Congratulating Employee on Good Performance - Excel

							COMMENTS RECEIVED IN FULL, LISTED UNDER THE VOTE WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE COMMENT
Yes
I think almost any reasonable system can work provided it is simple, transparent and applied wth integrity.
What is scary is the draft new scheme where notes received from 2002-2006 will be used again as benchmark.
Which means that for ever, the systems keep being maintaining "inertia" at all costs. Because currently you cannot
move more than 0.5 point from one year to the other (which is just absurd)… And if now marks for 2007 depend on
the average of 2002-2006 for the accelaration or not of career, this is ridiculous. Another example that the system is
I think your proposal is quite fair; however it will hardly satisfy the high majority of "normal/slow career" people.
Yes, but
I find it upsetting that when we the last batch wait to get promoted they change yet the milestones/thresholds/merit
points so those who were awarded first, and was not stuck with new grades, yet again first get their merits points
before the rest of us, as we had to give ours for them to pass first the promotion grade!
OK for 3 points, hence not for consulting all officials. It is a useless and pointless excercice for the following basic
reasons : 1. if the opinion of the officials is asked, and suppose that only 1% is replying, you will have to deal with
200 opinions that will vary from one extreme to the other. It's not workable. 2. how can the officials give a serious
opinion if they are interested themselves in such a promotion system : replies will be tailored on personal
circumstances. 3. apart from the Unions, officials have all kinds of representatives : let them work for a global
package that will satify a majority. Covering 100% of the population is not possible. 4. the bosses must not only have
the opportunity to make their own proposal, they must be forced to make such a proposal. 5. working parties as EU
Point 4: I think consulting staff representatives should suffice. That's what they are elected for, to represent…
I agree with your four points but I think you are somewhat missing the boat on the really important issue of
implementation in point 4. Everyone - not just managers - should be involved in the work on how to implement the
scale and the translation of levels into practical indicators. Just asking for opinions is good, but not enough: there has
to be real involvement. SCIC management buy-in on CDR was excellent because of involvement in scale-
interpretation, while staff was largely alieneated by superficial presentations by consultants. Also important not to
career development and "promotion" should be separate processes. everyone has a right to career development
(annual open discussion with colleagues/superior) only those demonstrating clear merit have the right to promotion.
I would add that I would like a "360 degrees" CDR, where subordinates can evaluate their superiors, although in less
(1) under 3), you say that Staff should know against what standard they are going to be judged from the beginning of
the year. These standards are set out in Article 43 SR, and no dot change when CDRs change. I'd rather say: "Staff
should know based on which rules and procedure they are going to be evaluated…" (2) the critical issue is in my
view not on consulting people, but on finding out how to reconcile to opposing (and valuable) interests: the interest of
the official to be evaluated on his/her own merits, and not by comparison with others (or to be evaluated fairly tout
I do not fully agree with 3, Replacing of the CDR must be done as soon as possible.
Agree – but maybe you could highlight a bit more that the proposed scheme goes in the right direction – it's not just a
goal of a more effective staff - implies a new CDR will improve our effectiveness as individual jobholders, whereas
there are already a lot of very effective staff but the system is defunct and demotivates thus potentially overtime
worsening that effectiveness… Possible redraft: Whatever changes are adopted to the system, the goal of a more
effective organisation that demonstrates its commitment to its most important resource i.e a well-motivated and
effectively deployed staff will not be reached if the implementation by the Commission's managers is not consistent
Consultation with staff is all very good, but the problem with the European Institutions' staff reporting systems is
enshrined in the Staff Regulations as they stand. According to the Staff Regs the system should be linked to
promotion. (art 45) Appraisal systems can be situated along an imagined continuum where one end is represented by
a strong link with promotion and the other end by a strong emphasis on the employee's personal and professional
development. The two extremes are incompatible. And the link with promotion will always weigh more than the
development (i.e. the person appraised will be concentrating on the number of points for the past year rather than
looking towards their future). If you want to emphasise development the promotional element has to be almost
With regard to point 3, I think that some aspects fo the current system are so bad - in particular priority points - that
the system should be changed as soon as possible. However, whether it is actually possible to do that in mid year is
another question. However, I am not sure that there really is a problem with a new system already being in force for
I agree with the 4 points but I want to add that the CDR reform should be done together with a thorough review and
reflection of the way we work in the European institutions. A couple of examples: - Quality of the buildings we work in.
There is a lot of talk about climate change but the new buildings the Commission moves to are yet again the same
concrete bunkers heated and cooled with airco (which wastes a lot of energy in my opinion). Shouldn't we give the
good example? - The ungoing decentralisation with agencies and offices. I am not sure whether this is a good thing. I
believe some central overview is necessary to avoid abuses and to make sure that everyone is doing things in the
same way. - The declining quality of those services whose job it is to make our work possible. By that I mean that we
The sooner the better to change this mess!
point 1 : ??? quite demagogue agree partly with 2 : the CDR is not a problem in itself, it turned to be a problem
because it has not been properly implemented. So changing the CDR has a few chance to be successful if the whole
management system stay as it is. agree with 3 point 4 : staff wanted the system to be change, because they did not
fill "recognise". Nobody like to be told they do not perform as expected, so everything is in the way to tell it. So is the
origine of the problem the CDR, or the way it is implemented? The objective of the CDR is not to improve
performance but to assess performance of staff. Evaluation is necessary, it is a key tool for management and
motivation. Should a next CDR will replace the old one, I am not convinced everything will be solved: will middle
1 This seems to me a little like congratulating a mining company for finally agreeing to think about responding to
pressure from local people to change its damaging ways, but never mind 2 This system looks even less transparent
than the existing one. The decision on points is what affects a career, and as far as I understand it, the decision on
points is no longer taken in the presence of the staff member concerned. Instead, you are placed in a box, and, like
Schrödinger's cat, nobody knows whether you are alive or dead until "they" open the box. Clearly, the only boxes
that count are "exceptional" and "very good" - nobody will ever earn promotion by inhabiting the "good" box. But
even if you are lovingly placed in a "very good" box, 7 points allocated in secret will mean you're a dead cat, while 9
I would suggest that the Commission should evaluate the impact of the CDR on the mental health of its officials (e.g.
by publishing data on number of cases of «burn-outs», number of medical leave of absence and pensions for
medical reasons linked to stress etc.) proving (or disproving) the claims made by the Commission in its reply to the
special Court of auditors report on invalidity pensions (Special Report No 3/2003 of the Court of Auditors on the
A change from a system of 20 (Merit) Points to a new system of 10 (Merit) Points is not a great change. The fight for
1/2 points will continue. A better way forward would be the change to the Parliament's system of A, B and C group.
How to transfer the "Rucksack"? Although some grades might still be in "transition" (since 1 5.2004!) how come that
Point 2 is the most difficult to change. Throughout my career, spanning over 23 years I've mostly been in jobs which
are "invisible". Why should the guy who manages to spend 99.99% of budget X be promoted faster than the poor sod
who diligently does his work day after day, year after year but somehow remains invisible. I often feel like many of us
are just numbers occupying posts. I would favour a much more simplified system whereby an official starting on day
1 is given a "career map" showing that with good behaviour he can go from step 1 to step 2 in X years, step 2 to 3 in
Y years etc and could reasonably expect to retire at step whatever. If he's not performing he is held back, on the
contrary if he makes significant extra effort then he can advance faster. I know one always talks about putting "the
I do not have a problem with retrospective introduction of a new system. In my view our performance is to be
measured not against a points system, but against our objectives, which (hopefully) were fixed early in the year 2007.
It is the objectives that should direct our activities, not our perception of how a points system may be applied by the
hierarchy. I also have some confidence in management's ability to adapt to a new system quickly. There would
always be teething problems anyway. Therefore we should not be kept waiting for a better system for a whole year, if
1) As regards point 3, it does not really take into account those who are put at disadvantage by the current system,
where priority points are 'manipulated', diregarding the merit assessment aspect. 2) What will be the impact for those
grades where the threshold is still not stabilised? 3) How will the system reward those performing tasks pertaining to
another category (AD tasks performed by an AST, with official job description listing tasks of next door AD
colleagues), when the thresholds present such as huge difference that this completely destroys the real "value" of
On question 4: It is of course true that staff should be consulted widely - but if this is to have any impact, it should be
based on realistic assumptions. One of the main problems of the 'Kinnock reform' was that it was based on the
assumption that Council and EP would give COM the power to decide itself how to allocate promotions across
grades (= not always X% in range Y, but COM could have decided one year to promote more A9s, next year more
A7s etc.), or that COM would get higher percentages of promotions per grade per year. Of course, COM got neither.
Hence the immense backlog in promotions in certain grades - and the reason why managers are not free to give
points to their staff as they consider appropriate. One other aspect to consider is the contradiction in interests
I understand the "congratulate Vice-President Kallas and DG Admin for accepting this difficult task" as mere gesture
of courtesy. As stated in point 2, the problem is more with the way the system is being applied by people than with
the system itself. It remains unclear from the long explanation available in the official web site in which way the new
system based on a qualitative assessment and performance groups will increase the transparency of the overall
system. Just because a 0-20 scale is reduced to a scale from 0-12 points? Of course it becomes much easier to
establish that someone is defined once an "exceptional performer" (or simply a "good performer") and once this
category allocation is established he/she will remain in such category for the rest of his/her life. Instead of
3. This sounds like a union member knowing all the rules beforehand in order to be promoted. Since promotion
should be on merit, we should all work well and not according to 'standards judged against'. The 2007 CDR will start
Feb-Mar 2008 so how can you say rules are being changed half way through? Most of us who work are getting
nowhere with the current CDR - it is based on favouritism and this alone (or having a union behind you). So change
it as soon as possible. And have someone look at the stats - how many people + nationality are favoured year after
year by certain Directors/HOUs? How many appeals in certain units? Does anyone really care? At the end of the day
Concerning number 3, in principle I agree, but given that the present system is not working (the range of merit points
given is so narrow that it has only a very minimal impact on promotion speed) I don't have an objection to changing
I don't agree with point 4, all staff should not be consulted. Only consult people who have a clue about CDR and
Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec vos 4 points mais je voudrais insister sur le fait que le problème n'est pas le système
mais comment les gens l'appliquent. En mettant un nouveau système en place, la seule chose qu'on va obtenir c'est
que ceux qui avaient compris comment bien appliquer le précédent seront perdus. Ce qui m'inquiète en tant que
staff et en tant que manager c'est d'être traité et de traiter mon staff de manière équitable. Dans le système actuel ce
qui pose le plus de problème c'est la procédure d'appel. Il paralyse tout le processus, et on n'ose plus écrire le
moindre mot de feedback car c'est est contesté et utilisé pour justifier que le CDR est fondamentalement subjectif et
incorrect et exiger 1/2 point de plus. C'est bien d'avoir un système d'appel car tout le monde peut se tromper ou être
The present staff evaluation has already been influenced by the upcoming reform plans. Staff in view of another
change have quite often renounced upon challenging their evaluation. Therefore I think that the reform discussion
should have only be started after the end of the ongoing exercise. A new system has again new risks, especially the
one that points accumulated by now will be "lost" or devalued by new thresholds. I do not see a point in distributing
I can not provide you a concrete remedy proposal for the point I want to raise, but at least make you aware that a non
negligible number of colleagues are faced with that situation. I am referring here to the career prospects of the ones
of us that having passed a concours published for the grades existing before the reform were recruited after 1st of
May 2004 under the conditions of the new staff regulations. We were not happy at all as we joined the EC, but the
recent ruling by the CFI has been a blow to many of us that still expected to get the situation reversed in court. I will
not hide to you that my motivation to discuss CDRs and similar matters is not very high at present when I realise that
whatever the system implemented it will take me around 20 years at the EC to get to where my corridor neighbours
… the real problems, according to my humble views, are again not tackled: a. the colleague next door who doesn't
do anything and speaks only En….. or Fr…. still gets essentially the same pay. b. we still have a system were it is
Yes, let's simplify! But take a system that is really simpler, more transparent and well-tested. That means e.g. a
system with: - reduced assessment criteria - promotion points - merit based on promotion - new points range (no
more half points etc) - only 3 (three!!) merit groups - no subgroups - normal careers around 85% - rapid careers only
for very high and special merit - annual dialogue with out discussion of points - DG freedom to def indiv promotion
strategies (eg indiv promotion into a new job!) - appeals procedure with two steps, with equal weight for staff reps -
My personal opinion is: make the CDR system as easy as possible. The system of the parliament could be taken
over! I have a lot of sympathy with the option "Alliance" which seems to be very easy and clear. Especially the fact
I don't agree with you fully on point 3. Mr Kallas obviously brought his ideas up already in the spring (I think it was).
ADMIN still has 4 full months to consult staff and make necessary changes to the new proposal so if they work hard
and efficiently they should be able to put it in place in time for the next exercise, i.e. from 1 January 2008. I can't
understand why everything at the Commission has to take ages before it's put into force. We are many who have
I agree with points 1, 3 and 4. Point two ought perhaps to be about fairness and transparency. If people see that a
system is fair and transparent, they can feel motivated. There are also two issues which are intertwined and often
confused in the CDR discussion: 1) appraising performance; and 2) promoting staff. For your example, is it
necessarily true that promoting people near the promotion thresholds doesn't reward merit? Anyhow, in my view, any
system involving promotion committees, constantly moving thresholds, etc is so unpredictable and time consuming
that it is totally unmotivating for staff, not to mention frustrating. The alternative approach used by the majority of
Member States [and mentioned in the original Kinnock Reform papers but then abandoned without explanation] is far
- Why not take EP's system, it works. No need to invent new things.- Commission should just apply the promotion
There is a lot of cynicism about another reform. Many feel that merit is still not a main criterion
Once the CDR is reformed we should not wait till 2009 to implement it because it is bad now so the sooner it is
Yes, but the spreading out of notes is too narrow and the risk of arbitrary evaluation is there. I also worry about how
to translate the current system into the new one - now that we all know how to navigate it. Fully agree with your
No, because

Je considère que les points de priorités opaques est un moindre mal que d'aligner les mérites et les possibilités de
promotions. On risque de créer un système où les plus promouvables deviennent les plus méritants et non l'inverse.
The sooner the system is simplified, the better. A period of uncertainty is worth the price.
The CDR procedure was never a transparent one. It is time consuming demotivated staff and creates tensions and
animosities between team members. Most of the points awarded has been decided in advance and line managers
The allocation of points is an arbitrary and subjective exercise which bears no relation to an official's merits and
abilities. How can one quantify the work that we do? The risks of abuse are too great, as I and many others have
learned to our cost. EuReforme should be working to remove the points system as soon as possible and to ensure
that staff reporting is meaningful - with a focus on comments and career development rather than a meaningless
I agree to the fact that staff should be consulted but I disagree to further delays in the implementation of a
simplification of the promotion system. Regarding the rewarding of merit, I think we should face the truth which is that
the vast majority of people are performing very well and that it is difficult to single out outstanding performers in the
absence of objective assessement criteria since our jobs are much too diverse. The only solution would be to rely on
the subjectivity of bosses, which I think is also leading to fair assessments in the vast majority of cases. So to me
we would loose much less time if we could agree on three simple principles: The vast majority is performing very well
The new system will be, in my view, worse than the current.I do not agree for a new change. I have a particular
Point 1 the Commissionner did not accept the task. He decided to faced the challenge. -Point 3 is correct but it is a
side issue. I am not sure that it deserves to be in this letter. If we keep it it should be much shorter. Like it is, it seems
to be the most important point. -Most important, to be mentioned just after the point 1 is the following:"The
performance group presented foresee that 75% of the staff that wil be in the "less than very good". This will create
high frustration and demotivation for a majority of the staff. The definition of performance groups needs to be
revisited. It is a central issue for debate." I personnaly modestly believe that The Commission shall value team
The new system will still provide for increased (and untransparent) points for cabinet staff - to the detriment of the
other employees.-Real risk that the career of normal performers becomes slowed down even further- Still too
subjective - better make sure you get a job now where you get on well with your boss - even if the job is not what you
… because I think the actual system serves only to put competition between wolleagues for the points, in place of
uniting them to do the best work; because the actual system is too much heavy, not transparent (360° evaluation
should be compulsory for all!), and not insuring a "normal" carrier development; because… well, too much to day
about. Request the opinion of all the staff will be unuseful: most of 60% of people doesn't understand yet the actual
After all these years trying to understand and accept the unwieldy CDR system, the last thing we need is yet another
system that scraps the old one and which will force middle managers to label each member of staff as belonging to
the classes of the exceptional and the very good (the chosen few), or to that of the just good (the vast majority). This
will demotivate and create conflict to the detriment of the overall performance of the unit, and hence, of the
I think that the procedure has advanced too far now to hold a broad consultation. If it is to have effects, the system
must be adapted according to the results of the consultation. There is no time left to do this. Moreover, the old
system has been already abandoned and could not continue for another year.We are in the new system for the better
Please see the arguments expressed in the recent pamflet issued by the FFPE Trade Union
NUMBER
OF      ROUGH SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
VOTES   CONTAINED IN THE COMMENTS
    168 Argument 1
        How you do it, not the system



          New system will use marks set 2002-06;
          How to motivate normal career people?
     43
          Changing the goalposts problem for those who
          took a long time to be promoted under current
          system




          3 point scale good
          consult staff reps, not all staff




          Involve all, not just consult

          separate CDR from promotion
          add 360 evaluation



          Not the standards that will change, but the rules
          and procedures
          Speed important
          Positive change




          About rewarding effective staff, not creating them




          separate CDR from promotion


          Speed important
Need general culture change, not just CDR
Speed important




Management change needed, not just CDR




Even less transparent than current system



evaluate impact of CDR on mental health


3 point scale good




Promotion is done on the basis of visibility rather
than fairer criteria




No problem to change goalposts in mid-year




lack of clarity in transition




should take a policy decision on whether to
satisfy the highflyers or the majority
problem of transparency in new system




No problem to change goalposts in mid-year

No problem to change goalposts in mid-year
consult staff reps, not all staff




Appeals system should be based on justification
of report to colleague of same level



lack of clarity in transition




problem of starting in lower grades is more
important for new recruits than CDR reform

How you do it, not the system




3 point scale good

3 point scale good



Speed important




system needs to be fair & transparent
3 point scale good
not another reform
     Speed important

     problem of transparency in new system
13
     new system will ensure that most promotable will
     become the most deserving & not the other way
     around
     Speed important

     will make no difference



     remove points - focus on comments




     Speed important
     will make no difference




     timing is not important


     will not be an improvement



     too competitive



     new system will be worse


     Speed important
     support FFPE
Argument 2                                     Argument 3




How you do it, not the system




consult staff reps, not all staff




should find a system which does not evaluate
against others, but is not inflationary
Consult staff reps and all staff




lack of clarity on transition




lack of clarity on transition




need to reward ASTs doing AD jobs
problem of determinism in awarding marks        lack of clarity in transition




Speed is important




priority points intentions should be known at
moment of dialogue




attach grades to posts
lack of clarity on transition




                                                     new system to be based on small proportion of
application of current system not so bad             bad & excellent, vast majority satisfactory




not acceptable that majority of staff will be less
than "very good"                                     give more value to team players




consult people who know, not staff                   add 360 evaluation
Argument 4
how will system work in the absence of a fixed
average?
support Alliance
Comment on EuReforme text                            Point concerned

About rewarding effective staff, not creating them                     2
application of current system not so bad                               2
How you do it, not the system                                          2
How you do it, not the system                                          2
How you do it, not the system                                          2
No problem to change goalposts in mid-year                             3
No problem to change goalposts in mid-year                             3
No problem to change goalposts in mid-year                             3
Speed important                                                        3

Speed important                                                        3
Speed important                                                        3
Speed important                                                        3
Speed important                                                        3
Speed important                                                        3
Speed important                                                        3
Speed important                                                        3
Speed is important                                                     3
timing is not important                                                3
consult people who know, not staff                                     4
Consult staff reps and all staff                                       4
consult staff reps, not all staff                                      4
consult staff reps, not all staff                                      4
consult staff reps, not all staff                                      4
Involve all, not just consult                                          4
Not the standards that will change, but the rules
and procedures                                                         3
system needs to be fair & transparent                                  2




                                                                           Positive change
                                                                           priority points intentions should be known at moment of
                                                                           problem of determinism in awarding marks

                                                                           problem of starting in lower grades is more important fo
                                                                           problem of transparency in new system
                                                                           problem of transparency in new system
                                                                           Promotion is done on the basis of visibility rather than fa
                                                                           remove points - focus on comments
                                                                           separate CDR from promotion
                                                                           separate CDR from promotion
                                                                           should find a system which does not evaluate against o
                                                                           should take a policy decision on whether to satisfy the h
                                                                           support Alliance
                                                                           support FFPE
too competitive
Comment on CDR reform

3 point scale good
3 point scale good
3 point scale good
3 point scale good
3 point scale good
add 360 evaluation
add 360 evaluation
Appeals system should be based on justification of report to colleague of same level
attach grades to posts
Changing the goalposts problem for those who took a long time to be promoted under
current system
evaluate impact of CDR on mental health
Even less transparent than current system
give more value to team players
How to motivate normal career people?
how will system work in the absence of a fixed average?
lack of clarity in transition
lack of clarity in transition
lack of clarity in transition
lack of clarity on transition
lack of clarity on transition
lack of clarity on transition
Management change needed, not just CDR
Need general culture change, not just CDR
need to reward ASTs doing AD jobs

new system to be based on small proportion of bad & excellent, vast majority satisfactory
new system will be worse
new system will ensure that most promotable will become the most deserving & not the
other way around
New system will use marks set 2002-06;
not acceptable that majority of staff will be less than "very good"
not another reform

Positive change
priority points intentions should be known at moment of dialogue
problem of determinism in awarding marks

problem of starting in lower grades is more important for new recruits than CDR reform
problem of transparency in new system
problem of transparency in new system
Promotion is done on the basis of visibility rather than fairer criteria
remove points - focus on comments
separate CDR from promotion
separate CDR from promotion
should find a system which does not evaluate against others, but is not inflationary
should take a policy decision on whether to satisfy the highflyers or the majority
support Alliance
support FFPE
too competitive
will make no difference
will make no difference
will not be an improvement