At the bottom of this article, you will find the translation into the other working languages of the ILO.
The DG’s announcement on staff movements is, in principle, meant to be a moment of celebration: recognition of achievement, professionalism and merit. That, at least, is the theory. In practice, many colleagues find themselves reading these announcements with a more mixed set of emotions – somewhere between curiosity, resignation and the quite mental note to refill their coffee before continuing.
Which raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: when was the last time a staff movement that felt unequivocally anchored in merit and technical excellence? For many, the answer does not come easily. Over time, and with increasing frequency, merit appears less like the rule and more like the exception. For an organization whose very mandate rests on fairness, standards and credibility in the world of work, that perception alone should give us a moment of pause.
Indeed, we are increasingly observing appointments that are difficult to reconcile with our standards: individuals whose professional records elsewhere prompted concern; individuals who have publicly challenged the universality of fundamental rights; individuals lacking the sheer competence required for international leadership roles; and individuals whose close alignment with national authorities risks blurring the line between national interest and international duty. The explanation often offered is geopolitical balance or representational necessity. While representation matters, it cannot and must not substitute for shared values, competence and independence. A balanced map is not the same thing as a balanced judgment.
Dag Hammarskjöld once observed that “the UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.” His pragmatism resonates in today’s brave new multipolar world. Independence, professionalism, and loyalty to the organization – not to capitals nor to geopolitical influencers – are not lofty ideals; they are operational necessities. Without them, even the best org charts struggle to hold.
This is why the recent mandatory ethics training, echoing the Standards of Conduct, felt particularly timely. The reminder that international civil servants “should not seek nor should they accept instructions from any Government, person or entity external to the organization” prompted more than a few reflective pauses. Some of those pauses may have lasted longer than the allotted training module. With perhaps uncomfortable irony, colleagues have been asking whether our current reforms – conceived, debated and soon to be implemented – have been sufficiently insulated from national influence. This question feels especially pressing as reforms proceed to merge policy departments and concentrate authority in ways that risk amplifying the influence of a fistful of self-appointed big powers.
All of this is unfolding during a period of flux. 90 agreed terminations, the departure of respected senior colleagues carrying decades of institutional memory, and pervasive uncertainty are taking a toll on all of us. Staff morale is straining under the cumulative weight of ambiguity – strategic or otherwise.
For those of us who joined the ILO many years ago, the organization can feel unfamiliar at times. The move toward generalization, mobility unaccompanied by adequate development, and the diminishing of technical expertise – driven by forces outside the organization – legitimately calls into question whether our status as a specialized agency is being diluted rather than strengthened. One can be agile without being unanchored.
Do we care? We do. Care is duty and a calling. A calling rooted in the teaching of history that the duty we abandon today we will have to fulfil tomorrow – at a triple the cost. Pay us now, pay us later. Look around and you will find many colleagues who are frustrated, yes, but also deeply committed. Loyalty to the ILO and to the United Nations System continues to be a source of resilience and purpose. The institution endures not because it is perfect but because people still care enough to argue with it.
Kofi Annan reminded us that “an organization that does not adapt to change will be left behind but change must strengthen, not weaken, its core values”. This is the balance the ILO must now strike. Reform is not inherently a threat; it becomes one only when it erodes the principles that give the organization its legitimacy.
If we disengage, we risk losing it altogether. If we stay, question constructively, and hold ourselves and our leadership to standards we have collectively endorsed, there may yet be an opportunity to rebuild.
The Standards of Conduct are not a formality; they are a compass. And perhaps – just perhaps – the ethics training was not merely mandatory, but meaningful.
Version française (deepl): ici
Spanish version (deepl): aquì