Hi Erik,
My experience in international HR is that hiring globally is a lofty goal,
but that it rarely works in practice, or at least, it makes it difficult
for any organization to maintain any semblance of equity or fairness in how
people are hired across the world.
Here are a few reasons why it does not work as we think it does:
*On cost and employer of record model (EOR)*
While the WMF has until now hired pretty much everywhere, it has done so at
great cost. Hiring with an employer of record is simply much more expensive
than hiring from "home" (wherever home is). The cost of an employee in most
countries through an employer of record is about 10% to 15% on top of the
person's salary cost to employer, if not more in certain countries. With
700+ employees, I'll let you make the calculation, there are a lot of
millions of donors' money that go to hiring people all over the world. This
alone might not be a reason to restrict hiring locations, but it's worth
mentioning in this conversation :)
*On talent in a global a hiring context*
It is a bit counterintuitive, but the reality of the job market is such
that hiring "globally" for each and every position does not always yield
the most diverse or representative talent. When you're from say, {{insert
here Global South location}}, and you compete with the world for a
position, there is a good chance that someone from {{insert here Global
North location}} will have better recognized education, better credentials,
and experience that suits the role better (it works a bit like the
credibility of sources that are not Time or Der Spiegel, you know?). This
means that in a world where you have 1000 applications for any given
position from the whole world, there's a good chance that people from
countries where access to the recognized credentials and experience is
harder simply won't apply, not because of ability, but because of perceived
competitiveness. If you target a more focused number of countries and state
"I want someone from {{insert here any country}}", your 1000 applicants
will all come from the same background, and you can increase the quality
and true diversity of the applicant pool, and hence the talent you end up
recruiting.
*On legal complexity*
Working with an employer of record means following local laws. No
organization can maintain deep expertise in labor laws in 50 countries,
without significant and costly overhead. My experience with Employers of
record is that they also act sometimes very superficially as a mere
"payroll manager" and not as real employer (well, they're a real employer
on paper, but not really on the ground). They don't always offer the best
conditions for employees, which makes the Foundation be not always
competitive on local job markets. This is not true everywhere, but the idea
is that the more people you will employ in a country, the more chances that
the Foundation, through the EOR, is better positioned to understand and
meet local standards.
*On global benefits*
Following local laws introduces by design unfair comparisons between
locations. Some countries have an excellent health system backed up by
employer contributions, others don't. Some have tons of holidays, other
don't. Some have robust pension schemes, others don't, Some have hire and
fire practices (California), others have long and complicated schemes to
let go of an employee (France). This has advantages and disavantages
depending on where you are (and whether you are the employer or the
employee), but it makes it extremely difficult to have any kind of unity in
the organizational culture. I worked a bit on the idea of "global benefits"
when I was at the Foundation, and thought about what basic requirements
we'd need to have to have some fairness. Well, the work to do that is
titanesque and requires ... even more money, and time.
*On equity across locations*
I am a proponent of compensation based on location (what the Foundation
does), because to have some equity, you shouldn't pay everyone in the world
a San Francisco salary, where one person on the West Coast of the US lives
in an appartment, while someone in a country with a much lower cost of
living ends up in a mansion with pool (that's about the factor you're going
to have between the two ends of your "hiring spectrum" when you have more
than one region in the world and more than 15-20 countries). Hiring from
50+ countries means a lot of discrepancies, and maintaining fair salary
benchmarks is an enormous ongoing undertaking. As an example, research we
did when I was in HR at the Foudation showed how salaries scales don't
follow the same progression depending on context and countries, so you
can't just index your salaries on one country and call it a day with a
local adjustment factor, you need to understand the compensation
technicalities in each country. Fair compensation globally requires country
specific research that is expensive, time-sensitive and int he end
volatile, given the current global economic climate.
*To conclude, *diversity is extremely important for the Foundation staff to
connect with the Wikimedia communities around the world. But there is quite
a difference between geographic diversity and hiring equity. If the
Foundation researches a few countries that are representative of various
regions, and becomes a competiive and well-informed employer there (even
through an EOR), to attract diverse and excellent talent, then I think we
can all benefit from it, and the Foundation employees even more, as they'll
probably have a better employer.
I'll be honest, I have no clue how the Foundation decided this or that
country (for the US, I think it's because you have to be registered in a
state where you hire someone and the registration again will drive
cost/legal complexity depending on the state), so I don't know if cost was
the only driver. I'd be curious to know more about what motivated this
decision and how it's going to be followed up upon. If the direction is
towards deepening their expertise to be a better employer, I think it can
be a good thing.
Yes, diversity takes a bit of a hit, but I think equity might actually
benefit from this in the long run.
I imagine however that if I was still Foundation staff, I would question
whether my country is next, and that can't be a fun space to be in. INnthis
I join you in the hope that HR and leadership is approaching these matters
with the necessary care.
Cheers,
Delphine
Le jeu. 19 mars 2026 à 23:11, Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l <
[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi there,
>
> It looks like the number of US states WMF can currently hire from
> excludes quite a few states (e.g., Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire,
> Kansas, etc.). [1] My understanding is that the list of countries from
> which the Wikimedia Foundation can hire has also been rather
> substantially reduced recently (e.g., no longer including Denmark,
> Ireland, Sweden, Costa Rica).
>
> In my view, as an international org, WMF should ideally aspire to hire
> amazing people wherever they may be. There will naturally be limits,
> especially when maintaining a legal presence in a particular country
> imposes unacceptable risks on the organization or its employees.
>
> That said, I would distinguish between 1) intractable limits ("we
> can't be in this country because it would expose us to too much risk")
> and 2) limits imposed by cost/benefit calculations ("we can't hire in
> Nevada because we don't judge the talent pool to be worth the cost").
>
> In the latter case, I hope WMF will prioritize being expansive rather
> than restrictive, because the ability to hire as broadly as possible
> should be understood as a core value. Given the broader organizational
> and movement value considerations, I feel this is an appropriate topic
> for this list.
>
> (Please note that I say this with much love and respect for the work
> legal and HR professionals do navigating these complex matters daily.
> Ultimately, this feels like a leadership question to me: what is the
> ability to hire in more locations worth to the organization?)
>
> What's WMF's take on that question? Does the organization view
> expanding that list again as a future goal?
>
> Warmly,
>
> Erik
>
> [1]
> https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/7612860?gh_src=vbdohg801us
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/YNLAAF6F6NBULLOBZAQDWJTDZHBTNCEY/
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GK4JCASVGC2NHSKISG7WXZNHM6Q46RLN/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
