*Update 21.11.2024 check out the European Court of Auditors, 2024, Special report 24/2024: EU Civil service–A flexible employment framework, insufficiently used to improve workforce management: it concludes that ‘…the institutions do not focus on imbalances in the SC and AST function groups in their analysis, and concentrate instead on the AD group, and in particular the starting grades (AD5-AD8).‘ (P. 51) Check out their corresponding chart on p.51 showing the huge and unaddressed imbalances in AST and AST/SC function groups. Why on Earth choose to focus efforts on middle management, on part of a function group?[*] Where’s the global vision? Why tackle the hard stuff?*
*Update 10.11.2024 ECA Special report 24/2024: coincides with many of the issues we have pointed out:
Internal competitions are mainly used to provide opportunities for the high performing temporary staff members to become officials. Their potential to provide
additional career prospects to staff in the SC and AST function groups is underused, due to the eligibility criteria that are set. These two function groups have undergone significant changes to their job content, and their staff often comply with the minimum
academic requirements of AD staff. This results in a certain level of staff dissatisfaction (Special report 24/2024, Paragraph 103)
Original article: For years, the European Commission has maintained policies that stifle career progression for AST (Assistant) staff. There are no internal competitions beyond AST4 and no EPSO competitions beyond AST3. All that is left is to either take on more and more in the hope of being promoted a little faster (there is little evidence that this works) or, once they reach AST5, have a go at the opaque and demotivating certification process: the promise of a path forward. This system has created a significant bottleneck for many ASTs, who continue to take on AD (Administrator) duties without recognition or the opportunity for advancement.
Where is the AST function group currently?
Generation 2004 continues to monitor the HR Key Figures, published annually by the Commission, to track these trends and advocate for a fairer approach to career progression in general (and for ASTs, AST/SCs and CAs in particular). Our analysis reveals a significant reduction in the number of AST staff between 2015 and 2024, with the AST function group shrinking by 38.5%.
We’ve spoken already about a potential phasing out of the AST function group: AST posts continue to be redistributed to AST/SC and AD function groups each year (31 and 131 respectively for 2025) and the ongoing internal competitions are not going to make much difference when successful candidates for reserve lists across the AST1 and AST3 competitions will total only 110 and sysper lists currently 36 AST vacancies.
For some time now there have been more Contract Agents (CAs) in the Commission than ASTs (currently 7729 vs 5855). The Commission continues to shift tasks and responsibilities onto staff in lower function groups and especially onto non-permanent staff, that is, staff with fewer rights, less pay and staff who are constantly on edge, trying to secure the next contract extension.
Despite this reduction in posts and staff numbers, or perhaps even because of it, the majority of AST colleagues continue to perform AD-level tasks, a prerequisite for having any chance at the Certification selection process, with some 300 applying annually from the Commission, together with those in other institutions, all hoping for career progression.
The Certification Debate
While Generation 2004 has raised concerns on many occasions (certification – mission (nearly) impossible, Echoes of unhappiness, Certification: what’s being tested?) about the opaque and outdated certification process, HR maintains that the certification procedure continues to offer meaningful career transformation opportunities for AST colleagues. They point to the fact that since 2005, some 1210 colleagues have been certified, allowing them to transition to AD roles. Furthermore, HR highlights that in 2023, 11% of AD recruitments were former AST colleagues, many of whom had previously succeeded in certification. HR’s defence is that the certification process provides a steady annual opportunity for AST staff to advance their careers and that the impact of the procedure is far from limited. They argue that certification remains an important mechanism for career progression and that the system is functioning effectively for those who succeed in navigating it.
We find that certification has a demotivating and demoralising effect on those who apply year after year only to receive the vaguest of guidance on what might be asked, and even less clear feedback on why their candidature is rejected. We’ve seen colleagues apply each year for almost a decade and be given contradictory feedback. We find also that Certification can be a source of frustration, and even, for those lucky enough to be identified at all eliminatory stages of the selection process as having potential, having their names and DGs announced publicly, only to find that after 7 weeks of intensive formal training (and however much informal practice) that they are part of the >80% of their class that did not pass (FR class 2023/2024), a failure again made public when the names of successful candidates are published. Colleagues ask again and again why your name was not on that list.
Generation 2004 challenges the real accessibility of this whole process, from selection to taking up an AD post (or not). AST colleagues often struggle with unclear and inconsistent preparation guidelines for the pre-selection phase and interviews, with inconsistent messages from HR and examiners creating confusion. While the certification process may offer a path forward for some, many candidates face significant barriers. The very high failure rate, limited and muddled feedback, and the disconnect between the instructions given by HR and the actual feedback from examiners make it difficult for candidates to adequately prepare. As a result, many AST colleagues are left feeling frustrated and demotivated by a process that does not align with the skills they have developed over years of service, and those are often years of AD tasks and responsibilities.
The pass rate for certification overall has dropped to as low as 33% in recent years, underscoring the challenges candidates face. While the success of the 1210 certified colleagues is noteworthy, the majority of AST staff remain stuck in a system that does not provide sufficient opportunities for career growth, leaving many performing AD-level tasks without the recognition or promotion they deserve and with little way of stepping back from those tasks if and when they decide to abandon all hopes of certification.
The Way Forward
Generation 2004 continues to advocate for a thorough reform of the certification process, but the changes proposed so far do not go far enough. While some improvements aim to shorten the training component, the restrictive pre-selection and interview phases remain unchanged. Even candidates who pass the exams often express dissatisfaction, feeling that the process is disconnected from the reality of their roles and the institution’s needs. To address these issues, Generation 2004 advocates for abandoning the current artificial restricting of internal competitions to staff already in that function group. Other EU institutions, like the European Parliament and the Court of Justice, already allow this. There is no legal basis preventing the Commission from adopting this approach. Additionally, we propose creating a Senior Professional Program, modelled after the Junior Professionals Programme (JPP), to provide AST and AST/SC colleagues with a structured path for advancement to a higher function group based on their experience. While the recent inclusion of AST/SC staff in the 2024 AST1 and AST3 competitions is a step in the right direction, it is far from enough. The exclusion of ASTs from AD internal competitions is both unfair and discriminatory, particularly when no open generalist AD5 competition has been organised for assistants in the past five years. Meanwhile, Junior Professionals, with far less experience, are offered greater opportunities for career advancement.
The Commission is underutilising the talent of its AST staff by maintaining this rigid system. Many ASTs have decades of experience and are already performing AD duties without acknowledgement. Ideally, the Commission needs to move beyond the outdated certification process and allow full cross-function-group internal competitions. Generation 2004 will continue to push for these necessary reforms and ensure that career prospects are addressed with the incoming Commissioner. Additionally, Generation 2004 is requesting to be involved in the discussions of the HR Working Group that is currently evaluating the certification process. All EU institution staff deserve opportunities for growth, not exploitation. It’s time for the Commission to fully recognise the contributions of its AST, AST/SC and CA staff and nurture their talents by providing a future that is filled with opportunities for more inclusive advancement and recognition, rather than neglecting their potential and losing their motivation.
As always, we would love to hear from you.
Please do not hesitate to get in touch with us or leave a comment below.
If you appreciate our work, consider becoming a member of Generation 2004.
—————————————–
[*] We’d like to see balance at all levels and in all function groups. Why focus on AD8 upwards?‘by the end of our mandate, we will have gender equality at all levels of management – for the first time. This will change the face of the Commission’. (2019 President von der Leyen, Plenary 27 November 2019).
As we’ve often pointed out, women outnumber men at the Commission in every function group and category EXCEPT Administrator (48% female) and contract agents GF I (31% female) we would like to see a much more even distribution. Within the AD function group men disproportionately occupy AD11-16 posts. Women outnumber men in ‘junior’ grades AD5-7 (European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff, Figure 10). We want to see more male AST/SC (78.2% female), AST (67.9% female), GFI I (78% female) staff (October 2024 statistical bulletin and our reworking of those figures).