In recent discussions, a pressing issue has reemerged [1] regarding the current promotion/reclassification practices in general and those within the External Action Service (EEAS) in particular. It has again come to light that the existing process poses several challenges [2], not only for staff members being evaluated, but also for those responsible for evaluating promotions/reclassifications. Generation 2004 as a Staff Association (OSP) committed to ensuring fairness and transparency, believes it’s crucial to spotlight these issues and advocate for effective solutions.
Current Challenges
The feedback from staff across the board consistently reveals concern about the lack of predictability and transparency in the promotion/reclassification process. Staff often find themselves in the dark, with no clear understanding of how their performances translate into promotions/reclassifications, in spite of being eligible[*].
“As a contract agent working in Delegation I have no career perspective whatsoever. I am faced with the prospect of (excessive) 6-year postings in developing countries, at the end of which I can only rotate horizontally to do the same tasks in another country. There is no link whatsoever between performance and advancement with reclassification/ promotion seemingly based on ‘wait your turn’. Moreover, professional development opportunities and currently non-existent and access to whatever minimal training is provided by the Commission is severely limited by reduced mission budgets.”(Staff survey 2016 report [3], p.63)
“Due to the rigid promotion system, there is absolutely no link between merit, extra effort, overperformance and quicker promotion – it depends on arbitrary factors. Thus, there is no other motivation than personal satisfaction to outperform and excel. There are no career coaching and guidance available, the management cares about the deliverables from its staff and not about developing them as professionals.” (Staff survey 2016 report [3], p.63)
“Executive agencies [4] are experiencing a surge in workload, leading staff to take on additional tasks voluntarily rather than having the chance to focus on career growth. Promotion criteria seem tied to efforts to enhance agency visibility, but the specific grounds for promotion remain unclear. Discussing changes in contracts feels sensitive and not openly addressed. There is a lack of a clear roadmap or plan, resulting in more responsibilities and an increased expectation of managing work-life balance.” (Staff survey 2023 [5], Final Report, p.39)
This opacity could also be a contributing factor to the growing number of appeals [6] made, a disproportionate amount by EEAS staff. Nevertheless this could also be due to colleagues being more aware of the option to appeal and more willing to use it: use the options available to you!
Moreover, significant issues arise from the administrative side, such as concerns related to data protection under the data-protection [7] rules (GDPR/EUDPR), as well as challenges with the integrity of the EEAS document workflow, which is not integrated with ARES. These issues need urgent attention to maintain trust within the organization.
Flaws in Existing Criteria
One of the critical flaws in the current promotion exercise is the lack of clarity in evaluating different performance levels. The process does not clearly define how different appraisal wordings – such as “Exceeded,” “Partly met standards,” or “Failed to meet standards” – impact the promotion outcome. This ambiguity fosters inconsistency and subjectivity. Furthermore, there’s no process to convert qualitative reports into numerical data for easy comparison among candidates, making it very difficult to ensure fairness and objectivity. The current three criteria are too subjective:
- the quality of your previous evaluation reports[***],
- the use of languages in the execution of duties,
- the level of responsibilities exercised (especially via managing people).
Several EEAS colleagues suggested [8] 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.
Proposed Solutions for Fairer Promotions: a new ‘rucksack’ model?
In response to these challenges, a new proposal seeks to improve the promotion process by offering clearer, more quantifiable metrics for evaluation. Here are some significant elements of the proposal:
1. Seniority and Past Performance: Instead of considering too heavily the number of years since the last promotion, the proposal suggests using cumulative scores from previous years. This adjustment acknowledges consistent performance over time and simplifies the evaluators’ workload.
2. Level of Responsibility: The new framework would assign basic scores based on job titles and responsibilities, from staff members to division heads. This system aims to reward those who take on greater responsibilities with higher scores, thus encouraging career advancement, without pushing everyone into people-management [9].
3. Performance Correction: Performance levels would now be directly quantified into scores. Staff evaluations ranging from “Failed to meet standards” to “Exceeded standards” would impact the total score, adding transparency and clarity to the process.
4. Recognition of Extra Work: The proposal also introduces mechanisms to recognize extra work, both within and outside the entity. Such contributions would provide staff with additional score corrections, acknowledging their dedication and service beyond regular duties.
Moving Forward
As we navigate these proposed changes, Generation 2004 considers that it is our responsibility as a trade union/staff association (OSP) to ensure that the voices of the staff are heard and their needs addressed.
Transparency, clarity, and fairness should be at the core of our promotion processes. We encourage all members to provide feedback on these proposals, ensuring a collective movement toward a system that truly values the hard work and dedication of all staff members.
Let us work together to advocate for a promotion system that reflects the merits and contributions of every individual while safeguarding the principles of fairness and transparency across our institution.
As always, we would love to hear from you. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with us [10] or leave a comment below.
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004 [11].
[*] Contract Agents 3B are never eligible: CA3B cannot be promoted (‘reclassified’) [12] or upgraded to a higher function group via screening [13], regardless of how well they perform: a situation which can only damage morale. Generation 2004 finds that this exclusion is often not made clear to CA3B colleagues, many of whom go above and beyond their tasks only to find that there is no reward possible for them. Your contract type is visible in Sysper and on recruitment paperwork: know your options!
EEAS staff categories and promotion/reclassification options
| Staff | % of EEAS staff (2024 EEAS report [14], p.13) | Appraisal | Reward possible? | Minimum time in grade (‘seniority’) to be eligible | Average speed of reward | Notes |
| Local Agents | 36 | yes | yes | None found [15] | This is a separate promotion process: see the corresponding rules for delegations (EEAS) [16] | |
| Officials | 28 | Yes | Promotion [17] | 2 years | staff regulations Annex I.B [18] and our chart [19] with those percentages converted to years | |
| Seconded National Experts (SNEs/ENDs): not statutory staff [20] | 12 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| Temporary agents (2b and 2e [21]) (2024 figures [14], p.40) | 10 | Yes | no[**] | Not applicable (N/A) | N/A | |
| Contract Agents [22] 3a | 14 (no information on 3A/3B figures)
|
Yes | reclassification [23] | 2 years | Page 3 of Ares(2021)2467829 – 12/04/2021 CSC note on CA 3a [24] | |
| Contract Agents 3b [12] | Yes | no | ≤ 3 years | N/A |
[**] 16.01.2023 HR response to our questions on TAs: Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS [25]) (Article 15(2)) which states that only the provisions on annual reports [appraisal] from the Staff Regulations [26] (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 [27], paragraph 48).
[***] Probation reports cannot and should not be used for promotion purposes [28].