The Appraisal and Promotion System of the European Commission Hans-Georg Gerstenlauer ADMIN B.5 Social Dialogue, Enlargement and Relations with Public Administrations

Agenda History Overall Principles of the Career System Career Development Review (CDR) Promotion System Stocktaking

Origin of CDR/Promotion Reform Part of a wider plan launched by the PRODI Commission in March 2000, White paper on administrative reform (budget and planning procedures, financial control and staff policy) Previous staff appraisal and promotion procedures insufficiently based on transparent and standardised criteria Objective of the reform: better promote and reward staff performance instead of seniority as often before. Last two points only shortly mentioned here, in more detail on the following slights

Disadvantages of the former system No real link between evaluation and promotion No link with other HR policies Backward looking, paper-based procedure with poor reports every two years Appraisal and promotion procedures insufficiently based on transparent and standardised criteria Senority as main principle for promotion ‚Mobility‘ as obstacle to promotion The system caused a blockade of career if there were many colleagues in the DG/Directorate of the same grade: only a limited number could get promoted, and here the colleagues most senior in age and in grade got priority One also lost seniority when he or she changed the Directorate-General: one had to start from scratch after mobility

Objectives of the reform To better promote and reward staff performance instead of seniority as often before To introduce a system that would underpin the reform, i.e. performance management, new responsibilities for the middle management To establish a dialogue culture when assessing performance To make better use of ICT

Overall Principles Career system instead of a position system Two functions groups: Administrators AD and Assistants AST with only few restrictions in the career paths 1 5 11 16 For Administrators without management responsibility: career limited to AD14 Performance management: improve the performance of individuals and of the organisation through the development of staff Fundamental change of a manager’s role: from policy making to people management!

Career Development Review (CDR) Personal objectives and job description Self-assessment prepared by each jobholder Formalised dialogue between jobholders and line managers, on merit (retrospective) and career perspectives (future) = the report plus objectives for next year + training needs Appeal procedure Electronic system The method: The results: Annual appraisal based on objectives which allows career development

Career Development Review (CDR) Annual Report Efficiency Competences Conduct 10 6 4 against job description + objectives against job description + framework (appraisal standards) Global assessment REPORT plus max. 20 Merit Points per official, but this must comply with an average of 14.25 per DG and grade!

The promotion system The principle: Clear link between individual merits (performance) and promotion Basis: merit points Distribution of max. 10 priority points (PP) by the DG Accumulation of points over time → ‘the rucksack’ Promotion thresholds per grade Promotion once the number of accumulated points reaches the promotion threshold “set” per grade The method: The result: Career speed is a function of performance

The promotion system – the points Max. 10 priority points ! Director-Generals get a package of 2.5 PP per official Awarded to the best-performing officials by management team based on comparative merit, in particular: The CDR The use of languages in the execution of duties The level of responsibility

The promotion system – the rucksack The rucksack (example) Year Merit Points Priority Points Total 2004 14 2005 14.5 2 30.5 2006 15.5 6 52 Threshold for this function group = 49.5 Promoted in 2006 ! points remaining in the rucksack = 2.5

The promotion system – the thresholds Calculation of the indicative thresholds: Average performer should (on average) get a promotion around the average waiting time in his grade (AWG) Average performer gets average marks and an average number of priority points (AMP) AWG x AMP ~= threshold Example AWG = 3 years AMP = 14 MP + 2.5 PP Indicative threshold = 3 x 16.5 = 49.5 Example was AST 2 to AST 3

Time to take stock of the system The well proven elements: The annuality of the evaluation exercise (previously every 2 years) Personal objectives Self-assessment Formalised dialogue with line managers Elements that are currently under revision: Length and complexity of the procedure (January until November) Evaluation: low dispersal of merit marks, and the forced average Priority points: lack of transparency Unstable promotion thresholds Self-assessment (produces a sense of ownership) Personal objectives: job holder knows what is expected from him/her Formalised dialogue with line manageres: seen as a priviliged moment both by the jobholders and the managers.

Thank you for your attention! The Appraisal and Promotion System of the European Commission hans-georg.gerstenlauer@ec.europa.eu DG ADMIN B.5