The whole appraisal and promotion/reclassification processes can be a bit of a mystery. It’s not always clear how DGs choose who to reward [1], nor why some years appear to be better than others [2]. There are situations suggesting that some staff are less favoured [3], while some staff are evaluated as ‘not applicable’ [4], regardless of how well they work. What can you do if your work is judged to be ‘unsatisfactory [5]‘?
What happens between now and the publication [6] of the draft promotion/reclassification lists in June? And what happens between then and the publication of the final lists in November?
———
As far as we interact with the system, here are the next steps:
- we all have a talk with our line manager (‘reporting officer’) (even those who have chosen to transferring the report from the previous year): here’s our guide on how to prepare [7].
- some appraisals will be less positive than expected, or even ‘unsatisfactory’: don’t panic! Here’s are some of the options [5].
- we can appeal [8] our non-inclusion in the draft June list.
- it’s also possible to appeal [9] non-inclusion in the final November list, but we’ve yet to see a successful one. (Still, if you want us to check your text with you we will).
This presentation builds on our recent presentation on the self-assessment [10] and covers:
- the decision chain and the bodies involved,
- your chances of getting a promotion/reclassification,
- how to successfully file an appeal [8] in June
The annual promotion and reclassification decisions are taken by the Appointing Authority (AIPN), on the basis of
- proposals by each DG;
- recommendations by a Joint Promotion (or reclassification) Committee (JPC).
DGs and JPCs must determine who deserves a promotion/reclassification on the basis of a comparison of merits. While all staff might take part in the appraisal exercise. Only those who are eligible for promotion/reclassification take part in the promotion/reclassification exercises.
The comparison of merits on which the promotion procedure is based takes into account:
- the appraisal reports since the last promotion or, failing that, since recruitment [*]
- the use of languages in the execution of duties
- the level of responsibilities exercised (to be taken into consideration on a systematic basis alongside the two other elements).
Unfortunately, the system is more than a little flawed [11] and the system of quotas [12] can have more of an influence on your advancement (or otherwise) than the (ostensible) comparison of merits.
For any of you who are concerned about the career development review (CDR) in the context of possible harassment, we appreciate the work of our colleagues in the Harassment Watch Network (HWN):
- 2021, Abuse of the annual appraisal exercise (“CDR”) in the European Commission as tool of psychological harassment with recommendations how to prevent this and better protect the targetted colleagues: second analytical paper [13]
- 2022, My Commission Calvary: Testimonies of harassment at the European Commission [14]
Please find here the recording of the 2024 conference [15], and its slides [16].
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004 [17].
———————————————————————-
[*] Probation reports cannot and should not be used for promotion purposes [18].
——————————————————————–
Older updates
*Update 28.01.2025: this is a follow-up to our 09.01.2025 event [10] on how to write your text. If you’re still in that process then check out the video and presentation there.*