The recent reform of the appointment process for senior civil service officials is now well established and, in my view, represents one of the most significant institutional changes of recent years. I had the opportunity to participate in the process and gain firsthand experience of all its stages. The difference compared to the previous system is enormous.

The challenge for the Public Service Commission is to ensure that the process is based on continuous improvement. An effective tool for this would be feedback from participants.   In this spirit, I offer my own feedback below—not as a critic of the process, but as one of the people who experienced it firsthand.

1. Verbal, mathematical, and abstract reasoning

The introduction of verbal, mathematical, and abstract reasoning tests is one of the most significant improvements in the new selection process. Although some believe that these types of tests are intended for lower-level positions, I personally consider them very important.  Verbal reasoning assesses the ability to understand complex and multifaceted information, to identify key points within a text, to draw logical conclusions, and to evaluate arguments. Mathematical reasoning assesses the ability to understand and utilize quantitative information and to logically process and analyze numerical data. Abstract reasoning assesses the ability to recognize patterns, identify logical relationships, engage in abstract thinking, and solve new problems independently of prior knowledge or experience. These are fundamental cognitive skills that lie at the core of every modern executive selection process and are rightly part of the new process.

The only specific improvement might be for the mathematical reasoning tests not to be so heavily focused on the computational aspect, since at the hierarchical level we are discussing, it is not the speed of arithmetic operations that matters, but the ability to analyze quantitative information.

2. Examination of Legislation

Knowledge of the legislation governing the operations of each department is a fundamental requirement for any senior executive. However, the assessment of this knowledge cannot be limited to memorizing provisions, an element that constitutes a significant portion of the exam. Just as verbal and abstract reasoning do not assess a candidate’s knowledge but rather the way in which they think, so too should the examination of legislation primarily assess the ability to apply its provisions rather than the recall of specific articles from memory.

At the same time, the weight that should be given to the examination of legislation is not the same for all managerial positions. There are positions in which the Director exercises public authority on a daily basis, making administrative decisions that directly affect citizens’ rights and obligations, such as in matters of licensing, social benefits, and administrative sanctions. In contrast, there are managerial positions with a primarily technical or scientific focus, in which the daily exercise of administrative discretion is clearly limited. Therefore, both the content and the level of examination of the legislation should be adapted to the actual requirements of each position.

A commendable effort has already been made in the process to incorporate brief administrative case studies. However, in several cases, solving them still depended more on memorizing specific provisions than on exercising administrative judgment. The shift from assessing knowledge to assessing judgment requires a specialized understanding of how public administration functions. For this reason, I believe that the announcements for the exams should provide for the participation of an expert with substantial experience in administrative law and the functioning of public administration, so that the questions truly assess the quality of administrative judgment.

3. Assessment Center

In my view, the Assessment Center is the most important element of the new process. It evaluates individual competencies, such as leadership, working under pressure, the ability to synthesize information, decision-making, problem-solving, and personnel management, among others. It uses role-playing, scenario analysis, and, finally, responses to a specialized questionnaire as its tools. This is an internationally established methodology, applied in a similar manner in both the public and private sectors. Based on my own experience, I believe that its implementation was of a particularly high standard, and I have no reason to suggest changes to its methodology.

The only addition that would further strengthen the program is the provision of structured feedback to all candidates. A brief evaluation note, highlighting strengths and individual skills that require further development, would contribute both to the candidates’ personal growth and to the transparency of the process. At the same time, it would provide more comprehensive documentation for a selection process that, as an administrative act, is subject to judicial review.

4. The Personal Interview

The personal interview is a necessary part of the process, as it allows for the assessment of characteristics that are difficult to capture through other methods. From my own experience, I have found that a genuine effort is made to ensure that the questions relate to the actual requirements of the position, the responsibilities the selected candidate will assume, and the results they are expected to achieve. This is an approach that is moving in the right direction.

However, precisely because the personal interview is the most subjective stage of the process, I believe the time has come to mandate the keeping of interview records, in which the questions, the key points of the candidates’ answers, and the rationale for the evaluation. This change requires an amendment to the current legislative framework, but it would substantially enhance transparency, protect both the candidates and the EDY, and further strengthen citizens’ confidence in meritocracy.

Conclusion

The new selection process for senior officials is a reform worth preserving and continuously improving. Meritocracy depends not only on the objectivity of a process, but also on whether it assesses the skills that each position of responsibility actually requires.