With great aplomb, DG HR announced a new mobility policy last year. At its heart is a Sysper application with the somewhat unwieldy title ‘Mobility Opportunities Job Market’ (MOJM). And here is what HR has to say about it:
The AD Mobility Opportunities Job Market is a platform that allows units to advertise posts becoming vacant in the foreseeable future before or instead of publishing them through the standard vacancy notice (Art 29), enabling quick and simple transfers in the interest of the service (Art 7).
Staff members will be able to express their interest in these publicised posts, and heads of unit will have the option to make informal contact with colleagues they consider strong candidates. If there’s a match, an Article 7 transfer can be used, allowing the post to be filled without the need for a lengthy publication and selection process. This will significantly speed things up. For staff, this means greater transparency: they can see upcoming mobility opportunities in advance and plan their next steps better.
Since Generation2004 couldn’t find anything to suggest that it is not possible to publish a vacancy in Sysper before the previous incumbent has actually vacated the post, the only difference MOJM offers appears to be the somewhat lighter application and selection procedure. No more drafting a motivation letter and sending your CV, no more being scrutinized by a panel, no more replies thereafter that you were not chosen because … ah well, because there was already a preselected candidate and your role was that of a fig-leaf. Only there to cover the unsightly aspects of Commission careers.
Perhaps that should have been enough of an incentive for units to publish posts well in advance. Apparently not. Let’s take an arbitrarily chosen day, say 18th February 2026. On that day there were 87 vacancies for AD posts (excluding senior experts and not counting management positions) in Sysper. And just four mobility opportunities in MOJM! In other words, less than one out of 20 vacancies enters the mobility pool. To us, this looks like a complete failure.
What could be the reasons? Here are some suggestions:
First and foremost: nobody is likely to use a platform that is not on people’s mind. But then, many Heads of Unit (HoUs) and even senior managers do not seem to be aware of the MOJM in the first place. A totally unrepresentative sample of one HoU and one Director, who both didn’t even know about the platform suggests that there is still room for improvement in terms of information and communication, including a catchier name for the platform.
Secondly, at least in the JRC, posting a vacancy in the MOJM requires prior budgetary approval. If this approval is received late, as is reportedly often the case, HoUs may be reluctant to use the MOJM because publication in Sysper is necessary anyway if there is no interest. Thus, in such cases, rather than speeding up things, using the platform leads to further delays. The remedy for this problem is obvious. Better and faster HR planning, which, incidentally, also would have beneficial effects on work-planning. After all, how should units plan their future work if they don’t know the resources at their disposal?
However, there are other factors that hinder, if not prevent, the success of MOJM. One such aspect is the bias towards specialisation. In other words, colleagues who have worked in different areas and on different topics are often at a disadvantage compared to specialists. Consider, for example, the internal competitions that, until recently, were geared towards the Commission’s priorities. In these competitions, candidates had to choose between different fields, which penalised flexibility and the willingness to think outside the box.
Specialists on the other hand have the advantage of being able to hit the ground running more quickly, as they require less time to warm up. However, they often lack an eye for the big picture. HoUs under time pressure to deliver the results required for tomorrow preferably yesterday, are of course aware of the dilemma. But since long-term thinking and action are hardly rewarded anyway, they are more likely to advertise in Sysper, because there they can reach a larger pool of potential applicants in terms of both quantity and professional specialisation.
To truly promote mobility, a new platform is therefore not enough; a new way of thinking is also needed. Ultimately, this means that it is not only permanent transfers to other jobs that need to be supported. Many colleagues take on temporary assignments – in a delegation or commission representation, in staff representation, in EPSO or as part of a task force. If they are not offered an attractive career upon their return, they will think twice about taking such a step. And since one colleague’s move to another job, is another colleague’s mobility opportunity, unattractive conditions for temporary assignment have negative downstream consequences as well.
Unfortunately, the new mobility policy introduced by DG HR does not contain any proposals on how to solve this problem systematically. Although Generation2004 is sympathetic to the promotion of mobility, we fear that the initiative will amount to nothing. MOJM will then be remembered as an acronym for either the Mandatory Overload of Joyless Meetings or Mastering Office Jive & Mimicry, rather than a mobility platform worthy of its name.
