EU personnel policy aims for zero growth

Date: 17/10/1996

BY common consent, Hercules had it easy compared to the tasks facing anyone trying to reform the European Commission's staffing policy.

Size is an obstacle, but not the only one. After all, other organisations and many private sector companies have little difficulty handling more staff than the Commission's present com-plement of 18,300 employees.

Greater handicaps are the rigid hierarchy and traditions established over 40 years, the competing demands of 15 different nationalities, the pre-occupations of staff unions and the keen interest which EU governments, MEPs and the European Court of Justice take in the institution's personnel matters.

All these factors are then squeezed into a financial straitjacket, which effectively rules out any significant increase in staff.

'Zero growth' is the order of the day and although the institution is seeking an extra 570 permanent posts next year, the vast bulk of these are linked to last year's enlargement and to its policy of cutting back on temporary staff.

“Zero growth does reflect the changed environment. New recruits will only be able to take the place of those who retire and there will be an inevitable debate on whether we take on specialists or generalists,” explained one senior official.

In the past, attempts to change the emphasis of personnel policy have invariably run up against one entrenched interest or another.

But there are signs that reformers are now having greater success in adapting the habits and practices of a lifetime which have made the institution unwieldy and dented the morale of many employees.

“The Commission must concentrate on the essential and on ensuring more productivity, greater efficiency and better deployment of resources. The changes cannot be made by just one decision. They will be slow, but they will come,” explained a senior official.

The campaign for change is being led by Commission President Jacques Santer and Finnish Commissioner for Personnel Erkki Liikanen.

“The current system is essentially French-inspired. It is interesting that when the UK entered in 1973, it basically accepted what was there. But the Finns want to make their mark and are already doing so,” said one senior official.

Equal opportunities are a case in point. Grade A level vacancies for applicants from the three new member states are being filled equally by men and women, helping to shift the gender balance in the higher echelons of the Commission. By the end of the year, it will have 15 women in A2 director-level posts, compared with just five when the current team took up office in January 1995.

The Commission has also clamped down on the use of the notorious Article 50 on 'golden handshakes', which guarantees senior officials who retire early 80&percent; of their previous salary. Originally intended as a device for clearing out dead wood, this generosity invariably proved attractive to some of the institution's brightest and best officials, who promptly moved into other jobs. Those times are over.

“Past practice has changed and the only time Article 50 will be used now is when it is in the Commission's interest for someone to leave and certain conditions are met,” said one senior source.

Promotion is another regular internal battleground for officials, with Commissioners traditionally refusing to be bound by the confines of their own policy areas and championing their favourite nationals for posts throughout the institution.

Under new procedures, the final decision on an appointment will lie with the Commissioner in charge of the policy area where it is being made.

The change may not put an end completely to the controversial practice of 'parachuting' in favourites over the heads of longer-serving officials, but it may cut down on the number of opportunities for doing so.

Even so, some officials remain sceptical about the possibility of relaxing the unofficial but fairly rigid national quotas which exist for the most senior jobs.

Any suggestion that particular flags fly above specific posts is strongly denied and would be immediately condemned by the ECJ. But ensuring a geographical equilibrium is a fact of life.

“Geographical balance is unofficial, but there. You cannot just rule it out,” explained a senior official. But he added: “It cannot be a criterion for nomination to a post. We must appoint the best people.”

Other changes in the pipeline will affect the way officials' performances are assessed and the use of temporary staff.

Now, almost every official is given an 'excellent' rating. From January, assessors will have to use a more efficient grading system which will limit the number of employees who may be given the highest ratings.

“Now, if you want an honest opinion of an official, you do not look at the person's assessment, you phone up someone. It is not out in the open. If you want to get rid of someone, you say they are excellent to make them sellable. There is no such thing as a free transfer in the Commission,” maintained one senior source.

Similarly, the Commission will continue to cut down on the widespread use of temporary staff, many of whom remain in the institution by repeatedly renewing contracts or by changing status.

“It is very difficult to get into the Commission through a recruitment competition, but there are so many back doors. It is an unfair practice which slows career development. We do not want a closed house, but we need certain rules,” explained one official.

The Commission is also preparing to put into effect a more far-reaching reform.

“We will make a major effort during the coming year to decentralise many management tasks to individual directorates-general, giving them more power and responsibility. We are aiming to implement the new system from January 1998,” explained Liikanen.

The Commissioner argues that the tighter administrative and financial framework already created by the new sound financial management programme has paved the way for individual departments to take over more responsibility from the personnel directorate-general (DGIX). In future, DGs may find themselves organising their own meetings, travel arrangements and other practical day-to-day issues.

The aim is to cut down on over-burdensome internal procedures and the change is seen by many as inevitable given the expansion of the Commission. But critics are sceptical about its chances of success.

“There is already a lot of decentralisation. The only way to prevent pockets of nationalism in the Commission is to centralise everything. It is an invitation for fiefdoms. You cannot have administration run by DGs which are more interested in policy,” said one critic.

Despite the innovations he has already made, Liikanen has not succeeded in achieving the improvements in disciplinary proceedings he had hoped for. Nor is he likely to lift the maximum age limits that apply to various recruitment procedures.

Although these ceilings regularly come in for criticism, they are in line with the practice in national civil services and are considered necessary to ensure that the number of applicants for open competitions stays within reasonable bounds. But they may be complemented by open concours with higher age limits to recruit staff for middle management posts.

Looking even further ahead, the Commission is currently encouraging senior officials to crystal-ball gaze and focus on the next century.

“We are looking further ahead to the type of Commission which might be operating in 2010. We have to consider personnel policy in the long run. It is logical to assume that anyone who joins today will be here in 15 years' time. That means we need to focus more on flexibility and career development,” said Liikanen.

But despite the internal attempts by the Commission to restructure its staffing policy, it cannot do so in isolation. Member states are invariably interested in the most senior appointments; staff unions defend their members' interests if these could be affected by change; and rulings from the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg on cases brought by disgruntled employees cannot be ignored.

Similarly, MEPs will continue to use their budgetary powers to try to shape personnel matters. In recent years, they have used their hold over the purse-strings to give the Commission's anti-fraud unit and its new financial control teams more staff. More controversially, they are now insisting on a reorganisation of the Commission's Directorate-General for information (DGX).

The winds of change are blowing through the Commission from every direction.