On 30 June, Generation 2004 hosted an open lunchtime brainstorming session [1] on the performance appraisal system in External Action Service (EEAS). Building on internal consultations with our members and staff representatives, we wanted to hear from all colleagues about their real-life experiences and frustrations with the current system.
A key takeaway? There is no clear or fair link between performance appraisal and promotion. We’ve been saying this for a long time. The variable quality of reports does not allow for transparent and reproducible comparisons of merit. (These 3 points were put in sysper on our behalf for several years as a ‘Minority position [2]‘)
Colleagues expressed concern that while they manage heavy workloads, they receive no evaluation of “Exceeding Expectations” and little acknowledgment: it is expected of them to go above and beyond. Meanwhile, promotions can happen with or without exceeding ratings. The system is opaque and frustrating.
Several colleagues suggested a points-based evaluation model, like the now-obsolete (2002-2008) rucksack model — allowing workload, exceeding qualifications, and added responsibilities to contribute transparently to promotion eligibility. While budget limits remain a factor, such a system would bring more predictability and equity.
We also heard loud and clear that most of the job descriptions are outdated, generic, and rarely adapted, making appraisals misaligned with actual tasks. Only one newcomer reported receiving a solid job description along with a training roadmap.
Generation 2004 is now drafting a reform proposal based on this feedback. We aim to present a new, fairer, and more objective appraisal system to EEAS administration this autumn.
Stay tuned – and thank you for participating and making your voice heard!
As always, if you have questions or comments, feel free to contact us [3].
Check what type of recognition is available to you (if any)?
| Staff[*] | Appraisal | Reward possible? | Minimum time in grade (‘seniority’) to be eligible | Average speed of reward |
| Officials | Yes | Promotion [4] | 2 years | staff regulations Annex I.B [5] and our chart [6] with those percentages converted to years |
| Temporary agents [7] (2a and 2d) | Yes | Reclassification (JRC/GROW/RTD [8] only?) [**] | 2 years | Staff Regulations Annex I.B [5] |
| Temporary agents (2b, 2c, 2e, 2f [9]) | Yes | no[***] | Not applicable (N/A) | N/A |
| Contract Agents [10] 3a | Yes | reclassification [11] | 2 years | Page 3 of Ares(2021)2467829 – 12/04/2021 CSC note on CA 3a [12] |
| Contract Agents 3b [13] | Yes | no | ≤ 3 years | N/A |
————————————————————————-
[*] Local agents are promoted via different processes: here are the rules for delegations (EEAS) [14] and here is an example [15] for those in EU Representations.
[**] There is a joint committee on reclassification (not promotion) for Temporary Agents (TAs) of JRC/GROW/RTD [16] only. We also see TAs with permanent contracts (yes, mental gymnastics are necessary here: to be permanently temporary) 2a and 2d [9] listed for reclassification.
[***] 16.01.2023 HR response to our questions on TAs: Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS [17]) (Article 15(2)) which states that only the provisions on annual reports [appraisal] from the Staff Regulations [18] (SR) (Article 43) apply by analogy to TAs. By contrast, there is no such provision concerning promotion (SR Article 45). This means that, in principle, TAs are not subject to promotion. This principle is confirmed in the case-law of the General Court (e.g. T-366/15 P [19], paragraph 48).