Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 27

Office

Modernisation of the EU
selection procedure
David Bearfield, Director 24
November 2008
HR CONFERENCE
24.11.08

Workshop 3:
Engagement (recrutement)

2
2
Workshops’
Structure
■ 14:15 – 14:20: Facilitator on Format
■ 14:20 – 14:40: Presenter, dealing with
◆ Process Description according to Emery
◆ State of Play of the Process in the Commssion
◆ Issues
■ 14:40 – 15:30: Group discussion, focusing on
◆ Current process’s Strengths & Weaknesses
◆ Priority actions recommended by the Group

3
Define HR in process

I. Processus de
II. Processus centraux de GRH :
pilotage :
1. Gestion prévisionnelle
1. Politique du personnel
2. Engagement (recrutement)
2. Objectifs, indicateurs
et tableaux de bord 3. Management des performances
4. Développement des compétences
5. Evolution professionnelle
III. Processus de 6. Rémunération
soutien : 7. Conditions de travail
1. Fonction Personnel 8. Communication interne
2. Système d'information et 9. Processus transversaux
de gestion du personnel
3. Statut et réglementation
4
II.2: Recrutement
(selection)
MODELE COMMISSION
« Objectif: intégrer au sein de  ■ En amont d’EPSO: besoins
l’organisation des collaborateurs  ■ EPSO: publicité et méthodes
qui sont (et resteront) 
■ En aval d’EPSO:
performants et motivés »
◆ Exploitation Liste d’aptitude
ETAPES: ◆ Intégration newcomers

1. Analyse du besoin
■ (Recrutement interne: II.5)

2. Recrutement (portefeuille de QUESTIONS


candidats) ■ Généralistes vs Spécialistes
■ Capacité de Sélection des CdU?
3. Sélection: prendre les bons,
■ ASTs surqualifiés
rejeter les mauvais ■ Postes « pressentis »
4. Intégration ■ Plan action EPSO

5
Aim of EPSO:
The right people in the
Institutions
■ 1st step: attract the right people
Institutions and EPSO;
■ 2nd step: select the right people
EPSO;
■ 3rd step: recruit the right people
Institutions and EPSO.

6
Why change?
■ Recruitment process based on 1950’s competition
models;
■ It has become an extremely long and complicated
procedure both for candidates and Institutions;
■ ‘War for talent’ (need to compete efficiently to attract the
right people and create a positive image of the EU
Institutions as potential employer).

7
ee n f o noit aci fit ne dI

0
Month
s noit utit s nI yb

it o Nf o noit acil bu P
long
6
Month
noitit e p mo C

et des a b-r et up mo C
9-10
Months

noi ssi md A
Months
12-13
15

s ma xe netti r W
Month

s ma xe l ar O
Months
18-19
21

gni ggal F
Month

i de mdna wei vr et nI
23
Month
Present timeline too

noit a ni ma xe

f o r eff o l a mr o F
24
Month

t ne myol p me
8
Candidates’ voice -
complaining
FAIRNESS during pre-selection
5,0
SPEED of competition 4,2 FAIRNESS during oral exam
4,1
EMPLOYER IMAGE based on cdt 4,0 FAIRNESS during written exams
experience
4,0

2,6 3,0
WILLINGNESS for CBT written exams 2,9
QUALITY of communication
4,0
3,0 2,0

RELEVANCE of admission tests 3,2 1,0 3,8 RELEVANCE of oral questions

3,4
3,8
IMPRESSION of competition INFORMATION sufficiency
3,5
3,8

QUALITY of MCQs 3,6 3,6 QUALITY of oral exam


3,6

ORGANISATION by EPSO QUALITY of written exams


RELEVANCE of written questions

Mean score: 3,6

9
Recruitment
challenges
■ No strategic HR planning :
◆ only ad-hoc/reactive process when needs become acute
◆ peaks and troughs, leaving services with gaps

1600

1400

1200

1000 EPSO delivery

800 Ideal planning


Institutions needs
600

400

200

0
94

98

00

04

08

12
9

1
19

19

20

20

20
19

20

20

20

20

10
1 step: Attract the
st
right people

Present EU Institutions as premium employer:
■ Candidate Contact Service established;
■ Will enter into force on 1 March 2009:
◆ New online application procedure (DE, FR, EN)
◆ New Notice of competition (23 languages)
◆ New Web site and Logo (partly 23 languages)

◆ Amended EPSO profile.


■ Annual competition cycles from 2010,
■ Speed up competitions to 6-9 months
11
Future competition
cycle

12
2nd step: Select the right
people
■ Shift from knowledge to competency-
based testing
■ Introduce Assessment Centres for AD,
assessment exercises for AST;
■ Certification of qualified jury
members/assessors.

13
Assessment
Predictability
The ability of selection methods to predict performance (max. 1.0)
Perfect prediction
Assessment centres
Work samples
General talent
Structured interview
Personality test
Unstructured interview
Reference acquisition
Experience of similar work
Typical job interviews
Interest measurements
Graphology
Age

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Source: Schmidt & Hunter, 1998 14


New procedure
Administrators Assistants Linguists Specific
Month
competitions Month

-1 Publicity and self-assessment -1

1 Online registration Online registration Online registration Online registration 1

2 CBT: Verbal + CBT: Verbal + CBT / professional CV sift 2


numerical + abstract numerical + abstract linguistic skills test –
3 reasoning + reasoning + CV sift 3
behavioural tests behavioural tests
4 Admission + Admission + Admission + Assessment Admission + 4
Assessment centre: •Professional skills centre: •Detailed case
•Case study in the test (practical tests) •Practical linguistic study
5 field (written) •Structured tests •Structured 5
•Group exercise interview •Group exercise interview
6 •Oral presentation •Oral presentation •Group exercise 6
•Structured •Structured •Verbal + numer +
7 interview interview abstract reasoning 7
tests
8 8
Recruitment
9 915
Pre-selection:
Testing for
competency
CBT: cognitive testing

s
Abstract

s
g g – General Ability
Verbal
s – Specific Abilities

Numerical
s

+ Situational / behavioural
+ Professional competencies
(where appropriate)

+ Second language (where appropriate) 16


Assessment:
Testing for
competency
Assessment: personal and professional competencies
Assessment

AD Linguists AST

Assessment centre Assessment centre Professional skills test

Case study in the Practical linguistic E-tray exercise


field: written tests

Group exercise Group exercise Structured interview

Oral presentation Oral presentation

Structured interview
Structured interview
17
Why assessment
centres/exercises?
■ Better predictability of job performance;
■ Best practice, more professional;
■ Cost-benefit-gains;
■ Shorten procedure (instead of written and oral exams case study
included in assessment day).

18
3rd step: Recruit right
people
■ Introduce a « competency passport » (results of selection procedure) for
candidates and Institutions;
■ Better match of candidates to needs due to strategic HR planning;
■ Shorter waiting period until first job offer
■ Give feedback to candidates “in” and “out”;
■ Inform candidates on further procedure (flagging, recruitment procedure etc);
■ Make vacancies available to candidates.

19
Summing up
Moving from the old model:

■ Poor strategic workforce planning
■ Weighted in favour of knowledge
■ Taken in second language
■ Lengthy process time
■ Inconsistency in selection process
■ Poor image of the EU

20
Summing up
To a new model:
■ Better workforce planning
■ Competency based selection – consistently 
identifying best people for the job
■ Best practice approach
■ Faster process times
■ Projects positive image of the EU
■ Annual competition cycles
■ Greater transparency for candidates
■ EU Institutions seen as premium employer

21
GROUP
DISCUSSION
REMEMBER: focus on
◆ Current process’s Strengths & Weaknesses
◆ Priority actions recommended by the Group
■ PROCESS 1: PP
◆ Do we need an HR Strategy?
■ PROCESS 2: METRICS
◆ How can we do better?

22
Overall
conclusions
■ In the groupdiscussion there was an overall positive opinion about
the need for change and proposed changes were positively
evaluated
◆ Recruitment is a core process
✦ Need to ‘market’ Commission better in line with new needs of younger
generation
◆ Selection needs to be done with reliable (quality of the
instrument) and valid (we know what we measure) tools
◆ Assessment center approach is ok: good face validity and
supported by scientific research
◆ Integrated process with yearly cycle is positive
◆ Speeding up procedure is needed
◆ Selection procedure gives ‘first impression of the corporate
image’ and this needs to be managed (current effects are not
good at all)

23
■ Some concerns of ‘the field’
◆ Ok for compentency testing, but do not trow away
knowledge tests completely
◆ How can we predict what we need in the future
(compétences futures?)
◆ Differentiated procedure necessary for experts?
◆ Need to invest in quality of Jury-members
◆ Level of competition to be in line with level of
experience of senior recruits (avoid
overqualification- stronger link between level of
jobresponsability and recruitment grade needed

24
Weaknesses of
old system
■ Long throughput time
■ Complex and bureaucratic procedure gives
bad first impression of the organisation
■ Our competitiveness on the labour market
has deminished (less attractive for the
‘generation Z’ in the war for talent)
■ Old procedure is percieved as ‘fair’ but very
slow and old-fashioned
■ No reliable previsional planning, reactive
approach(running behind the facts)

25
Strenghts of
new procedure
■ Speed up to 6-9 months
■ Competence testing in mother tongue
■ Computer based testing with reliable test items
■ Integrated competition cycles
■ More competences than knowledge
■ specific procedure for different target groups
(linguists, assistants, administrators, specialists)
■ Give candidates more responsability in job –search
(open vacancy database?)
■ Better communicaton with the potential recruits (care
for our image, also with refused candidates)

26
Priority actions
■ Shorten procedure
■ Develop internal team of qualified
assessors
■ Introduce assessment center method
■ Reduce bureaucratic steps
■ Develop solid culture of forward
planning

27