Highlights

The fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) strategy did not formulate clearly defined principles based on expected outcomes to guide, manage, and adjust the proposed staffing in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS). During the FCV strategy period, the total number of staff deployed in FCS increased, largely due to the redesignation of countries as FCS.

Interviews with hiring managers for FCS staff indicated that the managers face difficulties in attracting the best and most seasoned staff. Data indicate that top-performing staff appear to be appointed less frequently to FCS assignments, corroborating the difficulties in attracting top talent. FCS staff are less experienced, as measured by years of in-grade experience.

The FCV strategy has not led to a significant increase in the number of staff willing to deploy to FCS. In the absence of a larger pool of experienced internationally recruited staff willing to deploy to FCS, managers and staff pointed to the practice of promoting locally recruited staff to those roles. To encourage more work on FCS by staff based in locations other than in-country, especially those posted in nearby hubs, the World Bank needs to reconsider its staffing models and benefits to balance those working on, and regularly traveling to, FCS with those located in FCS.

There is a strong perception among staff and management in FCS that the strategy’s commitments on incentives and career development remained unfulfilled. In practice, there are two parallel models of incentives for staff working in FCS: the in-country model and the hub model.

The Independent Evaluation Group faced challenges in obtaining basic human resources data to facilitate more granular analysis, pointing to general shortcomings in standard reporting that prevent better personnel decision-making and adaptive management in FCS.

The FCV strategy is committed to strengthening the deployment of staff and the incentives and skills for staff working on FCV. The FCV strategy states that the Bank Group will increase its on-the-ground presence in FCV settings, strengthen the link between FCV experience and career development, and further invest in the skills, knowledge, and incentives needed for staff to deliver (World Bank 2020). The strategy aimed at promoting personnel in FCS in five areas: (i) staff footprint and recruitment in FCS, (ii) staff skill mix in FCS, (iii) staff careers and incentives, (iv) staff health and safety, and (v) learning and capacity building. Besides these strategic actions, 5 out of the 23 operational measures were intended to address personnel issues. This evaluation assesses (i) staff footprint in FCS, (ii) staff skills mix in FCS, and (iii) FCS staff incentives and career development based on an analysis of relevant staffing databases, case studies, interview evidence, and a synthesis of IEG evaluations and Bank Group staffing reviews.

Staff Footprint in FCS

The FCV strategy recognized the need to deploy more staff with the right skills and motivation closer to clients, but it did not support the formulation of principles to guide, manage, and adjust the proposed staffing in FCS. Clear principles, based on routinely available data and learning about the context, could help guide personnel decision-making to promote the effectiveness of FCS engagements. Deploying staff is particularly challenging in volatile, dynamic, and often insecure FCS. Previous IEG evaluations have confirmed that the staffing footprint in FCS increased significantly in the past (World Bank 2014, 2022a). The World Bank introduced the concept of third-country nationals—staff who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of the host duty station—in 2014, which has been popular in FCS where fewer internationally recruited staff (IRS) are available to increase the technical and operational capacity in the country office.1 At the same time, for countries such as Afghanistan or the Federal Republic of Somalia, periods of insecurity necessitated the relocation of staff to nearby locations, which became de facto hubs for IRS who worked on FCS even if they were not residing in the country. The World Bank’s footprint thus consists of staff working in FCS and of staff working on FCS.

This evaluation analyzed data on personnel posted in FCS during the period 2019–24, but analysis of the footprint in FCS was limited by the lack of data about staff working on FCS posted elsewhere, such as in regional offices or headquarters. IEG was unable to obtain data on other key personnel issues, such as the location of TTLs, or of staff face time in FCS.

During the FCV strategy period, the total number of staff deployed in FCS increased significantly, though that is largely due to the redesignation of countries as FCS. The overall trend shows a pattern of increasing staff deployment in FCS, with a slight dip in FY24 (figure 7.1). Much of the growth was due to the addition of several countries with large staff complements to the FCS list. This addition was partly offset by countries exiting the FCS list and reductions of staff in countries under OP 7.30 status (such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Sudan; figure 7.1 and table 7.1).

Figure 7.1. Evolution of World Bank Group Staffing in FCS

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure 7.1. Evolution of World Bank Group Staffing in FCS

Source: World Bank human resources database.

Note: Data are as of the end of the fiscal year (June 30). TERM/OPEN/LREG/HREG appointment types are by FCS flag duty country. Data are based on the World Bank Group Harmonized FCS Countries Lists by fiscal year. IFC has a process of graduating FCS on an annual basis, which creates a separate head count methodology for IFC only. FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IFC = International Finance Corporation.

Source: World Bank Group human resources databases.

Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations.

Besides the staffing impact from redesignations of FCS (additions and exits), there was a small net increase in staff in FCS during the strategy period. World Bank staff in FCS increased from 792 in 2019 to 1,154 in 2024, reaching about 9.4 percent of total staffing in 2024 (up from 7 percent in 2019) and an increase of 46 percent during the strategy period. A large part of the increase in FCS came from the reclassification of Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Niger, and Nigeria in 2020; Ethiopia in 2022; and Ukraine in 2023 as FCS. At the same time, staff in FCS decreased due to four countries moving out of FCS status in 2020 and 2022, including Côte d’Ivoire. Overall, 379 staff were added by countries being added to the FCS list, while exits from the list accounted for 109 staff. The evaluation period also saw a decrease of staff in continuous FCS countries due to the withdrawal of staff from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, and the Republic of Yemen as a result of deteriorating country conditions (table 7.1). Accounting for changes in the composition of the FCS list, there was a small increase (about 1.4 percent) in the number of staff deployed in FCS (figure 7.2).

Figure 7.2. World Bank Staffing Trends in FCS, FY19–24

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure 7.2. World Bank Staffing Trends in FCS, FY19–24

Source: Independent Evaluation Group based on World Bank Group human resources data.

Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations.

After countries entered the FCS list during FY20–24, all but Ukraine saw a greater increase in staff numbers relative to their staffing before the classification. The time-lag analysis shown compared staffing before and after a country was designated FCS. Within those eight countries, there was an average increase in staff numbers of 8.4 percent a year after they were designated FCS. After two years, it had increased by 13.7 percent. Staff in historical FCS, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sahel countries, also grew significantly during the strategy period (table 7.1). However, the analysis of World Bank staff capacity to support FCS is limited by the absence of data on staff working on FCS from other locations, such as regional hubs or headquarters.

The FCV strategy includes measures aimed at ensuring that IFC has staff in the field (both in terms of numbers and seniority) and at leveraging World Bank staff where IFC does not have sufficient presence. IFC’s staffing in FCS has grown over the past decade, mainly reflecting reclassifications of countries, with the inclusion of three large new FCS. As of FY24, IFC had 154 staff across offices in FCS, an increase of about 60 percent in the past decade, but this number was down from 176 the previous year (figure 7.3).2 The number of IFC staff in African hub offices has increased, especially in Nigeria (from 21 in FY15 to 53 in FY24) and Ethiopia (from 4 in FY15 to 17 in FY24).

Figure 7.3. Number of International Finance Corporation Staff in FCS

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure 7.3. Number of International Finance Corporation Staff in FCS

Source: Independent Evaluation Group based on World Bank Group human resources data.

Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IFC = International Finance Corporation.

Staff Skills Mix in FCS

Interviews with hiring managers for FCS staff indicated that the managers face difficulties in attracting the best and most seasoned staff. In the context of increasing Bank Group engagements in FCS, the strategy indicated the need to deploy more staff with the right skills and motivation closer to the client to enhance the Bank Group’s effectiveness. The demand is high for staff with strong technical and operational skills, the right attitude, and people skills for field posts. However, attracting staff with strong technical and operational skills and the right mindset to challenging field positions remains difficult in many FCS. Country directors, country managers, and other CMU staff articulated in interviews their perception that they are recruiting from a smaller pool of potential staff members who are willing to work in FCS. As a result, they often end up with less seasoned staff and not the best-performing staff, while the FCS would require the most experienced and best-performing staff.

Data confirm that while the staff mix in FCS has become more senior in terms of the proportion of staff in senior grade levels, on average, FCS staff are still less experienced as measured by years of in-grade experience. The most significant increase of staffing was in senior operations (GG-level) staff, which increased by 90 percent over the period FY19–24 and by 200 percent since FY15. As a share of FCS staff, the GG complement grew from 21 percent in FY15 and 25 percent in FY19 to 32 percent of FCS staff (table 7.2), bringing the GG complement almost to a par with the Bank Group average of 33 percent. GF and GH staff also increased but at slower rates, with the share of GH staff unchanged at 5.8 percent over this period, compared with the Bank Group average of 9.5 percent. Overall, the GG and GH complements now account for 37.5 percent in FCS, compared with 42.6 percent for the Bank Group as a whole. At the same time, staff deployed in FCS are, on average, more junior within grade, with fewer years in their current grade level (5.8 years in FCS, 7.4 for the Bank Group overall). This observation could be an indication that FCS staff were promoted to this grade level, perhaps as an incentive to move to FCS; however, human resources data were not available to enable IEG to corroborate this observation.

Performance rating data indicate that top-performing staff appear to be appointed less frequently to FCS assignments, corroborating the perspective of difficulties in attracting highly performing staff. In FY22–24, among the staff starting FCS assignments, 28 percent were top-performing staff, compared with 35 percent for the Bank Group as a whole, indicating that FCS locations might face difficulties attracting top talent (human resources analysis undertaken for the FCV staffing review).

This finding confirms the perception of management in FCS that the strategy has not led to a significant increase in the number of staff willing to deploy to FCS. Case studies, interviews, and focus groups with senior World Bank staff, five country directors, and nine country managers confirm the continuing difficulty of filling vacancies in FCS with skilled senior technical staff. Managers consistently provided feedback that the FCV strategy has not contributed to increasing the universe of qualified FCV staff beyond the existing pool of staff already committed to working in FCS.

In the absence of a larger pool of experienced IRS willing to deploy to FCS, managers and staff pointed to the practice of promoting locally recruited staff (LRS) to IRS. This view is confirmed by data on the conversion of LRS to IRS in table 7.2. Most of the increase of senior professional IRS in FCS is explained by the conversion of LRS to IRS status: 74 of the GG-level (senior professional staff) IRS deployed in FCS between FY20 and FY24 represent LRS to IRS conversions. Many of these cases were rotating LRS to similar IRS positions within the same CMU, which was identified as a factor affecting the quality of FCS staff. Promoting the best LRS is a good pathway to increasing the pool of staff willing to deploy to FCS; however, if staff are not exposed to global best practices in FCS, promoting staff to IRS does not increase the pool of well-seasoned FCS staff. This practice might hinder the World Bank’s ability to increase the quality of its engagement in FCS because staff lack transferable international knowledge and exposure to global best practices that other seasoned GG or GH IRS might have.

Source: World Bank.

Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IRS = internationally recruited staff; LRS = locally recruited staff.

IFC faced similar challenges, including its presence in FCS being heavily reliant on LRS, who were less experienced on average. Based on data obtained for a 2022 IEG evaluation (World Bank 2022b), only 27 percent of staff in FCS were internationally recruited, compared with 57 percent in other locations. As of FY23, the percentage of professional-level (officer and senior officer equivalent) staff in FCS and non-FCS is similar (about 60 percent), but the average number of years of service for FCS staff is slightly lower (7 years) than that of non-FCS staff (8.6 years). Reflecting the IFC portfolio, a larger percentage of staff in FCS worked on advisory services (41 percent) than staff in non-FCS (22 percent).

FCS Staff Incentives and Career Development

There is a strong perception among staff and management in FCS that the FCV strategy’s commitments on staff incentives and career development have remained unfulfilled. Previous evaluations have found that the rewards and recognitions of working in FCS are inadequate.3 Perceptions about the absence of sufficient incentives were evident in interviews, case studies, and focus groups for this evaluation. Staff were most concerned about career growth opportunities because of the lack of access to managers and sector peers in Global Practices. They were also concerned about being stuck in FCS because FCV experience was not seen as transferable to other country contexts. Staff noted that the commitments made in the FCV strategy to automatically shortlist staff are not honored consistently among Global Practices. This belief was corroborated by perceptions from country management that staff have limited interest in working in such countries because these posts have low visibility, are perceived to have limited prospects for career growth, and have a lower quality of life. These findings corroborate lessons from an earlier IEG evaluation (box 7.1).

IFC faces similar challenges in providing incentives for staff to work in and on FCS. Challenges remain in recruiting and retaining experienced and senior IFC staff in FCS. Many country offices in FCS lack experienced TTLs and procurement, fiduciary, and safeguards staff, and most new FCS staff continue to be recruited locally (World Bank 2022a). IFC’s corporate incentives emphasizing investment volumes and development results are inconsistent with the strategic objective of scaling up work in FCS. However, IFC has found ways to reward staff working on FCS projects. Nearly half of the 30 staff who received IFC Top 30 Individual Corporate Awards in FY20 had worked on projects related to or in FCS (World Bank 2022b).

In practice, there are two parallel models of incentives for staff working in FCS: the in-country model and the hub model. These models complement each other and have tried to balance advantages and disadvantages. Staff posted in FCS are entitled to significant benefits, including financial compensation and a generous rest-and-recuperation package. The benefits package is designed to offset posting in hardship stations, most of which are not family postings. Third-country nationals are entitled to some cash benefits, but LRS lack even those. Additionally, staff working on FCS from nearby hubs and headquarters are not entitled to most of these benefits, regardless of how much of their work share is on FCS. While they are based in locations with family postings, the services and opportunities are more attractive, but there is no reward for their risk exposure through work in FCS and frequent travel to FCS.

Data on staff working on FCS from hubs or headquarters are not available. This lack of data makes it impossible to evaluate the extent to which higher-level technical staff support FCS from these locations without any incentives, but their contribution to World Bank engagement in FCS is assumed to be significant.

Implementing a certification program for FCV specialists, along with tailored learning plans for career development, could help counteract the perception that working in FCS will stall one’s career. An internal 2024 FCV Staffing Model Review acknowledged that more needs to be done to formalize the roles and competencies of staff in FCS and to enhance the scale and availability of relevant training programs. The career development of staff in FCS, but especially of third-country nationals and LRS, depends on a customized training and mentoring plan and a career path, including gaining certification as FCV specialists. Management will have to carefully consider the FCV staffing model to avoid increasing the gap between IRS and LRS and to make a more systematic effort to mentor and support LRS with potential for growth. The Bank Group has launched an enhanced FCV learning curriculum, which includes an IFC course called “Tools for Investing in FCS and LIC IDA,” which is delivered annually (World Bank 2022b). IFC has also enhanced its standard integrity due diligence training to account for FCS risks.

IEG notes challenges in obtaining basic human resources data to facilitate more granular analysis—pointing to general shortcomings in standard reporting—which prevents better personnel decision-making in FCS. This evaluation was unable to obtain critical information on staffing in FCS, indicating some gaps and fragmentation in systems and databases to manage personnel dimensions under the FCV strategy and thus limiting this analysis. These gaps included tracking of staff working predominantly on FCS from a regional office or headquarters, the number of TTLs located in the field, or staff face time in FCS. Bank Group human resources services indicated that some of these data are collected by different units within the Bank Group but are not readily available or consolidated into a single database or dashboard. Having more robust and comprehensive data in real time would enhance analysis and decision-making on the optimal deployment and management of staff in FCS.