Examples · three invented applicants, labelled as samples

Three behaviour examples, rewritten to 250 words.

Delivering at Pace (HEO), Communicating and Influencing (SEO) and Working Together (EO), each shown as the kind of draft we receive and then as the rewrite a sifter can score. The applicants, teams and numbers are invented; the structure is what we deliver for £49. Our first sample covers Making Effective Decisions, and the checklist is the seven checks each rewrite passes.

Fix my behaviours £49 incl. VAT · up to four behaviours + personal statement · back in 1 day

Delivering at Pace (HEO)

The draft we were sent (70 words): “I am a results-driven and highly organised professional who always delivers at pace. In my current role I am responsible for a number of projects at once and I always make sure deadlines are met by prioritising effectively and working closely with stakeholders. For example, when we had a tight deadline for a report I made sure the team stayed focused and we delivered on time, which my manager praised.”

Why it scores low: the first lines are about qualities, not a dated situation; the one example has no numbers and no decision that was the applicant’s; the result is someone’s praise rather than a change.

The rewrite

Situation: In February our team of five was asked to produce the quarterly performance return for the directorate in eight working days instead of the usual twenty, because the board meeting had moved forward. Two of the five were on leave for the first three days.

Task: As the EO coordinating the return I had to get 14 data sets from six teams, checked and written up, to the director by day eight without the usual two rounds of corrections.

Action: On day one I listed the 14 data sets, ranked them by how often they had come back wrong (four caused most corrections last year) and asked for those four first, by day three. I sent each team a one-page template instead of the usual blank sheet, so the numbers arrived in the same format. I checked each set the day it arrived rather than waiting for all 14, and phoned the two teams whose figures did not reconcile (both resolved inside an hour). On day five I drafted the narrative from the ten sets I had and dropped the last four in as they landed. I gave my manager a half-finished version on day six so her comments came back before the final.

Result: The return went to the director on day eight, a day early, with one correction instead of the usual ten to fifteen. The template was used again for the next two quarters, and the directorate’s submission was the first of four to arrive both times.

(247 words)

Scores against (HEO, Delivering at Pace): plans and organises work to meet deadlines; takes responsibility for delivering timely and quality results; regularly monitors progress and acts on problems early; works with others to keep things moving.

Communicating and Influencing (SEO)

The draft we were sent (60 words): “I have excellent communication skills and am able to influence stakeholders at all levels. I always adapt my communication style to my audience and I am confident presenting to senior colleagues. For instance, I persuaded a senior stakeholder to accept a change to a process by communicating the benefits clearly and effectively, which led to a better outcome for everyone.”

Why it scores low: the first lines are about qualities, not a dated situation; the one example has no numbers and no decision that was the applicant’s; the result is someone’s praise rather than a change.

The rewrite

Situation: In May our policy team proposed moving a monthly data request to quarterly. The operational team that supplied it, led by a Grade 7, had refused the change twice in writing, saying their staff relied on the monthly cycle to spot errors.

Task: As the HEO who owned the request I had to get the Grade 7’s agreement to quarterly within six weeks, before the new reporting year, without an instruction from above, which I had been told was not available.

Action: Rather than send a third email, I asked for 30 minutes in person and spent it asking what the monthly cycle actually did for them. It turned out they used our request as their own error check, because they had no other. I went back and drafted a one-page proposal that kept a short monthly self-check for them (eight fields, 20 minutes) and moved the 60-field return to quarterly, with the work saved shown as a number: 11 staff-days a year. I tested the eight fields with two of their team leaders first and changed three at their suggestion. I presented it to the Grade 7 with their team leaders in the room, and said which of their earlier objections it did not fix.

Result: The Grade 7 agreed in the meeting and the quarterly return started in July. Their team reported the error rate unchanged over the following two quarters, and in September the same Grade 7 asked me to redesign a second return the same way.

(247 words)

Scores against (SEO, Communicating and Influencing): communicates with others in a clear, honest and enthusiastic way; listens to understand others’ needs and views; influences others by explaining the reasoning and showing the evidence; chooses the right channel and the right people.

Working Together (EO)

The draft we were sent (52 words): “I am a team player who works well with others and builds strong relationships across the organisation. I always treat colleagues with respect and I am happy to help wherever needed. In my role I work together with different teams to achieve shared goals and I believe collaboration is key to success.”

Why it scores low: the first lines are about qualities, not a dated situation; the one example has no numbers and no decision that was the applicant’s; the result is someone’s praise rather than a change.

The rewrite

Situation: In January our customer-contact team of nine took on a second phone line from another office, and the eight staff who came with it sat on another floor with a different call script and a different call log. Within three weeks about 40 calls a week were being lost in referrals between the two groups.

Task: As one of two AOs asked to sort out the handover, I had to get both groups onto one script and one log without a line manager from either side telling them to.

Action: I spent a morning listening to two of their calls and sent two of ours to do the same on their floor. We listed the 12 places the scripts differed and I sat both pairs down to pick one answer for each; nine were quick, three I took to the team leader with both options written out. I built one log sheet with the columns both sides needed and dropped the four nobody used. I ran a 20-minute session on each floor, with a colleague from the other team presenting beside me, and set up a shared inbox for the referrals that still came up.

Result: Lost referrals fell from about 40 a week to under five within a month, and the team leader could see both lines on one page for the first time. In March the groups moved to one floor, and my co-presenter and I were asked to write the induction for the next three starters.

(246 words)

Scores against (EO, Working Together): builds and maintains positive relationships across teams; shares information and expertise; listens to and includes others; works with colleagues to resolve problems and deliver shared outcomes.

What the three have in common

Each starts inside a month and a place with something at stake. Each Task is one decision that sat with the applicant. The Action is at least half the words, in order, first person, with numbers. The Result has a number or a dated change, and in two of the three the change outlasted the applicant’s own case. None of them uses more than one word from the descriptor.

Questions

Get the full sample rewrite and the checklist by email

Send it

Want yours rewritten? Up to four behaviours plus your personal statement, £49, back in 1 day, from your own examples only. Send your examples. Nobody can promise a sift pass; the sift is scored by people in the department.