APS · Selection criteria · EL1 pitch writing
EL1 Selection Criteria and Pitch Writing
A senior writer's guide to writing the EL1 pitch — calibrated to the first executive layer of the APS, where panels stop scoring you on the work you do and start scoring you on the work you lead.
In thirty seconds
- EL1 is the first executive layer of the APS — the moment the work stops being technical delivery and starts being leadership through others. Most EL1 applications fail because they're written like APS6 submissions stretched up.
- The EL1 application format is a one-page (or sometimes two-page) pitch demonstrating leadership capability against the role's requirements — not a resume in narrative form.
- The five ILS capability clusters at EL1 use the verbs "Shapes," "Cultivates" and "Exemplifies" — not "Supports" or "Displays" (those are APS6 verbs). Calibration to the right verb signals you understand the level.
- The single hardest part of the APS6 → EL1 transition isn't doing harder work. It's writing about leading work rather than doing it. The transition table further down maps the specific behavioural shifts cluster by cluster.
- Below: a comparison matrix of APS6 / EL1 / EL2, the five ILS clusters with EL1-specific behaviours, the official WLS EL1 descriptor, the critical transition points in both directions, a worked EL1 pitch, and a side-by-side showing the same response calibrated at all three levels.
In this article
EL1 — the first executive layer
Executive Level 1 is the threshold. Below it, the APS classification structure runs from APS1 to APS6 — eight bands of progressively more autonomous individual contribution. Above it, the structure runs through EL2 to SES Bands 1, 2 and 3 — the strategic leadership layer of the public service. EL1 is where executive responsibility begins.
That position changes what panels are scoring against. At APS6, the work is complex but bounded — owned with limited direction, evidenced through the candidate's specific contribution. At EL1, the work is very complex or sensitive — and it's evidenced through how the candidate leads others to deliver it. Strategic thinking, judgement under pressure, ability to influence, capacity to translate executive direction into operational outcomes: these are the capabilities EL1 panels are now reading for. The technical capability that got you to APS6 is assumed.
Most EL1 applications fail to convert because they sit on the wrong side of one of the neighbouring levels:
- Under-pitched applications read like strong APS6 submissions. The candidate describes complex work owned well, with limited direction, exercising sound judgement — but the leadership through others dimension is thin or missing. Panels read this as APS6 capability, not EL1.
- Over-pitched applications read like EL2 work claimed prematurely. Strategy-shaping vocabulary, agency-wide initiatives, "I led the transformation." Panels read this as either an EL2 reaching for the wrong role or an EL1 hoping no one will check.
The pitches that convert are the ones written squarely at EL1 — leading complex work through teams, shaping thinking on policy direction, providing high-level advice that supports executive decision-making, exercising the considerable independence the WLS describes. This article shows you how to get there.
APS6 vs EL1 vs EL2: the official differences
The Australian Public Service Commission's Work Level Standards (WLS) define classifications by complexity, autonomy and accountability — not by activity. The same activity can be APS6, EL1 or EL2 depending on the conditions under which it's done. Use this table to position your example correctly.
The shaded middle column is EL1 — work that's very complex, led with broad direction and considerable independence, producing high-level policy advice, with a leadership role over one or more teams. Calibrating to that profile — not under, not over — is the single most important thing your pitch can do.
The five ILS clusters at EL1
The APSC's Integrated Leadership System (ILS) is the capability framework selection panels score APS applications against. It uses five capability clusters at every level — what changes is the verb and the level of expected behaviour. The ILS is also a cumulative model: behaviours from lower levels become the floor at higher levels, with new behaviours layered on top.
EL1 is where the verbs shift. At APS6 they are "Supports" and "Displays"; at EL1 and above they become "Shapes," "Cultivates" and "Exemplifies." That shift signals the move from supporting work to leading it. The five clusters and what each looks like at EL1 specifically:
Shapes Strategic Thinking
At EL1 this looks like
Understanding the broader context of the agency's policy environment and translating it into operational direction. Considering longer-term implications of decisions. Providing direction to others on the purpose and importance of their work. Setting work tasks that align with strategic objectives. This is the first ILS level where strategic thinking is genuinely scored as its own capability rather than as context for other work.
Achieves Results
At EL1 this looks like
Leading complex work programs across multiple workstreams or teams. Developing and implementing operational plans that translate strategic direction. Marshalling resources across boundaries. Anticipating risks and intervening before they become issues. Coordinating detailed or sensitive projects with strategic, political or operational implications.
Cultivates Productive Working Relationships
At EL1 this looks like
Actively managing stakeholder relationships within and outside the agency at executive level. Resolving competing stakeholder interests. Developing capability in others — coaching, mentoring, building team skills. Cultivating networks across portfolio, central agency and external partners. Managing performance constructively, including difficult conversations.
Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity
At EL1 this looks like
Modelling APS Values consistently — particularly when there is a cost to doing so. Providing impartial and forthright advice; challenging issues constructively. Demonstrating resilience and persistence in pursuit of objectives. Creating a culture of integrity in your immediate work area. This cluster has gained particular weight post-Robodebt.
Communicates with Influence
At EL1 this looks like
Briefing senior executives and Ministers' offices clearly and persuasively. Negotiating outcomes on behalf of the agency. Tailoring communication to a wider range of stakeholders — political, operational, technical, community. Distilling highly complex subject matter into the one or two points decision-makers need. At EL1 this is no longer just clear communication — it's communication that influences outcomes.
The Work Level Standard for EL1
The Work Level Standards (WLS) are the APSC's official definitions of each classification. They define the work, not the worker. Selection panels use them to calibrate whether an applicant's examples are pitched at the right level. The EL1 descriptor in full:
"An Executive Level 1 employee would generally be required to undertake work that is very complex or sensitive and operate under broad direction. They exercise a considerable degree of independence and perform a leadership role. Employees at this level exercise sound decision making and judgement to produce high level policy advice. EL 1 employees engage in complex problem solving and issues management and may coordinate and undertake detailed or sensitive projects that impact on strategic, political or operational outcomes for the agency. Employees also responsible for actively managing key stakeholder relationships within and outside the agency and may manage one or more work teams."
— Australian Public Service Commission, Work Level Standards: APS Level and Executive Level classificationsRead it carefully and pull out the load-bearing words: very complex, broad direction, considerable independence, leadership role, sound decision making, high level policy advice, strategic, political or operational outcomes, actively managing key stakeholder relationships, manage one or more work teams. Those are the words your pitch needs to demonstrate by example — not by repetition. A pitch that shows the candidate exercising considerable independence and producing high-level policy advice is far stronger than one that says they "operate independently" and "provide policy advice."
Critical transition: APS6 → EL1
The APSC has explicitly documented "critical transition points" between APS6 and EL1 — points where genuinely new behaviours appear at the higher level. If you're applying for an EL1 role from an APS6 substantive position, your pitch needs to evidence at least one example of each of these EL1 behaviours, even if not all from your current role. Acting roles, secondments, project leadership, and discretionary stretch assignments are all legitimate sources.
The transition from APS6 to EL1 isn't from doing complex work to doing harder complex work. It's from doing complex work to leading it. Every cluster bends in that direction.
Critical transition: EL1 → EL2
If you're applying at EL1 and want to avoid over-pitching to EL2 (a common reason executive applications fail to convert at the right level), the transition to EL2 is also worth understanding. The shift from EL1 to EL2 is from leading complex work to shaping strategy — from operational leadership of teams to influencing the agency's direction and external positioning.
If your pitch is leaning into EL2 vocabulary — "embedded a culture across the agency," "set strategic direction," "advised the Minister directly" — and you're applying for an EL1 role, calibrate down. Authentic EL1 examples beat over-claimed EL2 examples every time. (For the EL2 → SES version of the same calibration discussion, see SES pitch writing.)
A note on the APS Hierarchy Review
The 2024 APS Hierarchy and Classification Review recommended reclassifying EL1 as "Core Officer – Expert" — recognising the significant expertise expected at this level — and recalibrating EL2 as a stronger leadership role with greater spans of control. As of May 2026 these recommendations have not been implemented; the existing classifications and the WLS quoted above remain in effect. We'll update this article when changes formally apply.
Structuring the EL1 pitch
Most EL1 roles request a one-page pitch (around 750-800 words) addressing the role's selection criteria together — though a meaningful minority of agencies request up to two pages. The structure that converts:
- Opening (10–15% — about 100 words). A confident statement of suitability anchored to the role, with one or two pieces of headline evidence (years of experience, signature outcomes, alignment with public service values). Mentions any clearance, registration or qualification the role requires.
- Body (75–80% — about 550–650 words). Two to four worked STAR examples, each demonstrating leadership capability against one or more selection criteria. Each example: situation in two sentences, task in one, action in three to five sentences (the bulk), result in one or two sentences with quantified outcomes where possible. The defining feature of EL1 examples is that they show you leading work through others, not just delivering it yourself.
- Close (5–10% — about 75 words). A short paragraph reiterating fit and naming a track record of leadership outcomes. Standard interview-availability sign-off.
The biggest structural mistake at EL1 is over-spending on Situation and Task — particularly because EL1 examples tend to be more complex than APS6 examples and the temptation is to set up the context at length. Resist it. Panels score on the Action. (For the deeper STAR primer, see how to structure a STAR response for public sector jobs.)
Worked EL1 pitch example
The pitch below is for an EL1 Assistant Director role at a fictional federal department, with selection criteria covering policy leadership, complex stakeholder management, and program delivery. It uses anonymised employer descriptors throughout — a senior writer's convention for showing real client-quality work without identifying organisations. Total word count: approximately 780 words.
Worked EL1 pitch — approximately 780 words
Opening (~110 words)
I apply for the role of EL1 Assistant Director with confidence in my ability to lead complex policy work across teams and provide high-level advice to support the Department's strategic objectives. I bring twelve years' experience across a federal regulatory agency, a state-based education authority, and most recently a federal social policy department, where I have led the delivery of contested policy reforms, managed teams through periods of significant change, and built effective working relationships across portfolio, central agency and ministerial offices. I currently act at EL1 in my substantive role and hold a current Negative Vetting 1 clearance. My approach to leadership is grounded in the APS Values of impartiality, accountability and stewardship.
Body example one — leading complex policy work (~210 words)
In my current acting EL1 role, I led the development of a new operational framework following a sensitive Ministerial decision that required cross-portfolio implementation within an unusually compressed timeline. The framework affected approximately 200,000 service recipients and the Department had not previously implemented a change of this scope on a comparable timeline. I scoped the work in week one with my SES sponsor, identified that the original three-month plan would not survive contact with central agency consultation, and proposed a revised six-week sprint approach with structured fortnightly sign-off gates. The SES endorsed the revised approach, which I then implemented across a working group of nine drawn from three branches. I made the early call that we would publish a draft framework for delivery-partner consultation in week three rather than running the full internal sign-off cycle first — a calculated risk that bought us a fortnight on the consultation timeline. The framework was endorsed by the Executive Board on schedule, the Minister's office accepted it without amendment, and the implementation has now been operating for fourteen months with no significant delivery issues. The Deputy Secretary specifically cited the sprint approach in a subsequent department-wide all-staff communication on adaptive policy delivery.
Body example two — managing competing stakeholder interests (~180 words)
While at the federal regulatory agency, I led the agency's engagement on a contested cross-jurisdictional reform with three peer regulators in different states. The working group had stalled for four months over a methodological dispute that was, on examination, actually three different unstated concerns held by different members. I spent the first two meetings in my new chairing role listening rather than driving, mapped the underlying concerns onto a structured side-document, and proposed addressing each separately within a parallel workstream architecture rather than insisting on a single agreed methodology. The proposal moved the working group from deadlock to substantive agreement within two further meetings, and the architecture I designed has since been adopted as the working pattern for two further cross-jurisdictional reforms. I briefed my SES on the negotiation approach throughout, particularly when one peer regulator threatened to escalate to their Minister. The senior official from the other state's agency subsequently nominated me for an inter-jurisdictional working group on a separate matter, citing the productive pattern we had established.
Body example three — developing capability in others (~180 words)
At my previous state-based education authority, I was the substantive APS6-equivalent leading a team of six (one APS5, three APS4s and two APS3s) through an eighteen-month period of significant policy reform. Two of the APS4s were performing below expectations on arrival in the team, and the directorate had a documented retention problem at APS5 level. Over the period I developed a structured weekly one-to-one rhythm that combined task review with capability-building conversation, redesigned the team's allocation of complex work to give APS4s genuine stretch opportunities rather than concentrating it at APS5, and supported one APS4 through a successful application to APS5 within twelve months. Both APS4s exited the period rated as performing well above expectations; the APS5 promoted internally to a stretch role at the end of the reform period; and the team retained all six members through the eighteen months — against a directorate average of 60% retention. My own EL2 cited the team's stability and capability development as a factor in supporting my acting EL1 opportunity in the current role.
Close (~90 words)
I offer to the role a track record of leading complex work under compressed timelines, navigating contested stakeholder environments, and developing capability in teams under change pressure. I particularly value the Department's published commitment to evidence-based policy and to the responsible use of public resources. Thank you for considering this application; I would welcome the opportunity to discuss it further at interview and can be contacted on the details above.
What this pitch does well: each example shows leading work through others (EL1 calibration — not doing the work, leading its delivery), specific decisions the candidate made (causality), real stakes (200,000 service recipients, ministerial timeline, deadlocked working group, retention problem), and integrity-in-action (the calculated risk on draft publication, the listening-first chair approach, the structural redesign of work allocation). It doesn't claim EL2 behaviours that would be over-pitched at EL1 — there's no "set the strategic direction for the Branch" or "negotiated with Ministers." It also doesn't sit at APS6 — every example shows the candidate leading work, not owning it as an individual contributor.
The same criterion at three levels
Below is the same selection criterion — "Demonstrated ability to lead complex work and produce quality outcomes within agreed timeframes" — answered three ways. Same situation in each. The only difference is calibration. This is the single most useful exercise for understanding what level your pitch is reading at.
"I led delivery of an internal review of complaint handling under the direction of an EL2 Director, scoping the review in week one and redesigning the approach in week three when early data showed the original framing was too narrow. I delivered final recommendations to the Executive three weeks ahead of timeline, and the recommendations have since been adopted. I managed two team members through the period including a development conversation that supported one to a stretch opportunity at the end."
"I led the agency's response to a critical Ombudsman finding by designing and delivering a six-month review programme across two branches, balancing the operational demands of business-as-usual with the political imperative to land defensible recommendations. I shaped the framing of the review with the SES sponsor, redirected scope mid-stream when emerging evidence challenged the initial hypothesis, and built sponsor consensus around four process changes that have reshaped how the agency handles a category of approximately 4,000 cases per year. I led a working group of seven and managed two direct reports through the period."
"I led the agency's strategic response to a critical Ombudsman finding affecting approximately 4,000 cases per year, working directly with the Deputy Secretary and the agency Executive Board to position the response within the Department's wider integrity reform agenda. I designed the review architecture, secured Executive Board endorsement and Ministerial briefing on the proposed direction, and led implementation across two branches with a combined workforce of approximately sixty. The four process changes I introduced have since been adopted as the agency's standard methodology and referenced in subsequent APSC integrity guidance."
Each of these is a legitimate response — at the right level. The APS6 version describes complex work owned well but doesn't show leadership through others at scale. The EL2 version claims strategic positioning and ministerial briefing that an EL1 wouldn't usually own. The EL1 version is honest: leading the agency's response, designing and delivering the programme, shaping framing with the SES, building sponsor consensus, leading a working group of seven. That's EL1 work.
This is what the TRW Response Strength Framework calls Calibration — and at EL1 specifically, it's the dimension that decides most outcomes. The APS6 voice gets you shortlisted at APS6. The EL2 voice gets you flagged as over-reaching. The EL1 voice — leading complex work through others under broad direction — is the one that converts.
2026 context: what's changed at EL1
Three things have shifted since this article was originally written in 2023 that materially affect how EL1 applications are scored:
- Post-Robodebt integrity weighting. Following the Royal Commission's report and the APSC's subsequent integrity reforms, panels are now reading the "Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity" cluster more carefully — particularly at EL1, the first executive layer. Examples that show you provided forthright advice (especially when unwelcome), escalated something at risk of being uncomfortable, or modelled the APS Values in a contested situation now carry weight they didn't before 2023. Generic claims about integrity do the opposite.
- AI-detection at the screening stage. Around 49% of resumes generated using AI are dismissed in the first round of screening, according to a 2025 study of 3,000 hiring managers. APS panels are no exception — and the patterns AI generates (stock language, hedged claims, grammatically perfect but emotionally flat narrative) are exactly what the EL1 calibration test fails on. If you're using AI to draft, the editing job is making the response specific, causal and evidenced. See how to edit AI output to read as human.
- Hybrid work has changed what "leading a team" means at EL1. Most EL1 roles now involve combinations of co-located, remote and rotating staff. Examples that show distributed coordination, async working rhythms, and managing performance without daily in-person observation now read as more current than examples assuming traditional team structures.
Common EL1 pitch pitfalls
The patterns we see most often when reviewing EL1 client drafts. Each maps to a specific failure mode and has a specific fix.
Tasks where leadership should be
The pattern: the candidate describes complex work done well — analysis, drafting, project delivery — but the examples don't show leadership through others. The pitch reads as a strong APS6 submission rather than evidence of executive capability. This is the single most common reason EL1 applications fail to convert.
The fix: for every example, ask: "what did I do that involved leading others?" If the answer is thin, the example is wrong for an EL1 pitch. Examples that involve coordinating across teams, building stakeholder consensus, developing capability, or directing work programs are the ones that show EL1 capability.
Over-pitching to EL2
The pattern: "I set the strategic direction," "I briefed the Minister directly," "I transformed the agency's approach to..." Strategy-shaping vocabulary borrowed from EL2 work that wasn't actually the candidate's at EL1. Panels read this as either an EL2 reaching for the wrong role or an EL1 hoping nobody will check.
The fix: if the example is a real EL2 acting role or stretch assignment, keep the language. If it's an EL1 substantive role being described in EL2 voice, calibrate down. EL1 leads through the SES, not alongside them.
No strategic thinking example
The pattern: the pitch demonstrates strong delivery, good relationships and integrity — but no example shows the candidate "shaping thinking" on policy direction or considering longer-term implications. The Strategic Thinking cluster is the one most often under-evidenced at EL1, and it's the cluster the verb shifts at this level.
The fix: include at least one example where you took complex subject matter and produced direction-setting work that supported senior decision-making. Briefings that shaped a Minister's response, options papers that anticipated future scenarios, or work that translated emerging trends into operational implications all qualify.
ILS-by-numbers structure
The pattern: the pitch is structured as five short paragraphs, one per ILS cluster, each making generic claims about that cluster. Reads as a checklist rather than a narrative. Panels skim past it.
The fix: structure around two to four worked examples, with each example demonstrating multiple clusters simultaneously. A single strong example showing strategic thinking, complex delivery and stakeholder navigation can score across three clusters. That's how senior-grade pitches work.
Generic departmental voice
The pattern: the pitch references "the Department," "various stakeholders," "key projects" but never anchors any of it in real specifics. Could have been written for any EL1 role at any agency. In 2026 this also reads as AI-generated.
The fix: name the specific portfolio area, the specific stakeholder type, the specific reform, the specific number of cases or staff. (If confidentiality is a concern, anonymise as we do — "a federal regulatory agency" — but keep the texture.)
No integrity example
The pattern: all the examples are about successful delivery and good relationships. No example shows the candidate exercising judgement under pressure, providing unwelcome advice, or holding a line on the APS Values. In 2026, at EL1 specifically, this is a material gap.
The fix: include at least one example where you escalated a concern, declined to do something, redrafted under pressure, or otherwise put the APS Values into action when there was a cost to doing so. The "Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity" cluster is now scored harder than it was pre-Robodebt — particularly at the executive entry point.
A closing note
EL1 is a particular kind of pitch to write because it's a particular kind of work to do. You're not yet shaping agency strategy. You're not yet representing the agency to Ministers and the most senior external stakeholders. But you are leading work — work that is very complex or sensitive, with strategic, political or operational implications, through one or more teams, with considerable independence, producing high-level policy advice that supports executive decision-making.
The pitches that convert — to EL1 substantive roles, to EL2 acting opportunities, to long-listings for selection panels — are the ones that calibrate honestly to that level. Not under-pitched as APS6 stretching up. Not over-pitched as EL2 reaching down. EL1 work, written in EL1 voice, evidenced through specific decisions and behaviours that show the candidate being that level of leader.
Read more
Or have us write yours
An EL1 pitch calibrated by a senior writer who knows the level
A senior writer interviews you for an hour, identifies the strongest examples from your career to evidence each capability cluster, and writes a one-page pitch calibrated specifically to the EL1 work-level standard — neither under-pitching to APS6 nor over-pitching to EL2. Every pitch is custom-built. No AI. No offshore. No templates. View our selection criteria service →
