As the World Health Organization (WHO) grapples with an estimated $600 million funding gap for 2025, it is planning to slash its biennial 2026-27 budget by 21% from $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion, according to an email Friday from Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, obtained by Health Policy Watch.

But despite the DG’s promises that the WHO “Staff Association will play an active role”, critical decisions about workforce reductions, budget allocations, and organizational restructuring are being made behind closed doors so far.

The Staff Association, representing WHO’s 9,473 staff members worldwide including 2,666 in headquarters, has had no real access to the data underpinning critical choices that must be made over how and where to cut the budget. 

“This is not just about numbers – it’s about trust,” said one senior staff member. “We were promised transformation with people at the center. What we’re seeing now feels like a rollback of everything we fought for.”

In his recent message to staff, Tedros promised that the restructuring, however tough, will also be conducted “with fairness, transparency, and humanity.”

 “Despite our best efforts, we are now at the point where we have no choice but to reduce the scale of our work and workforce,” he said. “This reduction will begin at headquarters, starting with senior leadership, but will affect all levels and regions.”

Key information about costs, organigram remain unpublished  

According to an internal briefing presented to member states last week, and seen by Health Policy Watch, WHO is weighing a series of measures to cope with the financial shock that include:

• A 20% average budget cut across all base programmes
• The elimination of over 40% of current outputs – eg. products that are typically part of the World Health Assembly 
• A 25% reduction in staff positions
• The merging of entire divisions, departments, and units
• Relocation of functions away from Geneva to regional and country offices.

These are hard, necessary decisions. But without access to information about current costs and staff positions, it ia almost impossible for either member states or staff members to play an active role in reviewing priorities or plans. The most glaring omissions include items such as:  

• A current organigram of staff and management distribution: the most recent one is from 2019 when WHO’s initial “transformation” process, intended to make the organization more efficient and fit-for-purpose, was launched by Tedros shortly after he first assumed office.  Despite multiple ad hoc changes since, the only organisational mapping current to 2025 is of divisions and their department heads at headquarters. 
• Costs of staff positions by grade and region: real costs vary wildly from published salaries due to multiple layers of post adjustments, entitlements and agency contributions to pension and insurance funds.
• Costs of consultancies along with more granular data about the number of full-time-equivalent consultants per region.

Also critical to consider are the savings that could be gained from other big-ticket items such as moving key tasks and staff to regional or country offices, 

But along with the resistance to “mobility plans” by staff at headquarters, there is also fierce debate within the organization about what tasks could be most effectively relocated, and what core functions (eg WHO standards and guidelines development) would best be retained at headquarters. Irrespective of which way the debate ends, keeping key HQ normative functions can still be retained if relevant staff are moved to less expensive duty stations, 

Certain technical support functions, such as IT support, could feasibly also be moved to much cheaper European locations, such as Lyon and Istanbul. More digitized administrative processes could also save administrative costs and staff. 

Directors without portfolios?

In an exclusive, Health Policy Watch documented the top-heavy structure of WHO’s senior leadership that has evolved, unbeknownst to most since 2017. Over the past eight years, the number of senior directors (D2) has nearly doubled, and the total cost of directors at both D1 and D2 grades, plus WHO’s senior leadership (ADGs and Regional Directors) are now costing the organization close to $100 million annually.

In terms of a top-heavy senior management, WHO insiders also point to the uneven distribution of tasks between different directors and the large teams associated with every Assistant Director General as potential areas for efficiencies.

While some directors manage large departments of dozens of people, others manage teams that include only a handful of staff or may not actively manage teams or departments at all, insiders report.  

“When we began looking at the directors in our region, we found that two D2s had been appointed for six-month contracts without any clarity about their roles,” said one senior scientist working in a regional office. 

Another issue emerging is the entourage of staff around each of the 10 Assistant Director Generals serving on Tedros’ leadership team in headquarters, not to mention the Deputy Director General and the office of the Director General. 

It is estimated that each ADG is managing a team of 6-7 people – which together with the ADG’s own post. But even an ADG plus a team of just 4-5 people, will  cost the organization an estimated $1.5 million, as a conservative figure, considering an average cost of $250,ooo per position for a team including senior advisors and professionals along with administrative staff.  Again, since no organigram or published costs of staff posts exists, only estimates can be made.   

The March Health Policy Watch investigation also revealed that consultants now make up over half of WHO’s workforce – 7,579 posts in comparison to the 9,473 staff. That is a precarious and costly staffing model in light of the administrative management requirements of consultancy contracts.  

Can’t continue to operate like a think tank

“WHO cannot continue to operate as if it were a luxury think tank,” one anonymous official told Health Policy Watch. “We need boots on the ground not bloated bureaucracy in headquarters.”

The situation has led many to ask: If WHO is indeed undergoing a prioritization process, why are all divisions still fighting to preserve their full portfolios? Why have no clear de-prioritizations been communicated? 

In a climate where transparency is a necessity, the apparent sidelining of frontline voices adds to a growing anxiety about how this restructuring will unfold.

A WHO Global Town Hall is scheduled for Tuesday, April 1, where senior leadership is expected to provide further clarity to staff. But for now, trust is fraying and WHO stands at a crossroads: either double down on the values of its 2019 transformation—or risk losing the confidence of the very people it relies on to carry out its mission.

Image Credits: US Mission in Geneva / Eric Bridiers via Flickr, WHO HR and EB records, 2023-2024.