At Glance
The concept of a stool is simple and a great allegory for the viability of your candidacy in an IO. A stool requires a minimum of three legs to be stable. Similarly, your application must rest on three pillars for it to be successful. This is an important concept that many first-time applicants miss, and it is one which becomes more and more important as you move up the ranks of IOs. Let’s dive in!
This article is part 4 of a series called “Careers in International Organizations (IOs) – an insider’s guide” – click this LINK to access an overview of the series.
The first leg: Experience and Competencies
This is the part you intuitively understand and it’s very similar to the concept of recruitment in the private and public sectors. Put succinctly, you must be qualified and competent for the role you’re applying for. I’ve given some insights on what this means in the previous article but will briefly reiterate this information here.
First, you must be eligible to apply for the post, keeping in mind the national makeup of the IO in question and your age. Second, you must meet all the essential qualifications for the post (ideally exceed them). Third, you should meet (and ideally exceed) all the asset qualifications in the vacancy announcement. Fourth, you should either know, or show a desire to learn the other official language (in organizations which are bilingual).
During the interview phase (explained in Article 5) you’ll need to demonstrate this experience through competency-based processes. You may also have your competencies tested through an assessment center exercise (particularly if you’re applying for a senior position).
Now onto the two other legs you know a bit less about…
The second leg: Geographic Fit and Diversity
This piece is much less talked about and will often be obfuscated by HR, but it exists and is a pressing consideration for any IO. Explicitly, IOs want to preserve a level of geographic diversity in their ranks. If you look at the leadership of NATO or the UN (it’s right there on their websites), you’ll rarely find two ASGs from the same country. This is by design and ensures that all nations can participate in the running of an IO.
IOs are political in nature and a key consideration for the Secretary General is to ensure a diversity of appointments, particularly in senior leadership posts.
In the OSCE the Secretary General has about 17 leadership-level positions and 57 Member States who all expect to have a citizen hold one (or more) of those posts.
Nationality also plays a role in demographics. Since member states pay for IOs, they have an expectation that a percentage of posts will be awarded to their citizens. This is obviously at odds with the principle of hiring the best person for the job. IOs are regularly démarched by ambassadors for the perceived underrepresentation of their nationals and Secretaries General are keenly aware of this. Some countries have even gone as far as to appoint special Ambassadors who exclusively travel the world to make the case for a for more representation.
Lastly, some IOs restrict the ability for a manager from a particular Member State from hiring a national from that same Member State. In other IOs this is just frowned upon. Prohibited or not, it’s nonetheless something in the mind of a hiring manager.
What does this mean for you as an applicant?
Essentially, do your homework. If you’re applying for a leadership position, see who’s on the leadership team. If your country isn’t a top player and if there is already someone from your country, it’s unlikely that you’ll be selected. If you’re a citizen of the country hosting the IO (for example a French citizen applying to UNESCO which is headquartered in Paris), you’ll have a much tougher time getting an international post than someone from an underrepresented country as there are already a lot of French citizens at UNESCO. If your hiring manager is from your country, you’ll also have an uphill battle.
These are not absolute rules, but they help guide you in deciding which applications you should really focus on versus where you should just apply on the odd chance the stars align.
I am often also asked about gender and the role this plays in the process. It’s an important factor, particularly when drawing up long lists and short lists. At the appointment stage the Secretary General may also be under pressure to consider this factor – particularly if there is a strong skew in one direction.
What about other forms of diversity? Sadly, the IOs are not progressive on this front and, while all include nondiscrimination clauses in their vacancy notices, there aren’t really any factors beyond geography and gender which come into play when making hiring decisions. This practically means that the question of diversity from the perspective of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and differently abled persons is not addressed. As a result, there may be a non-mainstreamed approach to accessibility for those with special needs throughout the recruitment process. The cause of this is linked to the governance of IOs and not the will or desire of HR departments. Policy changes in IOs typically require a consensus among all Member States (i.e. they must all agree). While Member States have agreed to consider geographic diversity and member balance in virtually all IOs, no such consensus exists for other forms of diversity.
The third leg: National Support
This leg is less relevant for junior positions but is critical for more senior and leadership appointments. Remember the whole issue of geographic diversity? The way this is addressed is by the Secretary General making new staffing decisions.
This means that, for a senior vacancy, input from the Member States is a form of currency which may sometimes guide the decision of a Secretary General.
I’ll give you a few examples, ranging from the subtle to the blunt.
In a mid-level recruitment in a medium-sized IO, three of the applicants included in their application a letter of recommendation from the Minister responsible for the IO in question. All were included in the long-list and two made it to the interview phase.
I recall one recruitment for a director of a department in a large IO. Out of the 150 or so applicants, nine Permanent Representatives (Ambassadors) had direct meetings with (or letters sent to) the Secretary General to present CVs of candidates who they were advocating for. The long list included 8 of those names and the short list included 4 of them. The final candidate who was appointed came from those four.
In one IO the decision on the appointment of the Secretary General (which required consensus in that IO) was held up by one Member State. The resulting negotiation resulted in an agreement that saw an ASG post created with a citizen of that Member State and the Secretary General was ultimately appointed.
In a more egregious example, a decision on appointing a director was influenced by one Member State which refused to join consensus on an unrelated substantive policy matter unless a national of their country was appointed. The Secretary General relented and, in exchange, the Member State supported the substantive policy. I would add that such situations are, thankfully, an unfortunate exception.
What does this mean for you as an applicant?
First off, do your homework. Understand the post that you’re applying for and where it fits on the power spectrum in the IO. If it’s a senior post, and the organization is quite political, you should aim to have some sort of support. If you’re applying for a junior post in a smaller technical IO, then your experience and competencies will be the determining factor and there’s no need to engage politically.
As a rule of thumb, if you’re applying to a UN P5 or Coordinated A5 (same as NATO G22) or higher position then you should make yourself and your candidacy known to the permanent delegation of your country to that IO. These can be found quite easily and typically have a post of a Counsellor (or sometimes Deputy Permanent Representative) which, as part of its responsibilities, includes the promotion of citizens of that Member State in recruitment processes. These people are invaluable and can provide you with inside information on how the process looks and what your chances are. They can also potentially facilitate support from the delegation (or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) for your candidacy.
There’s a lot more to unpack on what levels of support are needed for which levels of vacancies, how the decision-making processes in individual Member States work, who gets this support, and when it should be sought and provided. If you need more information I'm happy to offer advice.
Onwards:
Once you have considered and aligned with the dimensions of the three-legged stool there’s a good chance that you’ll get an interview. The preparation, structure and outcomes of the interview are in Article 5 in this series.
Help and Coaching:
As part of our practice OrdoStrategica offers help and coaching for those interested in pursuing careers in IOs. If you would like to learn more about our help and coaching options please contact us. If you're specifically interested in coaching from Andrzej you can schedule a session on his Intro page.
