A recent UNDT judgment Hosali vs Secretary general of the United Nations UNDT/2024/017 exposes the extent to which the UN manipulates recruitment processes to disadvantage internal candidates, particularly women from the Global South, in favor of external candidates with zero experience within the organization.
Consider this: In December 2014, the General Assembly adopted resolution A/Res/70/133, expressing serious concern about the lack of progress toward 50/50 gender balance at all levels within the UN system, particularly at senior and policymaking levels. The resolution called on the Secretary-General to redouble efforts, specifically focusing on women from developing countries, unrepresented Member States, and those from the Global South.
Fast forward ten years, and these concerns remain unaddressed. Staff from the Global South are marginalized. Female staff rarely ascend beyond P-5 levels, while senior D-1 and D-2 roles remain predominantly occupied by men, especially from the Global North. Worse, the UN is bypassing long-serving internal candidates with institutional knowledge in favor of external candidates with no experience in the UN.
How can this happen?
The Case of Mita Hosali vs. the Secretary-General
Mita Hosali, an Indian national, has dedicated over 40 years to the UN, starting her career in 1982 and eventually rising to D-1 as Deputy Director of the News and Media Division (DGC). She has been a cornerstone of global communication strategies and embodies the diversity and institutional knowledge the UN claims to value. She was the only D-1 female staff member from the Global South in her department at the time of her application for the D-2 Director position in DCG.
Despite being deemed qualified and recommended for the post, the UN selected an external British male candidate with no UN experience. This candidate, with over 30 years in Associated Press (AP), has a professional background exclusively in journalism, with no prior experience in the UN or its operational frameworks, internal protocols, or values.
Gender Parity, Geographical Diversity, and Career Advancement—Empty Slogans in the Face of Nepotistic Recruitment
Recruitment in senior positions rests on three principles the UN claims to champion: gender parity, geographical diversity, and career advancement. These principles are not just UN ideals—they are core commitments frequently reiterated by the Secretary-General and enshrined in General Assembly resolutions, including GA resolution 70/133.
Despite these lofty commitments, the selection of the male British candidate trumps all these principles. It defies the explicit provisions of GA resolution 70/133, which calls for urgent progress toward gender parity, particularly for women from the Global South, and emphasizes the need for equitable geographical representation. Furthermore, it undermines the UN’s stated commitment to internal career development by bypassing a long-serving, highly qualified internal candidate in favor of an external candidate with no prior UN experience.
This decision lays bare the contradiction between the UN’s public advocacy for these values and its actual recruitment practices, which often prioritize favoritism and external preferences over fairness and institutional integrity.
1. Manipulating Gender Parity: The UN’s Deceptive Tactics
The Administration claimed that gender parity provisions outlined in ST/AI/2020/5 (Temporary Special Measures for Gender Parity) did not apply to D-2 positions. This reasoning is both technically and substantively flawed. The ST/AI specifically recalls General Assembly resolution 70/133 and mandates:
- Goal: “Until the goal set by the General Assembly is realized throughout the United Nations Secretariat, in every entity, overall and at each level, the temporary special measures described in the present instruction apply to all types of posts and positions, irrespective of the source of funding.”
- Scope: “The temporary special measures contained in the present instruction shall apply to selections and appointments at each level at which gender parity has not been reached within the entity. The temporary special measures shall apply at all times when there is no such parity.”
At the time of Mita’s application, there was no gender parity in DGC at the D-2 level. Therefore, by the ST/AI’s own terms, temporary special measures should have applied.
The Administration argued that the ST/AI was inapplicable because it mentions “Central Review Bodies” (CRB), which oversee recommendations for selections up to D-1 positions, but not the “Senior Review Group” (SRG), responsible for D-2 and above. This distinction was used deceitfully.
Nowhere does the ST/AI explicitly exempt D-2 positions. Should the legislator have intended this ST/AI to apply only to Professional levels up to D-1, the relevant paragraph on “Scope” of the ST/AI should have explicitly mentioned this limitation. The fact that it was not mentioned under the Scope paragraph makes it clear that it applies to all levels, in line with the spirit of the Secretary-General’s system-wide strategy on gender parity. The Administration and UNDT exploited this technicality to evade accountability.
2. The Global South Left Behind: The Myth of Geographical Diversity in the UN
The Administration also cited geographical balance as a justification for the selection. However, the appointment of another male candidate from the UK—a WEOG country—only exacerbates the existing imbalance. The UNDT judgment confirmed that DGC’s leadership already had two British men at the D-1 level, and the addition of a third from the same region hardly contributes to diversity. Astonishingly, the selection panel described this appointment as “a positive for diversity,” despite it consolidating an already overwhelming overrepresentation of WEOG nationals.
The UNDT judgment laid bare the systemic bias in geographical representation within DGC at the time of Mita’s application:
- 100% of senior hires were from the WEOG group.
- 67% of senior hires were male.
- Mita was the only D-1 female from the Global South in the department.
This hiring pattern reflects a troubling trend. While the UN claims that India is within its “desirable range” for representation, this metric is misleading. The “desirable range” system prioritizes financial contributions and population size over equitable representation at senior levels. It also fails to account for the persistent barriers faced by women and individuals from the Global South.
As the judgment noted,
“the statistics provided by the Applicant, and not contested by the Respondent, indicate a pattern on the part of [the USG] for recruitment of [Western European and Others Group, ‘WEOG’] candidates.” At the time of the decision, this amounted to a “100% record of recruiting WEOG candidates and 67% record of recruiting males.”
The Tribunal itself recognized the imbalance:
” the figures and statistics on the gender and geographical balance at the D-1 and D-2 levels of the Department of Global Communications speak for themselves”
Adding to the absurdity, the selection panel claimed the British male candidate’s appointment was “a positive for diversity,” despite his addition to a division already dominated by British men. This statement underscores the hypocrisy of calling such a decision “a positive for diversity” when it flies in the face of the UN’s purported commitments to geographical balance and equitable representation at senior levels.
3. Abandoning Its Own: How the UN Turns Its Back on Internal Talent
The UN’s preference for an external candidate over Mita, despite her institutional knowledge and decades of service, reflects a troubling trend. Long-serving staff like Mita possess a deep understanding of the UN’s culture, operations, and values, making them indispensable for continuity and effective decision-making.
No one exemplifies this better than former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan began his UN career at the P-2 level and rose to the highest office, proving that internal expertise is invaluable for leadership. His journey underscores the importance of nurturing in-house talent, a principle the UN seems to have abandoned.
The decision to select an external candidate with no prior UN experience over a highly qualified internal candidate like Mita contradicts the organization’s commitment to internal career development and institutional knowledge. It sends a disheartening message to long-serving staff, particularly women and individuals from the Global South, that their contributions and expertise are undervalued.
A Bleak Outlook for Women from the Global South in the UN
We all know New Year’s resolutions often fail, but who knew General Assembly resolutions could be just as hollow?
The selection of an external male candidate from the Global North over Mita Hosali demonstrates that the UN’s pledges on gender parity, geographical diversity, and career advancement are little more than decorative statements—meant to inspire but never acted upon. It lays bare the organization’s systemic failures in recruitment, exposing a culture that prioritizes favoritism and external appearances over fairness, integrity, and institutional loyalty.
If you’re a woman from the Global South aspiring to a D-2 role in 2025, the message is clear: Don’t bother.
Nadine – thank you for running this blog shining a light on these important but little discussed issues. The case you link to in this article is an interesting one because it claims that a recruitment process was unfair due to biases not only in gender and nationality but also race (you didn’t mention race in the post, but it is detailed in the UNDT judgment). The applicant claims that a ‘white’ male was the preferred candidate with the clear insinuation that there was a racial preference in favor of ‘white’ people during the hiring process. As a former UN staff member, I can say that staff are not categorized by race either on personnel records or on job applications and so it is difficult to determine the extent to which racial groups dominate certain sectors of the organization. The current SG said “if racism exists everywhere then it must exist in the UN”, which is one way of putting it, but I think he is probably correct in that there is a degree of racial bias at the UN. I don’t think UN recruiters are required to take race into account when hiring staff. On the other hand, nationality and gender are tracked and the UN is supposed to be aiming for equal representation. As person from the Global South myself, I don’t think this ever hindered my career advancement at the UN. The committees that oversee the UN Secretariat keep a close eye on this aspect of staffing as it’s closely tracked and monitored. In the interest of balance, I think the article could have pointed to sustained efforts by the current SG to achieve gender equality, which in my past experience was widely supported by staff at the UN. From my understanding of the rules and regulations gender parity is defined as being within a 47 to 53 percent margin and this is met by the UN Department referred to in the article (Communications) which has 48 percent men and 52 percent women. I would say that other Departments are still too dominated by men, but credit where credit is due to the Communications Department of the UN. One of the initiatives of the current SG is the senior women talent pipeline, specifically designed to get women into leadership positions.
Thank you for engaging with this discussion and for your thoughtful comment. Racial bias does exist in the UN, and unfortunately, it has been on the rise in recent years. While it’s true that race is not explicitly tracked in personnel records, this does not mean that racial preferences or biases do not play a role in recruitment and promotion decisions. The absence of formal racial data actually makes it easier to obscure these issues rather than address them. The case in question highlights this reality. Regarding gender parity, a quick glance at the SG’s gender dashboard might suggest progress, but a deeper dive—using filters and drilling down into the data—reveals a different story. While the SMT and senior leadership numbers look good on the surface, the gender gap at senior levels below them remains significant and is, in fact, widening. The gender parity policy, despite its stated ambitions, has not been implemented consistently across the organization, and there are still significant disparities, particularly when looking at mid-to-senior level appointments. There’s no doubt that the SG has made efforts in this area, and some departments, like Communications, may have better gender balance. However, gender parity cannot be assessed in isolation from how hiring and promotion decisions are made in practice. The senior women talent pipeline, for instance, has brought some women into leadership, but it has also been criticized for being selective in its application and, in some cases, for reinforcing other biases. These issues deserve deeper scrutiny beyond headline statistics, and I appreciate your engagement in this important conversation.