BACK in 2011 the World Bank’s governors committed themselves to an “open, merit-based and transparent” process to select its president. This week the American incumbent, Jim Yong Kim, was confirmed as the sole candidate for the next five-year term in another closed, patronage-based and opaque process. That falls short of the standards the bank seeks of its borrowers, let alone itself. It also hastens the rise of rival institutions.

Mr Kim’s appointment stems from an archaic and now obsolete tradition dating back to the Bretton Woods conference of 1944, by which America chooses the boss of the World Bank and the head of the IMF is a European. That may have reflected the global pecking order as the second world war came to an end. But it does not suit the world today.

The failure—due, largely, to America’s Congress—to reform the Bretton Woods institutions has spread cynicism about them. Countries such as India and, especially, China see such recalcitrance as part of a broader reluctance by the West to cede influence. They have set up multilateral banks where they can call the shots: the New Development Bank, owned by the “BRICS” (Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa), and the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

Facing new competitors in its core business (the financing of large development projects), the World Bank needs a clear sense of purpose under a leader who enjoys the respect of its staff—and its borrowers. Sadly, Mr Kim is not that leader. His previous career, distinguished though it was, as a medical doctor, co-founder of a public-health NGO and president of a liberal-arts college always seemed inadequate preparation for his current job. And he has failed to win the trust of the bank’s employees. The mood is disgruntled and rebellious. Last month the association representing the World Bank’s 15,000 staff, citing surveys showing their dismal morale, wrote in an open letter about a “crisis of leadership”.

Some grumbling is inevitable. In any lumbering bureaucracy that is being forced to endure radical change, even loyal and idealistic staff will resist and complain—just ask a BBC journalist. Some of Mr Kim’s reforms, such as the shift from an organisation run on geographical lines to teams based on areas of expertise, are well-regarded by outsiders. It is hard to find anyone, however, who believes that the reform process, with its heavy reliance on external consultants, has been anything but an agonising, drawn-out shambles. Nor, claim NGOs, have the results made a big difference to the bank’s impact.

Hang on to Mr Kim, for fear of someone worse than him

It is puzzling, therefore, that Mr Kim is being so breezily awarded a second term nearly a year before the first expires. That is far from the norm. One possible explanation is panic that Donald Trump might win the American election and install one of his cronies. Another is that many members would rather see an American placeman hold the job than a candidate from a developing country. Even China is apparently backing Mr Kim, perhaps calculating he is preferable to a South Asian or African (or, worse, reckoning that the bank’s dysfunction might help the AIIB find its feet). This is no way to run a global institution. There is still just time for the bank’s board—and for the sake of his own credibility, Mr Kim himself—to recall that 2011 pledge and insist on a proper contest.