Nobody has ever claimed that the EU was a lean, efficient and streamlined machine working with the speed of light – except for the glossy brochures and carefully curated social media posts, all advertising how good it was for European citizens that their almighty administration in Brussels saved them from the woes of the world.
Experts and the market have cried foul years ago, begging for fewer rules instead of more, smarter governance instead of more spending, decisive actions instead of mere rhetoric. The reality for the average citizen is a maze of inefficiency, regulatory overreach and red tape, costing them time, money, resources … and stifling growth.
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is the organization responsible to fill the flashy offices of Berlaymont with enthusiastic and competent new bureaucrats.
To match aspiring talent with EU careers by deploying high quality, efficient and effective selection procedures, together with an innovative approach. The website repeatedly boasts about a faster, leaner and more accessible competition model and a selection method that attracts a diverse talent pool.
Since its establishment in 2003, it organized the entry exams, colloquially known as concours for wannabe Eurocrats.
Yet, this innovative approach failed spectacularly a few weeks ago.
They were tasked with a simple task, one at the core of their work, a routine, one might say, of the basic kind – the cracks not only began to show but turned into a massive faultline.
Due to a technical error in their superb system (a set-up defect, according to them), nearly 10,000 would be Eurocrats will be forced to retake the entry test. Anger is boiling over Facebook and social media, participants are fuming about the epic failure and its negative consequences on their lives.
Rightfully.
It wasn’t the first blunder in EPSO’s history – and most of the previous failures were caused by the very same issues that make Brussels’ wheels turn slowly. In one way, the EPSO is the microcosmos-slash-Petri dish of everything that is wrong with European bureaucracy.
Starting with the inability to change quickly and effectively: the application process has been considered ‘notoriously sluggish’ for years, yet not much was done to streamline the process.
Alternative solutions, like using Contract Agents (via the Contract Agents Selection Tool, or CAST) came into being to allow the institutions to hire the necessary workforce more conveniently – yet again, it only led to the frustration of many, as the process was even less transparent and fair than the concours.
Then, in 2020 EPSO struggled with organizing entry exams due to the COVID pandemic: exams were suspended in March, with a promise of resuming mid-September. Only, those exams were partially moved online, creating chaos and confusion as to which part was obligatory to whom and alike, not to mention all the uncertainties surrounding the successful execution of online Assessment Centres. Starting with the inequality in performance assessment. At the beginning, information was extremely scarce beyond the mere announcement and it took EPSO months to clear all the problems.
In 2023, EPSO announced that the hiring process was going all-digital – with an American test provider, Prometric. (Well, it was before the big de-coupling and all the talk about independence from the U.S., right?)
Again, applicants were complaining about technical glitches and pricey hardware requirements – all favouring a few select instead of providing equal opportunities. Even if – in theory, an online exam could have lowered the bar and ensured that candidates were selected from a wider pool, not only Western Europeans. Alas, realities of infrastructure can hinder even the noblest of goals: several applicants were rejected simply because ‘their laptops did not fulfil specific criteria’.
In 2024, entry exams needed to be deferred over some ‘mysterious’ technical issues, but mainly for English-only testing.
Instead of successfully refuting the accusations of favouritism and nepotism (accusations European bureaucracy often faces), EPSO has given more fuel to the fire. Today, it is a widely accepted notion that ‘insider’ candidates are more likely to land at a nice job than ‘external’ ones and those who come from wealthier (understand: Western) member states have better chances to get accepted.
The EPSO has a Competency Framework that defines the competencies that are considered essential to perform effectively in any given job – except, they are clearly incompetent in their own.
