Copyright © 2022 by International Monetary Fund
Prepared by the IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

The strength of the Fund comes from its talented and diverse employees. Together, we represent a worldof cultures, backgrounds, and skills that can only be fully engaged if we continuously recognize andvalue our differences and live our core Fund values of excellence, honesty, impartiality, inclusion, integrity,
and respect. With inclusion as one of those core values, our legitimacy and credibility stem from ourability to be truly inclusive so that our employees can perform at their best to serve our membership.
The IMF continues to make strides in gender representation. For the first timein its history, three of the Fund’s five top leaders are women and since October
2019, half of the newly appointed Heads of Departments and Oﬃces are women.
Our eﬀorts to have a more balanced regional representation continued, notwithstanding the pandemic. We leveraged digital platforms to increase our recruitment
missions three-fold, with much of this increase focused on our three under-represented regions. While we were able to meet our objectives for two of these,
Sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia, we continue to face challenges in achieving therepresentation we aspire to for staﬀ from the Middle East and North Africa.
Since 2019, we have implemented a more robust accountability mechanism toensure that managers contribute more proactively to achieving our diversity
objectives and creating a more inclusive work environment through their recruitment, staﬀ development, performance assessment, and promotion decisions.

While we maintain our focus on gender and regional representation, we are
expanding the scope of our inclusion eﬀorts. For instance, we have focusedmany of our initiatives towards promoting racial equity and justice and gaining abetter understanding of the full diversity of our staﬀ. We have also relaunched aworking group on disabilities and created an Employee Resource Group, THRIVE,
to ensure that employees with a disability and those caring for dependents withdisabilities have a voice in shaping our future work environment.
Each one of us is responsible for contributing to diversity and inclusion. The eﬀort
of nurturing a culture of inclusion is challenging, but possible through continuously adjusting behaviors and creating an environment where we all feel a senseof belonging. We must all work together to continue to build on the progressalready made and to achieve the diverse and inclusive Fund that we all desire.

KRISTALINA GEORGIEVAManaging Director

2020–2021 ReportiContents

Foreword by the Managing Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3• Staff Composition• Progress Towards FY 2025 Diversity Benchmarks
Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9• Trends• Mid-Career Fungible Economists• Economist Program• Future Hiring Space• Facing Remaining Recruitment Challenges
Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
• Trends for Economists• Trends for Specialized Career Stream Staff• Areas of Focus to Address Promotion Challenges
Separations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
• Trends
Beyond the Data — Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
• Racial Equity• Sponsorship Program• Disabilities• Diversity and Inclusion Training• Use of Preferred Pronouns
Holding Managers Accountable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
• Signaling from the Highest Level• Setting the FY 2025 Benchmarks• Departmental Diversity and Inclusion Action Plans• Accountability Framework• Diversity and Inclusion Survey
Conclusion and Roadmap for Next 2 Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Boxes
1. Racial Equity Initiatives and Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2. IMF Staff Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figures
1. Gender Distribution by Regional Grouping, Career Stream, and Employment Type, FY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Staff and Contractuals Distribution by Gender and Career Stream, FY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Regional Share of Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Comparison of the Share of Grades A9–B5 Staff by Region, Career Stream, and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. A9–B5 Staff PhDs Diversity Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Educational Diversity of EP Cohorts for PhD by Region, CY 2017–CY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Overall Fund Recruitment Distribution by Grade and Appointment Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Share of A9–A15 Staff Recruitment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Women as a Share of Total Hires, FY 2017–FY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. A9–B5 External Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. External Recruitment of A14/15 DDC and B-Level Staff by Gender and Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. A11–A15 Fungible Mid-Career Economists Hiring by Gender and Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. Recruitment: EP Cohort Appointments Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14. Average Rate of Promotion from A14 to A15 for Economists, FY 2017–FY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15. Average Rate of Promotion from A15 to B1 for Economists, FY 2017–FY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16. Average Rate of Promotion from A14 & A15-B1 for SCS FY 2017–FY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
17. Average Rate of Promotions from A1 to A8 to A9 and above by Gender, FY 2017–FY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
18. Types of Separation for Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
19. Average Resignation Rate by Gender and Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Tables
1. Comprehensive Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Benchmarks Status as of April 30, 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. A1-A8 to A9 and above Rate of Promotion, FY 2017-FY 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Two-Year Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Annexes
1. Pay Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2. Diversity Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3. Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

AF
ADP
APR
ASEAN+3
ATI
CEF
CCBR
COM
CSA
CSF
CWS
D&I
DDC
D, E, & I
DMD
DRG
East Asia
ECB
ED
EDGE
EP
EPIC
ERG
EUO
EUR
FCS
FIP
FTE
GLOBE
HoD
HRD
HSEC
I&D
IADB
ICD
IEO
IGs
IMF
INV
JVI

Accountability Framework
Asia Pacific Department
Annual Performance Review
Association of East Asian Nations plus 3 (China, Japan, and Korea)
Africa Training InstituteMiddle East Center for Economics and FinanceComprehensive Compensation and Benefits Review
Communications Department
Chinese Staﬀ Association
Corporate Services and Facilities Department
Compressed Work Schedule
Diversity & Inclusion
Deputy Division Chiefs
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Deputy Managing Director
Diversity Resource Groupsee ASEAN+3
European Central Bank
Executive Director
Economic Dividends for Gender Equality
Economist Program
Equitable, Principled, Inclusive, and Clear
Employee Resource GroupRegional Oﬃce in Europe
European Department
Fragile and Conflict-Aﬀected States
Fund Internship Program
Full-time Employee
Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual Employees
Head of Department
Human Resources Department
Health, Safety, Environmental Committee
Inclusion and Diversity
Inter-American Development Bank
Institute for Capacity Development
Independent Evaluations Oﬃce
Institutional Goals
International Monetary Fund
Investment Oﬃce
Joint Vienna Institute

iv

KMU
LEG
LGBTQ+
LIC
MCM
MD
MDC
MDT
MENA+

Knowledge Management Unit
Legal Department
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Others
Low-Income Countries
Monetary and Capital Markets Department
Managing Director
Management Development CenterMediation Oﬃce
Middle East & North Africa plus Afghanistan, Djibouti, Pakistan,
Somalia, and Sudan
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OED
Oﬃces of the Executive Directors
OIC
Oﬃce of Innovation & Change
OII
Oﬃce of Internal Investigations
OMD
Oﬃce of the Managing Director
ORM
Oﬃce of Risk Management
Other Regions
All regions excepting URRs
P
Contractual Employees in the Professional Grade Levels
PGA
Pay Gap Analysis
RAP
Research Assistant Program
RC
Review Committee
RES
Research Department
S
Contractual Employees in the Support Grade Levels
SAC
Staﬀ Association Committee
SAP
Special Appointee Program
SCS
Specialized Career Stream
SSA
Sub-Saharan Africa
SSG
Special Support GroupSTI
Singapore Training InstituteTransition Countries Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary,
Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,
Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania,
Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan
UN
United Nations
URR
Underrepresented region (East Asia; Middle East and North
Africa+ (MENA+); and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
WB
World BankThis report provides a high-level update on the status of diversity and inclusion (D&I) in the IMF for
fiscal years (FYs) 2020 and 2021. The data on staff composition and the status against benchmarks are
as of the end of FY 2021, whereas for recruitment, promotions, and separations, the data cover a fiveyear period from FY 2017 through FY 2021. The initial sections of the report focus on diversity within
the IMF, in recruitment, promotions, and separations; the second half presents measures put in place
to foster greater inclusion and hold managers more accountable and provides a two-year roadmap
to address continuing challenges. A summary of the results of the annual pay gap analysis (PGA),
conducted in FY 2021, which for the first time included a race component, is available in Annex 1.
Staﬀ Composition: The composition of IMF employees by gender, career stream,
region, and education has not significantly changed since the 2019 D&I Report,
although the IMF has seen an increase in the share of contractual employees in
the last two years.
Status against the FY 2025 Benchmarks: The share of staﬀ members at the individual contributor level (A9–A14/A15) has exceeded the benchmarks for nationals
from East Asia (15.2 percent vs. 15 percent target) and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)(9.2 percent vs. 8 percent target), but the IMF continues to struggle to meet thebenchmark for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA+) region (5.7 percent vs 8
percent target). At the managerial level, the new benchmark framework increased
the targets for representation of both women and those from underrepresented
regions (URRs). As such, at the end of FY 2021, attainment of managerial benchmarks is considerably lagging across the board, although sustained progress has
been seen in the share of women in these roles, and there is suﬃcient time tomeet the targets.
Recruitment: The IMF leveraged the COVID-19 pandemic travel restrictions bypivoting to virtual sourcing and talent attraction, increasing the number of recruitment missions by 300 percent. Hiring trends show an improvement in the share of
MENA+ nationals recruited, particularly in FY 2021, but progress remains slow.
Promotions: The report covers promotions from professional to managerial roles
and from administrative to professional levels. The trend of higher rates of promotion for women continues; however, there are considerable diﬀerences in therates of promotion between women from URRs and women from Other Regions(all regions combined, except for URRs).

2020–2021 Report

Separations: The current separation rate is about 5 percent, with most separations due to retirements. The number of voluntary resignations has steadilydecreased since 2017. Over the last five years, nationals of the MENA+ region had
a higher rate of voluntary resignations than those from the other two URRs as well
as a slightly higher rate than the IMF average of 1.5 percent.
Inclusion: Several important initiatives were launched in the last two years tofoster a more inclusive work environment in which the IMF’s diverse staﬀ canthrive. Racial equity and justice are now squarely on the IMF’s agenda, and URR
nationals are participating in a pilot Sponsorship Program. The IMF has started tolook at its policies and practices as they relate to people who identify as having adisability, and the mandatory D&I training has been updated.
Holding Managers Accountable: As indicated in the 2019 Report, managerial
accountability for achieving D&I results needs to be strengthened. To this end,
the IMF implemented departmental action plans in FY 2021 and is updating the
Accountability Framework to reflect the FY 2025 benchmarks and key indicators
included in the departmental action plans. A D&I Survey was launched in March
2021 to gauge staﬀ perceptions around, among others, belonging, inclusion,
discrimination, and harassment.
Two-Year Framework: Over the next two years, the focus will be on leveraging
the approved headcount increase and higher number of retirements to improvethe diversity of the IMF’s staﬀ. In addition, the Fund will systematically monitor
rates of promotion, implement actions to ensure equitable opportunities forcareer development, and continue to improve its accountability mechanisms.

1

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

2

Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) continue to be business priorities for the IMF, with the full support of
the IMF’s Management. D&I efforts are based on the need to ensure a level playing field and equitable
treatment for all staff in terms of recruitment, career development, and growth opportunities.
Since the last D&I Report in 2019, the Managing Director has reasserted the
IMF’s commitment to D&I by issuing an updated Diversity & Inclusion statement,1
endorsing the FY 2025 Benchmarks framework and targets, and approving theinclusion of an expanded nondiscrimination clause in the high-level principles
governing the employment policies and practices in the IMF’s Staﬀ Handbook.
The last IMF D&I Report proposed a significant number of actions to achieve
progress against objectives. The 2019 D&I Report proposed a total of 46 actions,covering a range of initiatives related to recruitment, career management, andaccountability. In addition, the 2025 D&I Benchmarks Working Group proposed
35 initiatives to increase the likelihood of achieving the FY 2025 Benchmarks. As
the actions and initiatives were designed to span a period of one to five years,
there was no assumption that all would be started or implemented by the dateof this report, and many are meant to be ongoing.
As a preamble to this 2020–21 D&I Report, it is worth taking stock of the progress
made in the implementation of the actions to date. Table 1 provides a numericalsummary of the proposed initiatives and the progress toward their implementation. Of the 81 actions, 9 (11 percent) have been completed, and 34 (42 percent)are underway. The IMF will progressively implement most of the remainder overthe next three years and will consider three of the recommendations on a longerterm horizon.
This 2020–21 D&I Report presents an overview of the IMF’s accomplishments aswell as its remaining challenges.

1 Diversity & Inclusion statement - https://www.imf.org/external/hrd/diversity.htm

Table 1. Comprehensive Policy Recommendations
2025
Benchmarks
2019 D&I
Working
Total
ReportGroup
Proposals

Completed/In
Progress

Plannedfor FY2023 - FY
2025

Long-Term

2

Recruitment

18

9

27

15

10

Retention andPromotion

10

16

26

12

14

Providing Incentives
to Managers - andHolding them
Accountable

2

7

9

5

3

Developing Inclusion
Benchmarks

14

3

17

9

8

EDGE
Re-certification

2

2

2

TOTALS

46

81

43

35

35

1

3

To take the first step in identifying gaps, an organization must determine where
it stands in the diversity of its population. As an international organization, theIMF has a duty to reflect its membership in the composition of its staﬀ.2 Looking
at the overall population, women account for 47 percent of total employees (thesame as in the previous report) but only 31 percent of economists (a 0.8 percent
increase since end FY 2019). Nationals from underrepresented regions (URRs) 3
represent 27 percent of staﬀ. Interestingly, women are more represented among
URR nationals than in Other Regions.4

Setting targets (referred to as “benchmarks” at the IMF) is a way of providing an
impetus to increase diversity over time. The IMF first established benchmarks in2003 and has revised them several times as targets were met, and further progress was deemed necessary. In early FY 2021, a new benchmark framework set
the IMF on a path to achieve greater progress by the end of FY 2025. Additional
details on the new framework and targets can be found in the “Holding Managers
Accountable” section. This section provides a high-level view of the IMF’s population by gender, URR, career stream,5 and educational diversity, as well as detailed
progress to date against the new FY 2025 Benchmarks.

2 Article XII reads in part: In appointing the staﬀ the Managing Director shall, subject to the paramountimportance of securing the highest standards of eﬃciency and technical competence, pay due regard to theimportance of recruiting personnel on as wide a geographical basis as possible.”
3 There are three under-represented regions East Asia, Middle East and North Africa+ (MENA+), and sub-SaharanAfrica (SSA). Annex 2 provides a list of individual countries represented in each region.
4 “Other Regions” refers to all regions excluding URRs: that is, Asia (excl. East Asia), Europe (excl. Transition
Countries), Other Western Hemisphere, Transition Countries, and the United States & Canada. A full list of countries under each regional group can be found in Annex 3, Table 9.

Staff Composition
Staﬀ composition is the starting point for identifying gaps and opportunities for
improvement. This section provides a high-level summary of the diversity of IMF
employees, both staﬀ and contractual,6 who represent 151 member countries atthe end of FY 2021.
Figure 1 shows an overview of the gender distribution of employees by regionalgrouping, career stream, and employment type. The overall balance between
women and men remains stable. Interestingly, women make up more than halfof URR employees, compared to 45 percent in Other Regions. While the IMF
would like to see a higher representation of women in the Economist stream,
the figures are in line with the industry (see The Economist)7. The share of men
in the contractual employment category has risen by 2.7 percentage points to44.8 percent in the last two years, which reflects increased hiring of contractual
employees at professional levels.

5 There are two main career streams in the IMF: Economists and the Specialized Career Stream.

Figure 1. Gender Distribution by Regional Grouping,
Career Stream, and Employment Type, FY 2021
(Percent share of total staﬀ and contractuals as of end FY 2021)
Women

53.0%

48.0%

54.9%

47.0%

52.0%

45.1%

Overall

URR
Regions

Other
Regions

Men

37.6%
69.1%
62.4%
30.9%
Economist

Specialized

54.9%

44.8%

45.1%

55.2%

Staﬀ

Contractual

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED), and Independent Evaluations
Oﬃce (IEO).

6 Contractual employees with contracts of one year or more.
7 The Economist - https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/women-and-economics

2020–2021 Report3

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

The overall distribution of staﬀ and contractual employees by gender and career
stream can be found in Figure 2. The share of staﬀ versus contractual employees has
dropped slightly from 82.2 percent at the end of FY 2019 to 80.8 percent at the end of
FY 2021, driven by an increase in the share of contractual employees in the Economist
career stream. The higher share of female contractual employees in the Specialized
Career Stream reflects the concentration of assistant and administrative roles inthis stream.

4

Figure 2. Staff and Contractuals Distribution
by Gender and Career Stream, FY 2021
(Percent share of total staﬀ and contractuals as of end FY 2021)

Economist—Women

Economist—Men

Specialized—Women

16.6%

Specialized—Men

30.8%

27.7%

50.0%

38.4%

14.0%

17.4%
Staﬀ (80.8%)

vs

5.2%

Contractual (19.2%)

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED), and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce (IEO).

Figure 3 provides a more granular breakdown of the share of staﬀ by region andgrade group and the share of staﬀ by region and gender, respectively. URR nationals
represent 27 percent of the total staﬀ population—a 1 percentage point increase since
the end of FY 2019, fueled primarily by higher shares of staﬀ from sub-Saharan Africa
and East Asia. In managerial roles, however, URR nationals comprise only 17.6 percent
versus a cumulative benchmark of 28 percent.

Looking at gender by region, some notable diﬀerences emerge (Figure 3, panel 2).
European women account for only one in three (33.5 percent) of their nationals, thelowest ratio amongst all the regional groupings. Women from sub-Saharan Africa,
MENA+, Asia (excluding East Asia), and Other Western Hemisphere all represent morethan 40 percent of their nationals, whereas one in two staﬀ members from East Asia,
Transition Countries, and the United States & Canada are women.

Europe (excluding Transition Countries8) has the highest overall representation (Figure
3, panel 1). European nationals represent 24.5 percent of the staﬀ population, of which
19.2 percent (almost one in five) are B-level managers—accounting for 37.6 percent of
all B-level managers. Similarly, while representing 7.5 percent of total staﬀ, 20 percent(one in five) of Asian (excluding East Asia) nationals are B-level managers. For otherregions, however, the picture is quite diﬀerent: the ratio of B-level managers to staﬀ
ranges from one in eight (United States & Canada and MENA+) to one in fifteen and
one in twenty-two, respectively, for sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia.

When looking at the distribution by region, career stream, and gender (Figure 4,
panel 1), there are some shifts compared to those reported in the 2019 Report (Figure
4, panel 2). In the Economist stream, the shares of nationals from the United States &Canada, Transition Countries, and Europe have decreased, while the shares of staﬀ
from the three URRs have increased. These shifts in representation can largely be
attributed to increased eﬀorts to source candidates from URRs, especially through the
midcareer economist process. For the Specialized Career Streams, the data reveal anincrease in nationals from the United States & Canada and a coincidental decrease in
the share of staﬀ from Europe (excluding Transition Countries).

8 Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia,
Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia,
Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Figure 3. Regional Share of Staff

Figure 4. Comparison of the Share of Grades A9–B5 Staff byRegion, Career Stream, and Gender(In percent)Regional Share of Staﬀ by Grade Group
A1–A8

A9–A15(Percent share of total career stream and gender at the end of FY 2021)

B levels(End of FY 2021)
Economist—Women

4.7%
2.7%

0.6%
18.7%

1.0%

10.3%
6.6%
1.5%

2.1%

0.8%
4.0%
0.4%

URR
URR
URR
AfricaEast Asia Middle East &(Sub-Saharan) (ASEAN+) North Africa+(MENA+)

7.1%

4.8%
1.2%

1.1%

2.0%

Other
Other
Regions
Regions
Europe (excl.
Other
Transition
WesternCountries) Hemisphere

0.8%

Other
Regions
Transition
Countries

5.5%
Other
Regions
U.S. &
Canada

11.4% 11.8%

Other Regions Transition Countries

14.9%

Other Regions Other Western Hemisphere

5.9%

3.6%

4.7%

URR East Asia (ASEAN+)

18.3%

10.8%

14.9%

9.8%

(End of FY 2019)

10.0%

Economist—Men

6.8%

3.8%
URR
Africa(Sub-Saharan)

2.1%
URR
URR
East Asia Middle East &(ASEAN+) North Africa+(MENA+)

4.2%
3.3%
Other
Regions
Asia (excl.
East Asia)

8.2%

5.1%

Other
Other
Regions
Regions
Europe (excl.
Other
Transition
WesternCountries) Hemisphere

3.8%

12.5% 12.7%

Other Regions Transition Countries

16.6%

Other Regions Europe(excl. Transition Countries)
10.6%

4.7%
Other
Regions
Transition
Countries

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce.

2020–2021 Report

Other Regions Asia (excl. East Asia)
URR Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+)

Other
Regions
U.S. &
CanadaSpecialized—Women

Other Regions U.S. & Canada

Other Regions Other Western Hemisphere

3.0%

8.1%

10.1%

9.3%

5.5%

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS.

16.4%

7.3%

10.5%

7.4%

6.5%

19.0%

12.0%

6.3%

Economist—Women

4.9%

10.3%

13.0%
34.5%

27.9%

4.7%

7.8%

7.9%

URR Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+)

Men

5.8%

32.9%

13.2%

6.9%

Specialized—Men

31.2%

8.8%

Other Regions Asia (excl. East Asia)

URR Africa (Sub-Saharan)

Regional Share of Staﬀ by Gender
Women

Specialized—Women

Other Regions U.S. & Canada

Other Regions Europe(excl. Transition Countries)

9.0%

1.5%

Other
Regions
Asia (excl.
East Asia)

12.5%
0.6%

0.6%

Economist—Men

URR East Asia (ASEAN+)
URR Africa (Sub-Saharan)

8.2%

3.8%

7.6%

7.9%

7.9%

14.7%

13.4%

15.4%

35.0%

5.5%

17.4%

10.3%
8.7%

20.9%

12.2%

7.4%

6.4%

6.0%

5.2%

31.8%

27.0%

28.4%
5.8%

Specialized—Men

4.2%
15.4%
8.3%

6.1%
9.2%
8.1%

Sources: Emp_Info As of April 30, 2019.
Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce.

5

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

6

Figure 5. A9–B5 Staff PhDs Diversity Region(In number as of end FY 2021)

Other Countries Universities

URR Country Universities

United States Universities

United Kingdom Universities

UnitedStates

1
1
1

64

7

Canada0
1

Transition
Countries

1

6
5

1

26
18

37

4

Other
Middle East
Western& NorthHemisphere
Africa+(MENA+)

11

0

6

79

7
3
2

5

26

6

Europe(excl.
Transition
Countries)

0

3

44

East Asia(ASEAN+)

1

120

81

13

1

89

9

Asia
(excl.
East Asia)

00

Europe Universities(excl. Transition Countries
and United Kingdom)

3
40

4

Africa(Sub-Saharan)

654Source: PeopleSoft HRMS.

15
13

The IMF has worked to diversify the sources from which it recruits. Throughout
the COVID-19 lockdown, the IMF has relied exclusively on virtual outreach andinterviews, resulting in a 300 percent increase in recruitment missions. The
Economist Program has seen a significant increase in the number of virtual
outreach sessions, especially to universities within URR regions. In addition, amore proactive approach was deployed to source candidates from URRs for the
mid-career process. As shown in Figure 5, some slight progress has been made—at the end of FY 2021, 3 percent of staﬀ with PhDs obtained their degrees from
URR universities—up from 2 percent at the end of FY 2019 and 8 percent fromuniversities in Other Regions—up from 7 percent. At the same time, 10 percent
of staﬀ from Other Western Hemisphere and SSA have PhDs from universitiesin URR or Other countries. Outreach and sourcing activities often bear fruit only
after several years. The IMF anticipates continued progress in the years ahead
but will seek to maintain the momentum and continue proactive outreach toand sourcing from universities and talent pools in lesser-represented regions
and countries.

Despite some progress to increase educational diversity, challenges remain.
The Economist Program (EP), which is the primary intake for PhD graduates, hasseen limited progress on the educational diversity of its cohorts over time. The
previous trend of the vast majority of EP hires coming from US and UK universities
continues, with the share increasing from 62.5 percent in 2017 to 69 percent in
2021. On the other hand, EP recruits with degrees from universities in Other
Regions has increased by 2 percentage points (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Educational Diversity of EP Cohorts
for PhD by Region, CY 2017–CY 2021
(In percent)
Other
64%

2018

2021

10%

17%
0

8%

2020

3%

23%

2019

7%

4%

12%

25%

38%
8%

8%

4%

25%

42%

63%

2017

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS.
Data exclude the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors and Independent Evaluation Oﬃce.
Economicst Program (EP) cohorts are selected on a yearly cycle, with each cohort starting in September.

The status at the end of FY 2021 against the FY 2025 benchmarks reveals progressin five of the eight indicators, including on A9–A14/A15 staﬀ from URRs. Despite thisprogress, more eﬀorts are needed, specifically for women and MENA+ nationals
at the individual contributor level and URR staﬀ at the managerial level (Table 2).
There was a slight decrease in the percentage share of representation for two of
the targets, although absolute numbers have increased, and there was no change
for one of the benchmarks (see arrows in the last column). A five-year trend forthe benchmarks and other regional groupings can be found in Annex 3, Table 1.
A more precise capture of the IMF’s broader diversity emerges when incorporating staﬀ with self-declared secondary nationalities. Including staﬀ who haveself-declared a secondary nationality from one of the URRs reveals a significant
jump in representation. More specifically, at the individual contributor level, for
the MENA+ region the diﬀerence is +1.7 percentage points (an additional 31 staﬀ
members) and for sub-Saharan Africa an increase of 0.8 percentage points (14staﬀ members), with a similar impact for managerial roles.

69%

Europe (excl. Transition Countries and UK)

URR Countries Universities

69%

US and UK Universities

Progress Toward FY 2025
Diversity Benchmarks

The picture for the share of women at diﬀerent levels of the organization is mixed.
Since the new benchmarks were introduced in July 2020, the overall number ofwomen in the individual contributor grades (A9–A14/15) has increased slightly, but
the percentage share has marginally decreased. The share of women in managerial roles (A14/A15–B5) increased 1.6 percentage points to 34.5 percent in thelast fiscal year, with an even stronger performance at the most senior levels (B4and B5). These gains reflect the continued eﬀorts by management to rebalance
gender in managerial roles.
Finally, the IMF continues to encourage the Executive Board to lead by example.
The IMF recognizes the commitment to promote gender diversity and the eﬀorts
being undertaken by the Executive Board’s Working Group on Gender Diversity toraise awareness of the benefits and importance of gender diversity. Since the 2019
D&I Report and at the time of writing, the number of female Executive Directors has
increased from three at the end of FY 2019 to four; however, women still represent
only 17 percent of Executive Directors. When Alternate Executive Directors areadded, the share of women is 15 percent (8 of 52) with one Executive
Director vacancy.9

9 Lundberg, Shelly, and Jena Sterns. 2019. “Women in Economics: Stalled Progress.” Journal of Economic
Perspectives 33 (1): 3–22 - https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.33.1.3.

2020–2021 Report

7

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

8

Table 2. Benchmarks Status as of April 30, 2021

Percent of benchmark achieved is denoted by color scheme based on the threshold shown below.
100% Benchmark

80–99% Benchmark

Below 80% Benchmark

Secondary
Nationality
No.

Primary +Secondary
Nationality
Percent (No.)

Compared to
07/31/2020
Percent (No.)only
Primary%#

Primary
Nationality
Percent (No.)

East Asia (ASEAN+)

15

268

15.2 (272)3

15.4 (275)

0.4 (16)

Middle East and North Africa+ (MENA+)

8143

5.7 (102)31

7.4 (133)

0.2 (9)Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

8143

9.2 (165)14

10 (179)

0.4 (13)0.2 (-1)

STOCK BENCHMARKDiversity Region — URR
A9-A14/A15 (Individual Contributors and Senior Oﬃcers)

A14/A15–B5 (Managerial roles DDC level and above)
East Asia (ASEAN+)

1275

6.1 (38)2

6.4 ( 40)

Middle East and North Africa+ (MENA+)

850

5.3 (33)

6

6.2 (39)

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

850

6.2 (39)4

6.9 (43)

0.6 (4)

A9–A14/A15 (Individual Contributors and Senior Oﬃcers)

45

805

n.a

n.a

40.2 (719)

0.6 (14) *A14/A15–B5 (Managerial roles DDC level and above)

40

250

n.a

n.a

34.5 (216)

1.6 (11)

A1–B5 (including contractuals with contract >1 year)

30

1049

28.1 (984)8930.7 (1073)

0.1 (25)

B4 & B530

27

14.3 (13)1

15.4 (14)2.6 (3)A1–B5 (including contractuals with contract >1 year)

50

1749

n.a

n.a

47 (1645)

0.3 (27) *B4 & B5

50

46

n.a

n.a

33 (30)4.9 (5)

Women A9–A14/A15 (Individual Contributors and Senior Oﬃcers)

50

82

n.a

n.a

37 (61)n.a

MENA+ A9–A14/A15 (Individual Contributors and Senior Oﬃcers)

10

16

n.a

n.a

7.3 (12)

n.a

Gender – Women

INSTITUTIONAL GOALSAt the individual
contributor level, the shareof nationals for all three
underrepresented regions
has increased, with therepresentation of East Asiaand sub-Saharan Africa
remaining above the target.
For managerial roles, theshare of nationals from
sub-Saharan Africa has
grown slightly, and good
progress in the share ofwomen continues.

Diversity Region — URR

Gender – WomenRECRUITMENT TARGETS

The share of women atindividual contributor
level, however, hasdecreased slightly.
The share of URR nationals
in managerial roles has
increased slightly but is well
below the target.

Source: PeopleSoft. Excludes the Board and the Independent Oﬃces.
NB: Benchmarks include only staﬀ; Institutional Goals include staﬀ and contractual employees with contracts longer than 1 year.
*The total population increased over last year, and while the actual number of women increased, the percentage became smaller.

A full picture of the diversity of the IMF’s population is critical. It is equally criticalto understand the three factors that contribute to the makeup of the population:
inflow (recruitment), career progression (promotion), and outflow (separation).

These are addressed in the next three sections, with specific challenges highlighted to draw attention to where the focus should be placed in the coming
three to four years to achieve the FY 2025 benchmarks.

The IMF uses recruitment as its main tool to increase staff diversity. While adhering to the aim of
recruiting the highest-qualified candidates, it is strategically important to consider diversity interms of gender, regional representation, as well as educational and professional background.
To meet the challenge of managing the IMF’s three core business areas(surveillance, lending, capacity development) and also respond to emerging
priorities (climate change, digital money, macro-financial surveillance, fragile
and conflict-aﬀected states, inclusive growth, and gender), area of specialization
will become an important component in diversifying the educational and skills
backgrounds of staﬀ. This section sets out high-level key data related to trends inexternal recruitment.
The IMF has encountered uneven success in its diversity recruitment, similar totrends in achieving diversity benchmarks. At the individual contributor level, theIMF has recruited suﬃcient nationals from East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa tomeet objectives; however, considerable struggles remain in recruiting from the
MENA+ region and women into professional roles. Similarly, the low share ofwomen and URR nationals hired into managerial roles is insuﬃcient to contributeto the achievement of the FY 2025 Benchmarks.
In FY 2021, 46 percent of external hires were staﬀ, and 54 percent were contractual employees. As in previous years, the vast majority (67 percent) of all hires
were into the A9–A15 or equivalent Professional (P) category for contractual
employees. In the Support category (S for contractuals and A1–A8 for staﬀ ),a much higher ratio of contractual employees is being hired (1 in 2 vs. 1 in 8
staﬀ ). This reflects the high number of Research Assistants hired as contractual
employees. Managerial roles accounted for 4 percent of all external recruitments(Figure 7).

2020–2021 Report

Figure 7. Overall Fund Recruitment Distribution
by Grade and Appointment Type(In percent of total recruitment as of end FY 2021)

A1–A8

A9–A15

A14/A15 DDC and B levels

Contractual P

Contractual S

4%

30%
37%

54%

24%

5%

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED).

9

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

10

TrendsFigure 8. Share of A9–A15 Staff Recruitment(In percent)The 2025 Diversity Benchmarks Working Group recommended reducing thenumber of recruitment targets. For the period leading up to the end of FY
2025, the 2025 Diversity Benchmarks Working Group proposed having only
two external recruitment targets—one for women (50 percent) and the other fornationals from MENA+ (10 percent), both for roles in grades A9–A15 (individual
contributors), so as to focus the IMF’s recruitment eﬀorts on the main challenges.

37.6%

37.1%

37.0%
27.0%

9.6%

4.6%
2017

5.2%

2018

2019

10.0%

7.3%

4.6%
2020

2021

2025 Target

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS.

Figure 9. Women as a Share of Total Hires, FY 2017–FY 2021
(In percent)

2018

39%

38%

37%

64%

67%

80%

Contractual P

29%

39%
30%

27%
2019

44%

73%

65%

73%
40%

38%

58%

72%
43%
23%
2017

Contractual S

2020

2021

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED) and Independent Evaluations
Oﬃce (IEO).

41%

A14/A15 DDC and B levels

82%

A9–A15

77%

A1–A8

74%

Over the last five years, women accounted for approximately 77 percent of hires
in staﬀ grades A1–A8 and approximately 65 percent of contractual Support (S).
These are slight increases compared to the five-year averages reported in 2019
and were driven, in the case of staﬀ positions, by spikes in FY 2020 and FY 2021.
The IMF is slightly more successful in recruiting women as contractual employees
than as staﬀ into the P/A9–A15 levels (38 percent vs. 36 percent average over
five years, respectively). Greater variations are seen in external recruitments into
managerial roles due to the low number of hires each year. Figure 9 depicts
the five-year trend in recruitment of women into the diﬀerent grade groups.

50.0%
43.8%

37%

Since the last report, the IMF has made some progress in increasing the shareof MENA+ nationals recruited, but it remains below target and continues to lag
behind in the share of women hired, which averaged 36.5 percent over the five
years to the end of FY 2021 (Figure 8). If these trends continue, the cumulative
impact may result in longer-term consequences on diversity in leadership roles.
Together with diversifying recruits into managerial roles, increasing the share ofwomen and MENA+ nationals into the individual contributor category should begiven priority in the coming years.

Professional hires from MENA+

Female Professional HiresFigure 10. A9-B5 External Recruitment
By Gender and Region

By Gender and Career Streams(Percent of total hires)(Percent of total hires)

Other Regions—Women

Other Regions—Men

Economist—Women

Specialized—Men

46%
16%

19%

18%

18%

21%

17%

20%

19%

22%

22%

39%

44%

42%

21%

17%

11%

11%

15%

20%

21%

26%

36%

7%

11%

11%

17%

21%

24%

23%

27%

32%

39%

43%

45%
28%
19%
8%

Specialized—Women

Economist—Men
52%

URR—Men52%

URR—Women

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2017

2018

Other Regions—Women

Other Regions—Men

URR—Women

URR—Men

Other Regions—Women

Other Regions—Men

27

52
27

47
36

46

16
17

33
23

28

18
19

22

23

7

10

2017

2018

18

21

9

21

19

23

25

11

8

3

18

33
19

2021

(Number)(Number)
URR—Men

2020

SCS by Gender and Region

Economists by Gender and Region
URR—Women

2019

8

6

8

10

6

5

3
3

7

2019

2020

2021

2017

2018

2019

2020

10
2021

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce.
SCS = Specialized Career Stream.

2020–2021 Report

11

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

12

Recruitments by career stream (Figure 10, panel 2), show a wide gender gap for
Economists and gender balance for the Specialized Career Stream. On averageover the last five years, economists represented almost 65 percent of hires into
the A9–B5 levels, with female economists averaging a third of economist hires.
The share of male economists hired from URRs has been increasing steadily andreached 28 percent in FY 2021, 4 percentage points higher than the five-year
average (Figure 10, panel 3). On the other hand, the share of female economists
recruited from URRs has remained constant. Among new hires, 36 percent were
hired into Specialized Career (SCS) roles. Of these, slightly more than half were
women, with an increase in the number of women from URRs hired in the last two
years (Figure 10, panel 4).
The hiring of staﬀ from URRs into managerial roles, particularly women, remains
a considerable challenge. Over the last five years, 59 percent of managers hired
externally were men, of which one in five were from URRs. Of the 24 women
hired, three (12.5 percent) were from URRs—only 5 percent of external managerial
recruitments (Figure 11).

Mid-Career Fungible Economists
Mid-career recruitment, which accounts for more than half of the IMF’s hires of“fungible” macroeconomists,10 has become an important avenue for bringing
in diverse economists. Starting in 2018, the mid-career recruitment process hasgone through a fundamental change. It has focused more on sourcing candidates
from URRs, is run at set times during the year and is governed by the Economist
Committee—the same committee that oversees the Economist Program.
Recruitment of mid-career fungible economists from URRs has improved. Since
the changes were implemented, except for FY 2019, the share of candidates
hired from URRs has risen considerably, reaching over 50 percent in three of thefive reference years. Men from URRs, however, have far outpaced women from
URRs. More generally, the share of women in the mid-career pipeline remains well
below the 50 percent overall recruitment target (Figure 12).

10 “Fungible economists” bring a variety of previous work experiences, often in areas of emerging focus for the
IMF (climate change, for example). Mid-career hires undergo a competitive hiring process that includes a written
assessment, preliminary interview, a mid-career panel interview, and Economist Committee clearance. They arethen placed into a pipeline from which departments can select them.

Figure 11. External Recruitment of A14/15 DDC
and B-Level Staff by Gender and Region(Number)

URR—Women

URR—Men

Other Regions—Women

Figure 12. A11–A15 Fungible Mid-Career
Economists Hiring by Gender and Region

Other Regions—Men(Number)

URR—Men

Other Regions—Women

Other Regions—Men
18

URR—Women

5

6

7
6

7
2021

4
2017

2018

1

2020

8

2019

4

2018

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce.
DDC = Deputy Division Chief.

0

2017

2

4

1

6

1

1
1
1

2

3

1
1

7

9

4

7

8

13

4

3
2

13

2
9

14

15

9

2019

2020

2021

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED) and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce (IEO).

Economist Program
Like the mid-career process, recruitment into the Economist Program is centralized and continues to deliver better diversity results than individual hiring. In thefive cohorts from 2017 to 2021, the share of women recruited via the Economist
Program has generally been more than 40 percent (Figure 13, panel 1), higher
than the share of women graduating with PhDs in economics (between 30 and
35 percent). At slightly more than 36 percent, the share of URR nationals hired

through this program has exceeded the 30 percent representation target set
out in the Institutional Goals. Of the three underrepresented regions, nationals
from East Asia were hired in higher numbers (Figure 13, panel 2). Continuing toincrease the share of women and URR nationals recruited through this program
will contribute to the pipeline of candidates for managerial roles in the long term.

Figure 13. Recruitment: EP Cohort Appointments Breakdown(In numbers)

Cohort Breakdown by Gender
Women
24

14

Men

26

15

Total Appointments
28

16

10

11

12

2017

2018

2019

Cohort Breakdown by Region
Other Regions
URR Middle East and North Africa + (MENA+)

29

26
17
17

9
2020

12

2021

3
2
4

2
4
4

3

URR East Asia (ASEAN+)
URR Africa (Sub-Saharan)

4

2
2

3

6

15

16

18

16

2017

2018

2019

2020

2
3
4

20

2021

Source: Talent and Acquisition Division, HRD. EP Cohorts are selected on a yearly cycle with each cohort starting in September.

Future Hiring SpaceThe vast majority of IMF hires over the next three years will likely be at the A9–B5
levels. Workforce planning will inform the exact mix of external and internal hires
as well as the employment type (Economist Program vs. mid-career) and contract
type (staﬀ vs. contractual). Internal mobility will also create opportunities for staﬀ
to benefit from career development and progression.

Facing Remaining
Recruitment Challenges
As mentioned above, the IMF has made progress, but some challenges remain.
Considering the elements and challenges presented in this Recruitment section,
the following areas need to be prioritized to achieve the FY 2025 Benchmarks:
1. increase the share of women into individual contributor roles
2. increase the share of MENA+ nationals into individual contributor roles
3. increase the share of women recruited into managerial roles
4. increase the share of URR nationals in managerial roles

2020–2021 Report

13

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

14

Whereas overall diversity is increased through external recruitment, diversity in seniortechnical and managerial roles is primarily affected by promotions. As noted, few managers
at the IMF are hired externally. The policy of sourcing managers internally allows the IMF togrow its existing talent and provide career advancement opportunities. This section presents
recent trends in promotion rates in both the Economist and Specialized Career Streams.

Trends for Economists
The average rate of promotion from A14 to A15 over the last five financial years(FY 2017 to FY 2021) is 4.1 percent. When comparing rates of promotion among
diﬀerent regions (Figure 14, panel 1), nationals from sub-Saharan Africa havebeen promoted at a rate higher than the IMF average, which is a positive change

compared to the five years leading up to the end of FY 2019. For staﬀ from Asia
(excluding East Asia), the rate of promotions is more than double the average,
and staﬀ from many other regions are being promoted at rates similar to or above
the IMF average, with the notable exception of Other Western Hemisphere.

Figure 14. Average Rate of Promotion from A14 to A15 for Economists, FY 2017–FY 2021
(In percent)

Average Rate of Promotions from A14 to A15
for Economists by Region

Average Rate of Promotions from A14–A15 forEconomists by Gender and Region

IMF Average = 4.1%

9.9%

4.8%

Africa(Sub-Saharan)

3.5%
Asia (excl.
East Asia)

6.0%

IMF Average = 4.1%

East Asia(ASEAN+)

5.3%

4.5%
3.4%

Europe (excl. Middle East &Transition
North Africa+
Countries)(MENA+)

2.8%
Other
Western
Hemisphere

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors.

4.3%

3.9%

4.1%

Transition
Countries

United States& Canada

A14 to A15
Average

3.7%

3.2%

URR

WOMEN

Other Regions

URR

MEN

Other Regions

Figure 15. Average Rate of Promotion from A15 to B1 for Economists FY 2017–FY 2021
(In percent)

Average Rate of Promotion from A15 to B1
for Economists by Region

Average Rate of Promotions A15 to B1
for Economists by Gender and Region
IMF Average = 7.0%

10.0%
6.2%

Asia (excl.
East Asia)

2.9%

East Asia(ASEAN+)In the five years leading up to the end of FY 2021, women have seen a higher
average rate of promotion from A14 to A15 than men. For women from URRs,
the average rate of promotion from A14 to A15 has increased by 1.2 percentage
points to 4.5 percent (compared to the last reporting period FY 2015 to FY 2019)(Figure 14, panel 2). Women from Other Regions continue to be promoted at a
rate above the IMF average. Even with higher rates for women, men from Other
Regions are being promoted at a similar rate to the IMF average, though men
from URRs were promoted at a rate slightly below the IMF average in the last
5 years.
When looking at promotions from A15 to B1, the average rate for two regions
is significantly above the IMF average of 7 percent. Staﬀ from MENA+ and Asia
(excluding East Asia), with average rates of 13.9 and 10 percent, respectively,
have been promoted at much higher rates than that of other groups (Figure 15,
panel 1). The rates of promotion for other groups have remained similar to theprevious reporting period, with some small variances. More importantly, while the2020–2021 Report

6.3%

7.3%
3.5%

U.S. &
Other
Europe (excl. Middle East &Transition
CanadaWestern
Transition North Africa+
Countries(MENA+)
HemisphereCountries)
Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED) and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce (IEO).
Africa(Sub-Saharan)

7.9%

5.7%

8.1%
4.5%

8.8%

IMF Average = 7.0%

13.9%

URR

WOMEN

Other Regions

URR

MEN

Other Regions

overall promotion rates are generally low (and diﬀerences are correspondingly“small”), it is important to understand the magnitude of these “small” diﬀerences.
For instance, among Other Western Hemisphere, one in thirty staﬀ is promoted
while the overall IMF average is one in fourteen. For comparison, among MENA+
nationals, one in seven staﬀ is promoted.
The average rate of promotion for women from URRs into B-level positions ismuch higher than during the previous reporting period but remains below the
IMF average. In the period FY 2017 to FY 2021, the average promotion rate
for women from URRs to B-level positions was 5.7 percent - an increase from 2
percent during FY 2015 to FY 2019 (Figure 15, panel 2). The five-year average rateof promotion for men from Other Regions has increased to 6.3 percent from 5.1
percent. Similar to promotions from A14 to A15, the higher-than-average rate ofpromotions from A15 to B1 for women is driven by the promotion of women from
Other Regions.

15

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

16

Figure 16. Average Rate of Promotion from A14 and A15-B1 for SCS FY 2017–FY 2021
(In percent)

Average Rate of Promotion from A14 and A15
to B-Level for SCS by Region

Average Rate of Promotion from A14 and A15
to B-Level for SCS by Gender and Region
IMF Average = 5.2%

13.3%

5.5%

6.6%

6.6%

0
Africa(Sub-Saharan)

IMF Average = 5.2%

4.3%

4.9%

5.2%

Transition
Countries

United States& Canada

A14 to A15
Average

6.0%
4.6%

4.8%

Other Regions

URR

5.4%

1.5%
Asia (excl.
East Asia)

East Asia(ASEAN+)

Europe (excl. Middle East &Transition
North Africa+
Countries)(MENA+)

Other
Western
Hemisphere

URR

WOMEN

MEN

Other Regions

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED) and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce (IEO).
SCS = Specialized Career Stream.

Trends for Specialized Career Stream Staff
The IMF five-year average rate of promotion for SCS staﬀ from A14 and A15 toB-level is 5.2 percent, compared to 3.8 percent in the previous reporting period.
Half the regions, including Europe (excluding Transition Countries), MENA+, andEast Asia, show average rates of promotion higher than the overall IMF average(Figure 16, panel 1). Similar to economists, staﬀ from MENA+ have benefited morefrom promotions than other regional groups, with the average rate jumping from
6.5 percent for FY 2015 to FY 2019 to 13.3 percent for FY 2017 to FY 2021. The
average rate of promotion for staﬀ from Other Western Hemisphere remains below
the average. Importantly, since FY 2015 (the start of the previous reporting period),
the IMF has seen no promotions of nationals from sub-Saharan Africa for SCS staﬀ.

Women from URRs have been promoted at a rate 1 percentage point higher thanthe IMF average. The average rate for men from Other Regions (3) is also above
the average (Figure 16, panel 2); whereas those for women from Other Regions
and men from URRs are slightly below the average.
The 2019 D&I Report provided data on promotion rates from the A1–A8 gradegroup to A9 and above. Despite the low number and rate of such promotions,continued reporting on this group of staﬀ is important. Table 3 provides an overview for the period FY 2017 to FY 2021. On an average annual population of 428,
an average of 10 promotions occurred each year, though none took place in FY
2020 and only one in FY 2021, bringing the average down for the entire period.
When comparing the average rates of promotion by gender and region (Figure17), men from URRs have been promoted at a higher rate than the average. Allother groups are in line with the IMF average.

Table 3. A1–A8 to A9 and above Rate of Promotion,
FY 2017–FY 2021

A1-A8 Stock(Number)

A1-A8 to A9
and above
Promotions(Number)Rate ofPromotion(Percent)

2017

437

19

4.3

2018

430

14

3.3

2019

434

14

3.2

2020

428

0

0.0

2021

412

1

0.2

AVERAGE

428

10

2.2

Figure 17. Average Rate of Promotions from A1–A8
to A9 and above by Gender, FY 2017–FY 2021
(In percent)

IMF Average = 2.8%

FY

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED) and Independent Evaluations
Oﬃce (IEO).

3.6%
3.0%

URR

2.7%

WOMEN

Other Regions

2.6%

URR

MEN

Other Regions

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED) and Independent Evaluations
Oﬃce (IEO).

Areas of Focus to Address Promotion Challenges
Ensuring a robust diverse pipeline for leadership roles and upholding a policyof growing talent will require some targeted measures in the coming years. The
primary areas of focus should be on providing equitable opportunities for staﬀ
development and strengthening the pipeline of eligible staﬀ for them to be in aposition to:
1. Increase the rate of promotion into managerial roles for women economists
from URRs.
2. Increase the rate of promotion from A14 to A15 for economists from
sub-Saharan Africa, MENA+, East Asia, and the Transition Countries.
3. Increase the rates of promotion into managerial roles for staﬀ from sub-SaharanAfrica and Other Western Hemisphere in the Specialized Career Streams.

2020–2021 Report17

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

18

Along with external recruitment and promotions, separations are the third factor impacting diversity.
This section analyzes the five-year trends in overall resignations, retirements, and other separations.
Separations from the IMF remain generally low, although the Fund is starting tosee an uptick in the number of retirements as foreseen in the 2019 D&I Report.
The share of retirements is highest for A9-A15 staﬀ, in line with their overall
population. The average rate of resignations over the last five years is 1.5 percent.
Women from Other Regions and men from URRs are resigning at slightly higher
rates than the IMF average.

Figure 18. Types of Separation for Staff(In numbers)

Types of Separation for Staﬀ

87

TrendsResignation

Retirement

Other

82

83

85

54

In the five years leading up to the end of FY 2021, the total number of separations has averaged roughly 5 percent of staﬀ. Separations ranged from a low of
132 in FY 2018 to a high of 162 in FY 2017, with FY 2021 also seeing an increase
to 160 (Figure 18, panel 1). In each year, the highest share of separations wasdue to retirements (on average 60 percent), followed by voluntary resignations(on average 27 percent), and finally other separations (on average 13 percent).
In FY 2021, retirements accounted for more than two-thirds (67.5 percent)of separations.

42

39

14

18

20

32
20

2018

2019

2020

2021

36
21

2017

108

Types of Separation for Staﬀ by Grade
Resignation

Retirement

Other

16

15

13
10

10
48

52

67

51

44
2

4
15

4
37

16

24
1

A1–A8 A9–A15 B1–B5

2017

1

3
9

2
26

8

22
2

A1–A8 A9–A15 B1–B5

2018

9

1
33

8

22
1

A1–A8 A9–A15 B1–B5

2019

2

2

8
14

27
25

8

21
6

A1–A8 A9–A15 B1–B5

2020

22
6

19
5

A1–A8 A9–A15 B1–B5

2021

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS.
Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce. Retirement is defined as normal
retirement, early retirement, and mandatory retirement. Other is defined as death, disability retirement, separation,and end of appointment.
Resignation is defined as voluntary resignation.

The highest number of separations has occurred at grades A9–15 (reflecting theirhigher share of staﬀ ). Among this group, there was an average of 56 percent
retirements, 30 percent voluntary resignations, and 14 percent other separations(Figure 18, panel 2). In FY 2021, the share of retirements in this grade group roseto 64 percent. Similar patterns are also observed for the other two smaller gradegroups, B1–B5 and A1–A8.

When looking at voluntary resignations, the average rate for FY 2017 to FY 2021
is 1.5 percent. Men from URRs and women from Other Regions continue toresign at a slightly higher rate than the average. Women from URRs resign at aconsiderably lower rate (Figure 19, panel 1). These data are similar to the previous
reporting period, with no qualitative change in the reported pattern.

Figure 19. Average Resignation Rate by Gender and Region(Percent)

Average Resignation Rate by Gender

Average Resignation Rate by Region
IMF Average= 1.5%
IMF Average = 1.5%

1.6%

2.1%

1.7%

1.5%

0.9%

URR

WOMEN

Other Regions

URR

MEN

Other Regions

1.0%

1.1%

Africa(Sub-Saharan)

Asia (excl.
East Asia)

1.4%

East Asia(ASEAN+)

1.4%

1.6%

1.7%

Other
Europe (excl. Middle East &Western
Transition North Africa+(MENA+)
HemisphereCountries)

1.1%

Transition
Countries

U.S. &
CanadaSource: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce.
.

2020–2021 Report

19

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

20

The 2019 D&I Report emphasized that achieving numerical diversity targets is important andstressed that the IMF must also focus on creating a more inclusive work environment.
One of the IMF’s core values is inclusion, and its workforce diversity can only beleveraged to better serve the membership and produce creative and innovative
solutions if employees feel they are respected, that their opinions are valued,
and that they operate in a safe environment.11 The IMF also needs to ensurethat everyone is given equitable opportunities to speak, shine, and engage inmeaningful ways, and that by doing so their contributions are acknowledged andrewarded fairly. This section provides a summary of the IMF’s organization-wide
eﬀorts to foster a more inclusive environment.

11 See broader evidence in McKinsey & Company (2018) - https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity on the business case fordiversity and inclusion.

Racial Equity
Racial equity and justice are now squarely on the IMF’s D&I agenda. The
numerous well-publicized killings of black people by law enforcement oﬃcersin the United States, the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in many countries
following the events in May 2020, and the increasing hostility toward Asians
during the COVID-19 pandemic spurred the IMF’s Management and staﬀ into
action to better understand race in the workplace and reiterate the commitment
to the safety and equitable treatment of all staﬀ regardless of their race or identity.

Box 1. Racial Equity Initiatives and Actions
Management reemphasized its zero tolerance for discrimination, bullying,and harassment. The IMF’s Managing Director (MD) and Deputy Managing
Directors (DMDs) reached out to black employees and those from URRs tolisten to the challenges they face at the IMF and committed to taking action
to ensure any potential inequities are being addressed. The commitments
included initiatives to be implemented in the short term: information andawareness campaigns, leveraging the Diversity Reference Group (DRG)
community, and increased transparency on the allocation of annual performance review (APR) ratings and promotions, as well as more medium-term
objectives such as exploring how to gather reliable quantitative and qualitative data, a review of the mandate and process of the Review Committee,
giving the Inclusion and Diversity Council (I&D Council) a more robust
mandate, and actions arising from a D&I Survey.

Black employees mobilized to create learning opportunities and propose
concrete initiatives. A new Employee Resource Group (ERG), the Networkof Black Staﬀ, was created and met regularly with Management and the D&I
Oﬃce. ERG members’ practical proposals as to measures the IMF could taketo address internal racial equity and justice have resulted in the hiring of a
Senior Race Expert and the creation of a Racial Equity and Justice Advisory
Group. The Advisory Group, comprised of members from within and outside
the IMF, is tasked with providing advice, recommendations, and guidanceon redressing racial inequity and its consequences within the IMF and will
deliver a report outlining a broad strategy and recommended actions in early
FY 2023.

Diversity Resource Groups (DRGs) and regional groups came together tocreate the Racial Justice and Equity Speaker Series. The aim of this series isto provide learning opportunities for employees to understand the historyof race in the United States, the impact of racial inequity on people of color,and how organizations can foster greater inclusion and equity. Since June
2020, eight events have taken place, many attended by more than 350 participants each, and the IMF Library created an Anti-Racism Resource Center toprovide employees with materials on the topic.

Departmental management teams aﬃrmed their support to raciallydiverse colleagues. Many held townhall meetings; provided safe spaces for
employees to discuss their individual and collective challenges, both within
and outside the IMF; oﬀered resources; and worked actively with their DRGs
to provide occasions to improve knowledge around racial justice and equity.

These collective eﬀorts have led to broad acceptance that racial equity needs
more prominence within the IMF. In addition to the work of the Advisory Groupmentioned above, the D&I Oﬃce has been working with key stakeholders on
a voluntary self-identification survey, which will include race/ethnicity, to gain a

2020–2021 Reportbetter view of the share of staﬀ of diﬀerent racial backgrounds in the IMF. These
data, complemented by the results of a D&I Survey will provide valuable insights
and allow better targeting of IMF initiatives.

21

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

22

Sponsorship Program
As a key recommendation from the Economic Dividends for Gender Equality(EDGE) recertification in 2019, the IMF established a formal Sponsorship Program.
It will allow strong-performing individuals from underrepresented groups to besupported by a senior manager (Sponsor) who has knowledge of their work andcan vouch/advocate for equity in treatment in terms of access to senior leaders,
career-enabling assignments, career development, and career advancement
opportunities. Sponsorship currently exists informally, but a formal corporate
program will help mitigate the potential bias that stems from existing arrangements and benefit a wider pool of staﬀ. In the longer term, the program should
also bring about greater progress toward the benchmarks.

departments, and willingness to engage in networking activities when necessary. Sponsors and Participants were matched based on areas of work and work
history, with careful attention being paid to ensuring no direct line of reporting
between each pair.

While EDGE recommended a Sponsorship Program for women, the IMF’s pilot
program focuses on nationals from URRs. The IMF’s data show that URR nationals
do not have easy access to career-enabling assignments and have not benefited
from career advancement at the same rate as other regional groups. Staﬀ from
URRs also shared that they often lack networks and role models because of the
low number of their compatriots in managerial roles.

2. Sponsor and Participant roles and responsibilities

The pilot program’s objective is to address this low representation of URRs in key
pipelines for managerial roles and in managerial roles themselves. Although not
the goal of the IMF’s program, research12 shows that sponsorship may result inhigher rates of promotion for the targeted groups. It also allows the organization
to benefit from the contributions of a broader range of talent and “hidden gems,”
who can contribute in meaningful ways. Greater engagement and career satisfaction of the sponsored individuals may also contribute to greater retention oftalent, helping build the relevant pipelines.
The initial cohort for the pilot program consists of 26 pairings. Senior Managers
were asked to volunteer as Sponsors, whereas Participants (those being
sponsored) were put forward by departments based on a number of criteria,
including grade level, track record of good performance, openness to feedback
and coaching, evidence of being goal oriented, interest in working in other

12 Hewlett, Sylvia Ann with Kerrie Peraino, Laura Sherbin, and Karen Sumberg. 2010. The Sponsor Eﬀect: Breaking
through the Last Glass Ceiling - https://store.hbr.org/product/the-sponsor-eﬀect-breaking-through-the-lastglass-ceiling/10428. Boston: Harvard Business Review Research Report.

Sponsors and Participants have been provided with training. As the conceptof formal Sponsorship is new to the IMF, it engaged a leading industry vendor
to deliver workshops and provide tips and tools for success. The workshops,
complemented by a playbook, addressed the following areas:
1. Diﬀerences among mentoring/coaching/sponsorship

3. The importance of relationship capital
4. Key activities and actions for a successful sponsorship relationship5. Building chemistry
The D&I Oﬃce will accompany the cohort throughout the two-year pilot period.
Regular check-ins are planned to gather feedback and address questions andconcerns. In addition, the D&I Oﬃce will facilitate peer meetings to allow eachgroup, Sponsors and Participants separately, to share best practices and raise
challenges in a safe environment. A survey will be conducted in early FY 2023
to take the pulse and course adjust if needed.
Finally, the IMF will measure success and apply learnings from the pilot to open
a fully-fledged program targeting a much wider audience. A set of performance indicators and measurements to assess the success of the pilot are being
finalized. The aim is to take lessons learned from the two-year pilot and adapt
the model, where necessary, prior to extending the roll out to a broader set
of Participants. Given that the number of staﬀ put forward for the initial pilot
exceeded the number of available slots, the IMF may launch a second cohort,in FY 2023, if feedback after the initial 9- to 12-month period is positive.

Disabilities
In the 2019 Report, the IMF committed to broaden the scope of its D&I activities
to encompass more underrepresented groups. In December 2006 the United
Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.13 The IMF aims to gradually align, as much as possible, with thisConvention. It embarked on this journey in FY 2021 and aims to continue making
progress over the next several years. The D&I Oﬃce is engaging with key stakeholders to implement the necessary changes.
The IMF has relaunched its former Working Group on People with Disabilities.
The aim of this interdepartmental Working Group is to review the IMF’s current
disability-related policies and practices and make proposals on potential
improvements. The group will benchmark against similar organizations and theprivate sector to identify best practices for implementation.
The D&I Oﬃce worked with staﬀ to create an Employee Resource Group dedicated to employees with disabilities and those who care for dependents withdisabilities. The aim of this group is to provide an aﬃnity group, similar to thosefor other communities in the IMF, and to leverage its knowledge and experiences
to ensure that policies, practices, IT tools, buildings, social media, and the like areaccessible for all.
The IMF is lagging significantly behind its peers in embracing and actively
pursuing disability as a diversity priority. Many have in place clear policies andcentralized budgets for reasonable accommodations, have implemented tools
to make their internal and external websites accessible, and are increasing theireﬀorts to recruit people who identify as having a disability. The IMF is seeking tobecome current, meet minimum standards of accessibility, and increase its eﬀorts
to accommodate and hire people with disabilities.

Diversity and Inclusion Training
Mandatory trainings on unconscious bias and workplace harassment have beenin place since 2018. These trainings, oﬀered respectively by the D&I and Ethics
Oﬃces, were updated in 2021 to provide employees with more recent andengaging content. All oﬀerings are through e-learning, allowing employees totake them at convenient times and at their own pace within a defined deadline.
These courses complement other diversity-related training such as Inclusive
Interviewing Skills, components included in the Leadership Development
Program oﬀerings and general management training courses related to performance management, communication, and managing teams. In addition, in
response to requests from staﬀ and managers, courses on racial equity andmental health are currently being tested, launching by the end of FY 2022.

Use of Preferred Pronouns
Employees may use their preferred pronouns in their IMF signature on a voluntary basis. In recognition of the growing number of people who do not identify
as either male or female and following a successful IMF GLOBE (Gay, Lesbian,or Bisexual Employees)14 event in May 2020 on the use of appropriate pronouns,
CSF/Creative, with the support of the D&I Oﬃce and Management, agreed
that staﬀ could indicate their preferred pronouns in their oﬃcial IMF signature(see example). The use of correct pronouns is a sign of respect for and acceptance of staﬀ ’s diﬀerent identities generally, but especially those within the
LGBTQ+ community. It goes some way to enabling staﬀ to bring another aspectof their identities to work – an important component of fostering an inclusive
work environment.

PETRA DE BRUXELLES(she/her/hers)
Diversity & Inclusion Advisor

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

13 Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html

2020–2021 Report

14 IMF GLOBE is the aﬃnity group/staﬀ club dedicated to persons of the LGBTQ+ community.

23

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

24

The work on Diversity & Inclusion is conducted under the leadership and guidance of the D&I Oﬃce, but many across the IMF champion their own initiatives tofoster a more diverse and inclusive work environment. Key partners for the D&I
team are the departmental Diversity Resource Groups (DRGs) and Employee

Resource Groups (ERGs) or staﬀ clubs. Box 2 provides a few examples of innovative initiatives implemented by these champions, to address challenges they
have identified.

Box 2. IMF Staff Diversity and Inclusion Intiatives
Talks by Charitable Organizations

Safe Space to Share Tough Experiences

To present a culture that is compassionate, inclusive, and empathetic to theneeds of others, one IMF DRG invited four nonprofit charitable organizations to present their role and how they impact quality of life for people who
are facing challenges. To build solidarity in the department, staﬀ were also
provided with information about volunteering opportunities and ways they
could contribute.

As a demonstration of support for colleagues, a DRG from one IMF department set up informal sessions and discussion fora on racial equity in which
staﬀ were given the space to share their experiences of racism and racial
equity following a departmentwide survey on the same issue.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Assessment

Racial Inclusion, Policymaking, and Economic Outcomes

Supported by their department’s managers, another IMF DRG conducted a
department-wide survey to assess staﬀ perceptions of D&I issues. The survey
was followed by thematic listening circles at which staﬀ could discuss theconcerns raised.

Another staﬀ group organized a panel discussion between IMF staﬀ andexternal experts to raise awareness about the disproportionate economic
and health eﬀects of COVID-19 on racial minorities.

Advances Inclusion and Cohesion

Advances Inclusion and Equity

Chinese staﬀ members held a virtual Lunar New Year gathering and farewellparties and started IMF Chinese Staﬀ Association (CSA) newsletters to share
work and life achievements. In addition, CSA leadership sought members’
input on their career development challenges and discussed ways in which
they could be overcome.

IMF GLOBE, which supports gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
employees, worked with the D&I Oﬃce to design the D&I Survey LGBTQ+
inclusive and established a Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity (SOGI)
Analytical Working Group, which seeks to explore and understand theadded value of nondiscriminatory policies toward LGBTQ+ populations topromote inclusive policy design.

The 2019 Diversity and Inclusion Report identified accountability as a primarychallenge the IMF faced in achieving its diversity objectives.
This finding was also supported by the 2025 Diversity Benchmarks Working
Group, which in its Report of November 2020 indicated “For the eﬀorts promotedby HRD and D&I Oﬃce to succeed, they have to be owned by departments andhave buy-in from all managers.”15 Recognizing the need to strengthen accountability for D&I results, the IMF has rolled out several initiatives in the last two
years. Significant eﬀorts have been deployed to improve accountability IMF-wide,
including at the departmental, and individual manager levels, a summary of which
follows. More generally, to keep the IMF on track, a Three-Year Framework wasdeveloped and presented to Management. Regular updates are provided on thestatus of initiatives against the timeline set out in the Framework. As many of theinitiatives are ongoing, assessing their impact will be possible only in the medium
to long term.

Signaling from the Highest Level
Management reaﬃrmed its commitment to Diversity & Inclusion. In September
2020, a new Diversity and Inclusion Statement16 was published on the IMF
external website. The statement reaﬃrmed that “The strength of the Fund comesfrom its talented and diverse employees” and clarified that each individual is
responsible for contributing to D&I at the IMF. The statement also sets out anumber of commitments, such as attracting, retaining, and developing diverse
talent; enforcing management accountability; and overcoming explicit andimplicit biases.

Setting the FY 2025 Benchmarks
The 2025 Diversity Benchmarks Working Group was constituted in September
2019 and completed its work in June 2020. The remit of the Working Groupwas to assess progress against the 2020 Diversity Benchmarks, formulate the
new 2025 Benchmarks, and recommend policy solutions, which were endorsed
by Management and presented to the IMF’s Executive Board. In setting the FY
2025 Benchmarks, the Working Group underscored that ambition needs tostrike a balance with realism and equity, and identified four anchors: Equitable,
Principled, Inclusive, and Clear (EPIC):• Equitable: aiming for gender balance• Principled: balanced shares of URR based on quota & IMF business• Inclusive: a more holistic approach wherein everybody counts (contractual
employees and A1-A8)• Clear: simplified framework
To achieve the benchmarks, the Working Group also recommended initiatives
concerning policies and practices. These were grouped into several topical areas:
attracting diverse staﬀ; using incentives, ownership, and accountability; emphasizing retention and career progression; and developing inclusion metrics andbenchmarks. Some of the recommendations overlapped with existing or planned
initiatives; others were new.

15 Report on The 2025 Benchmarks - http://www-intranet.imf.org/departments/HumanResources/Programs/
Diversity/Documents/2025 Diversity Benchmarks Presentation to Board v10.pdf, November 12, 2020.
16 Diversity and Inclusion statement - https://www.imf.org/external/hrd/diversity.htm

2020–2021 Report25

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

Departmental Diversity and Inclusion
Action Plans
Without accountability at the departmental level, the IMF cannot achieve its
D&I objectives. In November 2020, with the support of the I&D Council, the D&I
Oﬃce rolled out Departmental D&I Action Plans in which Heads of Departments(HoDs) committed to high-level actions and more tangible initiatives. The plansprovide departments with an overview of the diverse composition of their teams(stock) as well as the flow (external recruitments).
The full impact of the departmental D&I action plans can be appropriately
measured only after a few years. An initial review at the end of FY 2021, however,shows that:•

Implementation of concrete departmental D&I Action Plans has been apositive step in the IMF’s D&I journey as it has raised more awareness aroundchallenges within individual departments.

•

Departments have set SMART objectives with concrete actions/initiatives toincrease diversity in their teams and monitor diversity in key career development processes.

•

Departments are thinking more carefully and being more intentional about
expanding sourcing to reach previously untapped candidate pools.

•

Many departments have been defining “career-enabling” assignments.

Accountability Framework
For many years the IMF Accountability Framework (AF) has been the primarymeans of holding Heads of Departments accountable for achieving businessresults. The AF comprises a mix of business and people management indicators against which HoDs are evaluated and rewarded. Management meets
twice yearly with each HoD to assess progress against the AF objectives and tocourse-adjust priorities as needed. In the past, the discussions have primarily
focused on business results—those related to key achievements related to serving
the membership or key business processes. In December 2020, a clear signal
emerged as to the importance Management attributes to people management, including diversity and inclusion. The agenda inverted the order of the
discussions; D&I and other human resource indicators were reviewed before
business-specific results. This shift has been a significant one in the culture of
performance management for senior managers.

26

Diversity and Inclusion Survey
In March 2021, HRD launched a D&I Survey. The survey asked staﬀ (including
contractual employees) to voluntarily self-identify across diﬀerent diversity
dimensions—a first step in collecting broader diversity data—and sought staﬀ
perceptions and experiences at the IMF related to belonging, inclusion, their
managers, training & leadership development, and discrimination and harassment. The response rate of 43 percent compares favorably with similar surveys
and allowed the team to extract valuable insights. This survey sets a benchmark
against which the IMF will be able to measure progress in the coming years andhold managers accountable for creating a more inclusive, equitable, and safe
working environment.
The survey highlighted several issues of significant concern. More specifically,some staﬀ reported not feeling valued or respected due to their identity; experiencing and witnessing unconscious bias, discrimination, and harassment; being
reluctant to report for fear of retaliation; or lacking trust in the IMF’s safeguarding
mechanisms. On a positive note, a vast majority of respondents reported that
their manager (in this case direct supervisor) creates a safe and trusting work
environment for all team members, regardless of their identity.
The Management Team, including Heads of Departments, is strongly committed
to addressing the challenges identified. A plan of immediate next steps has been
identified, with the aim of engaging in a bottom-up exercise to solicit more medium-term and sustainable actions.

The strategic importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion is becoming increasingly accepted
as a business priority that will help the IMF better serve its membership. The D&I sphere is ever
evolving: addressing its related challenges is and will be a continuous journey. In the two years
since the last report, while maintaining a keen focus on gender and regional representation, theIMF has embarked on a path to broaden the scope of diversity dimensions included in its portfolio
and made strides to improve inclusiveness and strengthen accountability for achieving results.
The IMF must keep in step with the evolving D&I landscape and ensure that, at
minimum, it meets the same standards it is asking of its stakeholders. In addition
to continuing to pay close attention to two main priorities for hiring and staﬀ
development—gender and underrepresented regions—the IMF needs to take amore granular look at what it has actually achieved so far. For example, there has
been progress in the share of women in managerial roles, but disparities exist
among the women who have benefited from these eﬀorts. The topic of intersectionality, the confluence of diﬀerent diversity dimensions such as gender andrace or race and sexual orientation, is becoming more prominent. In future, it will
become more important to look at the intersections of a broader set of diversity
dimensions to identify and address unintended gaps that have emerged.
The D&I Survey revealed that very few employees are aware of what the IMF doesto accommodate people who identify as having a disability. In the next two years
it proposes to raise the visibility of this important diversity dimension by engaging

2020-2021 Reportwith its existing community of colleagues and external parties to evaluate current
policies and accommodation practices, with a view to better enabling not only
current employees, but also potential candidates, reassuring them that the IMF
will address their reasonable accommodation needs, if hired.
To achieve benchmarks, the IMF will focus its eﬀorts on external recruitment anddeveloping existing talent so that they are ready to take on managerial roles.
More specifically, the IMF will leverage the additional hiring space provided by
the business priority areas—climate change, gender inclusion, digital finance, andcloser engagement with fragile and low-income states—and the increase in staﬀ
retirements. Table 4 sets out the recommended areas of focus and initiatives tobe taken to address ongoing challenges.

27

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

28

Table 4. Two-Year Roadmap
AREA OF FOCUS

Action/Initiative

Timeline

External Recruitment
Increase the share of women hired into individual contributor roles

Increase the share of MENA+ nationals hired into individual contributor roles

Talent attraction

Increase the share of women and URRs recruited into managerial roles

Economists:• Expand outreach to broader group of universities with women economists• Continue to use centralized programs (EP, Mid-Career) to increase diversity

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

SCS:
• Expand targeted sourcing through use of social media tools and use of dedicatedattraction/recruitment events

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

General:• Group campaigns for similar roles (Specialized Economists, SCS) together toprovide broader overview of candidates

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

Economists:• Expand outreach to broader group of universities in the region

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

• Evaluate expansion of Special Appointee Program, Research Assistant Program,and Fund Internship Program

FY 2023SCS:• Expand targeted sourcing through employee and social networks and use of
dedicated attraction/recruitment events

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

General:• Group campaigns for similar roles (Specialized Economists, SCS) together toprovide broader overview of candidates• Systematically monitor and track diversity in the recruitment funnel

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

• Leverage IMF employees to play a more active role in outreach and leverage
their network

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

• Engage with URR employees to act as mentors for URR candidates during
recruitment processes

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

• Finalize implementation of Comprehensive Compensation and Benefits
Review reforms

FY 2023• Include new benefits in Employer Branding materials (e.g., parental leave, hybrid
working model, childcare allowances, increased leave)

FY 2023• Proceed with interviews only when a diverse slate of shortlisted candidates
is identified

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

• Where appropriate/needed continue to engage executive search firms to source
diverse candidates

FY 2022 through end FY 2024

AREA OF FOCUS

Action/Initiative

Timeline

Talent Development/Promotions
Increase rates of promotion for women and URR nationals• Increase number of Management Development Center sessions for eligible staﬀ

Q3 FY 2022–end FY 2024

• Finalize definition of career enabling assignments across departments

Q4 FY 2022

• Monitor distribution of career-enabling assignments through the departmental
action plans/AF

FY 2023–end FY 2024

• Departments to include mobility opportunities in APR Roundtable discussions

FY 2023 APR exercise

Prepare pipeline for Leadership and Managerial roles:• Finalize B4 Succession Planning• Complete talent review and Succession Planning (entry-level managerial roles)• Complete IMF-wide Talent Inventory• Develop Workforce Planning Concept and Implement

Q4 FY 2022–Q3 FY 2023

• Conduct interim evaluation from Sponsors and Participants

Q2 FY 2023

• Launch “beta pilot” if deemed feasible after interim evaluation

Q3 FY 2023

• Expand D&I e-learning oﬀerings to include micro-behaviors; racial equity;
mental health

FY 2022–Q3 FY 2023

• Leverage DRGs and ERGs to oﬀer learning opportunities

FY 2023 onwards

Response to D&I Survey

Develop medium-term action plan and start implementing initiatives in response tofindings in the D&I Survey

Q4 FY 2022–end FY 2024

Racial Equity• Advisory Group Report

Q1 FY 2023

• Prioritize and develop action plan based on Advisory Group Report

Q2 FY 2023

Sponsorship Program

Equity and Inclusion
Raising Awareness• Start implementation of agreed-on actions

Q3 FY 2023

Develop, test, and launch; or use Global Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Benchmark
to assess the IMF against other organizations

Q3 FY 2023

Benchmarking against other organizations

EDGE Re-certification

Q1 and Q2 FY 2023

Departmental Accountability

Continue to integrate departmental D&I action plan indicators into
Accountability Framework

Q3 FY 2022–Q4 FY 2023

Strengthen mid-level manager accountability

Introduce D&I objective into managers’ APRs

Q1 FY 2023

Annual Departmental D&I Action Plans

Evaluate outcomes after three years

Q4 FY 2023

Transparency

Internally communicate IMF-wide and Departmental results of APR ratingsand promotions

Annually

Inclusion Index

17

Accountability

17 The Global Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Benchmark helps organizations determine strategy and measure progress in managing diversity and fostering inclusion.

2020–2021 Report29

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

ANNEXES30

ANNEX 1.

Gender pay gaps and pay equity more generally remain a hot topic for humanresources discussions and policies. Traditionally, studies have largely focused on
gender and tend to show significant diﬀerences in remunerations that are hard
to explain. At the same time, pay gap analyses have also become more sophisticated and have moved away from simple comparison of average pay acrossdiﬀerent groups (e.g., men and women) and have sought to incorporate the main
determinants of pay to pinpoint the eﬀect of gender or race.18 At the IMF, an early
study found no major systematic gender pay diﬀerences based on data from1999–201319.
As noted above, the IMF has been conducting more regular pay gap assessments
since 2017, in the context of the EDGE certification. To understand diﬀerences in
pay across gender and other factors (such as race) a regression analysis focusedon pay has been used. The standard framework used here allows one to assess
whether the gender pay diﬀerences remain (a pay “gap”) after controlling foradditional factors that could potentially aﬀect internal salaries. The baseline estimated equation below follows EDGE’s standard regression form, which includes
personal characteristics such as age, tenure, performance ratings and educational
level, as well as job-related factors such as department type and career level.
The latest pay gap analysis is based on data for FY 2020 and looks at gender,
region, and race.20 The data used include salaries and other individual characteristics of 2,800 IMF staﬀ, including age, tenure, nationality, or region, etc.
18 See PWC (2017) - https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics/insights/women-in-work-index.html and Payscale(2021) - https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap.
19 Maloney, Tim. 2015. “Final Report on the Salary and Career Progression Equity Study.” AUT Enterprises Limited,
Auckland.
20 Due to the sample size, for this PGA an analysis was possible only for two groups, one Afro/Black and the second
regrouping all other races/ethnicities.

2020–2021 Report

In addition, survey data were used to estimate the pay gap between staﬀ who
self-identified as Afro/Black and the non-Afro/Black group. The survey data cover
only about 40 percent of the larger sample and relies on data provided by staﬀ
on a voluntary basis.
The results from the pay gap analysis show relatively small diﬀerences in pay
across gender and race. In the regressions considered, the combined eﬀect ofage, tenure, educational level, years in grade, and grade level all have a positiveand significant impact on pay and explain most of the variation in staﬀ salaries(Annex Figure 1.1); the same variables also explain most of the diﬀerences in pay
across gender and race. The following findings are robust to a number of empirical checks, and applying the same framework to FY 2019 and FY 2016 shows
broadly similar results.

Annex Figure 1.1 IMF Economist Salaries, FY 2021
(In salary)

Women

14.0

Men

13.6
13.2
12.8
12.4
ln(salary)

Since 2017, HRD has regularly conducted a pay gap analysis. The pay gap analysis
has been mainly focused on diﬀerences in pay by gender and underrepresented
regions. In 2020, for the first time, the analysis relied on newly collected survey
data to include race. The framework used in the estimations of the pay gap isfairly standard (see below) and is largely based on that used for the Economic
Dividends for Gender Equality (EDGE) certification.

12.0
11.6
11.2
10.8
10.4
10.0

-2

1

4

7

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

37

40

TOTAL YEARS OF FUND SERVICE

Sources: HR Prod; and IMF staﬀ calculations. Data include both staﬀ and contractual employees.

31

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

In the case of gender, the results indicate that the pay gap is generally small,especially for economists (55 percent of IMF staﬀ ). In the sample, pay for womenis about 3.8 percent lower than that for men, after controlling for the other factors
previously mentioned. This overall gap is close to the +/–5 percent overall pay
gap in similar industries and in line with EDGE specifications. In the case of economists, the diﬀerence across gender is only –0.9 percent, and it is not statisticallysignificant. On the other hand, the diﬀerences across gender are larger, –5.4
percent for women, when considering staﬀ in specialized career streams (which inturn might reflect diﬀerent levels of the pay gap for a large number of distinct job
functions).
In the case of URR the eﬀects are also generally small. In the baseline estimations
used to assess the gender pay gap, the inclusion of URR does not alter the main
results but indicates a small negative pay gap for URRs (below 5 percent).

32

More specifically, the estimated coeﬃcient on the URR variable indicates a pay
gap of –1.8 percent (about half of gender coeﬃcient), and the coeﬃcient is statistically significant at the 5 percent level. Interestingly, the coeﬃcient is larger thanin previous analyses using FY 16 and FY 19 data, and this trend will continue to bemonitored closely.
Finally, in the case of race, the analysis zoomed in on the pay gap between
Afro/Black and the rest of the sample (all other groups). As noted earlier, thesample used in this case is about 40 percent of the staﬀ (about 1,200 observations), based on the number of respondents to a question on race/ethnicity. In
particular, the coeﬃcient on the Afro/Black variable is –0.3 percent, and it is notstatistically significant.Worth noting: some staﬀ perceive a large pay gap basedon race—these views do not align with the analysis. Other factors, such as career
progression, may be contributing to these perceptions.

21 Given that only 15 percent of staﬀ self-identified as Afro/Black, no additional subgroups (e.g., Afro/Black economists) were analyzed with this framework owing to the rather small sample sizes.

ANNEX 2.

AFRICA(sub-Saharan)

CC

Country

ASIA(excluding East Asia)

CCCountry

EAST ASIA(ASEAN+)CCCountry

EUROPE (excluding
Transition Countries)

CC

Country

Brunei Darussalam* ABW Aruba

MIDDLE EAST & NORTHAFRICA+ (MENA+)

TRANSITION
COUNTRIESCountry

OTHER WESTERNHEMISPHERE

CCCountryCC

AFG

Afghanistan*

ALB

ARE

United ArabEmirates

ARM Armenia

ARG Argentina

AlbaniaCC
AIA

Country

AGO Angola*

AUS

Australia

BRN

BDI

Burundi

BGD

Bangladesh

CHN China*

AND Andorra

Anguilla

BEN

Benin*

BTN

BhutanHKG

Hong Kong SAR*

ANT

Netherlands Antilles BHR

Bahrain*

AZE

Azerbaijan

ATG

Antigua andBarbudaBFA

Burkina Faso*

FJI

Fiji

IDN

Indonesia*

AUT

Austria

DJI

Djibouti*

BGR

Bulgaria

BHS

The Bahamas

BWA Botswana*

FSM

Micronesia

JPN

Japan*

BEL

Belgium

DZA

Algeria*

BIH

Bosnia andHerzegovina

BLZ

BelizeCAF

Central African
Republic*

IND

India

KHM Cambodia*

BMU Bermuda

EGY

Egypt*

BLR

Belarus

BOL

Bolivia

CIV

Côte d'Ivoire*

KIR

Kiribati

KOR

Korea*

CHE

Switzerland

IRN

Iran*

CZE

Czech Republic

BRA

BrazilCMR Cameroon*

LKA

Sri LankaLAO

Lao P.D.R.*

COK

Cook Islands

IRQ

Iraq*

EST

Estonia

BRB

Barbados

COD Democratic
Republic of theCongo*MDV MaldivesJordan*GEO Georgia

CHL

Chile

COL Colombia

MAC Macao SAR*CUW Curacao

JOR

COG Republic of Congo* MHLMarshall Islands

MMR Myanmar*

CYM Cayman Islands

KWT Kuwait*

HRV

CPV

NIU

Niue

MYS

Malaysia*

CYP

Cyprus

LBN

Lebanon*

HUN Hungary

CRI

COM Comoros*

NPL

Nepal

PHL

Philippines*

DEU

Germany

LBY

Libya*KAZ

Kazakhstan

CUB Cuba

ERI

Eritrea*

NRU

Nauru

SGP

Singapore*

DNK

Denmark

MAR Morocco*

KGZ

Kyrgyz Republic

DMA Dominica

ETH

Ethiopia*

NZL

New Zealand

THA

Thailand*

ESP

Spain

MRT Mauritania*

LTU

Lithuania

DOM Dominican Republic

GAB

Gabon*PLW

Palau

VNM Vietnam*

FIN

FinlandOMN Oman*

LVA

LatviaECU

GHA

Ghana*

PNG

Papua New Guinea

FRA

FrancePAK

MDA Moldova

GRD Grenada

GIN

Cabo Verde*

Pakistan*

Croatia

SLB

Solomon Islands

FRO

Faroe Islands

QAT Qatar*

MKD North Macedonia

GTM Guatemala

TLS

Timor-Leste

GBR

United Kingdom

SAU

MNG Mongolia

GUY Guyana

GNB

TON

Tonga

GIB

Gibraltar

SDN Sudan*

MTN Montenegro

HND Honduras

GNQ Equatorial Guinea*

TUV

TuvaluGRC

GreeceSOM Somalia*

POL

HTI

KEN

Kenya*TWN Taiwan Province of
China

IRL

IrelandSYR

ROM Romania

JAM Jamaica

LBR

Liberia*

VUT

Vanuatu

ISL

Iceland

TUN Tunisia*

RUS

RussiaKNA St. Kitts and Nevis

LSO

Lesotho*

WSM Samoa

ISR

IsraelWBG West Bank & Gaza*

SRB

SerbiaLCA

MDG Madagascar*

ITA

Italy

YMN Yemen*

SVK

Slovak Republic

MEX Mexico

MLI

YEM Yemen*

SVN

Slovenia

MSR

Montserrat

TJK

Tajikistan

NIC

Nicaragua
PanamaSyria*

PolandUSA

United States

St. Lucia

Mali*

LIE

Liechtenstein

LUX

LuxembourgMUS

Mauritius*

MCO Monaco

TKM Turkmenistan

PAN

MWI

Malawi*

MLT

Malta

UKR

UkrainePERPeru

NAM Namibia*

NLD

The Netherlands

UVK

KosovoPRYParaguay

NER

NOR Norway

SLVEl Salvador

2020–2021 Report

CAN Canada

Haiti

MOZ Mozambique*

Niger*Country

EcuadorGuinea*Guinea-Bissau*

CC

Costa Rica

GMB The Gambia*

Saudi Arabia*

U.S. ANDCANADA33

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

AFRICA(sub-Saharan)

CC

Country34

ASIA(excluding East Asia)

CCCountry

EAST ASIA(ASEAN+)CCCountry

EUROPE (excluding
Transition Countries)

CC

Country

MIDDLE EAST & NORTHAFRICA+ (MENA+)CCCountry

TRANSITION
COUNTRIESCCCountry

OTHER WESTERNHEMISPHERE

CCCountry

NGA Nigeria*

PRT

Portugal

SUR

Suriname

RWA Rwanda*

SMR

San Marino

TTO

Trinidad andTobagoSEN

Senegal*SWE

SwedenURY

Uruguay

SLE

Sierra Leone*

SXM

Sint Maarten

VCTSt. Vincent and the
Grenadines

SSD

South Sudan*

TUR

TurkeyVEN

Venezuela

SSN

South Sudan*

VGB

British Virgin Islands

VIR

Virgin Islands

STPSão Tomé and
Príncipe*

SWZ

Eswatini

SYC

Seychelles*

SWZ

Swaziland*

TCD

Chad*

TGO

Togo*

TZA

Tanzania*

UGA

Uganda*ZAF

South Africa*

ZMB

Zambia*ZWE

Zimbabwe*

CC—Country Code
*Under-Represented Region (URR)
1/
Updated October 2021

U.S. ANDCANADACCCountry

ANNEX 3.

Table 1. Geographic and Gender Benchmark Indicators and Staff Representation
2025 Benchmark

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

Gap From Benchmark

Share of A9 to A14/A15 (Individual Contributors and Senior Oﬃcers)
Underrepresented Regions
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

8

8.3

8.5

8.7

8.8

9.2

1.2

East Asia (ASEAN+)

15

15.1

15.1

14.5

14.9

15.2

0.2

Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+)

8

4.9

5.4

5.5

5.4

5.7

–2.3

Other Regions
Asia (excl. East Asia)

6.2

6.0

6.4

6.3

6.4

Europe (excl. Transition Countries)

23.8

24.2

23.9

24.1

24.0

Other Western Hemisphere

12.4

12.3

12.6

12.6

12.5

Transition Countries

9.6

9.6

9.8

9.7

9.3

United States & Canada

19.7

19.0

18.4

18.2

17.6

Share of A14/A15–B5 (Managerial Roles DDC Level and Above)
Underrepresented Regions
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

8

5.5

5.6

5.8

6.1

6.2

–1.8

East Asia (ASEAN+)

12

5.2

6.0

6.4

6.8

6.1

–5.9

Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+)

8

5.0

5.2

5.1

5.3

5.3

–2.7

Other Regions
Asia (excl. East Asia)

10.4

10.0

9.6

10.3

10.1

Europe (excl. Transition Countries)

39.0

38.5

38.5

36.9

37.1

Other Western Hemisphere

8.9

8.9

9.3

9.4

9.1

Transition Countries

5.3

5.6

6.6

7.1

8.3

United States & Canada

20.7

20.3

18.6

18.1

17.9

Gender-Female
Share of A9 to A14/A15 (Individual Contributors & Senior Oﬃcers)

45

39.1

39.4

39.5

40.6

40.2

–4.8

Share of A14/A15–B5 (Managerial Roles DDC Level & Above)

40

29.1

30.3

31.6

32.4

34.5

–5.5

2020–2021 Report

35

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce362025 Benchmark

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

A1–B5 (including contractuals with 1+ year contract)30

B4 & B530

A1–B5 (including contractuals with 1+ year contract)
B4 & B5
Women A9 to A14/A15 (Individual Contributors & Senior Oﬃcers)
MENA+ A9 to A14/A15 (Individual Contributors & Senior Oﬃcers)

Gap From Benchmark

26.2

27.1

27.2

28.3

28.2

–1.8

14.3

15.3

17.6

18.2

14.3

–15.7

50

46.2

46.2

46.8

47.3

47.0

–3.0

50

19.0

20.0

24.7

26.1

33.0

–17.0

50

37.1

37.6

27.0

43.8

37.0

–13.0

10

4.6

9.6

5.2

4.6

7.3

–2.7

Institutional Goals
Diversity Region – URR

Gender Parity

Recruitment Targets

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes the Oﬃce of the Executive Directors (OED) and Independent Evaluations Oﬃce (IEO).

Table 2. IMF Senior Management Profile1/
TOTAL

WOMEN

MEN
No.

UNDERREPRESENTED REGIONS
Percent

No.

Percent

OTHER REGIONS

No.

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

FY2021

91

30

33.0

61

67.0

13

19.0

78

81.0

FY2020

88

23

26.1

65

73.9

16

18.2

72

81.8

FY2019

85

21

24.7

64

75.3

15

17.6

70

82.4

FY2018

85

17

20.0

68

80.0

13

15.3

72

84.7

FY2017

84

16

19.0

68

81.0

12

14.3

72

85.7

Senior Management 2/

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes OED and IEO.
1/
Excludes the IMF Board and Independent Oﬃces.
2/
B4 and B5 grade-level staﬀ only.

Table 3. Staff Nationality by Region, Gender, Career Stream and Grade Grouping as of end FY 2021
TOTAL
A1–A8
Percent

No.

A9–A15Percent

No.

ECONOMISTS

B1–B5Percent

No.

A9–B5
Percent

REGIONNo.

No.

Africa (sub-Saharan)

41

1.5

187

6.6

17

0.6

204

7.2

245

East Asia (ASEAN+)

TOTAL
Percent

A11–A15
No.
Percent

No.

B1–B5
Percent

8.7

118

7.5

10

0.6

128

8.1

No.

Total
Percent

60

15.2

291

10.3

18

0.6

309

10.9

369

13.1

193

12.3

13

0.8

206

13.1

China

5

1.8

125

4.4

6

0.2

131

4.6

136

4.8

84

5.3

3

0.2

87

5.5

East Asia (ASEAN+) Other

9

2.1

85

3.0

8

0.3

93

3.3

102

3.6

54

3.4

6

0.4

60

3.8

Philippines

46

10.8

20

0.7

0

0.0

20

0.7

66

2.3

3

0.2

0

0.0

3

0.2

Japan

0

0.5

61

2.2

4

0.1

65

2.3

65

2.3

52

3.3

4

0.3

56

3.6

Middle East & North Africa+(MENA+)

10

2.3

113

4.0

22

0.8

135

4.8

145

5.1

78

5.0

17

1.1

95

6.0

Asia (excl. East Asia)

35

8.1

136

4.8

41

1.5

177

6.3

212

7.5

73

4.6

32

2.0

105

6.7

India

23

5.3

91

3.2

26

0.9

117

4.1

140

5.0

37

2.4

18

1.1

55

3.5

Australia and New Zealand

3

1.2

31

1.1

9

0.3

40

1.4

43

1.5

27

1.7

8

0.5

35

2.2

Asia Other

9

1.6

14

0.5

6

0.2

20

0.7

29

1.0

9

0.6

6

0.4

15

1.0

32

8.3

529

18.7

133

4.7

662

23.4

694

24.6

404

25.7

107

6.8

511

32.5

Europe Other

9

2.3

221

7.8

48

1.7

269

9.5

278

9.8

159

10.1

37

2.4

196

12.5

France

8

1.8

98

3.5

17

0.6

115

4.1

123

4.4

79

5.0

14

0.9

93

5.9

United Kingdom

13

3.5

73

2.6

25

0.9

98

3.5

111

3.9

45

2.9

18

1.1

63

4.0

Germany

1

0.5

72

2.5

27

1.0

99

3.5

100

3.5

64

4.1

25

1.6

89

5.7

Italy

1

0.2

65

2.3

16

0.6

81

2.9

82

2.9

57

3.6

13

0.8

70

4.4

Other Western Hemisphere

56

14.1

253

9.0

27

1.0

280

9.9

336

11.9

164

10.4

22

1.4

186

11.8

Transition Countries

23

4.4

202

7.2

17

0.6

219

7.8

242

8.6

145

9.2

14

0.9

159

10.1

US & CANADA

155

37.1

352

12.5

75

2.7

427

15.1

582

20.6

135

8.6

49

3.1

184

11.7

United States

153

36.4

303

10.7

61

2.2

364

12.9

517

18.3

103

6.5

37

2.4

140

8.9

2

0.7

49

1.7

14

0.5

63

2.2

65

2.3

32

2.0

12

0.8

44

2.8

TOTAL

412

14.6

2063

73.0

350

12.4

2413

85.4

2825

100.0

1310

46.4

264

9.3

1574

55.7

Women

339

82.3

817

39.6

118

33.7

935

38.7

1274

45.1

412

31.5

79

29.9

491

31.2

Men

73

17.7

1246

60.4

232

66.3

1478

61.3

1551

54.9

898

68.5

185

70.1

1083

68.8

Europe(excl. Transition Countries)

CanadaSource: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes OED and IEO.

2020–2021 Report37

Table 4. Contractual Nationality by Region, Gender, Career Stream and Grade Grouping as of end FY 2021
TOTAL
REGION

Professional
No.
Percent

Support
No.
Percent

ECONOMISTS
TOTAL
No.
Percent

Professional
No.
Percent

Support
No.
Percent

SPECIALIZED CAREER STREAM
Total
No.
Percent

Professional
No.
Percent

Support
No.
Percent

No.

Total
Percent

Africa (sub-Saharan)

24

3.6

20

3.0

44

6.5

17

13.2

n.a.

n.a.

17

13.2

7

1.3

20

3.7

27

5.0

East Asia (ASEAN+)

46

6.8

105

15.6

151

22.5

19

14.7

n.a.

n.a.

19

14.7

27

5.0

105

19.3

132

24.3

China

17

2.5

71

10.6

88

13.1

4

3.1

n.a.

n.a.

4

3.1

13

2.4

71

13.1

84

15.5

East Asia (ASEAN+) Other

21

3.1

21

3.1

42

6.3

12

9.3

n.a.

n.a.

12

9.3

9

1.7

21

3.9

30

5.5

Philippines

1

0.1

8

1.2

9

1.3

0

0.0

n.a.

n.a.

0

0.0

1

0.2

8

1.5

9

1.7

Japan

7

1.0

5

0.7

12

1.8

3

2.3

n.a.

n.a.

3

2.3

4

0.7

5

0.9

9

1.7

Middle East & North Africa+(MENA+)

11

1.6

19

2.8

30

4.5

6

4.7

n.a.

n.a.

6

4.7

5

0.9

19

3.5

24

4.4

Asia (excl. East Asia)

26

3.9

28

4.2

54

8.0

10

7.8

n.a.

n.a.

10

7.8

16

2.9

28

5.2

44

8.1

19

2.8

23

3.4

42

6.3

4

3.1

n.a.

n.a.

4

3.1

15

2.8

23

4.2

38

7.0

Australia and New Zealand

5

0.7

1

0.1

6

0.9

4

3.1

n.a.

n.a.

4

3.1

1

0.2

1

0.2

2

0.4

Asia Other

1

0.1

4

0.6

5

0.7

1

0.8

n.a.

n.a.

1

0.8

0

0.0

4

0.7

4

0.7

73

10.9

14

2.1

87

12.9

44

34.1

n.a.

n.a.

44

34.1

29

5.3

14

2.6

43

7.9

Europe Other

29

4.3

7

1.0

36

5.4

18

14.0

n.a.

n.a.

18

14.0

11

2.0

7

1.3

18

3.3

France

16

2.4

2

0.3

18

2.7

9

7.0

n.a.

n.a.

9

7.0

7

1.3

2

0.4

9

1.7

United Kingdom

9

1.3

1

0.1

10

1.5

6

4.7

n.a.

n.a.

6

4.7

3

0.6

1

0.2

4

0.7

Germany

9

1.3

2

0.3

11

1.6

4

3.1

n.a.

n.a.

4

3.1

5

0.9

2

0.4

7

1.3

Italy

10

1.5

2

0.3

12

1.8

7

5.4

n.a.

n.a.

7

5.4

3

0.6

2

0.4

5

0.9

Other Western Hemisphere

24

3.6

56

8.3

80

11.9

10

7.8

n.a.

n.a.

10

7.8

14

2.6

56

10.3

70

12.9

Transition Countries

20

3.0

15

2.2

35

5.2

16

12.4

n.a.

n.a.

16

12.4

4

0.7

15

2.8

19

3.5

US & CANADA

62

9.2

121

18.0

183

27.2

4

3.1

n.a.

n.a.

4

3.1

58

10.7

121

22.3

179

33.0

United States

67

10.0

124

18.5

191

28.4

7

5.4

n.a.

n.a.

7

5.4

60

11.0

124

22.8

184

33.9

India

Europe(excl. Transition Countries)

Canada

5

0.7

3

0.4

8

1.2

3

2.3

n.a.

n.a.

3

2.3

2

0.4

3

0.6

5

0.9

291

43.3

381

56.7

672

100.0

129

100.0

n.a.

n.a.

129

100.0

162

29.8

381

70.2

543

100.0

Women

125

43.0

246

64.6

371

55.2

35

27.1

n.a.

n.a.

35

27.1

90

55.6

246

64.6

336

61.9

Men

166

57.0

135

35.4

301

44.8

94

72.9

n.a.

n.a.

94

72.9

72

44.4

135

35.4

207

38.1

TOTAL

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes OED and IEO.

Table 5. Share of Women by Department and Grade Grouping as of end FY 2021
STAFF
A1–A8
IMF Total

CONTRACTUAL

A9–A15

B1–B5

A9–B5

Professional

Support

TOTAL
WOMEN

IMF
TOTAL

SHARE
OF WOMENNo.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

No.

Percent

339

82.0

817

38.7

118

30.0

935

37.5

125

42.9

246

66.9

1,645

3,497

47.0

Area Departments
AFR

19

79.2

59

31.2

11

34.4

70

31.7

2

40.0

17

58.6

108

279

38.7

APD1/

9

69.2

38

42.2

4

15.4

42

36.2

2

22.2

15

78.9

68

157

43.3

EUR 2/

22

100.0

49

36.3

7

25.0

56

34.4

0

0.0

14

63.6

92

210

43.8

MCD

12

92.3

33

31.4

8

33.3

41

31.8

0

0.0

15

53.6

68

173

39.3

WHD

10

76.9

31

28.4

8

38.1

39

30.0

0

n.a.

9

42.9

58

164

35.4

Functional Departments
COM

8

61.5

43

65.2

5

38.5

48

60.8

7

58.3

5

62.5

68

112

59.4

FAD

13

86.7

55

32.7

6

30.0

61

32.4

17

33.3

29

60.4

120

302

37.4

FIN

25

86.2

57

57.6

4

28.6

61

54.0

7

77.8

9

75.0

102

163

64.1

ICD3/

30

78.9

37

38.5

5

31.3

42

37.5

12

57.1

28

77.8

112

207

54.6
55.6

LEG

12

85.7

34

45.9

3

37.5

37

45.1

7

53.8

5

71.4

61

116

MCM

22

88.0

64

32.2

7

25.0

71

31.3

9

26.5

22

73.3

124

316

39.5

RES

10

90.9

31

33.0

6

46.2

37

34.6

12

52.2

22

73.3

81

171

50.6

SPR

21

84.0

41

29.1

9

33.3

50

29.8

3

37.5

15

65.2

89

224

49.4

STA

18

75.0

44

44.0

5

35.7

49

43.0

15

50.0

11

64.7

93

185

47.3

29

70.7

65

55.1

3

33.3

68

53.5

12

42.9

6

54.5

115

207

54.4

Support Departments
CSF
HRD

34

94.4

54

69.2

14

63.6

68

68.0

5

38.5

16

66.7

123

173

71.8

ITD

10

76.9

34

30.1

4

44.4

38

31.1

4

33.3

2

50.0

54

151

32.7

OMD5/

20

95.2

28

51.9

5

31.3

33

47.1

9

60.0

5

55.6

67

115

63.1

SEC

15

68.2

20

57.1

4

40.0

24

53.3

2

100.0

1

33.3

42

72

58.3

4/

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes OED and IEO.
1/
APD Includes OAP
2/
EUR Includes EUO
3/
ICD Includes JVI, STI, and CEF
4/
HRD Includes SSG
5/
OMD Includes DMD, ILU, INV, OBP, OIA, ORM, KMU, SPA, OII, and MDT

2020–2021 Report

39

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

40

Table 6. Highest Educational Diversity in the IMF: Doctorate Degrees as of end FY 2021
DEGREES EARNEDREGION/COUNTRY1/

No.

Percent

TOTAL

770

100

China

7

0.9

Middle East and North Africa + (MENA+)

1

0.1

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)5

0.6

United Kingdom

89

11.6

United States

435

56.5

Other

233

30.3

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS.
Data exclude the IMF Board and Independent Oﬃces and exclude contractual employees.
Only the highest level of education completed/earned recorded is captured.
1/
Based on the country where the university is located

Table 7. Highest Educational Diversity in the IMF: Master’s Degrees as of end FY 2021
DEGREES EARNEDNo.

Percent

TOTAL

1,299

100

China

16

1.2

Middle East and North Africa + (MENA+)

28

2.2

REGION/COUNTRY1/

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

33

2.5

United Kingdom

132

10.2

United States

645

49.7

Other

445

34.3

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS.
Data exclude the IMF Board and Independent Oﬃces and exclude contractual employees.
Only the highest level of education completed/earned recorded is captured.
1/
Based on the country where the university is locatedTable 8. Five Year History: Recruitment by Region, Gender, Career Stream, and Grade Grouping From FY2017–FY2021
TOTAL
Total
No.

A1–A9

Percent

No.

Percent

ECONOMISTS
A9–A15B1–B5No.

Percent

No.

A9–A15Percent

No.

Percent

SPECIALIZED CAREER STREAM

B1–B5
No.

Percent

A1–A8
No.

A9–A15Percent

No.

Percent

B1–B5
No.

Percent
10.5

Africa (sub-Saharan)

82

8.9

9

5.1

71

10.2

2

4.3

48

10.6

0

0.0

9

5.1

23

9.4

2

East Asia (ASEAN+)

126

13.7

25

14.2

97

13.9

4

8.5

69

15.2

4

14.3

25

14.2

28

11.5

0

0.0

Middle East & North Africa+ (MENA+)

51

5.5

5

2.8

44

6.3

2

4.3

36

7.9

1

3.6

5

2.8

8

3.3

1

5.3

Asia (excl. East Asia)

56

6.1

9

5.1

44

6.3

3

6.4

25

5.5

1

3.6

9

5.1

19

7.8

2

10.5

Europe (excl. Transition Countries)

216

23.5

9

5.1

194

27.8

13

27.7

146

32.2

9

32.1

9

5.1

48

19.7

4

21.1

Other Western Hemisphere

110

11.9

30

17.0

76

10.9

4

8.5

48

10.6

3

10.7

30

17.0

28

11.5

1

5.3

Transition Countries

74

8.0

18

10.2

54

7.7

2

4.3

34

7.5

2

7.1

18

10.2

20

8.2

0

0.0

U.S. & Canada

206

22.4

71

40.3

118

16.9

17

36.2

48

10.6

8

28.6

71

40.3

70

28.7

9

47.4

TOTAL

921

100

176

100

698

100

47

100

454

100

28

100

176

100

244

100

19

100

Women

412

44.7

136

77.3

257

36.8

19

40.4

139

30.6

11

39.3

136

77.3

118

48.4

8

42.1

Men

509

55.3

40

22.7

441

63.2

28

59.6

315

69.4

17

60.7

40

22.7

126

51.6

11

57.9

Source: PeopleSoft HRMS. Excludes OED and IEO.

2020–2021 Report41

IMF Diversity and Inclusion Oﬃce

42

Table 9. Staff Turnover by Gender and Diversity Category as of end of FY 2021
STOCK AS OF Q4 FY 2020

SEPARATIONS IN FY 20211/

TURNOVER

CATEGORY

GRADE

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

TOTAL

A1–B5

2,793

100.0

160

5.7

A1–A8

428

15.3

30

7.0

A9–A15

2,020

72.3

104

5.1

B1–B5

345

12.4

26

7.5

A1–B5

1,265

45.3

72

5.7

A1–A8

356

83.2

25

7.0

A9–A15

801

39.7

42

5.2

Women

Men

Underrepresented Regions

Sub–Saharan Africa (SSA)

East Asia (ASEAN +3)

Middle East and North Africa+ (MENA+)

Other Regions

Source: PeopleSoft. Excludes IMF Board and Independent Oﬃces.
1/
Separation includes:
Resignation – Resignation, Separation, and Expiration of Appointment
Retirement – Normal Retirement, Early Retirement, and Mandatory Retirement
Other Retirement/Resignation – Death and Disability Retirement

B1–B5

108

31.3

5

4.6

A1–B5

1,528

54.7

88

5.8

A1–A8

72

16.8

5

6.9

A9–A15

1,219

60.3

62

5.1

B1–B5

237

68.7

21

8.9

A1–B5

740

26.5

42

5.7

A1–A8

119

27.8

12

10.1

A9–A15

561

27.8

23

4.1

B1–B5

60

17.4

7

11.7

A1–B5

236

8.4

14

5.9

A1–A8

44

10.3

4

9.1

A9–A15

173

8.6

8

4.6
10.5

B1–B5

19

5.5

2

A1–B5

366

13.1

24

6.6

A1–A8

64

15.0

7

10.9

A9–A15

282

14.0

12

4.3

B1–B5

20

5.8

5

25.0
2.9

A1–B5

138

4.9

4

A1–A8

11

2.6

1

9.1

A9–A15

106

5.2

3

2.8
0.0

B1–B5

21

6.1

0

A1–B5

2,053

73.5

118

5.7

A1–A8

309

72.2

18

5.8

A9–A15

1,459

72.2

81

5.6

B1–B5

285

82.6

19

6.7

http://Diversity
diversity@IMF.org