Brussels, 8 October 2001
|
Evaluation
Of Individual Merit, Or Promotions and Nominations By
‘Imperial Fiat’? Brussels, 8 October 2001 |
| The real dangers of the Reform are
becoming increasingly clear: the introduction of a
climate of ongoing competition between colleagues
(perhaps that should read ‘opponents’) and, in
the absence of any effective control mechanism, the
handing over of full powers to Directors-General. It is now widely accepted that the introduction of a climate of individual, permanent competition in any social structure, and the concentration of all power in the hands of a few senior executives, undermines the working environment, weakens the actual structure, and exacerbates the problems it wants to resolve. In other words, feudal management based on the stick and carrot gets you nowhere. On the contrary, a wide range of features – the benefits of real team spirit and a collaborative environment in the workplace, the establishment of clear, shared, political and/or management objectives, the need to establish rules and procedures capable of rewarding individual and collective merit (while at the same time reassuring each worker that the system functions equitably), and reducing the danger of abuse to the minimum – all of these constitute the basic principles of modern, effective human resource management. And in the private sector as well as in public administrations. There is a danger of the priorities being flagged up in the context of the Reform (e.g. strengthening the independence of the European public service, team spirit in the services, and the need for individual merit to be better evaluated) becoming ‘empty boxes’ containing and justifying measures and procedures that are quite incompatible with the very principles that they are supposed to be putting into practice. Nothing could be simpler than to imagine how the European public service, and therefore the Institution, could be stronger, and more credible and independent, with the adoption of measures such as: - complete freedom for Directors-General in respect of nominations and the reversibility of management posts, with no involvement on the part of staff representatives or any real control in the hands of DG ADMIN; - the centralisation of all decisions relating to each official’s career and salary advancement in the hands of the selfsame Directors-General who, by judiciously allocating priority points (largely discretionary, but absolutely decisive for any promotion), and in the absence of any effective counterweight, could de facto become the only people who decided who were more deserving, or less so. In this context, we are surprised to note a somewhat pathetic crusade on the part of several Directors-General against the practice of reliquates. In particular, they are demanding the right to insert on the list of promotees certain officials who are newly promotable, but have provided evidence of exceptional merit. It is noteworthy that this often concerns colleagues that these Directors-General have just appointed to middle management posts using nomination procedures that are now completely decentralised. What these Directors-General seem to ignore is that the real problem is not one of acknowledging and evaluating exceptional merit, but of the credibility of procedures for selecting the best officials. It is clear that the current promotion and nomination procedures are generally unsatisfactory, and need to be improved. Reliquates are not the main problem, though. These proposals for Reform have shown us that there is scope for making matters even worse. In fact, there is no guarantee that far and away the most deserving officials will accrue benefits, and that far and away the least deserving will be penalised. In particular, to ensure that the ‘Imperial fiat’, or proximity to the ‘Sun King’, do not become decisive criteria, the hierarchy’s discretionary powers need to be rigorously structured by rules guaranteeing the strictest compliance with the principles of equal treatment, justice and good management. This is also taken up in a number of ways in the common position of the European Parliament. R&D therefore invites these Directors-General to offer the whole of their expertise, and deploy the same energy that they expended in the war on reliquates, to enable the Institution to acquire more transparent, objective nomination and promotion procedures. In sum, we need to put a stop to the crusades, the rhetoric and the demagogic statements (lauding the triumph of ‘meritocracy’), and seriously and calmly buckle down to the task of establishing transparent rules and nomination and promotion procedures capable of limiting the danger of abuse as far as possible. More specifically, there is a need:
Ever constructive, R&D will fight to the last minute of the negotiations, and will not give up on proposing changes likely to correct the proposals on the table, and stressing what the true objectives of the Reform ought to be: the Commission will only be able to make it work with support from the staff. In this extremely critical phase of the negotiations, R&D will make every effort to keep you informed and to explain the issues to you, while at the same time urging you to be vigilant and to mobilise when the time comes. The Executive Committee |
|
Pour adhérer à R&D/To join R&D : envoyez ce talon à/send this stub to: Marina OGLE L
102 7/12 |
|
Membres du Comité Exécutif: Ianniello Franco, Adurno Giuseppe, Zorbas Gerassimos, Ravagli Alessandra, Uguccioni Bruno, Docherty Michael, Vassila-Souyoul Erica, Bochu Claude, Drevet Jean-François, Napolitano Raffaele, Crespinet Alain, Sybren Singelsma, Paul Frank, Panarisi Edi, Sperling Christiane, Domingos Dias. |
|