...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Human Resource ManagementbElectronic resource >CRITERIA AND INSTRUMENTS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF TOP-OFFICIALS IN THE EU- MEMBER STATES AND THE EU-INSTITUTIONS – HOW ETHICAL AND MERITOCRATIC ARE WE IN PRACTICE?
【24h】

CRITERIA AND INSTRUMENTS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF TOP-OFFICIALS IN THE EU- MEMBER STATES AND THE EU-INSTITUTIONS – HOW ETHICAL AND MERITOCRATIC ARE WE IN PRACTICE?

机译:任命欧盟成员国和欧盟机构的前官员的标准和工具 - 我们在实践中如何道德和精致?

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose – Literature assumes that politicization is increasing in Hrm policies in the public sector.is article will test this claim in the field of appointment procedures for top officials.Aims – e article analyses appointment procedures for top officials in the European Union (EU)member States and EU institutions. it focuses on the ethical dimension of appointment proceduresand how the different administrations and appointment committees manage conflicts of interest asregards political – (politicisation) and merit-based interests.Design/Approach–earticledrawsonaresearchassignmentfortheEuropeanParliament,followingthe appointment of a former Secretary General of the European Commission in february 2018 and thesubsequentEuropeanOmbudsmanenquiryandfindingofmaladministration. eresearchisbasedonacriticalreviewoftheexistingliteratureontheappointmentoftop-officials,theassessmentofEuropeanCommission and European Ombudsman documents, the review of appointment procedures in otherinternational,EuropeanandnationalorganisationsandinterviewswithcivilservantsininternationalandEuropean organisations, the EU institutions, and EU member States.Findings – e article finds that appointment procedures are highly opaque. Politicisation remainsa complex challenge but can be attenuated if positions are published and committees improve themanagement of conflicts of interest.Limitations – Because of the – often – complex nature of top-officials appointment procedures, it isdifficult to get access to “real life facts”. Also in the case of appointment procedures in the EuropeanCommission, we were confronted with opaque decision-making processes and found it difficult toget a real picture of processes.Practical Implications – e findings of this survey were presented to EU decision-makers andofficials from various EU institutionsOriginality–Still,thisstudyisbasedon–sofar–unofficialdocumentsanddatathatmadeitpossibleto get access to so far disclosed information.
机译:目的 - 文学假设在公共部门的人力资源管理政策中正在增加政治化。“这篇文章将在官员委任程序中测试这一索赔.aims - E文章分析了欧盟最高官员的任命程序(欧盟)成员国和欧盟机构。它侧重于预约程序的道德维度,不同的主管部门和委任委员会如何管理利益冲突AsRegards政治 - (政治化)和优秀的利益.Design/Approach-�earticledrawsonAresearchAscmentForthElepeanPariament,这是欧盟委员会前秘书长的任命2018年2月和TheSubequenteuropeanombudsmanenquiryandfindingofMalAdminaltration。 EResearchisBasedonAcriticreviewoftheexistingLiteratureOntheAppointoptop-官员,TheasesessmentOfeuropeancommisse和欧洲监察员文件,审查欧洲和欧洲欧洲国际机构和欧洲机构和欧洲机构和欧盟成员国的委任程序审查.Findings - E文章发现,委任程序是高度不透明的。政治化仍然是复杂的挑战,但如果出版职位和委员会可以衰减,可以提高利益冲突的审查。虽然 - 通常 - 顶级官员委任程序的复杂性,但它是进入“现实生活事实”的思想。同样在欧洲议会中的委任程序的情况下,我们面临不透明的决策过程,发现它难以忘记过程的真实情况。正面的结果 - E这项调查的调查结果向欧盟决策者讨论了各种各样的欧盟InstitutionSoriginality - 仍然是,这个替换istudyisbasedon-sofar-unofficialdocumenssanddatathatmadeitpossibleto获得到目前为止披露的信息。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号