The Importance of Being Heard and Recognized

01 The Case

When Lina joined a field office, she brought years of professional experience and a strong technical background. From the outset, she found herself navigating two worlds at once. Her formal reporting lines and many of the relationships that shaped decisions about her work were based at the ADB headquarters. The pressures she managed every day were local: a small field office, the demands of handling relationships with different national stakeholders, and unspoken social rules that shaped how credibility was read and respected. In that setting, local norms around age, seniority, gender, and perceived status could shape whose voice carried weight, whose judgment was questioned, and who was expected to defer.

She had been recruited to contribute her technical expertise, yet often felt she first had to establish why her perspective carried weight. Around older, or more senior male colleagues at the field office, or in dealings with national stakeholders, she often found herself explaining more, preparing more, and presenting her views more carefully than her male counterparts in order to be taken seriously. The challenge was not only technical. She was also working within cultural expectations that could make assertiveness from women appear less acceptable, even when the same confidence was expected from men. Similar dynamics sometimes appeared in broader discussions with the headquarters, where her contributions did not always carry the same weight.

Decisions affecting her work were also shaped from a distance, without always reflecting the realities she was managing on the ground. At times, she was struck by the contradiction of being relied on to deliver, while not always being fully recognized as someone whose local expertise should help shape the work.

The strain extended beyond technical work. When official interactions with local stakeholder became strained, she often found herself helping to smooth the relationship afterward. She would clarify the misunderstandings, and repair working relationships, even when she had not created the problem. The burden of smoothing tensions, preserving trust, and representing the institution well became part of her unofficial responsibilities. In a small field office, support did not always feel easy to access. Anonymity was limited, and raising a concern could easily affect her daily working relationships.

Over time, the pressures added up. Work followed her into evenings, weekends, and periods of sick leave. She worked harder and became more careful about when to speak up, when to defer, and when to stay silent. Outwardly, she appeared confident and composed. Internally, she began to question whether she was reading the situation correctly. She also began thinking seriously about applying for a short-term assignment at the headquarters. On paper, it looked like a development opportunity. At another level, it also seemed to offer distance from a work setting where she felt her expertise had to be repeatedly established before she could be fully heard.

She was still performing well, but was left with a difficult question: What does it cost a person and the organization when capable staff must spend so much energy proving the value of the expertise they were hired to bring?

02 Ombuds Perspective

This case highlights how staff can be asked to contribute expertise while still feeling they have to keep proving their worth. Lina had the technical knowledge and understood local context, but she often felt her perspective did not carry the weight it should. Gender, hierarchy, culture, perceived status, tenure, and distance from the headquarters can all shape whose expertise is heard, trusted, and acted upon.

Lina’s concerns built up through many small moments. Over time, explaining more, choosing her words carefully, and waiting longer for her expertise to be accepted became extra work, much of it invisible. This can create significant strain. When staff are relied on to deliver, but are not consistently heard, their confidence, morale, trust, and engagement can be affected. In some cases, they may begin looking for opportunities outside their immediate work environment as an escape, not because they lack commitment, but because they need a setting where their expertise can be recognized and used more fully.

The issue was not only whether anyone meant to dismiss Lina’s contribution. When capable staff feel they have to work harder to be heard, they may become more cautious, speak up less, or hold back local insights that could improve their work.

There is also an organizational cost. Field office staff often hold important contextual knowledge about stakeholder relationships and local realities. When that knowledge is not fully used, decisions can lose important context. Additionally, in smaller offices, concerns about confidentiality and visibility may also make it harder for staff to seek support.

This case invites reflection on what ADB loses when some staff spend so much energy proving the value of the expertise they were recruited to bring. It also reminds us that inclusion is not only about representation; it is also about whether individuals feel heard, valued, and able to contribute fully.

03 What supervisors can do

• Consider whether all team members are being heard and recognized fairly across gender, location, tenure, and staff category.
• Recognize that field office staff often carry important knowledge about local relationships, cultural expectations, and implementation realities.
• Actively seek inputs from field office colleagues when decisions affect local implementation, stakeholder relationships, or country context.
• Acknowledge the stakeholder relationship management work that field office staff may carry, including the effort required to maintain trust, smooth misunderstandings, and represent ADB well.
• Keep communication between headquarters and field offices clear, timely, and respectful, especially when decisions affect local relationships or stakeholder expectations.
• Notice when a highly capable staff member becomes less engaging, or less willing to contribute.
• Address dismissive or culturally insensitive behavior toward local stakeholders early, especially when it affects local colleagues or external stakeholders.
• Seek to motivate staff and be aware that requests for reassignment, short-term assignments, or other mobility may sometimes be a result of an unhealthy workplace.

04 What Lina can do

• Step back and identify the recurring patterns affecting her work, including when her expertise is overlooked and when decisions are made without field-level input.
• Ask for clearer expectations around her role in technical input, stakeholder engagement, and local relationship management.
• Explain, where appropriate, how decisions made from the headquarters affect her work on the ground, especially when local context or stakeholder sensitivities are missing.
• Raise practical concerns with her supervisor using concrete examples of how the pattern affects the work or relationships.
• Identify trusted colleagues, mentors, or sponsors who can help make her expertise more visible and support her in navigating headquarters and field office dynamics.
• Speak with OOMP to think through her options confidentially and prepare for any conversations she may want to initiate.

05 What colleagues can do

• Make space for colleagues with local knowledge to explain context before conclusions are reached or decisions are made.
• Give credit when a field office colleague’s technical input, stakeholder insight, or relationship management improves the work.
• Support colleagues especially when they are navigating sensitive relationships on behalf of ADB.

06 What the organization can do

• Continue strengthening gender-aware and inclusive management practices so expertise is recognized fairly across location, nationality, and staff category.
• Reinforce the value of local knowledge in decision-making, especially where local staff are managing stakeholder relationships and implementation realities.
• Support mentoring and sponsorship for field office staff so their expertise, career aspirations, and institutional contributions are better understood.
• Understand the potential organizational cost when local expertise is not fully used, including effects on decision quality, stakeholder trust, staff engagement, and delivery across country contexts.