Unpacking the Dilemmas of the UN Compensation Package

February 2026

By Katja Hemmerich

Over the next few months, debates over how the UN compensates its workforce will intensify with the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) aiming to complete its review of the compensation package by July, and the Fifth Committee considering the proposal to provide financial support to unpaid interns in March. Competing social‑media narratives from the U.S. Permanent Mission and staff unions have pushed salary levels and benefits into the spotlight, with narratives focused on the link between adequate compensation and workforce engagement versus the need to cut costs. The entrenched positions of different stakeholders coupled with heated nature of debates will make this a particularly difficult challenge for the ICSC to resolve.

Our spotlight this month unpacks how important the compensation package is in shaping the quality and effectiveness of the UN’s workforce, and explores data that highlights where there are areas for compromise that won’t undermine workforce quality and diversity. Our analysis also highlights that new approaches to how member states and the UN leadership manage staffing allocations and incentivize effective and efficient management may provide more impactful solutions to the current financial crisis and longstanding concerns about the effectiveness and adaptability of the UN workforce.

Is the UN compensation package the key into attracting talent?

While ICSC discussions reflect concerns from staff unions as well as the HR Network that reductions in the compensation package will exacerbate difficulties in attracting specialized expertise, this is unfortunately somewhat of a red herring for two reasons. First, there is little evidence to support that the UN is having trouble attracting talent. ICSC debates reflect statements of concern but the annual report provides no data to support the assertion. Conversely, the UN Secretariat, as the largest employer within the UN system indicated clearly in last year’s human resources debate in the General Assembly that it is not struggling to attract candidates. Data from 2017-2020 shows that the Secretariat consistently received an average of more than 300 applications for each vacancy, except during during the pandemic in 2020 where it dropped to an average of 188 applicants per vacancy (A/77/590, para. 42). Even more telling is that despite not compensating interns, the UN Secretariat has managed recruit an average of 2,200 interns per year (A/79/566/Add.1, paras. 5).

The second reason that the transactional link between compensation and ability to attract talent is a red herring, is that it generally assumes that salary levels motivate potential talent for the UN in the same way as in the private sector. But there is considerable evidence that talent interested in working for the UN is motivated differently. Understanding these nuances of what the UN’s real employee value proposition is can create new options on how to resolve the current compensation debates.

In 2024, ReformWorks together with Talentum Consulting surveyed 635 Millennials and GenZ from 117 countries, 93% of whom indicated they were actively pursuing an international career. Our study highlighted not only that this group was motivated differently than typical GenZ and Millennial jobseekers, but also that benefits, job security and good management were key to retaining a diverse, engaged and adaptive workforce.

The adjacent graph compares the top reasons why Millennials and GenZ choose to apply to an employer generally, as per Deloitte’s 2024 employment survey, versus our international job seekers. The mandate of an organization, and the ability for an employee to have a positive impact on society rank ask key priorities for international job seekers that don’t factor into domestic job seekers calculations. And when we asked our respondents to indicate their employer of choice: 90% indicated it was the United Nations, which ranked considerable higher than INGOs and regional organizations, which were the next most popular choices.

While compensation is not irrelevant it is on the bottom of the list of key considerations for international job seekers. The picture changes dramatically however, when we asked international job seekers to rank what they perceive as the most important elements that

make up a ‘good job’. A comfortable salary was ranked first, with additional qualitative responses highlighting that this also included some reassurance of job security and continuity of that salary. This is particularly salient in the current context in which the erratic and unpredictable nature of funding cuts have made job security a serious concern for all UN personnel. Many in our survey indicated in 2024 that the lack of job security and the need to constantly chase new contracts was a key reason for exploring employment options outside the UN. This is likely an even bigger concern now, and will lead high performers with other employment opportunities to consider leaving the UN.

At the same time, our analysis indicates that even with the current financial constraints, if member states and UN leadership can create a level of predictability in funding levels and future changes, and contribute to some sense of job security, there is also probably room for reductions in the compensation package. Key to this would be ensuring proper and timely communication of changes to compensation and future job security, which has been lacking in the approach to date.

What is the talent that the UN needs to attract and retain?

A more appropriate question to guide current human resources debates is what type of talent and skills does the UN need, and what compensation elements and HR practices will achieve this?

Ensuring the UN workforce is representative of its membership, as outlined by the architects of the UN Charter, is an important starting point. Despite significant improvements in geographic and gender balance of the UN workforce there are still gaps. Considering adjustments to the compensation package on the basis of regional and gender concerns may also help to find compromise solutions. These issues have been raised in ICSC discussions, but the extent to which data and evidence is informing these discussions is unclear. Respondents in our ReformWorks survey from the Western European and Other

WEOG ReformWorks Survey Respondent priorities vs. all Other Regions.

Group (WEOG) for instance, place different emphasis on the importance of work-life balance, salary levels and job security than other regions, reinforcing our point above that there is room for compromise in reducing the desirable UN vs US civil service comparator range, if balanced with job security and work-life balance improvements. The ICSC may want to request similar data disaggregated by region for its upcoming session.

There are similar opportunities for compromise to address the lower retention rates among mid- and senior level female staff, which have been a key concern in the ICSC debates. An academic study of women with international careers in Austria, Canada, Colombia and Taiwan consistently highlighted that accessibility to quality childcare was their top priority for balancing family across all four countries (I.C. Fischlmayr & K.M. Puchmüller, 'Married, mom and manager – how can this be combined with an international career?', 2016). Respondents in our ReformWorks survey indicated that support for spouses or partners to find jobs when moving to a new country and the ability to periodically work from their home country were important mechanisms to support their international careers, with female respondents prioritizing access to child care at the same level as spousal support. So if the priority is to retain a mobile and gender diverse workforce, there are potential compromises that can be made in reducing mobility allowances if accompanied by mechanisms to move dual UN career couples and families, or by shifting expenditures on education grant at the tertiary level to child care for children between the ages of 0-5, for instance.

A much bigger concern, which seems absent from many of the ICSC debates, it the UN’s ability to attract and evolve its workforce to ensure it has the skills and competencies to meet the current challenges of the multilateral system, technological changes, and changing perspectives on how the UN should deliver on its mandates. While this is particularly salient now as UN entities are forced to dramatically reduce their workforces, it was already a concern of the General Assembly in 2023. At its 77th session, the Fifth Committee requested the Secretary-General to ‘rejuvenate’ the Secretariat workforce by bringing in younger talent with ‘new perspectives’ through talent management and an increase in P-1 to P-3 level posts with a commensurate reduction in senior level positions at D-1 and above. A surprisingly lack of progress was made prior to the financial crisis, and the resulting workforce reductions have further compounded the problems in bringing in new perspectives and young talent. A closer examination highlights not only shortcomings in the benefits or career development opportunities offered to young talent, but larger weaknesses in longstanding human resources management practices. Current debates on how to reduce and reshape the UN workforce and compensation package provide an opportunity to fix the current business model which fails to incentivize the continuous evolution of the workforce with financial realities and skill requirements.

What impedes fresh perspectives at the UN?

Evidence from efforts to ‘rejuvenate’ the Secretariat highlight that 1) there are limited posts or vacancies available to recruit fresh talent, and 2) that once recruited, even with the current compensation package, the UN struggles to retain them.

Although the Fifth Committee reviews every individual request to create, abolish or reclassify a post to a different level, entry level posts at the P-1 and P-2 level have consistently had the lowest numbers of approved posts. As the ACABQ has pointed out, entry level posts are also proposed less often, and in the 2026 revised budget they were disproportionately proposed for abolishment. It is hard to reconcile the repeated refrains for rejuvenation and efficiency from UN leadership and member states with the lack of proposals and approvals for cheaper, entry level positions. The current processes for designing an efficient workforce composition are clearly not leading to desired outcomes.

Additionally, existing efforts at finding cost-efficient solutions for bringing in young talent have actually made the workforce less representative and undermined geographic balance. Unpaid internships and the ability for individual countries to sponsor Junior Professional Officers are two of the main ways that the Secretariat and other UN entities bring in new talent cost-effectively. While the Secretariat has been able to attract an average of 2,200 unpaid interns annually over the last 10 years, almost one third are from three countries that provide structured opportunities for stipends and financial support for interns, i.e. China, the US and Germany ((A/79/566/Add.1, paras. 5 & 15). A similarly negative impact on geographic balance is evident with P-2 posts. Prior to 2025, Fifth Committee agreements on the number of P-2 posts under assessed funding result in approximately 50 new Young Professionals joining annually, whereas wealthy member states manage to find money to fund approximately 180 Junior Professional Officer positions annually in the Secretariat almost exclusively for nationals from their own country.

Internally, the downsizing policies agreed between UN management and staff further compound the problem. These policies generally prioritize length of service over other factors with limited flexibility to adjust them based on a specific local or organizational context, or in the face of massive workforce reductions as the UN is currently experiencing. There are many complaints from managers that they are losing capabilities for innovation, digital transformation and agility. To be fair, there are also indications that the UN struggled to attract and maintain these capabilities even before being forced to use the downsizing policies. The Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) found that very low turnover rates across the Secretariat were a major barrier in evolving the workforce and addressing skill gaps in the Secretariat (OIOS 2025/053, para. 20(d)).

The usual human resources practices have proven that they are unable to create real change in the composition of the UN’s workforce. Doubling down on past solutions for cost-efficiencies won’t fix these problems. Creating a more adaptable, innovative and modern workforce with cost-efficiencies that do not undermine representation or performance requires changes to how member states and senior leadership design the composition of their workforce. Eugene Chen has also highlighted this point calling for Fifth Committee agreement on a staffing allocation rather than a rigid staffing table, which allows managers to decide who is the most suitable candidate based on skills rather than whether they are international or local staff. Not only would this make Fifth Committee negotiations more efficient, it would remove the current disincentive for adjusting levels, categories or profiles of posts in line with labor market market changes or to create efficiencies because these changes require renewed negotiation with the Fifth Committee.

Ironically, while many member states will perceive this as reducing their oversight and control, it is most likely to lead to the type of effective management that they expect, and that staff themselves would like to see. Providing an allocation or envelope of funds for a workforce (including both staff and non-staff resources) would force managers to continuously seek out strategies for maximizing the impact of that envelope. Delivery innovations could be spurred through specialized contractors or vendors and shifted to staff positions when institutionalized. Local expertise could be prioritized in contexts where it exist and shifted to international expertise when delivery moves to a new context where local expertise is unavailable. The incentive to ignore underperformance by an incumbent of a particular post that is considered ‘protected’ by member states in the Fifth Committee would be eliminated. Managers who stick to the status quo would be exposed by their inability to keep pace with evolving norms, standards and technologies or their ability to deliver within the existing funding envelope.

Many of the UN specialized agencies already have this autonomy to varying degrees. The Secretariat and UN agencies, funds and programmes which use the UN Dispute Tribunal mechanism could derive new indicators for managerial accountability which could be a more efficient way of monitoring and overseeing how effectively managers are using their workforce allocations. The number of management cases lost in the administrative justice system by individual departments and offices would be a concrete and quantifiable indicator for assessing how well managerial autonomy is exercised, and where unfair practices related how contract types or levels would be exposed. To further incentivize effective management, departments and offices should be responsible for paying compensation determined by the UN Dispute Tribunal out of their own allocation, rather than the current practice which delinks liabilities from departmental budgets.

Even more importantly, by facilitating progressive management for results rather that compliance with bureaucratic processes, the UN is more likely to retain the fresh talent it clearly needs. Career development opportunities and the current compensation package have not prevented P-2s from having some of the highest resignation rates among all international professional staff in recent years. Tinkering with the non-financial incentives under consideration by the ICSC is therefore unlikely to help attract agile and fresh talent.

Rather, our ReformWorks survey indicates that poor management and an inability to innovate and continuously improve how the UN is working may be a reason for these resignations. The ability to innovate and improve one’s organization was ranked as an important element of a good international job by 55% of our ReformWorks survey respondents (see graph above). This was further reinforced by qualitative feedback that highlighted poor management as a key frustration for those who had previously worked in the UN, as well as positive feedback highlighting good managers as the most valued part of past UN experience:

“The most rewarding aspect of working for the organization was contributing to a collaborative and innovative environment where my skills and ideas were valued, leading to both personal and professional growth.” - ReformWorks survey respondent

For all stakeholders, investing political capital in these larger changes to human resources management procedures that improve the quality of management across the UN system are likely to prove more effective than focusing exclusively on the different elements of the UN staff compensation package. The latter are necessary discussions, and change is inevitable. But only if that change is made through evidence-based decisions about where cost reductions do not undermine diversity or quality of the workforce can they help the UN navigate this crisis.

---