Letter from a "group of WHO staff" to "Dear Dr Tedros @WHO

"We are sharing this note to provide first-hand perspectives from colleagues affected by the ongoing realignment exercise. It reflects collective observations and concerns that we believe merit leadership attention.

We are a group of staff from different parts of WHO. We are writing this together, anonymously. Not because we are afraid to speak, but because we know what happens when people do.

The current atmosphere discourages open disagreement.

The so-called realignment process has been presented as a restructuring initiative to build a “fit-for-purpose” WHO. But behind this corporate language lies something else entirely: a carefully controlled downsizing strategy, shaped with external consultants and executed internally with surgical precision.

A strategy that disproportionately targets the most vulnerable, all while avoiding accountability. One component of this process involves the automatic discontinuation of “standard” or “generic” positions, even when the functions continue to exist. These roles are overwhelmingly held by administrative and General Service staff.

There is no case by case review. No performance assessment. No recognition of years of service. Just a label, and then removal. Staff are being classified and filtered , “protected,” “unprotected,” “reassignable,” “discontinued”, “abolished”. These terms may look technical, but they strip people of identity and value.

WHO tells the world it stands for fairness, inclusion, and respect for all, but behind closed doors, it applies none of these to its own workforce.

Meanwhile, many senior or technical roles are reviewed individually, reassigned early, or preserved outright. This isn’t about efficiency, it’s about who is shielded and who is sacrificed. Let’s be honest: this system was not improvised.

It was engineered, with the help of Boston Consulting Group, paid millions to support its design.

The majority of high-cost positions have in fact been kept. Through a polished presentation, Boston Consulting Group created the impression that most of these roles were being abolished, but the reality is different. Many of the “P” level positions listed as discontinued are actually vacant. The cuts have fallen not on cost, but on people , specifically those in lower-paid roles that are already filled.

This restructuring has also created opportunities for certain senior managers to consolidate power. By absorbing entire teams, retaining as many high-grade posts as possible under their authority, and eliminating lower-cost positions, they expand their influence while reducing diversity of voices. In some cases, positions have been reclassified or renamed to allow individuals to move into higher roles, while their previous posts are formally abolished, on paper, a cut; in reality, a promotion.

As Hannah Arendt observed, “The surest way to control people is not by silencing them, but by shaping the limits of what can be discussed.”

In this restructuring, the rules, acronyms, and committees give an appearance of fairness, but the decisions were made long before the discussions began. The ARC ad hoc committee and the so-called Fairness and Transparency Committee are central to this official narrative. In practice, both are toothless mechanisms — their scope limited, their findings non-binding, and their role reduced to validating pre-decided outcomes.

The irony is that “fair and transparent” has become a mantra, repeated endlessly by leadership in public statements and staff meetings. It is used so often that it now signals the opposite: a process that must be defended by words precisely because it cannot be defended by facts. What we’re witnessing is not simply a flawed process. It is a machine for exclusion, wrapped in professional language, implemented with little visibility, and targeted at those with the least protection: Support staff, long-serving GS colleagues, women, and those outside internal power networks. We are calling for: An independent, external review of how this restructuring framework has been designed and applied A moratorium on all blanket discontinuations of so-called “standard” positions until individual assessments are conducted.

 A clear public statement from WHO leadership affirming that equity is not a slogan, but a standard, and that no category of staff is inherently disposable

This message is not written in anger. It is written from deep fatigue. We’ve watched colleagues who served 10, 15 years be told they are no longer needed. We’ve seen ethics applied when convenient, and ignored when uncomfortable. We’ve seen values, once shared, replaced by silence. We believed in this Organization. We still do. But it is painful to remain loyal to an institution that no longer sees us. We are not writing to accuse individuals. We are writing to defend principles. We are not alone. We are not naïve. And we are not staying quiet. From, A group of WHO staff"
 
 Link to the PassBlue post on X ▶️https://x.com/pass_blue/status/1954899921913381271?ct=rw-null