Changes in tasks and/or working environment’ (‘mobility’) are inevitable in any workplace, and in organisations the size of the Commission and the external action service (EEAS, with over 144 Delegations around the world) these are seldom user-friendly processes. As often happens within the institutions, the term ‘mobility’ itself covers a huge range of diverse exercises with different rules regarding the level of obligation, the frequency and to whom those rules apply.

Check the variety: Commission non-management colleagues, Commission management colleagues, Contract Agents within the Commission, Commission Contract Agents in Delegations, EEAS colleagues.  

It’s not just possible, but real to find colleagues falling between the cracks in these processes or finding that the rules have been applied in what appears to be a haphazard or unfair manner. Some colleagues experience mobility in a way that appears to serve the interests of everyone except the colleague having to change. While mobility in general is often described as a way to encourage fresh perspectives, skills diversification, and career growth, it can and does lead to frustration and career stagnation, depending on the individual circumstances of the colleagues involved. The Commission’s mobility framework, though well-intentioned, often presents significant challenges that must be addressed, taking on board feedback from those who have experienced it, listening to the good and the not-so-good lived experiences of staff. 

Forced mobility vs genuine opportunity 

Within the Commission internal mobility generally covers two possiblities for non-management staff:  

• a change in the nature of the work, while remaining in the same unit; 

• a change of unit within the same Directorate, within the same Directorate-General (DG)/Service or in another DG/Service of the Commission. 

Participation is encouraged (non-management) or enforced (management) in many Directorates-General (DGs) on a cyclical basis. DG HR closely monitors mobility compliance, ensuring that staff move on (‘rotate’) after a set number of years. While some officials may find exciting new opportunities in this system, others areforced into what’s left, which may well be roles that neither align with their skills nor interest them: is this really the best use of the available talent? There’s no real evaluation rotation policies or processes in the European Court of Auditors, 2024, Special Report 24/2024: EU Civil service A flexible employment framework, insufficiently used to improve workforce management (and replies). The movement of staff is a means to an end: rather a way of managing workload than managing talent. The Commission talent management strategy focuses on learning at work which is  

For AD officials, mobility is mandatory every four years, requiring them to change positions frequently. While this aims to encourage professional growth, it can create instability especially when finding a suitable role proves challenging. Many administrators find that suitable vacancies in their field are limited or that their expertise does not easily transfer to available roles. The pressure to move, combined with the difficulty of finding meaningful positions, creates a sense of professional instability and dissatisfaction. In some cases, AD officials face: 

• A mismatch between available positions and existing competencies 

• Lack of clear career progression paths, particularly for specialists 

• Uncertainty about promotions being tied to mobility instead of merit 

For AST and AST/SCs officials, the situation is significantly worse, with a very limited number of available vacancies in Sysper. Many of these vacancies fail to offer a meaningful career trajectory or the possibility to further develop relevant skills. Instead of being motivated by career progression, many colleagues find themselves pressured to move simply because they have occupied their post “too long” according to HR’s lists. This situation often results in: 

• Reduced job satisfaction when colleagues are pushed into positions that do not match their expertise. 

• Increased anxiety about being forced out of their current role without viable alternatives. 

• Potential career setbacks when mobility discussions influence CDR evaluations and promotion prospects. 

Lack of Career Opportunities for Permanent Officials 

While significant efforts have been made to enhance career options for contract and temporary staff, established officials face an uphill battle when seeking new opportunities. The European Court of Auditors (ECA) has recently criticised the Commission for failing to fully utilise its internal talent pool and prioritising external recruitment over internal mobility. 

The Commission has accepted the three ECA recommendations, and we have already reached out to ask when and how they will be implemented. However, we are yet to see any tangible steps taken to: 

• Increase the number of vacancies accessible to internal staff. 

• Improve job-shadowing  and mentoring opportunities. 

• Modernise the certification procedure to create new career pathways. 

• Expand cross-function-group internal competitions. 

Ageism and ‘Juniorisation’ of Roles 

A concerning trend has emerged within the Commission: the preference for younger candidates. The average recruitment age is now close to 40, meaning that highly qualified staff are increasingly trapped in so-called ‘junior’ roles. The Junior Professionals Programme (JPP) is an example of how internal talent is overlooked in favor of external recruitment. 

Additionally, there is a growing trend of converting permanent posts into temporary or contract positions. There are now more Contract Agents (CAs) than ASTs within the Commission, undermining job security and career prospects. This situation particularly impacts colleagues aged 50+, who bring invaluable knowledge and experience but struggle to find new opportunities due to the lack of published vacancies. 

A Flawed Mobility Process 

Many colleagues have followed all the recommended mobility steps – career guidance talks, career days – but these often feel like token gestures rather than real solutions. The existing system lacks: 

• Transparency regarding available vacancies. 

• Concrete measures to help internal candidates find meaningful roles. 

• Real efforts to support career transitions, particularly for AST and AST/SC staff. 

The Way Forward 

The acceptance of the ECA recommendations is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to ensure that mobility is truly an opportunity rather than an obligation.  

Generation 2004 proposes: 

• Increasing transparency by publishing all available vacancies in Sysper. 

• Expanding internal competitions to offer better career growth options for AST, AST/SC and AD colleagues. 

• Revamping the certification process to make it a more viable career pathway. 

• Developing structured job-shadowing and mentoring programs to allow staff to explore new roles before committing to a move. 

• Recognising senior assistants/senior experts as an alternative progression route without requiring a move into management. 

Mobility should empower staff, not penalise them. It is time for the Commission to implement meaningful changes that prioritise the career development of its established officials rather than pushing mobility for the sake of compliance. 

Do you have personal experiences with mobility barriers? Reach out to Generation 2004 – we are here to support you.