Photocopier Duty and Development Aspirations
As some of you may know, I started my HR career as a General Services (GS) Staff Member. Although when I applied at the OPCW I was innerly convinced this was the place for me - and I was fortunate to get a short-term assignment - I initially never had the intention of staying there for a long time - music was my thing. This first assignment was being some sort of an extension of the photocopier… I spend a lot of time next to my new best friend…
But, as I was already really into organisational development through previous work as a corporate training facilitator, and got to know people at the OPCW who believed in some of the things I had to offer, I rapidly moved on to more interesting work.
I really never bothered so much about the grade level I was at; for me, it was more important to take on challenging and interesting stuff to do. This, apart from increasing fun at work, did help me to grow and learn loads of new skills and acquire more relevant knowledge.
This approach to work allowed me for instance, whilst being a GS-5 staff member, to be in an acting P-3 role for almost a year.
Valuable to me was the new work content that came with the acting role, not the status or so that came with the grades as perceived by some.
Now, part of the fact that I was able to do all this was with thanks to my senior colleagues, who gave staff members room to do things outside of the scope of their actual JD, and in fact, encouraged us to do so.
The GS - P Divide
Now, I have heard quite different stories from others as well, where there seems to be much more of a divide between GS and Professional (P) staff, and much less opportunity to just demonstrate what you have to offer, and contribute to the extent you would like to.
I find it a good time to summarise some of the challenges that come with being a GS Staff Member, and I am guessing that the below will sound familiar to some of you…
Maybe because I have been in this position myself, and find this whole ‘GS - P divide’ somewhat outdated and not fit for purpose anymore, I have a certain, let’s say’ motivation to address this.
Whilst the focus here is on the United Nations (UN) System, and those organisations related to it, similar situations do seem to apply to NGOs when looking at local versus international staff.
Recognising GS Staff Contributions
Generally speaking, international organisations rely on the continuous work of GS staff to facilitate the smooth functioning of the daily operations and support the core mission of an organisation. GS staff play a crucial role in maintaining essential services and creating a conducive work environment. And… they have institutional knowledge, which is especially valuable when it comes to tacit knowledge.
Within the UN system, a hierarchical structure exists where P and above-level posts often receive more recognition, and by the structure of the pay scale a higher pay compared to GS roles. This disparity can be disheartening for staff members who aspire to progress in their careers. Whilst I do agree that with certain roles and responsibilities, there are different levels of payment involved - although you could also argue differently - it can be the lack of equal recognition for the contributions of GS staff that may lead to frustration and hinder their motivation to pursue growth within the organisation.
The Path to P-Level Roles for GS Staff
The path to P-level posts typically demands specific educational qualifications and years of relevant experience. Unfortunately, some GS staff may lack access to higher education or have limited opportunities for professional development within their current roles. Meeting these rigid requirements can be a significant challenge, impeding their ability to advance in their careers. I think here there is an opportunity to look more at merit and the ability one has to perform in a role; the behaviours that are associated with the role, and the cognitive abilities required. I liked the way we approached this at the OPCW, where you could basically have a high school diploma and still be selected for a P-level role. It indeed required more years of relevant experience compared to those with a first-level or advanced degree, and one needed to have relevant diplomas that could substantiate one's knowledge, but it opened the pathway for some to make the step from GS to P. It depends on your recruitment and selection process to find out if someone can potentially be a good fit, ‘even’ when they are current GS staff.
That being said, most GS staff have a first-level or advanced degree anyway, so then it becomes more a matter of letting them compete with those already at the P level, and being mindful of potential prejudice one might have against those in GS roles. Also, a preference for external candidates can discourage existing staff from applying for professional roles and hinder their chances of upward mobility, further perpetuating the lack of diversity within the organisation.
Addressing Bias: Paving the Way for GS Staff Advancement
Regrettably, biases and prejudices do sometimes influence decisions regarding promotions within the UN system and family. These biases may unfairly impact the chances of qualified and motivated GS staff from advancing in their careers. Addressing and mitigating such biases is essential for fostering an inclusive work environment that values the contributions of all staff members.
As organisations often lack transparent and accessible career progression pathways for GS staff; this ambiguity can create uncertainty among staff members regarding their prospects for advancement and professional growth. A clear roadmap to higher positions is crucial to motivating and retaining talented individuals within the organisation.
Access to training programs that could enhance skills and qualifications for professional-level posts may be limited for GS staff. The lack of adequate training opportunities hampers their ability to compete on an equal footing with other candidates applying for higher positions. Equal access to training and development is crucial for creating a diverse and skilled workforce within the international family.
Transformation: Modernising the GS-P System?
The ‘United Nations system’ heavily relies on the dedication and commitment of its GS staff, who play an indispensable role in supporting its mission. However, the challenges faced by these staff members when seeking to progress to professional-level posts must not be overlooked. To ensure a more equitable and inclusive workforce, international organisations should actively address these challenges by providing clearer pathways for career advancement, promoting accessible training opportunities, and fostering an environment that recognises and values the contributions of all staff members, regardless of their current roles. By doing so, organisations can cultivate a diverse and dynamic workforce that is inclusive and demonstrates a certain tangible recognition for the work being done by GS staff.
Part of the whole story is of course that this GS-P system is completely outdated, one would hope it would be transformed into a more befitting system for this day and age.
Don’t get me wrong here: it makes total sense that there are different roles and levels of expertise needed; and for some roles, a relevant degree is of the essence. But if we remove the fictitious barrier, it becomes more of a gliding scale where one can be promoted when it makes sense. From my (admittedly HQ) experience, most of the GS staff meet the educational requirements to be P staff, so that hurdle is quite often already taken - should one be adamant to only admit those with higher education to P-level roles. There is also something to be said about over-fixation on educational levels, but that is for another time perhaps.
In summary, I invite all to be open and less rigid in their view on GS staff when applying for P-level roles, and to see how you can break down existing policy barriers that may be in place. It can, in my humble view, easily be substituted for a recruitment and selection process that evaluates crucial elements such as behaviour, cognitive ability, contentiousness, relevant experience and education in the broader sense.
Different people have different views of course, and we need to come to some sort of mutual understanding, but I am hoping there will be the will and action to reform!