The yearly promotion/reclassification exercise within the European External Action Service (EEAS) is a crucial moment for all staff, whether officials, or non-permanent staff as it directly impacts career development and recognition of merit. The final lists for the 2024 exercises were published 07.11.2024. However, Generation 2004 has observed persistent concerns regarding the lack of transparency, predictability, and security in the current promotion system. We have made similar obervations about the promotions/reclassifications system in the Commission[1].

This article addresses the issues, the process, and offers our proposals for improvement. 

Understanding the Promotion Process 

The 2024 promotion exercise launched on 10 April and followed a structured process that included collaboration between administration and staff representatives. The steps are outlined as follows: 

Consultation Phase (10 April – 13 May): The Secretary-General, Deputy Secretaries-General, and the Director-General for Resource Management consult with Managing Directors, who then consult Directors and Reporting Officers. A consolidated proposal for promotion is then established based on ranking and cascading within the divisions.

• Working Groups (22 May – 19 June): Both administrative and staff representative working groups meet to compare merits at the EEAS level and make recommendations to the Promotion Board.
• Promotion Board and Publication (July – November): The Promotion Board finalizes the list of proposed promotions, which is published mid-July. Following an appeal period, the Joint Promotion Committee makes recommendations on appeals, with the final decision taken by 7 November.

The criteria used in the promotion exercise are based on a comparative assessment of merit, considering annual evaluations, levels of responsibility, and languages used in duties. Additionally, factors such as seniority and specific circumstances are taken into account in cases of equal merit. 

However, despite this seemingly organised process, the reality is different. Generation 2004 has identified several flaws that undermine the fairness and effectiveness of the promotion exercise. 

Challenges in the current system   

1. Lack of Transparency: One of the major issues is that the system does not allow staff to clearly see how decisions are made. Many promotions are still based on subjective evaluations at the division level (‘quotas‘), rather than an institution-wide comparison of merits. This can create disparities and dissatisfaction among staff, particularly when they feel their merit has not been objectively assessed, creating more work all round as more and more colleagues see themselves with no option but to appeal.
2. Inconsistent and unpredictable results: The Commission uses the published average reward speeds at least as a guide. The EEAS promotion system has seen a disproportionally high number of appeals, which indicates a lack of trust in the process. Many staff are left uncertain about how their evaluations are weighted or how their performance compares across the entire institution.
3. Document-security issues: Generation 2004 has noticed that documents related to the promotion exercise are not always officially registered in ARES (the document management system). Instead, they are often circulated through informal channels such as email, which compromises the security and integrity of the process.
4. Limited opportunities for promotion/reclassification: Due to a smaller number of available positions, promotion opportunities are more restricted for different staff categories. This raises the question of who decides how many promotion quotas are allocated to different grades and staff categories. There is a lack of clarity around how these decisions are made.

Generation 2004 proposals for improvement 

To address these concerns, Generation 2004 proposes the following:   

1. Numerical comparison of merit: We advocate for a system where the promotion exercise is based on a transparent numerical comparison across the institution, rather than within divisions. This would allow for a fairer evaluation of all eligible staff similar to the now-obsolete ‘rucksack’ system.
2. Clear criteria for reward: We propose using a set of measurable criteria for all staff eligible for promotion, which should include:

• • Seniority in the grade.
  • Performance based on the annual evaluation reports.
  • Level of responsibility (e.g., ASTs acting as team leaders or heads of administration should be recognized for their leadership roles).
  • Extra work (there should be a clear definition of what constitutes “extra work” and how it is rewarded in the promotion process). This would allow for a more objective evaluation, reducing the reliance on subjective judgments.

3. Secure documentation and processes: The EEAS must ensure that all documents related to the promotion exercise are securely recorded in ARES. This would safeguard the process and ensure that all steps are traceable and verifiable.
4. Equal consideration of non-permanent staff: We urge the administration to clarify and improve the opportunities for temporary agents and Contract Agents[2] to be promoted and reclassified. The current process is too limited and lacks transparency in how quotas are assigned.

We’ve been proposing reform for some time…

Moving Forward 

Generation 2004 remains committed to working with the administration to create a more fair, transparent, and predictable promotion system. Our goal is to ensure that every staff member, regardless of their status or position, has equal access to career development opportunities based on merit and contribution to the institution. 

For any other questions, do not hesitate to get in touch or leave a comment below.

If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004

 —————————————————-

[1] These are the 3 observations we continue to make.

1. There is no evidence that an Institution-wide comparison of merit took place at Joint Preparatory Group and Join Promotion Committee level.
2. An ex-ante-allocation of promotion possibilities among DGs is incompatible with an Institution-wide comparison of merits.
3. The variable quality of reports does not allow for transparent and reproducible comparisons of merit.

[2] Contract agents might also be able to participate in screening to change function group. This is different from reclassification in many ways, and is not a regular, predictable event.