Q: What is the timeframe, and where are we now?

A: Many of these deliverables have already been implemented and are benefiting large numbers of staff, including the removal of the indemnity for mobile staff, the improved Living Wage policy, the Global Pay Policy Framework, more attractive pay for coordinators, a ceiling of 48 working hours a week, global healthcare plan, and revised paid leave provision.  Other deliverables will begin to be applied soon, including the Global Grading Framework and the Mobile Staff Rewards Policy which includes the Mobile Salary Grid, individual experience assessment, and removal of per diem. Detailed timelines can be found here.  

Q: Will the Rewards Review outcomes be applied retroactively?  

A: Changes to policies are not retroactive. Upon approval and finalisation of the implementation plan, the changes begin as per the agreed schedule and approach, which in some cases may be phased country-by-country requiring many months to be implemented throughout the organisation.

Q: Is MSF engaging with other organisations and external experts?

A: The Rewards Review is informed by practices of other actions/organisations. We participate in several fora for exchanging information with other organisations.  We have bilateral meetings with other organisations who have carried out similar ambitious projects to share their experience in rolling out staff benefits and their approach to staff engagement in developing these benefits. We are also part of a network of INGOs called Project Fair where different NGOs exchanges experiences and challenges in relation to fairness in remuneration.

Finally, we get technical advice from HR consultancies that know the range of policies and tools that are available and good practice. At different stages and on some deliverables, we use external consultants such as Korn Ferry, to build MSF’s Global Grading Framework.

The planning and design of different rewards changes are also done through extensive engagement and contribution with a number of intersectional platforms, working groups, subject-matter-experts, and teams across the organisation.  This broad and intersectional approach to planning, design and implementation ensures this is aligned to the needs of all entities and prioritised by all entities.

Q: How will volunteers and Ministry of Health (MoH) partners be affected by MSF’s revised rewards system?

A: Salaries, payments, and benefits for Volunteers and MoH partners are not in scope of the Rewards Review. We recognize that the way MSF rewards these two groups may be perceived as inequitable. However, MSF has decided that the scope of the Rewards Review is limited to staff who are on MSF employment contracts, given that MSF has capacity to autonomously decide on their remuneration.

There may be a perceived risk that by increasing salaries of country-based staff in programmes (often referred to as locally hired staff) MSF will either generate or increase the gap between MSF and MoH staff, and that this could increase tensions between MSF Staff and MoH working alongside or encourage MoH staff leave and work with MSF instead.  

This perceived risk was assessed, and it is believed it should not be a high risk. The groups of staff that are foreseen to have an increase due to Rewards measures are mostly the lower-level positions and the highest-level positions. Issues of tensions between MoH salaries and MSF salaries has always been a challenge, and we have never conducted a formal analysis on the internal market impact. That said, MSF is also focused on standard of care and expectations related to being a Responsible Employer.   

Q: How are these rewards changes implemented in countries where both programmes (missions) and HQ/offices exist?

A: All country-based positions (formerly separated into HQ positions and locally hired staff positions) will be treated in the same way. When rewards policies are implemented in countries that have programmes and entities co-located, for instance Kenya or Poland, there is a commitment to consistent and aligned implementation.  For example, when the improve paid leaves policy is implemented in Kenya, it is implemented by all programmes and by MSF Eastern Africa at the same time, reinforcing the commitment to aligned implementation.

In another example, when implementing the Global Grading Framework, all positions (formerly separated into HQ and Field functions) will be graded using a global framework with the same consistent approach to valuing a position’s grade/level, bringing more consistency and transparency particularly in countries where both programmes and HQ offices exist. Learn more about the global grading framework here.

Q: What if local regulations are different from MSF standards in rewards? 

A: It is essential to refer to the local legislation and cultural context when developing local leave policies. Local legal requirements, when more favourable than MSF minimum standards will be applied. In every global rewards policy change implemented by MSF there are implementation guidance tools to ensure this analysis and comparison is completed by context.  
 

Q: What are the new staff groups, and what is the purpose of changing?

A: Positions are grouped together for the purposes of defining how these groups receive pay and benefits. Previous staff groups did not reflect the reality of how MSF works or the needs of our global workforce. For example, MSF has both HQ staff and country-based staff in programme working in the same context and in the same location, yet are rewarded very differently in the current model, reinforcing perceptions of inequity. One of the key objectives in revising staff groups is to reduce differences in the way people are remunerated in the same context and in the same location. 

The new staff groups are:

• Country-based positions: Positions performed in the same context over an extended period of time, and not entailing international mobility. Paid on the local salary grid where the work is taking place. Includes positions filled by staff hired locally in programmes (formerly called “Locally Hired Staff in Programmes”) and in offices (formerly called “Locally Hired Staff in HQ/Offices” or “HQ staff”).  
• Mobile positions: Positions that involve moving internationally to take on assignments limited in time in programmes. Mobile positions will be paid using a mobile salary grid irrespective of where the mobile staff come from.  The decision to pay all staff on the same grid (the Mobile Salary Grid for mobile staff) comes out of the multiple motions agreed by different General Assemblies (including the International one) which considered that using domicile to determine the salary of Mobile Staff was unfair and potentially discriminatory.

Q: In the initial proposal of Staff Groups, it included “relocated positions”, what happened to ”Relocated”? 

A: In 2023, the Full ExCom validated a major change in the definition MSF staff groups. The decision taken at that time was that MSF would go from having three staff groups to having only two (Country-based and Mobile staff).  As part of this change the Full ExCom decided it was important to differentiate between staff moving internationally to undertake programme positions for limited periods (“Mobile” group), and staff relocating to another country for a long-term position over years in the same country (“Relocated”). 

Following this Full ExCom decision, the feasibility of this change was explored thoroughly, including legal and administrative analysis, together with in-depth discussions on the potential impact on staff and operations. Taking into account the complexities identified in the feasibility analysis, the challenges in implementing such a complex change and the limited number of staff that would be impacted, in early 2025 MSF decided to de-prioritize this specific change in order to ensure sufficient capacity for other imminent changes. This means that the implementation of the “Relocated” staff is not being pursued for the time being but will be discussed again in the future. 

This does not impact the decision to have only two overall staff groups in MSF (“Country-based” and “Mobile”).  The small portion of staff moving to another country to work in programmes for a long period of time will be considered and remunerated as part of the Mobile staff group. Staff moving to another country to work in offices (HQ) will be part of the Country-based staff group, in line with what is already happening now.

Q: Who will determine if a position is mobile or country-based?

A: Having mobile or country-based positions will largely be informed by operational needs of MSF and to an extent the availability of staff to fill positions. The assessments will be made by the individual OD as the needs determine.
 

Q: How is the new approach to determining individual pay?  

A: Individual pay is the component of pay used to recognise previous experience of a staff member.  

There will be a 20% salary range for each level, comprised of 10 steps of 2% each step.  Steps can be gained through:

• Time worked in MSF anywhere in any capacity (change from the current loyalty which considered only work in programmes.
• Relevant external experience (broader than the current definition) assessed for a job in level 15+ of the Programme Function Grid.  

This global definition of individual pay will be used to determine the individual pay of mobile staff and country based staff in programmes, reducing differences in pay approaches for all staff and building more equity.

Q: Why is relevant external experience only considered for jobs in level 15 or above?

A: In the previous compensation framework, relevant external experience was recognised only for certain staff categories, mainly mobile staff positions. As the organisation evolved, this category‑based approach no longer matched the diversity of roles and responsibilities. The compensation review therefore shifted from a category‑based system to one linked to levels of responsibility.

This change does not reflect the value or importance of any role. All staff across all levels contribute critically to MSF’s mission. The decision to assess relevant external experience only from GGF15 and above is based solely on where such experience has the most direct impact on job requirements.

Q: Will there be a standard formula and time for reviewing salaries in countries where MSF has programmes? 

A: There is now a commitment to complete salary reviews every 2 years in all countries with MSF programmes, whereby previously these salary reviews were conducted every 3-5 years. This improved timeline responds to the needs of many MSF staff who saw their salaries impacts by inflation and unstable markets over a short time.  

Q: How does MSF define a Living Wage?

A: MSF's living wage is defined as the full-time wage necessary to support the purchase of goods and services needed to provide a healthy standard of living for the staff member and their core family in modest surroundings, taking into account other income earners.  Due to the variety of contexts and countries where MSF has activities, there are no external indicators that can be used in all locations where MSF is present to ensure consistency. MSF has thus developed its own Living Wage methodology and data collection, which determines how data are collected and processed to arrive at what MSF calls the MSF calculated living wage for a particular country.  We use it as a critical indicator during salary reviews to check against the labour market data and aims to align its starting pay (lowest level) at least at a living wage in all locations.

Q: Will changes to pay have an impact on how much tax I pay? 

A: Tax remittances remain a personal (and legal) obligation of staff. Salaries are taxed according to the legislation of the contracting country.  As a reminder, mobile staff continue to be responsible for complying with requirements to pay income tax according to the fiscal rules in the countries where they reside. These requirements vary from country to country. Because changes to pay policies will result in higher salaries for many staff, this may mean an increase in the amount of taxes paid by an individual.  MSF is currently looking into options to reduce risks around income tax. This is very complex, expected to take some time and might in future impact how tax filing obligations are fulfilled. Staff will be updated as this work progresses.

Q: What are "mandates" for coordination positions?

A: Staff in coordination positions in programmes are mandated for a maximum duration of 3 years, renewable once for a maximum of 6 years (often viewed as 3+3 years). This is in line with MSF Human Resources Principles on Staff Mobility and Team Diversity approved by the Core ExCom in March 2018 which confirmed that any coordination position is subject to temporary assignment.  As stated in the HR principles on staff mobility and team diversity, “MSF wants to maintain a balance in staff turnover of top management positions to ensure dynamism and continuity and to avoid complacency, in particular linked to resources and people management. To keep its operational reactivity, it is important to limit the amount of time a person can spend in the same position. Coordination assignments should therefore not exceed three to six years. This principle is valid for any MSF employee in a coordination position.”  

Completion of the fixed coordination mandate are rewarded by an “End of mandate payment”, with the objective of increasing stability in such positions and to partially compensate for the loss of job guarantee that the fixed mandates imply.  Implementation of this change began in January 2025.  Full details of this policy can be found here (MSF account required). 

Q: A policy was implemented to cap the maximum contracted hours to 48 hours per week. Although I am contracted at fewer than 48 hours/week, many staff work more than this average per week.  How will this be addressed?  

The IDRH prioritized this measure to remove an exception in the current policies for country-based staff in programmes (Common Frame) that allowed for some country-based programme staff to work for up to 60 hours per week. This change does not target Mobile staff because no mobile staff are contracted for more than 48 hours / week.

The working group in charge of the Rewards Review workstream dedicated to working hours is now reviewing current practices and gathering detailed data on working hours to identify the next priorities, but currently this remains a discussion at programme or team level to encourage a stronger work life balance.
 

Q: With one mobile salary grid applicable to all mobile staff regardless of where they come from, what if mobile staff only accept assignments in countries with low costs of living?

A: The decision to pay all staff on a Single Mobile Salary Grid for mobile staff comes out of the multiple motions agreed by different General Assemblies (including the International one) which considered that using domicile to determine the salary of Internationally Mobile Staff was unfair and potentially discriminatory. In this sense the rationale is to go towards the concept of "same job salary" within each staff group. For instance, if two doctors are working beside each other doing the same job in Country X and exposed to the same expenses because they are not working in their country of residence, they will be rewarded consistently (aligning to the concept of same job same pay).   

Although purchasing power in individual countries of residence may differ, the requirement of mobile staff while on contract is to be away from their country of residence and are therefore beholden to the same expenses as other mobile staff in each context. 

Mobile staff accept assignments based on many factors and - according to all surveys -Mobile Staff tend to accept assignments according to the operational interest and impact as the primary reason, not purchasing power. Currently all assignments differ in many other aspects than only cost of living ranging from security, possibility to bring families, more freedom of movement and leisure opportunity, closeness to beneficiaries, etc. All those factors play a role in the request for an assignment. It is unlikely that purchasing power between certain locations will become a primary deciding factor in future.

Q: What can be expected in the new Mobile Salary Grid?

A: The Mobile Salary Grid establishes pay for all mobile staff regardless of their country of origin.  Salaries will no longer be adjusted to the country of domicile.  The Mobile Salary Grid will benchmark salaries at the median compared to similar organisations (INGOs based in Europe). 

The Mobile Salary Grid has 8 salary levels and more regular steps which allows for salary progression when people take on more senior roles.  The Mobile Salary Grid will be implemented effective November 2026, and the majority of mobile staff will see an increase in their total remuneration.  No mobile staff will see a reduction in current salary.  

Q: What happens if mobile staff currently receive a salary higher than what is provided in the Mobile Salary Grid? 

A: The vast majority of staff – at least 89% of mobile staff - will benefit not only a from salary increase, but also a total package increase.  Where staff are negatively affected, existing staff on contract will have their gross package protected.  There are detailed guidelines on how this will be done that impacted staff will be informed about.  

For the approx. 7% of staff who would have a higher salary but a loss in total gross package (adding PD removal and change in HCA), transition measures are in place where any potential loss in total gross package will be compensated (for those on assignment on November 1 for the duration of their assignment). For the 4% of mobile staff where their current salary is higher than the salary in the Mobile Salary Grid, long term salary protection measures will apply for any future assignments, provided the person has not had a break in service of more than 12 months. However, if a mobile staff is benefiting from a specific protection linked their transfer to the ICO, this does not apply if they move to another OD (as currently).

Q: What happened to the proposal of identifying a ‘Returnee’ package?  It was originally part of the proposals related from the Rewards Review but it is no longer discussed.   

A: There was a proposal to provide Returnees (internationally mobile staff returning to their own country to work with MSF) with additional allowances for a determined period in recognition of international experience and their intention to remain working with MSF in their own country.  The definition of these potential measures is currently being discussed with the objective of a developing them for validation by the end of 2025.

Q: How will changes to pay impact current packages for international mobile staff with specific packages, such as LTA 12/24 months, Vocationer, Leap. Etc.?

A: A partial review of the existing packages for international mobile staff is ongoing to make sure they are aligned to the spirit of the Rewards Review and continue to respond to operational staffing needs. The focus will be mostly on Emergency Response related packages, as this has been reconfirmed as the most critical priority for MSF at this stage.

Q: When are these changes being implemented for Mobile Staff? 

A: For Mobile Staff, the following changes will happen simultaneously as of November 1, 2026: implementation of the Mobile Salary Grid, changes in how individual pay is determined, the removal of Per Diem, and the use of the Programme Function Grid to determine job level and job title.

Individual communication to mobile staff who will be on assignment as of November will begin mid-June however some entities may need more time and will begin individual communication later in summer 2026. Exact timeframes that mobile staff can expect these individual communications will be confirmed by each entity.  

All mobile staff beneficiating from an increase of total package (89% of mobile staff) will switch to the new package as of November 1, 2026. Transition measures will be applied for the small percentage of mobile staff for which the current total package is higher than the future one until the end of their assignment. Long term salary protection will apply only to staff for which the new salary in the Mobile Salary Grid is lower than the IRP 2 salary.

Q: Why are transition measures only in place for my initial assignment?

A: The vast majority of existing mobile staff will see increases in their total compensation. For the others, transitional measures will be applied to ensure no one incurs a loss in gross total package during their on-going assignment. Long-term salary protection measures will apply where needed. Measures were agreed by the IDRH to ensure staff do not incur a loss in their gross total package during their on-going assignment and to ensure stability of compensation during this transition. The decision to adopt these measures was driven mainly by fairness considerations. Staff who were already on assignment on 1 October could not have anticipated the new conditions when they signed their contracts. This will not be the case for future assignments, so no transition measures will be needed going forward.  

Q: How long will my salary be protected?

A: The vast majority of existing mobile staff will see increases in their total compensation. For the small percentage of mobile staff whose current salaries are higher than they would be under the Mobile Staff Rewards policy, salary protection measures will apply. Protection measures will be maintained from 1 October 2026 onwards, provided there is no break of service exceeding 12 months between assignments. This means that this salary protection will apply for future assignments until your salary under the Mobile Staff Rewards policy is equal or higher than your current salary. Note that if you take a position lower than your current one, this protection may be impacted.

Q: What if I don’t agree to these new policies?

A: The new Mobile Staff Rewards policy was designed to ensure a fair, transparent, and consistent reward system across all locations. They apply to all mobile staff and cannot be applied on an individual opt-in or opt-out basis. MSF is strongly committed to facilitating the transition to this new policy. To this end, we have designed and implemented transitional as well as long term salary protection measures. We understand that change can raise concerns, and mobile staff are encouraged to ask their Entity any questions necessary to understand how the new system is applied.

Q: Why is MSF removing per diem? 

A: Per diem has been consistently perceived as a “badge of privilege” that generates unjustifiable differences within MSF staff. Several General Assemblies voted for its removal in the past few years.   

Per Diem, including Per Diem for dependants, is being removed effective the same date as the implementation of the new mobile salary grid.  While the decision to remove per diem has been unanimous, mobile staff in eligible locations will have access to salary advances which will be accomplished in an automated process. 

For people travelling outside of their work location the MSF Global Policy on Travel Allowance will be used. The MSF Global Policy on Travel Allowance sets out the principles and methodology used to determine daily travel allowance amounts. It applies worldwide to all staff travelling outside their regular place of work.   More information on travel allowance can be provided by your Contracting Section or OD. 

Q: How will mobile staff access cash without per diem? 

A: In recognition that MSF works in many locations where it is difficult to access other payment methods mobile staff will have access to salary advances when needed and possible.  The process of requesting salary advances is a simple online tool and the information will be part of onboarding documents. 
In addition, all mobile staff should prepare to access their home funds while on assignment. This may include international banking cards, internationally accepted credit cards, remote access to home banking, electronic funds transfers, etc. Costs of accessing money will be borne by the individual mobile staff. 

For people travelling outside of their work location a travel allowance will be provided. More information on travel allowances can be provided by your Contracting Section or OD.

Q: Will per diem for dependents be removed too? What happens with other family benefits?

A: Yes, per diem for dependents will also be removed. Other family benefits while on assignment such as housing, insurance, travel and school fees will continue as today.

Q: Will the Home Child Allowance for mobile staff change?

A: With the removal of the indemnity period in October 2023, the Home Child Allowance (HCA) became a fixed allowance, applicable for all eligible internationally mobile staff who have special mobility packages such as Vocationers and LTAs. OD-specific conditions have disappeared, but conditions related to length of unaccompanied assignment will remain.  

Q: The Leaves Policy has changed. Where can I learn more about the specific provisions for paid leaves? 

A: The Leaves Policy and more details on the specific types of leaves eligible for MSF staff can be found here.  The Leaves Policy has started to be implemented country by country as of January 2025. To confirm whether the country in which you work has begun applying the revised paid Leaves Policy please contact your programme’s HRCO.   For Mobile Staff the policy is implemented effective July 1, 2025 but to confirm the specific changes mobile staff should contact their contracting section.  

Q: What type of healthcare is included in the healthcare plan and who will have access to this healthcare? 

A: Mental health is included in the health services that MSF considers important for its staff. MSF considers mental health an important aspect of staff well-being. Basic dental care will also be included in the health services that MSF considers important for its staff.

The priority will focus first on programme countries where the needs are higher. Programme countries are also where most of our workforce live and work, and the Full ExCom specifically directed that programme countries are prioritised when reviewing benefits and rewards for MSF staff.  MSF will continue to provide access to healthcare for dependents residing in the same country with the staff member considered part of an employee’s core family (spouse(s) and dependent children).  Core family members not residing with the staff member (either country-based or mobile staff) are currently not covered. This possibility is being investigated and has not been decided yet.  

Q: How and when will the healthcare plan be implemented? 

A: Due to the wide variety of contexts and the differences in healthcare provision today, roll-out will look different depending on the context, impacting differently according to the local situation. 

Analysis of existing healthcare services, access to healthcare and other considerations must first be analysed in each country’s context.  The starting point is different in each context: the type of staff health policy is already in place, health risks are not the same everywhere with varied healthcare services available in country.   At completion of this analysis a roll-out strategy will be determined. We expect additional clarity on this approach in late 2025. 
 

Q: What is this Global Grading Framework (GGF)?  

A: The GGF is a tool that provides a systematic approach and consistent criteria to grading Jobs across MSF, regardless of where the job is located or the staff group it belongs to. It has been developed using the Korn Ferry HAY methodology, a trusted scoring methodology used globally by companies and NGOs including many entities in MSF, which has been customized to the operational reality of MSF. The same framework will be used to grade jobs in Programmes, Offices, Regional Hubs or any other existing or future structures within MSF.   The GGF covers 20 levels which include all MSF jobs, from the highest executive director (level 25) to the lowest unskilled job (level 6).

The GGF is simple to use: A job will be assigned to a Job Family. Each Job Family clusters jobs that reflect a similar type of work (e.g. technicians, health specialists, advisors, etc.) and allows several levels. Each Job Family describes a set of differentiating factors. By identifying which differentiating factors apply to the job, the job’s level will be determined.  

Q: What elements are assessed by the Global Grading Framework for grading a job?  

A: The Global Grading Framework, using the HAY Methodology, assesses the following factors to grade a job:  

Know how: Relevant knowledge, skills and experience needed to achieve the job’s purpose.

Problem solving: Confirming what problems does the role need to solve, and which is the amount and nature of the thinking required to solve them.

Accountability: Measures the effect of the job on end results.

Q: What is the difference between the GGF (grading tool), a Function grid, and a salary grid?

A: The GGF sets the criteria to consistently grade jobs across MSF.  There will be one common tool and methodology (the GGF) for the whole of MSF.  A Function Grid is used to design work and demonstrate organisational hierarchy, support pay structures and career paths within a particular entity or project. Each entity or programme in MSF will have its own Function grid, based on the needs of the Entity or Programme.  A salary grid (or salary structure) is linked to a specific country and entity and determines how much an employee should get paid based on the position they hold on personal elements (e.g. seniority, etc.) and on the market practices of the location where the job is based. Each entity in MSF has its own Salary Grid.   A more detailed description of these different concepts is found here. 

Q: What impact does the GGF have on salary scales?  

A: A salary is determined by both the job grade and the salary grid.  Because salary grids are informed by how similar-graded roles are paid in other organisations in the same context, salary scales will need to be reviewed to ensure alignment with new job grades and corresponding local market practices.  This means changes in grading should be phased with salary reviews.    

For instance, if job A is currently in grade 5 and, after being mapped to GGF, it is expected to be in grade 7, what the local market is paying to such job will no longer be relevant in defining the salary linked to grade 5 but instead will be used to define the salary of level 7 instead.

Q: How will programmes apply the Global Grading Framework?  

A: The standardized jobs in the IRFFG have been graded using the Global Grading Framework.  This resulted in the Programme Function Grid which shows the GGF level of all programme functions and how they relate to each other. IRFFG is being replaced by the Programme Function Grid

For Mobile Staff the Programme Function grid will be replaced at once in November 2026 with the introduction of the new package. For Country Based staff the IRFFG will be replaced by the PFG entity by entity over a period of 4 years. During this time the IRFFG and PFG will run in parallel in locations where the country Mobile staff have already transitioned to PFG while Country Based staff are still on IRFFG.  Implementation of the Programme Function Grid for country based staff in programmes will align with the country’s salary review and salary grid implementation as they are aligned.  

Q: How does the mapping process work?  

A: Each entity will plan and resource its mapping process. Korn Ferry and the IHR Team will support entities to ensure consistency.   There is a detailed Mapping Guide picturing the steps and requirements for the process. It involves several previous steps, including pre-considerations (e.g. budget, assess stakeholders, etc.), a preparation phase (e.g. update job descriptions and org charts, appointing a mapping team, etc.) and training of the entity’s mapping team (e.g. on GGF or how to update job descriptions, etc.).  The mapping step itself includes assigning each job to a Job Family and a level within that Job Family. Interviews are conducted with the entity’s leadership and senior line managers, to ensure each job’s dimensions are well captured before being mapped.   After the mapping process is complete, each entity will analyse the changes with the support of Korn Ferry and IHR, and the outcome of the mapping is agreed by the entity’s MT.  The outcome will also include the entity’s implementation plan.

Q: Some jobs do not perfectly match to one job family.  For example, what if an HR/Admin dual job matches to two job families?

A: Job families and differentiating factors are necessarily generic and abstract, considering they need to cover many different jobs within a global scope. It is perfectly possible that more than one could be considered, which is the reason why each job family includes a description of its main purpose, examples of jobs covered and a brief reference to main accountabilities, activities and results that will provide guidance to choose the most appropriate one.

A job will qualify for a job family based on the majority of the job matching and should be assigned to only one job family. Once assigned to a job family, the job’s level is defined by determining the best fitting differentiating factors as described by the chosen job family.  

Q: Do we make a distinction between Field, hubs, and HQ in how jobs are graded?  

A: The GGF job families are covering all MSF functions regardless of where they are based. Unless otherwise required, the only exception is the management job families. GGF distinguishes program management job family from HQ management job family because the requirements and the differentiating factors applicable are not comparable.  

Q: How is complexity acknowledged within GGF?

A: Since GGF is based in Korn Ferry methodology, the complexity of a job is considered through the assessment of the job itself (i.e. problem-solving factor and the know-how required to provide solutions to the -more or less- complex problems that are encountered). Besides the grading of a job itself, note that during GGF’s design most of the ODs consulted considered that GGF/grading was not the most suitable way to capture context’s complexity, acknowledging that it is a structural tool not fit to adapt to the volatile changing dynamics required to equitably consider it.

Q: I have extensive experience in my field of work. Will this be considered in the level of the function I hold?

A: The expertise required for a job is considered through the assessment of the job itself (i.e. Know How). The GGF determines the level of the function as described in the job description and not the individual experience of the person that occupies the role.  An individual’s experience is considered in determining individual pay.

Q: Why do the levels within Job Families vary? For instance, some jobs have 4 levels and others have 5.  

A: The number of levels in the different job families reflect the needs and complexities of the jobs expected to fit within that job family in MSF. There are different differentiating factors per family, and different main accountabilities across level descriptions. For instance, a nurse can be graded to many levels depending on the complexity and responsibility of that job in a given context. The responsibilities and complexities within jobs called ‘nurse’ are not equal, and therefore they should not be graded at the same level.  

Q: Certain positions do not have an obvious match to a GGF job family. For example, where are Fundraisers, Facilities, support roles, Council, and Association roles?

A: GGF architecture considers both generic job families (e.g. Advisor, Analyst, Manager, Administration, Team Leader, etc.) which can be used to assign jobs no matter the department or area where they are assigned to, and more specific job families designed to fit particular areas or departments (e.g. Public Engagement & Marketing, Operational Communications, Supply Chain Specialist, HR Generalist or Medical Doctors).

Hands-on technical specialist roles in programmes (e.g. engineering, building, etc.) are expected to fall within the lower-medium levels of the job family, while higher levels will allow matching jobs that might include broader accountabilities or impact (e.g. managerial, advisory or reference) while still fitting within the same job family.  

Q: Programme jobs currently found in the IRFFG are not reflective of the future operational needs and need to be revised.  How will GGF manage changes to job descriptions?

A: The GGF was designed in part to address the inflexibility of the current IRFFG - a concern we received from many stakeholders.  The GGF is responsive to MSF’s unique context and is adaptable to the evolving needs both in programmes and in entities.  Because the GGF is designed based on differentiating factors, such as responsibility levels and accountability, it is much easier to determine grades for new or revised jobs.  

Q: There is a likelihood that certain country-based positions in programmes are valued equally or higher than their functional manager level in HQ, based on the grading criteria.  How will this be managed?

A: All jobs across the organisation are valued using the same set of criteria, rather than differentiating value by simple geography. The consistent application of scoring criteria to our functions shows that the Country-based coordination functions in programmes carry large responsibilities in the direct management of MSF projects and therefore score higher in accountability than some advisory functions in the desk. Advisory roles might require higher levels of specialist knowledge and functionally provide the coordinator with processes and specialist information, but the coordinator role has higher accountability scores and direct impact on operations. This needs to be recognized internally and integrated into the future staffing, recruitment, and career development policies (long-term).

For instance, HROs in entities are graded at the same level as HR Coordinators in programmes.  Programme Coordinators (i.e. HRCOs) manage large in-country teams, make strategic and tactical decisions impacting programme outcomes, resources, and safety, and they carry legal and operational liabilities.  Cell Officers (HROs) are functional managers with deep domain expertise, support multiple countries and contexts, influence strategic choices, ensure technical coherence and guide programme directions. Both roles hold significant decision-making authority and both roles require high judgement, autonomy and responsibility.    They are both assigned to the same level based on these similarities.  A consistent valuation of roles regardless of geography allows us to be both internally equitable across senior leadership while also being more truthful of the responsibility of country-based positions in programmes and therefore more relevantly attractive.

Q: Some programme jobs appear to be graded several levels different (up or down) in the Programme Function Grid compared to their grade in the IRFFG. Does this mean there will be salary impacts?

A: There is no confirmed financial impact from the GGF, as benchmarking would still be required regardless of whether jobs shift grades in the GGF. The salary of a job is defined by the local job market, which is confirmed through salary reviews (often called benchmarking) to ensure market alignment. Any shift from a job grade in one grading framework to the GGF does not necessarily lead to adjustments in individual salaries.

For instance, if job A is currently in grade 5 and, after being mapped to GGF, it is expected to be in grade 7, what the local market is paying to such job will not anymore be relevant to define the salary linked to grade 5 but to define the salary linked to level 7 instead.

Q: When executive or leadership levels are hosted by another entity, how can salary scaling be achieved based on the hosting entity if the executive job grade is higher than the highest job grade of the hosting entity?  For instance, if a Hosting Entity highest salary level is 21, but they are requested to host a senior level job which is graded at level 23 (2 levels higher than the highest salary level in the hosting entity’s salary scale) how is this achieved?

A: The hosting entity will determine the salaries for those exceptional grades as required, which should be based on local market data as well as a discussion between the managing entity and hosting entity.  

For example: MSF UK hosts 4 executive/senior level jobs for other entities.  These 4 jobs are graded between Level 23 and 25.  MSF UK’s current grading framework and salary grid only goes as high as Level 22. This means the 4 hosted senior positions are graded higher than MSF UK’s domestic grid and there is no corresponding salary range for these levels.   MSF UK worked with Korn Ferry to project out the higher grade levels using the same strategic criteria used when setting the original grid. Grading for the jobs was the responsibility of the managing entity which was then cross checked by MSF UK and then placed on the extended UK grid.  

Q: How is feedback from staff taken into consideration? 

A:  We have regularly engaged with staff since early 2022, through an extensive series of focus groups, town halls, and presentations.  Several staff communications have been provided, including video presentations, information tools, and project updates.  

We also engage with MSF staff through existing platforms and working groups across all entities on a regular basis.  There are more than 10 different intersectional platforms that contribute to workshops and decisions on the various workstreams and policies resulting from the rewards review, including RIOD and all other Directors’ Platforms, Field HR Platform, Recruitment and Pool Management Platform, HR29, DEI Community of Practice, DirMeds and MedOps among many others.  

ODs and Sections consult and engage staff through their already-established staff representation mechanisms and associations.  There is a dedicated Focal Point for each Section, to enable regular and direct connection within each section.  They conduct entity-specific engagement events and methods to collect feedback and consult with stakeholders and ensure these voices are represented in the design and implementation of these changes.