The Commission recently held its first information session for staff on the Large-Scale Review (LSR) [1], the major reform exercise that is supposed to reshape how the institution works. According to the official narrative [2], this reform will modernise structures, simplify processes, update our working culture and redesign staffing models so that the Commission becomes more agile, more efficient and “fit for the future”.
That’s the official promise. What we witnessed on 21 November [3] told a different story.
The session set the tone immediately when the webstream repeatedly failed, freezing and restarting for several minutes. It was an unintentionally perfect metaphor for a modernisation project launched through tools that refused to cooperate. Meanwhile, about 400 colleagues were actually sitting in the room, while the rest of us connected online wondered if “agility” just meant having patience with a frozen screen.
When the technical issues finally calmed down, the “icebreaker” consisted of speakers proudly announcing how many decades they had served in the Commission. An unusual way to kick off a session meant to inspire fresh perspectives and forward thinking.
Throughout the event, we heard a parade of attractive buzzwords: transparency, agility, efficiency, collaboration, trust, values, purpose. But none were accompanied by concrete proposals. For now, the LSR is more a cloud of good intentions than a roadmap.
Notably, the words “respect” and “fairness” never appeared, and “inclusion” was not addressed in terms of who is included in the process itself. Only later did a colleague raise the question of disability, highlighting a broader issue: inclusion was discussed, if at all, as a characteristic of individuals rather than as a principle of governance.
For a reform that claims to be values-driven, the absence of a clear commitment to inclusive decision-making, meaning the meaningful involvement of staff representation and other key stakeholders, was striking.
Although the administration described the LSR as highly inclusive, the reality is more modest. The trade unions and staff associations (‘Staff representation’) were given no formal role in the workstreams [4] or in the governance of the process. Rather, staff representatives may be invited to attend exchanges; could submit written input or be consulted at a later stage. In practice, staff are present at the margins but excluded from the decision-making. This is not inclusion in the process; it is participation without influence. Questions also emerged about the High-Level Group [5], an advisory body appointed by the Commission composed entirely of external experts, with no representation of serving staff or staff organisations, many retired. The official explanation was that the group is external “by design” and will act as a lightning rod for ideas. An elegant metaphor, though it raises the question why younger or currently serving officials do not appear to be represented in a reform meant to shape their future workplace.
One point of clarity was well noted. The administration announced that the staff regulations will not be reopened. However, the Commission underlined that many significant changes can still be introduced without touching the Staff Regulations. Indeed, telework arrangements, internal processes, DG structures and staff mobility policy can all be modified within the existing framework. For Contract Agents, a potential revision of the General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) – the detailed rules that implement the Staff Regulations in practice – can lead to changes as well. So, although the Staff Regulations allegedly remain untouched, many changes could be introduced – and we don’t know, whether they will be to the benefit of staff or the opposite.
When colleagues asked what changes, staff will actually face and when, the reply was vague. The review is still in the exploratory phase, and elaboration of measures and actions will take another year. Thus, implementation may begin only in late 2026 or 2027, and in gradual stages. For now, nothing is concrete and almost nothing is defined.
The most honest moment came when someone asked whether the Commission will finally admit that ‘doing more with less’ is no longer sustainable. The response acknowledged the problem: the institution has requested 2 500 additional posts and recognises that resources have not kept pace with new tasks. But how this will translate into real relief and reduction of the high workload of many colleagues remains uncertain.
For colleagues in Luxembourg, the intangible progress to address the recognised difficulties with recruitment and retention of staff (the old narrative of “attractiveness”) seems somewhat detached from reality. Just one example on the subject of recruitment: While the institution speaks of modern, appealing working conditions, the call for a recent open competition [6] is now obliging successful candidates to remain in Luxembourg for certain (still unknown) periods. Combined with very high cost of living, recruitment difficulties, housing pressures, limited job mobility and insufficient support measures, the narrative of attractiveness becomes more theoretical than practical.
Overall, the session revealed a reform project that is ambitious in language but one that remains quite vague in terms of substance. It is a top-down exercise, centrally managed and without a clear purpose. At this stage, it resembles a large PowerPoint slide built around interconnected circles: activity is implied, but without a clearly defined end point. A more convincing approach would have set out clear priorities, a timeline with decision points, and a defined role for staff representation in shaping outcomes rather than merely reacting to them.
Generation 2004 will continue to follow the LSR closely, with our trademark realism and a healthy dose of humour. We will analyse every development, defend working conditions, challenge vague slogans and insist that staff voices are heard meaningfully, not ceremonially.
Modernisation must support staff, not bypass them. And staff must not be an afterthought, but in the centre of the considerations.
If you would like to contribute, do not hesitate to drop your ideas in our working group table [7] on Teams. We will consolidate the input, raise recurring concerns with DG HR and report back on how they are taken into account.