Personnel & Administration - Informations Administratives

APPRAISAL AND PROMOTION EXERCISES

Frequently asked questions about points, averages and promotion speed

In the staff appraisal exercise which started on 15 January 2003, reporting officers and countersigning officers are awarding marks which will constitute one of the basic components of the 2003 promotion exercise.

The purpose of this administrative notice is:

to illustrate the relative importance of marks and points in 2003;
to explain the Commission-wide target average;
to explain why 15% of promotions are termed fast, 75% normal, and 10% slow.

I. Relative importance of points in 2003

Why points?

Promotion is based on merit. The new promotion system applicable from 2003 onwards is founded on the principle of accumulating merit over time. Merit therefore has to be measured, which is why a system of points has been introduced from the start of the appraisal exercise.

How will marks allocated in the appraisal exercise be taken into account in the promotion exercise?

Except in special cases, marks allocated in the appraisal exercise (i.e. the mark out of 20) are used as such in the promotion round (e.g. a mark of 14/20 in your appraisal produces 14 merit points for the promotion exercise).

Is it possible to give some examples of special cases?

Special cases relate mainly to officials who were not in service or in active employment¹ throughout the appraisal period (which ran from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002).

Examples:

Having taken up employment at the Commission on 1 July 2002, a new official's mark out of 20 (say 15) would be corrected in accordance with the time spent at the Commission to give 15 x 6/18 = 5 merit points (the time served being 6 months out of 18). It should be noted that in this case obtaining 5 merit points would in no way indicate a performance problem, since the original mark of 15/20 demonstrates excellent performance during the appraisal period.
A similar calculation would be made for an official who took leave on personal grounds during the period.
An official who transferred from another Institution or from an Agency would be subject to the same calculation, unless the period spent at the Institution of origin generated 14 points (to be adjusted in accordance with the time spent at each Institution). By way of example, for an official from the European Parliament who had worked at the Commission since 1 April 2002 and obtained a Career Development Review mark of 12/20, the calculation would be as follows:

(14 x 9/18) + (12 x 9/18) = 7 + 6 = 13 merit points.

Are merit points obtained in the appraisal exercise the only points taken into account in the promotion exercise?

No. In the promotion exercise, it is possible for a number of further points to be allocated by the Directorates-General and by the Appointing Authority on proposal from the Promotion Committees.

Without going into detail about the different types of point, it should be stressed that an important role will be played by priority points (a maximum of 10 per official) and transitional priority points (allocated automatically by way of exception in 2003 at a rate of 1 point per year of seniority in the grade, with a maximum of 7 points per official).

In addition, the Promotion Committees (which comprise representatives from the administration and from the Staff Committee) will be able to propose allocating a number of points to officials who have carried out tasks in the interest of the Institution (up to 2 points).

In 2003, the Promotion Committees will have a quota of additional points which they will be able to allocate inter alia to ensure an even spread of promoted officials (up to 2 points).

Is it true that, in 2003, priority points will be allocated only to officials who have received the best marks?

The purpose of priority points is to reward good performance demonstrated during the year. Consequently, when the new system is fully operational, there will be a close link between marks and priority points.

However, 2003 is a transition year. Officials all start with a stock of points equal to zero, whereas once the system is properly under way they will have accumulated points for each year spent in the grade. In 2003, priority points will therefore also be used to redress this lack of accumulation of points. Consequently, the link between annual marks and priority points will not be as close in 2003.

In that case, is there not a risk that priority points will be allocated arbitrarily?

The purpose of priority points is to take into account, at Directorate-General level, of officials' merits and their contribution to the Directorate-General's work. Priority points will therefore play an important role in making comparisons between officials fairer than if they resulted from a straightforward comparison of marks awarded by several reporting officers and countersigning officers.

Priority points will play a particularly important role in 2003 in taking into account merit over time (see above reference to transition). They represent a guarantee that officials' merits will be taken into account over time and not only on the basis of the Career Development Review.

How does the promotion mechanism work?

The points obtained in 2003 and subsequent years (merit points, priority points, transitional priority points, etc.) are accumulated until promotion is gained.

Passing the finalised promotion threshold (i.e. the one which will be known at the end of the exercise - see next point) confers "entitlement"² to promotion.

Only just reaching the finalised promotion threshold can place the official in an ex aequo position which may (if budget resources do not permit promotion of all such officials) have to be settled by the Promotion Committee.

On promotion, the promotion threshold is subtracted from the total points accumulated by the official. The remainder is carried over into the next grade.

What will the promotion thresholds be in 2003?

In 2003, officials will not yet have accumulated points. The indicative promotion thresholds will therefore be estimated accordingly and will be quite low, in the region of 20 to 30 points depending on grade.

The indicative promotion thresholds for 2003 will be published by DG ADMIN at the start of the promotion exercise.

The indicative thresholds may vary depending on how the Directorates-General choose to allocate points.

Why is DG ADMIN publishing indicative and not finalised thresholds?

Because DG ADMIN will not know the final thresholds until the end of the promotion exercise, when all points have been allocated.

How will the promotion thresholds evolve?

The thresholds will gradually rise, before stabilising when all officials have accumulated sufficient points. Estimates show thresholds rising by around 16 or 17 points between 2003 and 2004.

What is the relative weight of a point under the new system?

Officials accumulate points with a view to reaching the promotion threshold. The accumulation process will normally take several years (typically 4 or 5, even more, depending on grade except for starting grades). With points being accumulated over time, a difference of one point in a year (e.g. receiving 14 merit points instead of 15 in 2003) will ultimately make very little difference.

II. Target average

Why is there a target average at Commission level?

The new promotion system no longer provides for lists of officials proposed for promotion by Directorate and by Directorate-General. All officials will be compared on the basis of the number of points accumulated. If Directorates-General were to give widely differing marks (e.g. an average of 13/20 in DG A as against an average of 17/20 in DG B), comparison would be distorted (officials in DG B would be at an unfair advantage for promotion).

The statistics from previous appraisal exercises clearly show that averages could differ widely from one DG to another. That is why a target average has been set, accompanied by a system of penalties for exceeding it (in each grade, a restriction on the quota of priority points available to a DG whose average exceeds the target average by more than one point).

Why not let each DG appraise as it sees fit and correct discrepancies afterwards?

Subsequent correction of appraisal discrepancies between DGs might have been a possible option. That solution has not been chosen for the following reasons:

Not setting a target average which is known and complied with creates uncertainty for staff as to their relative position on receiving their mark, since they are not in a position to judge whether that mark is above, equal to, or below the average which will actually be established in their DG. A target average which is known from the start of the exercise and subsequently complied with creates the transparency to which staff are legitimately entitled.
Setting a target average in advance facilitates harmonisation within each DG (where several tens of reporting officers and countersigning officers are working simultaneously).
Each DG appraising as it saw fit would not alter the mathematical fact that some officials would be below the average, some equal to the average, and some above the average³.

Why has the target average been set at 14/20?

The appraisal scale permits allocation of marks between 0 and 20 inclusive.

A mark of 10/20 corresponds - as in most appraisal systems - to a barely sufficient level of performance.

The Commission considers that the performance of its staff is very good on average and hence that it corresponds to more than 10/20.

A mark of 14/20 corresponds to a very good all-round performance vis-à-vis all the appraisal criteria and is therefore appropriate for officials who have demonstrated very good overall achievement.

The interpretation of the mark of 14/20 as presented at a meeting of the Directors-General should be borne in mind here:

"In response to a question concerning the attribution of points within the CDR process, H. Reichenbach clarified that while the indicative average number of points for the Commission as a whole had been fixed at 14, the range for well performing officials in the new system was between 12-16 points. 14 points would be given to officials having achieved very good results. For higher marks exceptional efforts would be required. Officials receiving 12 and 13 points were to be considered to be performing perfectly satisfactorily."

What does it mean if my mark is slightly below 14/20?

As stated at a meeting of the Directors-General (see above), marks in the range 12-13 points indicate good performance. These marks are entirely usual in a system in which most people are around the average (i.e. slightly below or slightly above).

In addition, the answer to the question "What is the relative weight of a merit point?" shows that the few points' difference separating a mark of 14/20 from a mark slightly below 14/20 is marginal if viewed in the context of accumulation over time and if other factors which play a part in the system are taken into account.

A mark of 10 or 11 indicates poor to sufficient performance and, although placing the official concerned above the underperformance threshold, puts them on course for a slow career (see below).

A mark of 9 or below indicates that performance is insufficient and that measures need to be taken with a view to making progress in at least one of the areas appraised (efficiency, abilities, conduct).

Has this system not taken away reporting officers' and countersigning officers' freedom to appraise as they see fit?

No. Publishing a target average merely sets orders of magnitude which will serve as a basis for appraisal. Based on that published target average, it is then up to each reporting officer and countersigning officer to appraise officials according to performance.

On what factors do reporting officers and countersigning officers base their mark allocation?

During the preparatory phase of the appraisal exercise, reporting officers and countersigning officers in each DG defined standards, on the basis of a scale of competences distributed by DG ADMIN, enabling each official to be appraised more objectively in terms of efficiency, abilities and conduct.

From next year onwards, the objectives and appraisal criteria mutually agreed at the appraisal interviews at the start of each exercise will be another important factor enabling appraisal of the quality of the tasks carried out.

III. 15/75/10?

What does 15/75/10 mean?

The statistics from the promotion exercises of the past 10 years show that, in general⁴ , 15% of promotions are "fast", 75% are "normal", and 10% are "slow".

What do "fast", "normal" and "slow" mean?

These terms are defined in relation to promoted staff's average grade seniority and in relation to various statistical indicators⁵.

"Normal" promotion means being promoted within a "normal" number of years. This varies according to grade. For example, it is "normal" to wait 3-5 years for promotion from A7 to A6.

Promotion to A6 in under 3 years is termed "fast", in over 5 years "slow".

Are these ratios for "normal", "fast" and "slow" promotions usual?

Yes. It is entirely usual that most officials be promoted after a "normal" waiting period (close to the average) and that some (a smaller number) be promoted more quickly or more slowly. The figures 15/75/10 broadly correspond to a "normal" population distribution in the statistical sense of the term.

Do reporting officers and countersigning officers have to comply with the 15/75/10 ratio?

The 15/75/10 ratio is an entirely normal statistical outcome for a sufficiently large population. Consequently, there is no reason to impose it in advance. Reporting officers and countersigning officers are free to allocate marks as they see fit (provided, of course, that they comply with the appraisal criteria and the target average) without that affecting the expected outcome (i.e. a "normal" population distribution).

The 15/75/10 spread is therefore not a constraint, but an expected outcome based on the laws of statistics.

According to press reports, there have been instances in the private sector of appraisal systems being used to root out and sack 10% of staff a year for allegedly underperforming. What about the "slow" 10% of promotions at the Commission?

The allegedly underperforming 10% referred to in the press must not be confused with the statistically expected "slow" 10% of promotions at the Commission.

It is important to emphasise that, at the Commission, underperformance refers only to officials with a mark below 10/20. They certainly neither comprise 10% of Commission officials nor form part of the group promoted "slowly".

It should also be borne in mind that the "slow" 10% of promotions is not a constraint but an expected statistical outcome.

The "slow" 10% of promotions are, of course, not people the Commission would like to get rid of - if they were, it would not be promoting them (even slowly) to the next grade.

Footnotes

¹It should be stressed that part-time working has no bearing on points (mark out of 20 = merit points, regardless of full- or part-time working).

²"Entitlement" is always without prejudice to the Appointing Authority's powers.

³Except, of course, in the unlikely event that all officials of a given grade in a given DG were to receive exactly the same mark.

⁴The exact figures vary according to grade.

⁵The divisions between "normal" and "fast" or "slow" promotion are conventionally set at the "average - 1 x standard deviation" (fast) and at the "average + 1 x standard deviation" (slow).

	top