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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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!

7. 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

8. 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 per DG and grade!

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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 PP
Indicative threshold = 3 x 16.5 = 49.5
Example was AST 2 to AST 3

13. 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.

14. Thank you for your attention!
The Appraisal and Promotion System of the European Commission
DG ADMIN B.5