World Economic Forum reviews

There is a structural issue with the middle-management layer, where certain Level 3 managers take on visibility and travel opportunities without necessarily contributing proportionate value. These managers often position themselves as owning key relationships, even though much of the actual stakeholder engagement and operational delivery is handled by Level 2 and Level 1 staff. As a result, the work of Level 2 and Level 1 staff goes unnoticed, while those in mid-level roles receive disproportionate recognition and access to opportunities such as Davos staffing. The allocation of key event quotas and travel opportunities often favors Level 3 managers, even when they are not the ones driving the substantive work or operational knowledge. Level 1 and Level 2 colleagues do 70–80% of the substantive work, but their contributions are invisible because managers capture the credit. Many Level 3s at the Forum behave like senior managers externally but function operationally like junior staff, creating confusion and misalignment. There is a persistent structural issue in which long-tenured Level 3 managers operate with limited oversight, resulting in an environment where junior staff often face inconsistent expectations, restricted visibility, and limited career progression. In most cases, these managers exert disproportionate control over access to opportunities and information/resources, and that creates gatekeeping dynamics and discourages high-performing Level 1 and Level 2 employees. Instead of coaching and developing talent, those toxic managers rely on bureaucratic tactics, informal case-building, or selective information-sharing that undermine psychological safety and contribute to avoidable turnover. The result is a culture where political navigation often matters more than performance or collaboration.

- A lot of colleagues have been discrimated or bullied by their toxic managers, but this seems to be part of a broader culture where management is protected at the expense of employee wellbeing. - There is a pattern of teams justifying frequent business trips using broad explanations such as "joint events" or "relationship building", yet these trips rarely produce measurable outcomes. The lack of accountability or performance evaluation around travel results in repeated expenses without meaningful impact. Employees who engage in this practice face no consequences, which reinforces a culture where resources are used inefficiently and results are secondary. - Many regional teams are based in the Geneva HQ despite the Forum operating multiple regional offices. Staff hired in Geneva frequently travel back to the regions, often without a clear assessment of whether this structure is cost-effective. Travel is approved routinely, with limited transparency around budgeting or impact. This raises questions about how partner contributions are used, as significant resources are spent on travel that does not always generate measurable regional outcomes. Stronger oversight and clearer budget responsibility would greatly improve accountability. - Employees, particularly within industry or centre teams, attend a large number of external events with minimal oversight or clear criteria for participation. This creates the perception that some staff use these events more for personal networking than for generating organizational value. Without a structured approval process or follow-up on outcomes, event attendance can feel more like individual career positioning than strategic engagement for the Forum. Stronger guidelines and accountability would help ensure that resources are being used in a way that aligns with the organization’s goals.