In the wake of the open letter recently published from a feminist collective of UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency staff documenting two years of unresolved complaints involving intimidation, aggression, and a hostile work environment, and pointing to institutional failures across oversight, ethics, and human resources functions, I was contacted by aUNHCR junior staff member who wished to support the concerns raised.
The UNHCR staff member came forward to support the collective’s concerns and shared their official exit interview. I am publishing a summarized and redacted version of that testimony to protect anonymity.
While personal in nature, the account closely and independently corroborates the allegations made by the UNHCR collective of female staff, describing a work environment marked by harassment, intimidation, aggression, abuse of authority, humiliation, the absence of effective protection mechanisms, and a hostile work environment that ultimately led to resignation.
Taken together, these testimonies paint a grim picture of a toxic work culture within parts of UNHCR, where harassment and abuse of authority permeate the environment systematically.
The exit interview includes the following account:
“My manager shouted directly in my face and threw a folder containing World Refugee Day documents at me.”
That this incident involved World Refugee Day materials is difficult to ignore. It underscores the widening gap between the values UNHCR publicly promotes and the treatment experienced by staff behind closed doors and raises an uncomfortable question about what happens when dignity is not practiced internally.
At this point, it is fair to ask whether UNHCR’s exit interviews serve any purpose beyond documenting harm after staff have already left.
In my latest article, I explore why organizations, in this case study- UNESCO (and those in positions of authority) so often dismiss requests they deem excessive, when in fact these are routine, legitimate needs of long-serving staff, often entangled in complex personal circumstances. In doing so, the institution exposes itself to avoidable disputes and unnecessary litigation, all of which could have been averted with a more thoughtful and humane approach.
In my experience, two principles have grounded my approach to leadership and decision-making, especially in difficult environments.
First, regardless of rank or years of service, every colleague has something valuable to offer. Even those perceived as “dead weight“, a term I categorically reject, often carry within them a particular strength, insight, or passion that has simply been overlooked or underused. The key lies in identifying that niche: the area where each person is uniquely competent. I’m not speaking here about technical skills (those can be taught, acquired, replaced). I mean the subtler, often underappreciated strengths: interpersonal fluency, team adaptability, resilience in solitary roles, the need for structured routine, or a talent for chaos management. Some are neurodivergent, some need visibility, others prefer to work behind the scenes. Some need the stability of repetition; others need to be pushed into uncharted territory to thrive.
Leadership, contrary to popular management mantras, is not about “teaching” people to be different versions of yourself. That’s where things unravel. Leaders who obsess over moulding their teams in their own image fall into the predictable trap of coercive control. It begins with good intentions: coaching, “capacity-building”, a push for “standards” and ends in abuse of authority. The unspoken logic: if someone doesn’t conform to my version of performance or behaviour, I have the right to marginalize them or push them out.
Second, understanding the personal context behind performance requires more than professionalism: it requires empathy. And yes, compassion. Because work, while central to identity, does not suspend a person’s lived reality. Over time, people evolve; their private lives evolve with them. Health issues, family demands, losses, transitions: all of these bleed into the workplace whether leadership chooses to acknowledge them or not.
Too many conflicts in the workplace stem from a refusal to understand this. Leaders who lack the emotional intelligence to accommodate the realities of life outside the office will inevitably generate resistance, frustration, and yes too often litigation.
In a recent series of striking International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) judgments involving UNESCO (Nos. 5052–5056, 140th session), a long-serving P-5 staff member, after nearly three decades of service, was abruptly placed in the mobility scheme. At the time, he was undergoing a divorce and had shared custody of his minor daughter, which legally and logistically made relocation impossible. He submitted a request for deferral, citing these personal circumstances and referencing provisions in the HR Manual that allowed for such exceptions. The request was rejected without meaningful consideration.
From there, things unfolded in a way that was entirely disproportionate, but all too familiar. His post was placed in the mobility pool, and he was reassigned to Brazzaville. When that posting fell through, due to lack of host government approval, he was sent to Kingston. At no point did he refuse outright to take up the assignments. He asked for time, a short and reasonable delay to resolve matters related to his child. This was consistent with established practice and far from an exceptional request.
Instead of responding with a degree of flexibility or basic empathy, the administration treated his request as a refusal to comply and moved straight into disciplinary mode. But there was nothing to investigate: no misconduct had actually taken place. He had submitted a legitimate request to defer relocation, based on personal and legal obligations. Rather than engage with the substance of that request, management bypassed internal oversight procedures entirely. The required preliminary review by the internal oversight division never took place. No effort was made to establish whether there was any factual basis for disciplinary action, because the facts were already known and undisputed. There was no misconduct, only a difference in approach: one side asking for time, the other insisting on immediate compliance. Yet this administrative disagreement was escalated into a charge of insubordination, without even the basic procedural safeguards that a disciplinary process requires.
The senior staff member was placed on special leave and given a clear ultimatum: withdraw his internal appeals or lose his job. When he refused to capitulate, the administration followed through and terminated his appointment for alleged insubordination. The ILOAT later reviewed the case and found the entire process fundamentally flawed. The administration had bypassed its own rules, ignored the requirement for an independent investigation, and failed to meet even the minimum procedural standards for disciplinary action. The dismissal was annulled. Beyond the procedural violations, the Tribunal went further and acknowledged what the staff member had been documenting for years: a pattern of decisions and actions that amounted to institutional harassment.
Which brings us back to the central question: what could have possibly propelled the Executive Director into this kind of aggressive, adversarial stance?
Why turn a routine deferral request into a disciplinary battle? Why not pause, reflect, and acknowledge that these were genuine personal circumstances requiring a proportionate, human response?
The staff member was not challenging authority; he was simply asking for time, yet the request was recast as defiance and rapidly escalated into a full-blown disciplinary conflict.
I find it hard to believe that people begin their careers this way.
Most do not.
It is often the system itself: the absence of consequences, the unchecked authority, the culture of protecting the institution at all costs that distorts behaviour over time. The UN’s structural tolerance for impunity rewards those who bulldoze their way through dissent, override discretion, and reframe perfectly reasonable staff concerns as insubordination. Some may well have climbed the ranks by doing just that. Others may have lost their bearings along the way. But the end result is the same.
Real leadership requires the ability to see others. Many lead, but very few actually see the people they lead.
They manage outputs, they push directives, they meet deadlines, but they stop engaging with the human beings carrying the weight of the organization.
That’s where leadership breaks down. Leadership doesn’t collapse because of flawed systems or poorly written policies pr performance metrics, rather it collapses when those in charge stop recognising the people in front of them.
Which brings us to the second scenario: when leaders fail to see the value of their staff simply because they occupy a lower grade. Locked into a rigid hierarchy and their own assumptions about who is worth listening to, they operate on the belief that no one at a junior level could possibly offer insights more relevant or more useful than their own. When that mindset takes hold, the outcome is rarely constructive.
Instead of engaging, these leaders take offence. They don’t take the time to assess what is being said or consider whether it has merit. Instead, they react defensively, as if their position has been challenged. The conversation ends there. What follows is not a reasoned assessment of competing views, but a retaliatory move against someone they consider to have overstepped. Once again, what we see is a pattern of egocentric leadership where self-perception overrides sound judgment. And once again, it fails.
ILOAT Judgments No. 5057 and No. 5058 (K. v. UNESCO) perfectly capture this leadership failure.
The case concerned a long-serving G-3 level security officer at UNESCO, employed since 2002. As part of his duties, he also served as a trainer for other security staff in the use of “intermediate defense equipment,” including batons, handcuffs, and pepper spray. These certifications were initially granted following a 2016 training by an external provider and were subject to renewal every year(or every three years in the case of trainers).
Between March 2018 and October 2019, the staff member sent several emails to his supervisors, flagging the failure to organize mandatory refresher trainings, which had resulted in the expiration of the required licenses for several security officers. This created operational uncertainty within the unit, with some staff discontinuing use of the equipment, and others continuing to carry it while unsure of their legal authority to do so.
Instead of addressing the issue substantively, the administration issued the staff member a downgraded performance review, accusing him of exhibiting inappropriate behaviour and poor communication. He then filed a complaint for retaliation, which UNESCO dismissed at the preliminary review stage. The Ethics Advisor concluded that his reporting of expired weapons certifications did not constitute a protected activity under the organization’s rules.
The ILOA Tribunal disagreed, and in strong terms. It found that the staff member’s reporting of safety and compliance concerns regarding defensive equipment did fall within the scope of protected activity, even if the underlying issue resulted from deliberate internal decisions or inaction. The Tribunal emphasized that:
“The fact that the alleged breach of rules was the result of a management decision does not, in itself, exclude the possibility that reporting such a breach constitutes protected activity.”
This directly contradicted the Ethics Advisor’s logic and revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes whistleblowing or protected disclosures. The Tribunal held that the decision to dismiss the retaliation complaint was unlawful, and that the complainant had suffered moral harm as a result of the premature closure of his case without proper investigation.
The Tribunal also noted that UNESCO did not contest the factual basis of the staff member’s claims: the licenses had indeed expired, and the required trainings had not taken place. Yet, rather than engage with the substance of the concern: operational safety, legal risk, and staff uncertainty, the organization focused its efforts on discrediting the messenger.
This second case illustrates the same failure from a different angle: one rooted in hierarchy and ego. Here, the staff member wasn’t in a senior role. He was G-3 level, a security officer. But he knew his work, and he raised legitimate, operational concerns about the expiry of weapons certifications and the risks of having security personnel uncertain about their authority to use defensive gear. He flagged it calmly, through internal channels, over a sustained period. And yet, rather than acknowledge the seriousness of the issue, even the Tribunal called it “worrisome”, his supervisor took offence.
Because the feedback came from someone at a lower grade, it was treated not as input but as interference. The issue was never evaluated on its own terms and instead was buried under performance reviews and process language. His communications were suddenly labeled inappropriate, his tone scrutinized, and the focus shifted from the substance of what he was saying to the discomfort it caused his supervisor.
This is the kind of reaction that plays out when leadership becomes entangled in its own rank, title, and entitlement. And once again, it fails. What followed was a series of retaliatory actions under the cover of formal processes. The failure here was the inability to recognize that valid concerns can come from any level, and that leadership requires the ability to engage with what is being said, regardless of who says it.
In both cases, the outcome was the same: escalation, legal defeat, and reputational damage. All of it avoidable.
What’s difficult to reconcile is the gap between the values the UN and the wider humanitarian sector claim to uphold, and the behaviours that are tolerated, and at times rewarded, at senior levels. This is a non-profit environment. By definition, our work is meant to be grounded in higher principles: dignity, justice, integrity, inclusion. Unlike the private sector, where abuse and retaliation are often concealed behind NDAs and threats of blacklisting, our legitimacy depends on the consistent application of the very values we put on our posters, in mission statements, and in every new cycle of leadership and behavioral competency frameworks. But these values cannot just exist on paper or in strategy rollouts. They have to be seen in how we treat people every day.
So if you’re in a leadership role, the one question worth asking is this: do you actually see the people around you? And if you do, in what light?
Leadership begins with the ability to see the people in front of you. If you can’t do that, then what exactly are you leading?
Three months ago, I wrote about an important UN Dispute Tribunal case: Hosali vs. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2024/017), which powerfully exposed the gap between the UN’s public commitments to gender parity and geographical diversity, and its actual recruitment practices. The case centered on Mita Hosali, an Indian national and longtime UN staff member with over 40 years of service, who was passed over for a D-2 Director role in favor of a British male external candidate with no prior UN experience.
Her profile checked every box the Organization claims to value: institutional knowledge, leadership experience, and the perspective of a woman from the Global South. Yet none of that mattered.
Despite overwhelming evidence of systemic bias: 100% of senior hires in the department were from the Western European and Others Group (WEOG), and 67% were male; the Administration sidestepped the gender parity provisions (ST/AI/2020/5) by exploiting technical loopholes. The Tribunal acknowledged many of these troubling patterns; yet still dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
Hosali appealed to UNAT.
The rate of winning at UNAT for selection and recruitment cases is extremely low, almost non-existent. That is because in recruitment, there is a presumption of regularity, and this presumption is satisfied if the Administration can minimally show that the staff member’s candidature was given full and fair consideration.
Two weeks ago, UNAT made an oral pronouncement on the outcome of the 2025 spring session.
Hosali won.
The judgment is not yet out, but what transpired from this summary outcome is shocking, to say the least.
First, the UNAT alluded to its serious concerns about the Administration’s attempt to manipulate the definition and scope of ST/AI/2020/5 (Temporary Special Measures for Gender Parity), the same ST/AI that the Administration proudly promulgated a few years ago to enforce the Secretary-General’s 2018 System-Wide Gender Parity Strategy under a set of temporary provisional measures that would, in principle, help achieve gender parity levels at P-5 and above.
An ST/AI that the legislators themselves violate when it suits them, distorting its interpretation, even though its scope is not subject to any interpretation and clearly states:
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.”
Reneging on their own rules, their own laws.
Aside from this intentional subversion of the legal framework enshrined in the ST/AI, UNAT found:
“The UNDT erred in not addressing Hosali’s concerns that the Administration failed to give appropriate regard to issues of gender and geographic representation. UNAT agrees. Based on the available record provided, the Administration erred in multiple respects resulting in unfair treatment of Ms. Hosali. Ms. Hosali’s internal UN experience seemed to disadvantage her, even though this was a desirable criterion in the vacancy announcement, and her rights to fullest regard under Staff Regulation 4.4.”
Further, the competency-based interview (CBI) panel appraised the selected candidate’s gender and nationality seemingly as a positive element, but the record reflects no similar consideration for Ms. Hosali.
The CBI panel also made problematic, negative, and subjective comments about Ms. Hosali during the interview process.
UNAT concluded that Hosali was not afforded full and fair consideration during the process. UNDT erred when it held that the Administration fulfilled its obligation of minimal consideration.”
The most damning summary finding from this oral outcome was that the CBI panel also made “problematic, negative, and subjective” comments about Ms. Hosali during the interview process.
Problematic, negative, and subjective all point to abuse and discrimination, noting that that Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications was heading that panel. To conclude with such a finding points to the likelihood that UNAT requested the “production of evidence’ notably the evaluation sheets of the CBI panel.
This also begs the question: why was Hosali even recommended if such negative comments were made about her?
But the answer is quite simple.
Hosali is from the Global South and has an impressive 40 years of experience in the UN, in the Department of Global Communications. The externally selected candidate not only was white but also had zero years of experience in the UN.
Recommending Hosali, in the USG’s distorted logic, was a strategy to diffuse prospective appeals from internal candidates. But the strategy failed and the nepotism and corruption of senior officials was exposed.
Now consider this: unlike termination cases, compensation for appeals against unlawful recruitment cases, if upheld, is almost always minimal. In the case of Hosali, UNAT applied the regular compensation for the difference between D-1 and D-2 levels. Given her experience, Hosali is at the top of the step range at D-1, so in essence, she currently earns more than if selected at D-2 Step 1.
With 40 years of experience and approaching retirement age, Hosali did not appeal for financial gain, but rather as a matter of principle.
A principle that we would like the Secretary-General to answer and to hold accountable his USG for Global Communications.
A few weeks before the UNAT issued its decision, the Secretary-General made a discerning statement on the eve of International Women’s Day, stressing that gender equality was not just about fairness:
“It is about power—who gets a seat at the table, and who is locked out,” Guterres said. “It is about dismantling systems that allow inequalities to fester.”
Curiously, the very individuals enabling these entrenched inequalities are your own Under-Secretaries-General; and yet, as Secretary-General, you have failed to hold any of them accountable.
You speak of dismantling systems.
Perhaps the place to begin is not with rhetorical declarations on commemorative days, but with the dismantling of your own gender parity and inclusion frameworks, which, when measured against the facts of this case, amount to little more than aspirational platitudes and institutional window dressing.
How is it possible that a USG can violate, with impunity, every operative clause of an Administrative Instruction (ST/AI/2020/5) designed to enforce gender parity, in order to favor an external, male candidate from an already overrepresented regional group?
What does a legal victory mean when the outcome delivers only nominal compensation to a woman who was demonstrably wronged after four decades of loyal service? Does the Administration believe it can pay a pittance and bury the matter in footnotes?
What is now undeniable is the extent to which the UN Secretariat is willing to openly and unapologetically breach its own legal instruments in full public view, without any consequence.
And what of the UN’s new Anti-Racism Office? What is its mandate, if not to prevent precisely this kind of institutionalized subversion of normative safeguards? Is it a protective mechanism or simply another symbolic entity, designed to reassure Member States while structural discrimination continues unchallenged?
You call for dismantling systems.
But perhaps it is time to dismantle the performative policies on gender parity, disability inclusion, and racial equity against which the Organization routinely solicits funding, while internally violating every substantive obligation they purport to uphold.
Watch this space.
The judgment, when issued will not only be consequential. It will be damning
This is also a call to UNAT: be bold. The credibility of the sysyetm of administration of justice rests on your willingness to name the actors, to quote directly from the record, and to deliver a ruling that does not dilute the findings, conceal the facts, or shield senior officials from accountability.
Anything less will be a disservice to justice and to the staff members who continue to place faith in the very system that failed Ms. Hosali.
“I am not feeling better, not at all. I have high blood pressure and panic attacks, one happened after I saw your message yesterday. I am not sure whether you are aware, but I have long-standing [depression], and recently my doctor doubled my medication because of the nervous breakdown. Nevertheless, even being on sick leave, I worked all the previous week, and today the whole working day…”
In a truly inclusive workplace, this email alone should have triggered a profound sense of duty of care from the staff member’s supervisor. It should have prompted the provision of every possible accommodation to support her recovery. Instead, what the UN did is unforgivable.
Case 1: Aggravating Depression to Disability
A former Human Resources Manager with UNICEF at the P-4 level in Nairobi, Kenya, experienced anxiety, panic attacks, and high blood pressure following a meeting with her supervisor. She was placed on certified sick leave. However, during her leave, her supervisor demanded she complete her performance evaluation report (PER) with a one-day deadline. Despite notifying her supervisor of her poor health, she returned to work, where another meeting caused a nervous breakdown. Her doctor concluded that work-related stress had severely exacerbated her condition.
Seeking justice, she filed a claim with the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) for compensation for service-incurred illness. Rather than acknowledging its duty of care, the UN, including the ABCC, actively opposed her claim, employing every tactic to undermine it.
Although the UN claims to set exemplary standards for employers, it ignored its own duty to protect its staff’s well-being. Despite being aware of her mental health condition, the organization delayed her ABCC claim under Appendix D for 22 months. This inaction further worsened her mental health.
In the judgment Gusarova v. Secretary-General UNDT/2023/046, the Tribunal highlighted this delay, stating:
“In sum, it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant’s pathology was related to the work environment… [T]he ABCC unduly delayed the consideration of the Applicant’s claim for compensation, notwithstanding that the delay could aggravate the moral harm suffered.”
The Tribunal further emphasized:
“Duty of care requires the employer to intervene promptly also to assess if a claim may be accepted or not within Appendix D, notably when this delay may impact on the health of the staff member, aggravating their psychological harm.”
Gusarova’ s struggle to receive acknowledgment of her condition and fair treatment underscores the UN’s disregard for mental health as a legitimate aspect of workplace inclusion.
Inclusion or Illusion? Unpacking the UN’s Diversity Dilemma
The United Nations champions the ideals of diversity and inclusion, presenting itself as a bastion of equity and empathy. Yet, beneath this polished narrative lies a troubling hypocrisy: the failure to embrace and support neurodivergent staff members who face unique challenges due to their mental health or neurological conditions.
When people think of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the conversation often defaults to visible identifiers like race, religion, or gender. While these are critical, an equally important yet often overlooked component of DEI is discrimination based on neurodivergence, mental health, and personality traits.
These hidden forms of exclusion carry profound human costs. This systemic failure is not abstract; it has real human costs. In addition to the Gusarova case, two more stories illustrate the UN’s failure to uphold its own ideals of inclusion
Case 2: Surviving Brain Tumors, Facing Hostility
A former UNHCR G5 national staff underwent two brain surgeries to remove a life-threatening tumor. After returning to work, he exhibited emotional and behavioral changes, including mood swings—understandable given his ordeal. Instead of supporting him, the organization investigated him, worsening his mental health status, and ultimately terminated him. In what inclusive organization, let alone one like the UN, is this allowed?
The case revolved around whether the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) at UNHCR had a duty to investigate the medical context of his behavior. In Judgment UNDT/2022/132 Applicant v. SG of the UN, the Tribunal documented his struggles:
“[The Applicant] was diagnosed with a serious brain tumor in March 2018 and underwent two brain surgeries on 12 March 2018 and 9 April 2018. He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and adjustment disorder, with symptoms including mood swings, irritation, and problematic control of anger. In particular, according to the psychiatric note, the Applicant was referred for further treatment in the summer of 2018 due to “mood swings, irritation and problematic control of anger.
The psychiatric note on record suggests that the Applicant’s medical condition could have caused problems in social or work settings including aggression and loss of social inhibition “before and during the operation” due to the physical and psychological trauma he went through and that “[t]he operation itself might also have some psychological consequences”.
Despite clear evidence that his medical condition caused behavioral challenges, the UN sanctioned him for those very symptoms, including his post-brain surgery PTSD. In his appeal, the staff member questioned the UN’s treatment of him in a poignant statement:
“[I]t really saddens me at this point and shows how some colleagues may also fail to act inclusive towards a colleague who had suffered a deadly brain disease and survived. This seems to form a big basis of hypocrisy for some colleagues to me. While they claim to work for people of concern, they tend to forget to include the ones at home for whatever motives they might have. … What would a person do when they start work only 8 months after they were operated in their brain two times? Of course, this person would have ventilations, mood swings, frustrations of a kind, etc. Yet, these were not targeting to anyone specifically….”
I’ve been recovering from a brain surgery that I had two times in 2018. And what I’m doing is trying to recover, focus on myself. And I do not think that I have been using curse words … Because I was going through a recovery process, and that’s why I am not recalling if I have used any cursing words, or I increased my voice at all … In fact, I was the silent – I mean, what I wanted to say, that I was very silent, I was very introverted, I was putting my music headset, and I’m sitting in front of my desk and trying to do my work. That’s why I don’t think that I’ve used any cursing words or increased my voice. “
The Tribunal condemned the UN’s failure, stating:
“the failure to consider the Applicant’s mental health issues throughout the investigation and disciplinary proceedings seems to reveal a dereliction of the duty of care towards the Applicant as a staff member of the Organization, because his mental health condition was not properly considered before deciding on the termination of his service as the sanction to be applied to him.”
Recalling Judgment Ouriques 2017-UNAT-745 and Judge Halfeld’s Dissenting Opinion, para. 6) the Judge reminded everyone that
“the Organization has a duty of care towards its staff members. This duty of care required the Administration … to inquire further into the staff member’s mental health once it was on notice of its possible relevance prior to concluding the disciplinary investigation and to making a final determination vis-a-vis the staff members’ disciplinary sanction. It is not good practice to separate a staff member suffering from a mental health condition without first fully discharging its duty of care”
Although he won the appeal, the staff member was never reinstated.
Case 3: Quiet Quashed: How the UN Weaponized Introversion Against a High Performer
An introverted but high-performing staff member at UNHQ faced relentless harassment because her supervisor deemed her reserved nature a flaw. Despite consistent excellence in her performance evaluations, her supervisor pressured her to change her personality, ultimately including disparaging comments about her “introverted character” in her appraisal.
This psychological attack escalated into post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and she is now pursuing disability benefits due to permanent mental health impairment.
Since when, we ask, are supervisors allowed to weaponize introversion or neurodivergent traits to downgrade performance evaluations? Is this what inclusion and diversity in the UN are truly about?
Redefining Inclusion: Why Neurodivergence Deserves a Seat at the Table
These cases reveal an organizational culture where diversity is celebrated only when convenient. The UN’s Strategy on Mental Health promises a supportive environment for staff, yet it remains an empty gesture for many. How can an organization profess to support mental health when staff who exhibit neurodivergent traits or struggle with mental health challenges are sidelined, harassed, or punished?
Neurodivergence encompasses a broad spectrum of neurological differences, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders. These are not “deficiencies” or “flaws” but rather variations in how individuals perceive, process, and interact with the world. Neurodivergent individuals bring unique perspectives, innovative problem-solving abilities, and critical skills that can enhance any workplace. Respecting neurodivergence means fostering an environment where differences are not just tolerated but celebrated as essential to collective success.
Supervisors and colleagues alike must begin to understand that staff members have the right to say, “I’m not feeling well,” or, “I don’t feel comfortable answering this question,” without fear of judgment or retaliation. Staff should feel safe expressing vulnerability, recognizing that needing support is not a failure—it’s an essential aspect of being human. Anxiety attacks, for example, are not signs of weak leadership; they are signals that an individual is overwhelmed and needs assistance.
The UN and its leadership, including the Secretary-General, have repeatedly pledged to provide this support. It is time to honor those commitments in practice, not just in policy. Supervisors must be trained to respond to such moments with empathy and understanding, creating a workplace culture where staff feel empowered to seek help without the stigma of being perceived as inadequate.
If the UN truly seeks to embody its principles of inclusion and equity, it must do better. It must move beyond empty rhetoric and create tangible, lasting change in how it addresses neurodivergence and mental health challenges in the workplace.
Your Story Matters: Let’s Redefine Inclusion Together
These stories matter because they reflect a deeper systemic issue. If you’ve experienced or witnessed similar treatment, your voice is vital. Let’s demand a workplace that respects and supports all forms of diversity—including the invisible
These stories matter because they reveal a deeper systemic issue that affects not just individuals but the very integrity of the workplace. If you have experienced or witnessed similar treatment, your voice is vital. By sharing your story, you can help shed light on the hidden challenges faced by so many and push for meaningful change.
Let’s come together to demand a workplace that truly respects and supports all forms of diversity—including the invisible. Together, we can advocate for a more inclusive and compassionate environment that honors the UN’s commitment to equity and humanity.
