Opinion: How last-century thinking on mobility traps tomorrow's leaders

Mobility among young leaders aspiring to a career with purpose needs to be encouraged and facilitated regardless of their background and location. Failing to do so is both a double standard and risks depriving the world of brilliant leadership opportunities in solving the biggest global challenges. Over the past few years, as part of the debate on localization in global development, I have advocated why we need to invest in talent regardless of location, as well as give access to international or remote work and study experience to create leadership pathways. We know from evidence that this kind of experience creates a net benefit. Studies from across 30 countries found a positive impact on individual financial success and promotions, and 64% of employers consider international experience important for their recruitment. Yet in many cases, when listening to development professionals in the United States and Europe, and reviewing localization approaches, there were two kinds of camps: The first group, including leaders from the World Bank and other development institutions I have talked to, argues that when given international growth opportunities, people will stay in a high-income country anyway and will not go back home to solve local challenges. This is the familiar “brain drain” argument. The other group and its localization approach favor a radical shift of resources and power to the local level through local organizations. Both views are trapped in outdated, and sometimes paternalistic thinking, and miss a fundamental principle of development, as championed by Amartya Sen: The free agency of people to make their own choices. Let me explain using an example I am very familiar with. The unfairness of expecting single-life locations Over the past two decades, I have had the privilege to study, live, and work in three different countries, including moving back to my hometown, Berlin, Germany. I have worked at the local, national, and global levels of humanitarian organizations and social enterprises. Not once did anyone ask me whether I had just come to any of these countries just to migrate and stay. And while I am based in Washington, D.C., for now, according to my life expectancy, I have close to 35 years left in my work life and do not intend to give up my links across the several “homes” that matter to me. I have kept my connection to my hometown remotely and via regular travel. I have effectively served on the founding board of a grassroots charter school for disadvantaged youth in one of Berlin’s most challenging districts for kids while living in the United Kingdom and the U.S., and stayed part of the global Teach for All network. And I have been able to contribute to German politics from abroad. Why would we apply outdated single-life-location thinking to young professionals from low- and middle-income countries? Apart from being a double standard, it’s not the reality of this global and mobile century. Most of the wonderful professionals I have worked with over the past decade want to make a difference throughout their future careers, both at home and at the global level. Leaders like Lilian Nyalusi who champions refugee legal rights for the Norwegian Refugee Council in Tanzania. They want to serve others at home and in global organizations. They intend to be mobile in their future careers. And what if they stay in a higher-income country? Given the positive impact that migration and remittances can have on economic growth compared to aid, every country should welcome it. The second group is wrong too, though in a different way. They argue that people at the local level should get all the resources and decision-making authority to address their local humanitarian and development challenges at home. I agree with the principle, as I greatly favor cash transfers to address poverty in every society, regardless of its GDP size. And while there is much to say about the importance of community development, particularly in fragile situations, this group implicitly wants talent to stay local as well. Expanding leadership opportunities Are we satisfied with the diversity of experience that we have currently represented in international NGOs, government, and global governance? Is it acceptable that 84% of chief executives and 73% of the leadership teams of U.S.-based development and humanitarian organizations are white? It is not, and we need to urgently invest in local talent and create more talent journeys within and outside of our organizations from the local to the international level and back. There are great leadership examples, such as Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s trajectory at the Nigerian and the global trade level, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ service at the Ethiopian government level, and his legitimacy and impact at the World Health Organization. Or, very timely and urgently, Salam Fayyad’s leadership in driving much-needed economic reform as former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. They all benefited from studying and working both at home and abroad and the global experience that added to their cultural and leadership skills. We should facilitate more local and global leadership journeys, whether in person, remote, or hybrid. The challenges we are facing are too big not to give opportunities to talent everywhere. It’s hard work because it challenges entrenched power and leadership positions. Yet there are plenty of good examples of how we can succeed. Let’s first challenge our language and thinking to spark action.