Every year, thousands of young Europeans look for a career in one of the EU institutions. They embark on a long and painful process of competitive selection to fulfil their dream, but the stakes are high: a starting salary of approx 4,000 euro after tax (entry level for a University graduate) and a huge range of benefits which include free medical insurance and a very generous pension. And most importantly, a stable job for life, because being sacked by EU institutions is as difficult as convincing Merkel that Eurobonds are a good.

But getting there is not easy. First you must pass the EU competition (or concours, in Brussels jargon), a very daunting task for most candidates. Very few manage to go through, roughly 1% of those who submit an application. It depends on the type of competition and grade but in any case, the competition is stiff. Candidates face a wide range of psychometrics and aptitude tests, while one’s motivation and pro-Europeanism must clearly be demonstrated. Nowadays the whole selection process takes between 9 and 12 months to complete, an improvement to previous competitions which took roughly 18 months. Before 2010, the concours implied detailed knowledge of EU policies and procedures, on top of good verbal and numerical skills. Following years of criticism from various stakeholders, the process was streamlined and the knowledge tests were eliminated.

But this is where all improvements stopped. Why? Because once the candidates are successful they are not recruited immediately, they are put on a reserve list (a pool) which is then circulated to all EU services/departments. These successful candidates, who at that point are over the moon that they were successful, are called laureates, in the same Brussels jargon. While the selection of pools of candidates is not uncommon in human resourcing large organisations, this practice is highly inefficient in EU’s case. Many of these laureates are not aware that being successful in a competition is only the start to another round of interviews, if they are lucky to be invited to any. Laureates are supposed to be invited to interviews, whenever there is an opening for which no internal candidate (existing EU official) was suitable. The interviews are organised by the EU department (unit) where that vacancy arose. I know laureates who waited for 2 or three years to even be invited to one interview. This is no longer possible, because in theory the new reserve lists are due to expire after only one year.

This is the story of an EU laureate. I have been in one of these pool/reserve lists since 2010. I passed a graduate level competition and I’ve been waiting for almost two years to be recruited, as my list was extended due to poor recruitment levels. This is an account of my encounters with EU officials in my interviews. I decided to write about this because after 3 interviews I decided that working for the European Commission is not for me. Not because I am no longer a Europhile, not because I am no longer interested in EU policies and not because I could use some extra benefits and a slightly better pay. No, the reason is the treatment I received in these interviews. I have never seen such lack of professionalism and courtesy to candidates. I worked and lived in two different EU countries and I have attended many other interviews in my career, some of which successful. The EU officials I met broke all the rules of good recruitment practices and I dread to think that this is the norm and not the exception. I admit that probably I was not the best candidate in any of these interviews and that this is a subjective account. However, it may be useful for those of you who might consider going for an EU career, as none of the following is mentioned by EU websites. In fact, what happens after you are successful in the concours is not very well publicised by the responsible body (EPSO), but this is another matter.

So let me tell you about my latest experience, at DG MARE. This is the department responsible for EU maritime affairs and I applied for a job there as a programme manager back in March 2012. In May 2012, I received an email asking me if I am still interested in the job. I replied enthusiastically that yes, I am still keen indeed. I provided a date and I also asked for details about travel costs, as I don’t live in Belgium and I would like to have my expenses paid. I had to ask this at this stage, because in the past I had to pay for my costs and I was not reimbursed because I did not inform them in advance. I then waited for a few days for an answer and, as the date of the proposed interview date was getting near, I decided to chase. After a few out of office replies I got an answer from the Head of Unit herself saying that the interviews hadn’t been scheduled yet. This caused a little bit of inconvenience as I was having quite a busy period at work and had to reschedule meetings. It took two weeks from the initial contact to have a final interview date arranged. I received an email from a person from DG Admin, asking me to attend a medical examination and to submit a whole set of documents (including an application form, copy of the criminal record, references from past employers, copies of diplomas and photos). I’m sure that you will find this as bizarre as I do, as it’s unheard of to submit all this before you even have an interview. I called the person and sought clarifications and he said that the medical is compulsory and if I don’t submit the documents my appointment will be delayed. I decided to attend the medical but not submit all the documents.

I travelled to Brussels and checked in a hotel the night before the interview. The next day at 8 AM I had the medical examination which took some 3 hours and included: blood tests (they took 3 or 4 samples), lungs, urine, electrocardiogram and eye tests (which was not in the same place and involved some more travelling). I also filled in a medical form and saw a physician who carried out full medical check. I then had to go to the person in DG Admin to submit the expenses forms and the other documents.

My interview was scheduled at 2.30 so I had time to grab a bite (you are not allowed to eat the morning before the medical checks). I was at DG Mare at 2.20 and reported to reception. I was told to wait five minutes and someone would come to pick me up. I waited 5, 10, 15 minutes. It was now 2.35 and no one came. I waited 15 minutes more and at 2.50 I say a women going through the main gates and rushing to the elevator. The receptionist grabbed her attention and pointed in my direction. She came to meet me, apologising for being late, as her business lunch ran late. I said that was not a problem. She was the Head of Unit, who was supposed to interview me.

The interview was shorter than initially scheduled. You normally lose track of time in these situations but I’m fairly convinced I was out in less than 30 minutes instead of the reserved slot of 45 minutes that they had told me about. There was no one from HR on the interview panel, only the Head of Unit and another person from her team. They told me that they’d ask the same questions to all candidates but I did not see a list of questions and I did not see a scoring grid. They had my CV, on which they scribbled a few notes. I was not even given a glass of water. It all seemed like they wanted all to be finished as quickly as possible, a shotgun interview. I was aware that it was a Friday but I was naïve enough to expect some consideration for someone who travelled from another country to answer their questions. They asked about my motivation and I provided a well-prepared answer. Then they started asking about the EU maritime policy: what do I know about it, are there any changes recently proposed, have I got any experience (even personal) with the policy. I had prepared extensively for this interview and I was expecting a question about the policy itself but not a barrage of inquiries. After all, the job was for a programme manager and I had plenty of examples to demonstrate why I was fit for the job. But I was simply not given a chance. All questions focused on my knowledge of the policy although they read my CV and knew I had no background in maritime affairs but only in a related EU policy, with transferable skills. But these skills were not tested. Instead of a competency-based interview, in which I was supposed to provide convincing examples of my relevant experience, I was served a knowledge based interview which tested my creativity in providing answers. I was even asked how I would do the job, an open question which had so many answers that I even struggled to choose one to start with. I have to say that this is the first time I was asked this question in an interview. It is the interviewers’ role to find out how the candidate would do the job but this only exemplifies an appalling lack of interviewing skills. The usual weaknesses/strengths question came at the end, just to “wrap up”.

At the end of the interview I asked a couple of questions which I had prepared, in order to spark a conversation and emphasise again my suitability for the role. The answers were pretty blunt so my last effort was pointless. At that stage I knew that I was not going to be the preferred candidate and waited for the Head of Unit to conclude by telling me when I would receive an answer. And that’s exactly what she did, saying that she will let the lucky successful candidate know by the end of the following week. Then, to put the cherry on the cake, she added that in the event that I’m not successful, I should keep applying because there will be more opportunities. Initially I did not understand what she was saying and I only realised that she actually told me a clear “NO” only after I said goodbye and was out of the building. She practically did not even bother discussing and assessing my answers, she decided to reject my candidature on the spot.

I felt and I still feel that instead of a fair assessment I got an execution. The sheer lack of management/people skills perplexed me and helped me swallow my failure. I quickly admitted that I was not the best candidate for the job. But I also understood that the job was not for me either. Working with such people will not only put a stop to my personal development but also drive me crazy. What would I learn from them? How would I progress? Yes, I would have a nice cushy job but would that make me happy? This and my other experiences with the European Commission put a big question mark on my motivation to work for EU. Because this was not the first, but the last bitter pill I had to take forcefully, as a proud EU laureate that I used to be.