 5.3 percent, and also below the Fund average in grade groups A9 to A12 (Table 16 in Attachments). The small number in absolute terms of staff from these two regions weakens the accuracy of analysis based on averages. Data are therefore being compiled over time to conduct trend analyses of pipelines and promotions. With regard to gender, women's promotion rates in all career streams and grade groups exceeded those of men's, except at the B-level in the specialized career streams (Table 16 in Attachments).
Pipeline indicators reflect recent pipeline development as well as long-term hiring patterns and stocks of internal candidates. Because it is difficult to isolate these influences, trends must be monitored over time and across several variables to reach conclusions. This report explores the following three indicators: a) ratio of staff at Grade A15 to staff at Grade A14;(9) b) percent of staff in grades A15 to B5 relative to all staff in grades A9 to B5; and c) time in grades A14 and A15 for economists and in grades A12, A13, and A14 for specialized staff.
Both the A15/A14 ratio and the combined share in grades A15 to B5 are less favorable for developing country nationals than for industrial country nationals in the economist career stream (Figures 17 and 18; Table 17 in Attachments). The average time in Grade A14 is longer for developing country economists; their average time in Grade 15, however, is shorter than that of their industrial country counterparts. Across the board, higher grades have lower shares of developing country staff. Figures 19 and 20 illustrate developing and industrial country staff comparisons grade by grade. In the economist career stream, the share of developing country nationals declines from about 48 percent at Grade A13 to about 23 percent at Grade B5. In the specialized career streams, the share drops from about 38 percent at Grade A11 to 0 percent at Grade B4; in Grade B5 there is one developing country national (11.1 percent of the total) (Table 20 in Attachments).
Regional grade profiles indicate slight improvements in Grade A15 for underrepresented staff groups, with shares of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern economists increasing in 2000. The A15/A14 ratio is still highest for U.S. economists, but has improved for African and Middle Eastern economists. The share of African and Middle Eastern economists in grades A15 to B5 has also increased, but so has the share of U.S. economists—still the highest regional share (Table 1). Time-in-grade comparisons do not indicate progress for African economists, who spend an average of over six years in Grade A14. Middle Eastern economists continue to hold one of the shortest times-in-grade in both A14 and A15. The positive nature of this indicator stands in contrast to all other diversity data on Middle Eastern staff.
Gender comparisons in the economist career stream show that women are still far more concentrated at the lowest grades, which reflects successful EP recruitment during the past three years and women's low proportions in the highest grades. The A15/A14 ratio is lower but improving for women (.38) compared with men (.54). The share of women in grades A15 to B5 is less than half that of men in both the economist and specialized career streams (Table 1; Table 21 in Attachments). However, women's shorter average time in grades A14 and A15 relative to men promises improved shares for women at higher grades in the future if that trend is accelerated (Figures 21 and 22).
The Fund's Management Profile
As outlined in Table 2, trends in department head profiles over the past ten years indicate significant underrepresentation of developing country nationals and an increase in English-speaking industrial country representation. As of end-2000, the number of women department heads had increased from zero to two, still only 11 percent of the total. Also in 2000—a decade after the position was created—less than one-third of SPMs were developing country nationals and only two were female. AO positions have been filled exclusively by women; developing country nationals currently account for about 58 percent of AOs, up from 37.5 percent in 1990. HRD has significantly improved gender balance in its B grades. Despite that improvement, the concentration of English-speaking industrial country staff at senior levels has remained heavy and, as of December 2000, HRD still employed no B-level staff from developing countries.
1. Management, assisted by the Diversity Advisor, to monitor progress regularly against the Managing Director's statement and action plan. Expect each department to review and report progress on their departmental diversity action plans at the end of each calendar year. Inform staff of progress in their department. ADM to include diversity indicators in annual personnel reports. (Done annually.)
2. Management to make line managers accountable for diversity management, including attitude, effort, and results. Link diversity management to performance evaluation, rewards, and promotion decisions. Set diversity management standards for all supervisors and mission leaders. (Integrated into SAD, SAM, APRs and senior management performance appraisals.)
3. Management and the review committees to require high-quality human resource management training, including a strong diversity component, of all ADM senior staff, Senior Personnel Managers, and Administrative Officers. Pay special attention to the selection standards and development provided for Senior Personnel Managers, the key persons in diversity management. (Recommended also in the OIA report; being implemented.)
4. Departments to agree on uniform standards for evaluating exceptional work periods—maternity leave, extended sick leave, part-time work—in performance reports to ensure fair treatment and appraisal which is purely based on performance at work. (Recommended again in the 1999 Diversity Annual Report)
5. ADM and departments to develop special diversity support programs for staff coming from different working cultures to the Fund and for women, to improve opportunities for these staff members to test, develop, and demonstrate their capability to take on higher level responsibilities. (Programs for all newcomers developed in most departments; targeted programs recommended again in the 1999 Diversity Annual Report.)
6. ADM to develop clear-cut grade/salary matrices for recruitment for all career ladders; set standards for all appointees to equal positions regardless of recruitment type (internal/external). ADM to review and report grades and salaries by nationality and gender at the end of each fiscal year attached to personnel indicators. (Recommended again in the 1999 Diversity Annual Report.)
7. All departments to create an explicit link between Fund operations and diversity management to strengthen the rationale for staff diversity in core functions and departments. Provide and expect preparatory cultural training or self-study for anyone assigned to country missions. Utilize the materials and services of the Joint Library and Staff Development Center. (Training attendance improved; mandatory training not adopted.)
8. In external recruitment, emphasize diversity needs; search also for private sector experience and benchmark with successful organizations. (Management guidelines provided to departments in January 2000; EP recruitment of women and developing country nationals strong; recruitment of African and Middle Eastern nationals weak; mid-career/B-level results disappointing.)
9. Management to ensure the diverse composition of all interview panels and Management Development Center assessor groups. All panel members should participate in seminars on nationality and gender diversity, and a seminar on non-biased and culture-sensitive interview techniques. (Diversity of panel members and assessors improved; training developed and implementation started in 1999.)
10. Search for examples of progress and excellence from within the Fund, not problems and failures. Collect best practices, learn from others, and exchange experiences across departments. (Implemented in SPM Best Practice meetings; best practices collected from other international institutions.)
1. Review the Senior Personnel Manager (SPM) role, including managerial responsibilities, quality standards, administrative routines, time allocation, and training and support needs. Consider full-time SPM positions as necessary, taking individual departmental needs into account. Make prompt structural and personnel changes and provide necessary training. (OIA study conducted in 1999.)
2. Link diversity management more explicitly to senior staff performance evaluation, merit pay, and promotion decisions until high quality diversity and other human resource management skills have become well established in all departments. (Integrated into APRs; merit pay and promotion link still insufficient.)
3. Require all supervisors and managers to fully implement current Fundwide personnel and work/life policies, attend relevant management and diversity training, and encourage staff participation in training exercises. Include these actions in performance and merit pay standards for supervisors. (Needs improvement.)
4. Require departments to design tailor-made development plans—including challenging assignments and mentoring—for all staff, and succession plans, to ensure well-prepared and balanced pipelines for filling senior vacancies. These types of plans have proven to be among the most effective methods for improving equal opportunities for minority staff. (Comprehensive human resource plans by departments initiated in 2000.)
5. Establish incentives for departments to assign diverse staff to recruitment missions, interview panels, and related training to allow for more balanced and better-prepared recruitment teams. Expect the Recruitment Division to annually report progress by department to management. (Training developed; diversity of panel members improved; more effort needed; incentives still missing.)
6. Eliminate exceptions to—or reconsider the need for—time-in-grade policies or management requirements when promoting staff to reduce the scope for, and perceptions of, unfair and biased treatment vis-a-vis others. (Data is not collected systematically.)
7. Strengthen professional staffing in the specialized career streams, especially at higher levels, by intensifying external recruitment and developing internal pipelines. This improvement would address demands for enhanced support function capabilities, and would serve as an opportunity for underrepresented candidates outside the economist stream to advance to higher grades. The policy of appointing economists to managerial positions in the specialized career streams should be reconsidered. (Recommended again in the 1999 Diversity Annual Report.)
8. Investigate sources of problems in work units where consistent personnel or diversity concerns arise, and make structural and/or personnel changes as necessary. Establish a team-based advisory and counseling process for those units. Develop incentives for departments to address human resource problems with the help of ADM. (Departmental human resource planning is a major step forward; HRD Business Advisors will contribute greatly.)
9. ADM to collect reliable data on performance appraisal, promotions, time in grade, management training, work load, personnel problems, and other personnel issues, and develop relevant indicators for Management to evaluate and direct human resources and work management in departments. (Stress working group and OIA report; major efforts in 1999 and 2000.)
1. Management should confirm to all supervisors and staff its support for the Funds ethical codes and antiharassment and nondiscrimination policies. Department heads should promptly intervene when concerns arise. Staff should be assured that bringing problems to the attention of senior staff will not be met with retaliation. (Major progress in 1999; departments and divisions still vary; non-discrimination policy recommended in the 2000 Diversity Annual Report.)
2. Management should appoint qualified minority staff to visible and influential positions in the area/functional departments and in ADM (particularly in the Front Office and the Recruitment and Staff Development Divisions) to accelerate the diversity process, to incorporate alternative perspectives, and to signal equal opportunities for all staff groups. (Needs improvement.)
3. ADM and departments should develop targeted recruitment programs to be monitored and updated annually, incorporating active input from underrepresented Fund staff. Annual data should be strengthened on sources of candidates, on diversity of applicants, and on the cost-effectiveness of recruitment operations. External recruitment of higher level minority candidates needs to be strengthened. (Strong effort but progress scattered; better designed and systematically prepared recruitment still needed in departments; HRD data improved significantly.)
4. Departments should promptly notify the RD of all current and anticipated vacancies in order to make effective use of diverse databases and candidate pools and to facilitate international searches. Management should allocate sufficient budgetary resources for diversity recruitment, including international head hunting services for specialized career streams. (Management guidelines provided to departments; headhunting started; included in departmental human resource plans.)
5. Departments should seek to improve retention of fixedterm minority staff by helping them develop core skills for Fund career development, including networking, mentoring, researching, writing, early stage recruitment to core departments, and mobility. ADM divisions and the Diversity Advisors office should assist in these efforts. (Targeted programs still missing; recommended again in the 1999 Diversity Annual Report.)
6. Management should make departments accountable for individual development and career planningincluding beneficial assignments and mobilityfor minorities; for incorporating diversity considerations into succession planning; and for regularly reviewing staff assignments and mobility to ensure equitable promotion opportunities. (Should be included in departmental human resource plans; recommended again in the 1999 Diversity Annual Report.)
7. Departments should expect basic management and diversity training of every supervisor and managernewly appointed and more experiencedto heighten awareness and signal the importance of and commitment to diversity. The SDD should consistently monitor participation. All supervisors should acquaint themselves with the Funds personnel policies and flexible work arrangements. (Training still depends on individual interest; stronger incentives are needed; OIA report referred to the need for training.)
8. Departments should invite input from minority staff groups on a regular basis to develop special programs and to heighten sensitivity and understanding of cultural and gender differences. (Varies by department.)
1. Hire more women and staff from underrepresented countries to mid-career and senior levels. Develop strong external networks and targeted recruitment practices. Ensure that diversity-related recruitment guidelines given in 1999-2000 are followed. Document data on candidate pools, all applicants, offers made, and rejections to improve recruitment operations. (HRD and departments) (Data improved; EP recruitment results improved, except for Africans and Middle Easterners; mid-career and senior level results disappointing.)
2. Appoint qualified minority staff to visible and influential positions in the area and functional departments and in HRD to accelerate the diversity process. Expand the nationality and gender diversity of SPMs Fundwide to ensure that a broad range of perspectives are brought to human resource management and to improve the credibility of the Fund's diversity commitment. Define terms of reference and selection standards for SPMs and AOs and develop mandatory training for both. (management and departments) (Needs improvement.)
3. Set transparent and consistent standards for performance assessments, merit pay, and time-in-grade requirements for exceptional working periods—including parent leave, extended sick leave, leave without pay, and part-time work—to ensure fair treatment of all staff and to support well informed career and life decisions. (HRD and departments) (Needs improvement.)
4. Drawing from gender-related Fund research and operational experience, clarify the relevance of gender considerations to the Fund's work. Assign a staff member from the economist career stream to undertake this task as part of his or her regular duties. Provide gender training from an operational perspective to Fund economists. (management, departments, and INS) (Not implemented.)
5. Strengthen professional staffing in the specialized career streams' senior levels by improving external recruitment and developing internal pipelines of diverse candidates. If economists are appointed to positions outside their expertise, pay special attention to their diversity and require sufficient training in the respective professional field. Likewise, provide a training program in macroeconomics and the core business of the Fund to all staff from other educational backgrounds. (management, departments, and HRD) (Needs improvement.)
6. Annually review and report, by main diversity categories, starting grades and salaries of staff and contractuals in all career streams, using consistent standards and well documented employment histories. (HRD) (Will be implemented in 2001.)
7. Monitor and report annually the diversity composition of recruitment missions and interview panels and ensure that all panel members receive up-to-date training on non-biased interview techniques. (HRD and departments) (Needs improvement.)
8. Ensure that all recruits are informed of and encouraged to participate in departmental or cross-departmental mentoring starting in the first three months of employment. Develop targeted programs for underrepresented recruits. (departments) (Departmental mentoring improved significantly; targeted mentoring missing.)
9. Include in annual departmental human resource reports, as a mandatory section, descriptions of specific actions and results to enhance diversity, develop diverse pipelines, and improve equity—including through targeted programs, individual development planning, mentoring, and mission assignments. (departments) (Not implemented—diversity sections in departmental human resource plans uneven and unstructured.)
1 Each member country of the Fund is assigned a quota, which is calculated on the basis of uniform formulas designed to reflect the relative size of its economy. The country's quota determines its subscription to the Fund, its voting power, its maximum potential access to Fund financial resources, and its share in SDR allocations. Future references to "quotas" are intended to refer to a country's or region's share in total Fund quotas.
2 Specialized career streams include the following groups: legal, social development, writing and editing, public affairs and information, administrative, language services, computer systems, auditing, budgeting, accounting, human resources, investment management, library, documents and records, general administrative, graphics services, and equipment operation.
3 Responsible parties are listed in parentheses.
4 English-speaking industrial countries include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. On average, nationals from these countries comprise 36 percent of A9 to A15 staff and 47.7 percent of B-level staff. Nationals from other English-speaking countries comprise 11.6 percent and 11.0 percent respectively (Table 6 in Attachments).
5It should be noted that staff in grades A1 to A8 are hired locally.
6 Over/underrepresentation is determined by subtracting a member country's percentage share of the Fund staff from its percentage share of the financial quota. If the staff percentage is larger (i.e., if the difference is positive), the country is overrepresented; if it is smaller, the country is underrepresented.
7 In 2000, within the framework of the Categories of Employment exercise, 161 conversions of contractual positions to staff appointments reflected negatively on staff diversity data, which generally cover only fixed term and permanent staff. When contractuals—many of whom are U.S. citizens—become staff members, they become "visible" for the first time in the Fund's diversity data.
8 The formula to calculate promotion rates was slightly modified for the 2000 Diversity Annual Report to attain more precise indicators. Therefore, the rates in this year's report are not exactly comparable with previous years' data, but can be used to assess promotion rates across groups.
9 Pipeline indicators focus on grades A14 and A15 because promotions of economists to Grade A15 are limited to staff with clear potential to advance to the B level.