Note to the attention of Mrs L. EVANS

Director General of DG GROW

We note with great interest that you have decided to undertake a staff satisfaction survey in DG GROW.

In general, we had already expressed to Mrs. K. Georgieva, Vice President of Human Resources, our appreciation for her political commitment to take finally due account of the results of the annual satisfaction survey.

We asked to include satisfaction surveys as a real “reliable” tool of human resource management in order to take into account in practice and in a con­crete manner the views expressed by staff.

Indeed, too often in the past, the results of annual surveys of this type have been trivialized. Their presentation seemed to be subject to cosmetic ef­forts to moderate, or even deny, the impact of yet very clear criticism from colleagues with regard to the functioning of their DG of belonging.

As a Trade Union, eager to always take into account the opinion of staff and carefully avoid any self-referential approach, R&D regularly organizes this kind of survey regarding different aspects of the Commission’s staff policy, as well as surveys focused on particular situations which require a specific consideration of the views of colleagues.

Thus, in May 2015 we organized a survey about the reorganization of DG GROW and, without any surprise, the results confirmed the gravity of the shortcomings, the hastiness and inappropriateness of the decision and the glaring absence of any adequate measure of support.

Subsequently, the new leaders of human resources in DG GROW attended a plenary meeting of the Brussels Local Staff Committee to introduce the measures in place to overcome these difficulties.

While acknowledging the efforts made, we were required to point out that they were far from adequate and that the discomfort of colleagues in DG GROW continued to be very deep.

Given the above, we can therefore only welcome the approach to gather again the views of the staff of DG GROW.

While we welcome your outward commitment to guarantee the anonymity of the answers, it is nevertheless clear that many questions would not meet this essential guarantee to ensure the credibility of the results.

This is the case, for example, of Question 5 (Could you briefly describe your daily work?), which is mandatory, inviting colleagues to describe the tasks performed via a free text.

No one can doubt that this puts into question the confidentiality of the answer that can be given.

Under these conditions, we invite you to delete the questions that could jeopardise the confidentiality of the survey – something that you quite rightly pointed out during a presentation to staff of DG GROW.

Finally, we ask you to involve staff representatives in the analysis and outcome of the results, from the point of view that staff well-being is a common goal that requires the coordination and synergy of all actors.

We also invite you to submit to the Staff Representation all the results of this survey, as well as the practical measures to be taken duly into account.

Cristiano Sebastiani