As WHO lays off staff, why is transparency more crucial than ever?

The World Health Organization has been forced to make workforce reductions as it faces a massive funding gap threatening its operations. In a Devex Pro briefing, Elaine Fletcher, editor-in-chief of Health Policy Watch and former WHO staffer, said there’s a need for WHO to ensure these cuts are strategic and merit-based. To do that, she said transparency is crucial. Between 2017 and 2024, WHO's staff ballooned significantly, with the number of senior directors at D2 level nearly doubling, as Fletcher revealed in an analysis of WHO human resources during this period. Her estimates found that those positions, including assistant directors-general, are costing the organization some $92 million a year in compensation and benefits such as relocation and education allowances. But a transparent mapping of the organizational structure and cost of each position would be useful. She said knowing the cost of each position could help the organization figure out where it can cut more and where it can save. “But nobody really knows those, because WHO does not publish costs. All they publish are salaries,” Fletcher said. She also said WHO has not published an up-to-date organizational chart since 2019, which should show how many administrative staff, professional staff, directors down to senior advisers are in each department. “I would say that would be another really important thing to create inclusion, and it doesn't come off the back of any of the power of the administration to make clear and tough decisions. It's simply sharing what's the state of play right now, and then what do we have to get to,” she said. However, “none of us know what is the state of play right now, not member states and not staff,” she added. WHO is still in the middle of reorganizing and prioritizing, although one proposal appears to impact senior leadership significantly. In a proposed organizational chart published by Health Policy Watch, the current structure of 10 divisions will be reduced to five, which could mean the number of assistant directors-general and directors potentially halved. This helps cut down on WHO’s top-heavy structure. However, the cuts should have nuance. Directors play a valuable role, especially those managing departments with dozens of people. “The question is, how [do] you economize across all parts of the organization in a smart and sensible way, and use a scalpel, not a hatchet, to try and achieve what you're doing? I think looking at functions is obviously critical,” Fletcher said. The restructuring could also present an opportunity for WHO to address inequities in hiring. Fletcher said hiring consultants have become a workaround for hiring restrictions at the agency, but this often led to a lack of geographic diversity, with European passport holders far more likely to secure positions in Geneva. Yet, there's a genuine risk that further budget cuts will force WHO to rely even more heavily on these short-term, less diverse appointments. The next few weeks will reveal more details about WHO’s final organizational structure. Fletcher hopes that WHO can emerge from this crisis leaner and more efficient. “I really do believe in the mission of the organization,” she said, adding that there’s “no other agency” globally that can set global standards and benchmarks for countries that are science- and evidence-based. Update, April 17, 2025: This story has been updated to clarify that it was senior directors at D2 level that nearly doubled between 2017 and 2024.