THE (TRANSITIONAL) STAFF APPRAISAL EXERCISE(1)
2001-02
Staff appraisals are now being conducted in accordance with
the new rules adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002. The new rules were
explained to you in Training Module 1, which you attended before the summer.
They are contained in a document entitled "General provisions for
implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations", which you can consult at
the following site:
http://www.cc.cec/home/admref/cdr/documentation_en.html
.
The next appraisal exercise will be a transitional one in
that it will form the bridge between the old and new systems. For this reason,
special measures apply.
- General principles and timetable
- The staff report is now called the "Career development report"
(CDR).
- The first appraisal exercise will take place in the first quarter of 2003.
All reports must be completed by 15 March 2003.
- You will be appraised for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
This 18-month period is called the "reference period" in the rest
of this document.
- During the appraisal, each official(2)
will be given an overall mark between 0 and 20. This mark will be made up as
follows : a mark measuring the official’s performance (between 0 and
10), a mark measuring the official’s skills ("competencies")
(between 0 and 6) and a mark measuring the official’s conduct (between 0
and 4).
- This mark out of 20 will then be converted into "merit points",
used for promotion purposes.
For most officials the number of merit points will correspond to the overall
appraisal mark. For example, an official in receipt of an overall mark of 14
out of 20 will receive 14 merit points.
- The main exceptions to this simple rule are:
- Probationary officials
: they are also appraised by the CDR(3)
but the merit points will be calculated in proportion to the number of
months they are in active service. For example, a probationary official
receives a mark of 15 out of 20. He entered service on 1 January 2002 (and
so worked two thirds of the reference period: 12 months out of 18). He will
thus receive 2/3 of 15, i.e. 10 merit points.
- Officials who have had leave on personal grounds (CCP)
or who were invalided
out during part of the reference period: the merit points will be
calculated in proportion to the number of months in active service.
For example, an official in receipt of a mark of 14 out of 20 but who spent
half the period on CCP (9 months out of the 18) will receive only half the
merit points: i.e. 7 instead of 14.
- Officials on secondment at their own request
during part of the
reference period: the merit points will be calculated in proportion to their
active service in the Commission but they will also receive merit points for
their time on secondment in accordance with the following rule: 18 months on
secondment provide 10 merit points (the pro-rata calculation applies in the
case of fractions of the reference period).
For example, an official with a mark of 14 out of 20 who was on secondment
at his or her own request for half the period (9 months out of the 18) will
receive on the one hand 7 points from the appraisal (1/2 of 14) and a
further 5 points in respect of the 9 months on secondment (1/2 of 10),
giving a total of 7 + 5 = 12 merit points
- On the other hand, officials on secondment in the interest of the
service are not considered to be exceptions to the rule: the CDR is
prepared for them in their host organisation and the mark is converted
into merit points in accordance with the normal rules applying.
- The CDR form is to be used electronically as part of a computer tool
currently being developed. The content of the form was already presented at
the first training module in the spring and summer of this year. You can see
it on the reform website: http://www.cc.cec/home/admref/cdr/documentation_en.html
or alternatively in Annex II to the General Implementing Provisions.
- The career development reports will be filled in directly on screen as
far as possible and then stored in the new computerised staff management
system (SysPer2). Where it is not possible to fill the form in
electronically (e.g. in the case of Commission delegations that are not
linked to SysPer2), the forms will be filled in on paper and encoded
later.
- Pending the introduction of the computer application, a paper version
of the form (in Word) very similar to the electronic version will shortly
be sent to all Human Resources Managers.
- How are performance, skills and conduct appraised?
- Performance is appraised on a scale of 0 to 10. As the reporting officer
and appraisee have not set objectives in advance this time around, the
reporting officer will make a general judgement of the tasks actually
carried out by the official in the reference period.
- Skills and conduct are respectively appraised on scales of 0 to 6 and 0 to
4. As the reporting officer and appraisee have not listed the skills and
other requirements required for the post this time around, the reporting
officer will base his or her appraisal on the standard "competency and
conduct framework". You will find these documents on the IntraComm
reform site at: http://www.cc.cec/home/admref/cdr/documentation_en.html
- Who is the reporting officer? Who is the countersigning officer?
- For the transitional exercise (2001-02), the reporting officer is
the official’s immediate superior on 31 December 2002. The countersigning
officer is the reporting officer’s immediate superior on 31
December 2002.
- The reporting officer for most officials is the head of unit and the
countersigning officer is the Director. In units of 20 officials or more,
the head of unit may delegate the job of appraising staff to A grade
colleagues. They can appraise the B, C and D grade officials they manage and
supervise with a certain amount of autonomy(4).
In such cases the countersigning officer is the head of unit.
In the case of officials answering directly to a Director (secretaries,
assistants, advisers, heads of unit, etc.) the reporting officer is the
Director and the countersigning officer is most often the Director-General
or the Deputy Director-General. In the case of officials answering directly
to a Director-General (secretaries, assistants, advisers, heads of unit,
etc.) that person is both the reporting officer and countersigning officer
in one.
- If an official has had several direct hierarchical superiors during the
reference period, the reporting officer and countersigning officer
will still be the direct superiors in place on 31 December 2002. They will
issue the overall mark (out of 20) for the official in question.
That said, reporting officers must consult their predecessors. This
requirement covers all officials who were the interested party’s direct
superiors for at least three months in the reference period. This
consultation allows reporting officers to get an idea of the official’s
work, skills and conduct in the months before he or she worked for the
reporting officer. Reporting and countersigning officers must take the
opinions of the previous hierarchical superiors into account, but the latter
are not entitled to award points.
- In practice, hierarchical superiors that are not an official’s reporting
officer on 31 December 2002 can already (if they wish and without waiting to
be asked) put down their opinions on a blank sheet of paper or on an old/new
form, with a view to informing the reporting officers involved.
- The reporting officer will transcribe onto the electronic form the
opinions/comments resulting from the above consultations, along with their
date and author, in a section (or "box") created for this purpose.
Appraisees must however receive a copy of the original paper version. The
original will be placed in the official’s personal file.
- Target average mark and other guides for awarding merit points
- The Directorates-General are invited to appraise their staff in line with
an average of 14 out of 20 (called the ‘target average mark’). This
average of 14 points must be adhered to across all grades in each
Directorate-General.
- The Directorates-General that achieve an average above 15 for a particular
grade will be penalised. This involves reducing the quota of priority points
available to that DG for the grade and promotions exercise in question.
Let us take as an example a Directorate-General with 100 grade B2 officials.
Let us imagine that the average for the B2 appraisals in this DG is 16. The
DG, instead of receiving a quota of 250 priority points for its B2 staff
(100 x 2.5) would receive a budget of 50 priority points (250 - a penalty of
200). The penalty corresponds to the merit points that the DG distributed
over and above those that it should have distributed had it observed the
average, i.e. 100 x (16-14).
- Nevertheless, a Directorate-General whose average is over 15 (for a given
grade) can apply to the Promotions Committee to annul or reduce the penalty
where valid reasons are given for exceeding the average.
- In addition to observing the target average mark of 14, the
Directorates-General are recommended to award officials deserving of normal
promotion a mark between 12 and 16, those deserving rapid promotion a mark
between 17 and 20 and those in slow careers a mark of either 10 or 11. Marks
below 10 mean that the person concerned has to improve performance-wise and
promotion is out of the question for that particular exercise.
- If we look at how promotions have been done in the past, we see that there
was overall an overall promotions distribution corresponding approximately
to 15% on a fast career path, 75% on a normal career path and 10% on a slow
career path. It follows from this that a mark between 17 and 20 will be
given to roughly 15% of officials, a mark between 12 and 16 to 75% and a
mark of 10 or 11 to about 10%.
In addition to the General Implementing Provisions, there
is a document on the reform site entitled "Appraisal Guide" (Career
Development Review System - Guidance) ( http://www.cc.cec/home/admref/cdr/index_en.html
). This document is designed to help reporting officers to evaluate
performance, set objectives, interpret the competency and conduct framework
and carry out the appraisal interview. Those being appraised can also read
this document if they want to understand how the new appraisal system works.
All those being appraised have in principle attended the
first training module, which explained the principles on which the career
development report is based. They are now being invited to attend module 4,
which prepares them for their self-assessment and the appraisal interview.
All reporting and countersigning officers have in principle attended module 2
(which explained objective-setting) and they are currently attending module 3,
which explains how to set appraisal standards. They will then be invited to
attend module 5, which is also designed to prepare them for the appraisal
dialogue with their staff and for writing up the career development reports.
Given below is a timetable of the stages for implementing the
new system in each DG in this transitional period. The dates are only
approximate. The timetable also takes account of an individual who exhausts all
appeal and review options relating to his or her report.
Timetable for the DGs - appraisal exercice for the period
2001-02
Legend : Appraisee = A Reporting
officer = RO Countersigning officer = CO Hierarchical
superiors consulted = C Human resources manager = HRM
TIMETABLE |
STAGE |
THOSE INVOLVED |
ACTION |
Sept./Oct./Nov./Dec. 2002 |
Training |
HRM/RO/A/CO |
Follow Modules 2 (RO/CO), 3 (RO/CO), 4 et 5 (RO/CO) |
October/November
November |
Establishment of the JEC
|
Directors-General
DG ADMIN |
appoints the Chairman and ‘internal’ members;
appoints a Director as ‘external’ member of another JEC
appoints ‘external’ members to the JECs |
December/January |
Training |
Members of the JEC |
attend ad hoc training managed by DG ADMIN |
Before 15 January 2003 |
Consistency |
DG ADMIN
RO/CO/HRMs |
provides the guidelines for distributing merit and
priority points.
meet to agree on the appraisal and performance
standards they will apply in the appraisal for the 2001-02 period. |
From 15 January 2003 |
Evaluation |
A/RO/CO |
Request of RO: within 8 days of self-assessment for the
period 2001-02 / within 8 days formal dialogue with setting of
objectives and training needs for 2003 / within 8 days: draft report for
period 2001-02/ CO countersigns |
25 February (within 5 days of receipt of the draft
report)
4 March (within 5 days of the application for a
meeting) |
*Acceptance by A
*Review |
A/CO |
unsatisfied with the report, A asks for a meeting with
the CO,
who will confirm or amend the report.
|
11 March (within 5 days of receipt of the draft report)
and in any case before 15 March
25 March (within 10 days of submission of report under
appeal)
28 March (within 3 days of receipt of the opinion) |
*Acceptance by A
*Appeal to the JEC
Opinion of the JEC |
JEC
appeal assessor
|
Opinion sent to the appeal assessor
who will follow the opinion or must alternatively give a reason for any
decision running counter to it.
|
Special arrangements to appraise officials on secondment as
staff representatives and those who are assigned to the External Relations
Service have been prepared and will shortly be adopted.
You can get further information from the Human Resources
Managers in each Directorate-General and from the relevant unit in DG ADMIN(5).
_______________________
Footnotes
(1)Other
than grades A1 and A2
(2)The term
"official" also covers here temporary agents, mutatis mutandis.
(3)The end of probation report
must also be drawn up and if not already done the page intended for this purpose
in the new form should be used.
(4)Officials so appointed must
attend the training for reporting officers.
(5)Secretariat of Unit
ADMIN.A.6, Mrs Bosendorf, tel. : 2955615
|