You are a policy officer in DG AGRI coordinating a legislative file on agricultural sustainability standards. Three other DGs — ENV, CLIMA, and SANTE — have submitted position papers with partially conflicting recommendations. DG ENV insists on stricter pesticide limits, DG CLIMA wants binding carbon sequestration targets embedded in the text, and DG SANTE raises concerns that ENV's proposed limits may conflict with existing food-safety regulations. Your head of unit expects a consolidated inter-service position by end of week. You have two days and no formal mandate to adjudicate between DGs.
Quelle réaction est la PLUS efficace ?
Pourquoi c'est la réaction la plus efficace
Response A directly applies analytical problem-solving: it disaggregates the conflicts into legal contradictions versus policy emphasis differences — a critical diagnostic step — and produces a structured output (compromise language plus explanatory annex) that addresses each DG's core interest. This reflects positive indicators of identifying critical facts, finding creative and practical solutions, and taking initiative within available means.
Pourquoi c'est la réaction la moins efficace
Response D is the least effective because it uses AGRI's own position as the unquestioned baseline, which introduces systematic bias into the analysis, and it defers the SANTE legal concern to a footnote rather than treating it as a substantive analytical problem. This can produce a flawed consolidated text and undermines the legitimacy of the inter-service process.
Les autres réactions
Response B (multi-DG meeting with red-line ranking) is a sound facilitation move but risks delay and relies on DG counterparts to do the analytical work rather than the officer solving it proactively. Response C (escalate to head of unit) is procedurally prudent but premature — it outsources the analytical task before making any attempt to resolve conflicts at working level, which is the officer's core responsibility at this stage.
