Echipa CSLDI
The Romanian public sector workforce — expectations, perceptions, values
Context and Methodology
The “Why Do We Work?” study aimed to build the most objective picture possible of how Romanian public sector employees relate to the organization, the workplace and what their expectations are. The research was conducted in 2024–2025, in three stages: (1) a national quantitative survey with 1,481 respondents from central and local administration; (2) four focus groups (mayors of municipalities, mayors of communes, central administration, secretaries general of county councils); (3) four semi-structured interviews with senior professionals (SGG, former mayor, prefect, county council leadership). The findings are contextualized by reporting on global trends documented by the World Bank, OECD, BCG, McKinsey and Gallup.
Key findings
The picture that emerges is that of a mature workforce, intrinsically motivated by the social impact of work, but operating within a rigid, politicized and underdeveloped institutional framework at the level of human resources management.
- Aging demographic profile: 60% of respondents are over 46 years old, only 8% are under 30; 55% have been in their current job for over 16 years. The sector has valuable experience capital, but is vulnerable in the next 10–15 years.
- Meaning-centered intrinsic motivation: type of work (8.67), security (8.47), social impact (8.26) and work-life balance (8.21) are the dominant criteria. Salary (7th place) and benefits (8th place) are secondary. Public mission remains the strongest latent motivational asset.
- Systemic overvaluation of skills: quantitative scores are very high (95% on analysis and synthesis, 91% on digital), but focus groups and interviews show the real concentration of advanced skills at the level of management functions and a problematic reformulation of “critical thinking” as a blocking tool (“it can’t be done”), not an innovation tool.
- Eroding the myth of stability: although security is declaratively in second place, qualitative data describe it as fragile — structural reorganizations, electoral cycles and political interference have transformed it into a formal stability over a lived instability.
- Deep leadership crisis: major gap between declared preferences (collaborative, people-oriented leadership) and the described reality (authoritarian, absent or toxic). The root cause is political interference in institutional management.
- Fundamentally inadequate HR system: uniform recruitment based on memorization of legislation, formalistic evaluation (90% “very good” ratings), unreformed training since 2010 (less than 1% of civil servants trained annually by ANFP), career path exhausted in ~7 years.
- Acute generational gap: the 40+ generation seeks protection through directive leadership, values dedication; the under-40 generation demands autonomy, work-life balance and real involvement — but is also the most volatile. Young people with the skills necessary for modernization will migrate first.
- Strategic gap in the AI/digital area: AI is completely absent from all 4 focus groups, although it is already used informally and clandestinely by some employees. The devaluation of technology (score 5.15 vs. 6.94 in private) reflects a lack of accessibility, not interest.
- Blocked mobility — institutional captivity: 27% intend to change jobs, but structural barriers (home institution agreement, lack of transfers, short career paths) create “institutional servitude” — dissatisfied employees who cannot leave.
- Polarization of satisfaction: 80% declare high satisfaction, but 7.6% are deeply dissatisfied — four times more than privately (1.93%). This minority corresponds to McKinsey’s category of actively disengaged “disruptors”.
5 PARADOXES IDENTIFIED
The study identifies five internal tensions that define the current state of the sector and that do not appear in conventional quantitative research.
The competence paradox:
95% self-assess themselves as analytically well-prepared. Qualitative data shows a systemic overestimation — critical thinking is practically redefined as «I know how to identify reasons why something cannot be done». The forms are there; the substance is missing.
The stability paradox:
Job security — in 2nd place in the hierarchy of values. Reality: «Since 2010, there has been no stability in the civil service — we live in a constant crisis, stability is only formal.» (central administration focus group). Employees do not stay because they are satisfied, but because they cannot leave.
The leadership paradox:
Declared preference: participative, human, collaborative leadership (scores 8.8–8.9/10). The real situation: the existence of directive-protective leadership — a leader who “covers” the employee from unpredictable consequences. The reform of the leadership style cannot be isolated from the reform of the system in which they operate.
The digital paradox:
91.5% consider themselves digitally competent — one of the highest scores. At the same time, the use of advanced technology is the least valued criterion in choosing a job (5.15/10). Real competence: Word and email. Collaborative tools, AI, data analysis — practically absent. The competence trap in action.
The AI paradox:
No spontaneous mention of artificial intelligence in any focus group — the topic existed “zero” in natural discussions. And yet: AI is already used individually and clandestinely, without data policies, without ethical frameworks, without training. The system is formally “non-AI”, operationally already partially AI-assisted.
3 BRAND NEW IDEAS
Convergences with global trends and local particularities
The Romanian public workforce feels the same global pressures documented by OECD (Workforce Insights from Central Governments 2025), Gallup (State of the Global Workplace 2024 — 62% Quiet Quitting global), McKinsey (Great Attrition, $355M annual cost of disengagement), BCG (Decoding Global Talent 2024 — safety, work-life balance, meaning) and the World Bank (institutional capacity reform).
The local particularities that require the adaptation of any reform agenda are: (1) politicization of institutional management as a dominant root factor; (2) institutional captivity (blocked mobility); (3) negative public image as an additional psychological burden; (4) culture of fear fueled by the unpredictability of consequences; (5) AI/digital gap of 5–10 years compared to the OECD vanguard; (6) the substantially unreformed HR system since 2010.
Reform agenda: six strategic priorities
- Depoliticization of institutional management — precondition for all other reforms.
- Simultaneous reform of the HR system — recruitment, assessment, training, career path, as an integrated system.
- Professionalization of leadership — with emphasis on Senior Civil Service and middle-level managers (70% impact on engagement, according to Gallup).
- Reconfiguring the offer for the new generation — flexibility, hybrid/remote, fast-track programs, partnerships with universities.
- National strategy for AI and digital transformation — with ethical frameworks, pilot programs, coordinated scaling-up.
- Rehabilitation of the public image — transparency, recognition of professionalism, communication of impact cases.
Implementation should be phased over three horizons: short (1–2 years — quick gains: additional career steps, modernization of the ANFP catalog, leadership pilot programs, AI recognition with minimal rules, internships); medium (3–5 years — structural reforms of recruitment and evaluation, Senior Civil Service, hybrid models, AI scaling, ecosystem digitalization); long (5–10 years — structural depoliticization, cultural transformation, integration of AI in strategic decisions, rehabilitation of public image).
The Romanian public sector does not need better people — it needs a system that allows people to be better than they are. Valuable human capital exists, intrinsic motivation (mission, impact) exists; what is missing is the institutional framework to activate them.
The reform must be structural and integrated: technical (organizational structure, HR, digitalization), structural (depoliticization, real autonomy) and cultural (predictability, restoring trust, recognition). Only a systemic approach can transform the latent motivation of the public workforce into visible results for the citizen.
Last modified: June 17, 2026
