4.3.2. The DG for Development Cooperation (DG DEVCO): two become one

Need for change

The need for change was dictated by external developments. The reorganisation coincided with the largest reform of external actions to date. As a result of the Lisbon Treaty (one key objective: Europe should speak with one voice to the outside world) a new European External Action Service (EEAS) had been created in 2010 which joined forces between the Commission and the Member States.

Before the reorganisation, the Commission`s external relations and development cooperation were split between three DGs in charge of different geographical regions, and responsible for policy making and implementation. The Commission reacted to external changes, by transferring part of the policy making to the newly created EEAS end 2010. The two remaining DGs, the Directorate General for Development (DG DEV) and the Directorate General for Aid Cooperation (DG AIDCO) were merged into one institution (DG DEVCO) in 2011.

Staffing and structure

DG DEV and DG AIDCO had about 1500 staff in Brussels and about 2880 in EU Delegations in different countries across the world. With responsibility for a large numbers of staff located outside the EU, they were among the largest and most complex DGs. The structures of both DGs were in some parts similar, with one DG focusing on the policy aspects and the other DG on the implementation aspects, in other parts clearly overlapping (thematic directorates and horizontal resource directorates). The merge created clear synergies and reduced the number of directorates and units with a corresponding cut in posts.

Objectives of the reorganisation

• reconcile policy design and policy implementation; this leads to cross fertilization: “reality check of policies” and “policy check of implementation”;
• eliminate coordination problems and simplify work with the EU Delegations in the field; clear lines of reporting and communication;
• free significant number of staff through the merger and use economies of scale;
• improve coherence of development policy; one address for external action in the Commission with clear responsibility.

Management of change

The vision, mainly a combination of improving effectiveness, efficiency and coherence by merging two DGs was clear and well established but did not translate into a strategy or an action plan.

The reorganisation happened relatively quickly. The overall process was condensed into a six months period starting in December 2010, with the final organisation chart adopted by the Commission end March, and the entry into force beginning of June 2011.

Due to the time pressure and the sheer size of staff, consultations with staff and middle management were limited. However, staff was first informed in January 2011 at the occasion of the DEVCO Away Day. Also, a broader consultation took place to select a new name for the organisation. Apart from that, change focused mainly on structure and the organisation chart.

As part of the reorganisation, one of the two Directors General left the DG. The remaining Director General did not lead the reorganisation himself but put a Taskforce in charge to prepare the new organisation chart, mainly composed of assistants to top management and members of the Human resource department. It was presided by a Deputy Director General with a close knowledge of both DGs and met frequently. Staff could send ideas to the Taskforce, and to a limited extent, influence the initial proposal.

The management style during the reorganisation was rather directive. The Director General and the Taskforce decided about the functions in the new chart and attributed the posts. Staff was meant to follow their posts without prior consultation. Middle management was informed about their new attributions in face to face meetings. Information about the reorganisation was regularly put on the DEVCO website.

The merge required that several management posts (including a vacant Director post and three head of unit posts) had to be down-sized. The majority of staff changed jobs and profiles, which led to moves of almost 1000 staff members.

Resistance to change

Resistance to change was initially strong among staff. This was mainly because of the necessary down-sizing, the lack of consultation for the new attributions and the scale of the move. A Chambre d ́Ecoute was key to deal with resistance, supporting staff not satisfied with their attributions. In most cases (80 to 90%), individual solutions could be found and resistance overcome. However, some staff and middle management left the DG.

Specificities

Two DG with two distinct corporate cultures (“noble policy making” versus “practical project implementation”) were merged. Many staff members were specialised and already for a long time in their posts. Although it was not explicitly expressed, the main challenge was to create a new joint culture. Reshuffling staff and changing attributions were taken as main measures.