ACT Public Service selection criteria examples (ACTPS Shared Capability).

I act with integrity in cross-jurisdictional engagement, including in situations where federal and territory priorities do not align (restate the criterion). In my current ASO6 role with an ACTPS directorate I am the territory's representative on a federal-state-territory working group on a specific area of policy (situation). During the past 12 months I was asked informally by a federal colleague to share territory cabinet-in-confidence material relevant to the working group's agenda (task).

I declined the request clearly but constructively, explaining the basis for the territory's confidentiality position without making it about the individual asking. I documented the request and my response in a brief note to my Director on the same day, so the record was clear if the matter came up later. I followed up with the federal colleague through formal channels to identify what information could legitimately be shared and offered to facilitate that through the appropriate process. I made sure my own subsequent contributions to the working group were substantive, so the working relationship was not damaged by the confidentiality position — integrity in this context means holding the line on what cannot be shared while continuing to engage constructively on everything else (actions).

The federal colleague subsequently raised the substantive policy question through formal channels, and a defensible information-sharing arrangement was established. The working group's deliverables were completed on schedule. My Director referenced the handling of the matter in my annual review as the standard she expected from her territory representatives on intergovernmental forums (result).

I deliver effective services in a small jurisdiction, including by leveraging the operational closeness that the ACT's scale enables (restate the criterion). In my current role I manage a service delivery program that interfaces with ACT residents directly across multiple touchpoints (situation). The ACT's scale means that operational decisions affecting service delivery are usually visible to the same Minister within weeks, which raises the standard for delivery quality (task).

I designed our service delivery rhythm around the ACT's operational closeness rather than ignoring it. I built in shorter feedback loops than larger jurisdictions would typically support, because the closeness of the territory makes that practical. I established direct relationships with the community organisations that interface with our clients downstream, which gave me earlier visibility of service quality issues than the formal complaint system would have provided. I made our service performance data visible to the team monthly, not just to executives quarterly, because the visibility produced operational adjustment without requiring direct intervention. When a service quality issue did arise — a specific cohort of clients receiving inconsistent information at intake — I addressed it within three weeks rather than letting it cycle through formal review. I documented the pattern, the fix, and the outcome openly so the team learned from it without the learning being mediated through formal performance management (actions).

Service quality metrics for the program have remained in the top quartile of comparable ACT programs for the past two reporting cycles. The community organisations interfacing with our clients have provided unsolicited positive feedback in two separate consultation forums. The approach to monthly performance data visibility has been adopted by two adjacent program areas (result).

I drive continuous improvement in how routine work is delivered and support capability development in others (restate the criterion). In my current SOG C role I lead a team responsible for stakeholder engagement on a multi-year ACT policy implementation (situation). When I took on the role the team's engagement practice was inconsistent across team members, which had produced variable stakeholder experience and some downstream service complaints (task).

I worked with the team to map our actual engagement practice rather than the documented one, which revealed that variation was driven less by skill differences than by inconsistent shared understanding of what good engagement looked like in our specific context. I facilitated three structured team workshops over six weeks to build a shared engagement playbook — not as a procedure to be followed mechanically, but as a reference for the kinds of judgement calls our team made repeatedly. I paired more experienced team members with newer ones on substantive engagement work, so capability transfer was happening through shared work rather than through formal training. I introduced a quarterly engagement reflection session where the team reviewed what had worked and what hadn't, without it becoming a forum for individual performance discussion. I made my own engagement practice visible by walking the team through specific cases I had handled, including the ones that hadn't gone well (actions).

Stakeholder feedback on the team's engagement quality improved measurably across the following two quarters. Two team members were promoted to higher classifications during the period. The engagement playbook has been adopted as a reference by two other policy teams in the directorate (result).

I manage resources and deliver outcomes with explicit attention to the standards that external scrutiny would apply (restate the criterion). In my current SOG C role I am responsible for the budget and delivery of a $3 million ACT program supporting community organisations across multiple priority areas (situation). The program is regularly the subject of Estimates committee questioning and annual report scrutiny (task).

I designed the program's reporting and decision-making rhythm around the scrutiny standard from the start, not as a separate compliance layer added on. Decisions on grant allocations were documented in writing with the reasons for the decision clearly stated, so the record was defensible if questioned later. The criteria against which decisions were made were published, not just held internally. The program's annual evaluation was independently conducted rather than self-assessed, with the evaluation methodology published. I built quarterly reporting against the program's stated outcomes into the team's rhythm, so we knew whether we were on track before the annual report cycle made it visible to others. When unsuccessful applicants requested feedback on their applications, I provided substantive written feedback rather than form responses — both because it was the right thing to do and because the written record demonstrated the assessment had been substantive. When I made decisions I knew might be questioned, I documented the rationale more fully than the routine standard required (actions).

The program has not been the subject of adverse Estimates committee findings or annual report criticism across the past three reporting cycles. Unsuccessful applicants have not raised procedural complaints. The Auditor-General's office cited the program's documentation practice in a broader good-practice report (result).

I coordinate effectively across federal, territory, and intergovernmental contexts, which is a defining feature of senior ACTPS work (restate the criterion). In my current role I represent the ACT on a National Cabinet working group on a specific area of policy coordination (situation). The working group includes representatives from each state and territory plus federal officials, with substantively different policy positions across the jurisdictions (task).

I approached the working group as a territory representative, not as a federal-trained policy officer with an ACT badge. The two are different roles. I prepared for each meeting with explicit attention to the ACT's position on each agenda item, including the political and operational dimensions specific to the territory. I distinguished between matters where the ACT had a strong substantive interest and matters where we could legitimately defer to consensus — recognising the ACT's role in National Cabinet processes is different from a larger state's role. I built working relationships with the other smaller jurisdictions (Tasmania, NT) where our interests often aligned more closely than with the larger states. I briefed my Director on the substance of each meeting within two working days, with explicit attention to what had changed in the cross-jurisdictional position rather than just what had been discussed. When the ACT needed to take a position publicly that diverged from the federal position, I made sure the divergence was framed substantively, not just as territorial pushback (actions).

The working group reached agreement on two of three substantive agenda items, with the ACT's specific concerns reflected in the agreed positions. My Director cited the handling of the working group in the directorate's quarterly executive briefing. The federal counterpart subsequently requested ACT representation on a related working group (result).

I manage and develop staff with a focus on capability building and addressing performance issues directly when they arise (restate the criterion). In my current SOG C role I manage four direct reports across ASO5 and ASO6 levels (situation). When I took on the role the team had high engagement but had not produced a promotion to higher classification in 22 months, which the Director had flagged as a capability development concern (task).

I established development plans for each direct report mapped to the ACTPS Shared Capability at the level above their current classification. For each, I identified one stretch assignment and one development goal aligned to their progression interests. I held fortnightly one-on-ones structured around their work rather than mine, leaving space for issues to emerge without competing with my agenda. I made a point of identifying acting opportunities at higher classifications for team members ready for them, even where it meant losing capacity temporarily. I addressed one team member's performance gap through a structured discussion within four weeks of identifying it, with a written summary, a clear performance commitment, and a four-week check-in — rather than letting the issue accumulate to annual performance review. I made the team's collective capability visible to my Director by including team members in stakeholder meetings appropriate to their development, rather than always representing the team myself (actions).

Two direct reports were promoted to SOG C across the development cycle. The team member with the performance gap responded constructively to the formal process and is now meeting role expectations. Annual engagement scores remained the highest in the directorate (result).