APS · Selection criteria · EL2 pitch writing
EL2 Selection Criteria and Pitch Writing
A senior writer's guide to writing the EL2 pitch — calibrated to the level where you stop leading work and start shaping strategy. The senior executive layer of the APS general workforce, and the conduit between SES decision-making and operational delivery.
In thirty seconds
- EL2 is the senior layer of the APS general workforce — the level where you stop leading complex work and start shaping strategy. The conduit between SES decision-making and operational delivery.
- The application format is usually a pitch or suitability statement of 400-1500 words depending on the department — Defence typically asks for 1000 words; Home Affairs typically asks for one page in 11pt Arial. Always read the role pack carefully.
- The five ILS capability clusters at EL2 use the same verbs as EL1 — Shapes, Cultivates, Exemplifies — but with new behaviours layered on top. The shift isn't in vocabulary, it's in scope: from leading complex work to influencing strategy and providing high-level advice to senior management and Ministers.
- The single hardest part of the EL1 → EL2 transition is showing you can shape direction rather than just execute it well. The transition table further down maps the specific behavioural shifts cluster by cluster.
- Below: a comparison matrix of EL1 / EL2 / SES1, the five ILS clusters with EL2-specific sub-capabilities, the official WLS EL2 descriptor, the critical transition points in both directions, a worked EL2 pitch (~1000 words), and a side-by-side showing the same response calibrated at all three levels.
In this article
EL2 — strategy meets execution
Executive Level 2 is the senior layer of the APS general workforce. Below it, EL1 leads complex work through teams. Above it, SES Bands 1, 2 and 3 set strategic direction at agency and whole-of-government level. EL2 is the conduit — the level where strategic direction set by the SES gets translated into the operational practice EL1s and APS6s deliver.
That position changes what panels are scoring against. At EL1, the work is very complex or sensitive and led under broad direction. At EL2, the work has strategic, political or operational significance — and the candidate is expected to be influencing and developing the strategy itself, not just leading its delivery. EL2s provide high-level advice to senior management and Ministers. They lead one or more work teams. They initiate and establish strong relationships with the most senior internal and external stakeholders. They take responsibility for the kinds of work programs that, if they go wrong, end up in the press.
Most EL2 applications fail to convert because they sit on the wrong side of one of the neighbouring levels:
- Under-pitched applications read like strong EL1 submissions. The candidate describes leading complex work through teams, exercising considerable independence, providing high-level policy advice — but the shaping strategy dimension is thin or missing. Panels read this as EL1 capability, not EL2.
- Over-pitched applications read like SES work claimed prematurely. Whole-of-government strategic positioning, direct ministerial advisory relationships, agency-level transformation. Panels read this as either an SES candidate reaching for the wrong role or an EL2 hoping no one will check.
The pitches that convert are written squarely at EL2 — influencing strategy, leading work programs of strategic or political significance, providing high-level advice that supports SES and Ministerial decisions, representing the agency externally to senior stakeholders, leading EL1s through change. This article shows you how to get there.
EL1 vs EL2 vs SES1: 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 EL1, EL2 or SES1 depending on the conditions under which it's done and the strategic significance of the outcomes. Use this table to position your example correctly.
The shaded middle column is EL2 — work with strategic, political or operational significance, led with broad direction and significant independence, providing high-level advice to senior management and Ministers, with an important leadership role over teams that may include EL1 managers. Calibrating to that profile — not under, not over — is the single most important thing your pitch can do.
The five ILS clusters at EL2
The APSC's Integrated Leadership System (ILS) uses the same five capability clusters at every executive level, with cumulative behaviours layered on top as the level rises. At EL1, the verbs shifted from APS6's "Supports/Displays" to "Shapes/Cultivates/Exemplifies." At EL2, the verbs are unchanged — but the behaviours within each cluster expand significantly. The five clusters and what each looks like at EL2 specifically:
Shapes Strategic Thinking
At EL2 this looks like
Influencing and developing agency strategy, policies and operational practices. Anticipating future challenges and opportunities at portfolio level. Setting strategic direction within delegated authority. Translating SES priorities into actionable direction for EL1s and the broader workforce.
- Inspires a sense of purpose and direction
- Focuses strategically
- Harnesses information and opportunities
- Shows judgement, intelligence and commonsense
Achieves Results
At EL2 this looks like
Driving highly complex or sensitive work programs with strategic significance. Marshalling expertise and resources across organisational boundaries. Building organisational capability. Steering and implementing change in conditions of significant uncertainty. Ensuring closure on programs that have strategic, political or operational consequences.
- Builds organisational capability and responsiveness
- Marshals professional expertise
- Steers and implements change and deals with uncertainty
- Ensures closure and delivers on intended results
Cultivates Productive Working Relationships
At EL2 this looks like
Initiating and establishing strong relationships with the most senior internal and external stakeholders. Representing the agency externally to other portfolios, central agencies, industry and the community. Guiding, mentoring and developing capability — including in EL1 managers. Facilitating cooperation across organisational boundaries.
- Nurtures internal and external relationships
- Facilitates cooperation and partnerships
- Values individual differences and diversity
- Guides, mentors and develops people
Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity
At EL2 this looks like
Embedding a culture of integrity across the work area. Engaging with risk and showing personal courage in contested or politically sensitive contexts. Committing to action even where the path is unclear. Demonstrating resilience under sustained pressure. This cluster has gained particular weight post-Robodebt — at EL2 specifically, panels are looking for evidence of judgement under pressure, not just compliance.
- Demonstrates public service professionalism and probity
- Engages with risk and shows personal courage
- Commits to action
- Displays resilience
- Demonstrates self-awareness and a commitment to personal development
Communicates with Influence
At EL2 this looks like
Providing high-level advice to senior management and Ministers. Negotiating outcomes with the most senior external stakeholders. Tailoring communication across political, executive, technical and community audiences. Distilling highly complex subject matter into the one or two points senior decision-makers and Ministers' offices need. At EL2 communication isn't just clear — it's the medium through which strategy gets shaped.
- Communicates clearly
- Listens, understands and adapts to audience
- Negotiates persuasively
The Work Level Standard for EL2
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 EL2 descriptor in full:
"An Executive Level 2 employee would generally be required to undertake work with a high level of complexity or sensitivity and operate under broad direction. They exercise a significant degree of independence and perform an important leadership role. Employees at this level will be responsible for influencing and developing strategy, policies, priorities and operational practices in support of agency objectives based on high level decision-making and judgement. EL 2 employees provide a high level of advice to senior management and Ministers as well as coordinating and assuming responsibility for highly complex or sensitive projects or work programs that have strategic, political and/or operational significance. Employees are also responsible for initiating, establishing and maintaining strong relationships with key internal and external stakeholders and may lead a work team or teams."
— Australian Public Service Commission, Work Level Standards: APS Level and Executive Level classificationsRead it carefully and pull out the load-bearing words: high level of complexity or sensitivity, broad direction, significant degree of independence, important leadership role, influencing and developing strategy, high level decision-making and judgement, high level of advice to senior management and Ministers, highly complex or sensitive projects or work programs, strategic, political and/or operational significance, initiating, establishing and maintaining strong relationships. Those are the words your pitch needs to demonstrate by example — not by repetition. A pitch that shows the candidate influencing strategy and providing high-level advice to senior management is far stronger than one that says they "shape strategic direction" and "advise the Executive."
Critical transition: EL1 → EL2
The APSC has explicitly documented "critical transition points" between executive levels — points where genuinely new behaviours appear at the higher level. If you're applying for an EL2 role from an EL1 substantive position, your pitch needs to evidence at least one example of each of these EL2 behaviours, even if not all from your current role. Acting roles, secondments, project leadership of strategic-level work, and discretionary stretch assignments are all legitimate sources.
The transition from EL1 to EL2 isn't from leading complex work to leading harder complex work. It's from leading work to shaping the strategy that work is delivering. Every cluster bends in that direction.
Critical transition: EL2 → SES1
If you're applying at EL2 and want to avoid over-pitching to SES1 (a common reason executive applications fail to convert at the right level), the transition to SES is also worth understanding. The shift from EL2 to SES1 is from shaping strategy within an area to setting strategic direction across an area — from influencing the policy direction to owning corporate accountability for it.
If your pitch is leaning into SES vocabulary — "set the strategic direction for the agency," "Cabinet submissions," "principal advisor to the Secretary" — and you're applying for an EL2 role, calibrate down. Authentic EL2 examples beat over-claimed SES examples every time. (For the SES → SES2 calibration discussion, see SES pitch writing.)
A note on the APS Hierarchy Review
The 2024 APS Hierarchy and Classification Review recommended recalibrating EL2 as a stronger leadership role with greater spans of control — recognising the increasingly senior leadership responsibility expected at this level. Combined with the recommendation to reclassify EL1 as "Core Officer – Expert," the changes would see EL2s take on a greater role in risk management, representational responsibilities, and corporate leadership. 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 EL2 pitch
EL2 application requirements vary more than other classifications. Format depends on the department:
- Defence typically requires a 1000-word statement of suitability
- Home Affairs typically requires a one-page pitch in 11pt Arial
- Treasury and Finance often request a two-page pitch addressing capabilities
- Services-delivery agencies often request a 750-1000 word pitch
- Smaller agencies and statutory authorities may still request individual responses to selection criteria, particularly at the lower EL2 sub-level
You can expect an EL2 pitch or statement to be anywhere from 400 to 1500 words depending on the department. There has been a parallel shift to two-page CVs being expected for most departments at EL2 — the days of the three-page executive resume are largely over in the Commonwealth.
As government recruitment continues to move away from traditional selection criteria — where you respond to each criterion individually — short-form cover letters, suitability statements and pitches are becoming the norm. Regardless of what they're called, they all serve the same function: panels are outsourcing the assessment work to you. Your application either demonstrates capability for the role and you progress, or it doesn't. We've written extensively about STAR responses for public sector jobs and the two-page pitch format.
The structure that converts at EL2:
- Opening (10-15% — about 100-150 words for a 1000-word pitch). 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 clearance, registration or qualification the role requires. Outlines which capabilities the rest of the pitch will focus on.
- Body (75-80% — about 750-800 words for a 1000-word pitch). Two to four worked STAR examples, each demonstrating capability against one or more 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 EL2 examples is that they show you shaping strategy and influencing senior decision-making — not just delivering complex work well.
- Close (5-10% — about 75-100 words). A short paragraph reiterating fit and naming a track record of outcomes at the strategic level. Standard interview-availability sign-off.
Two structural rules that materially affect EL2 pitch quality:
- Use examples from the last five years. Application material is usually presented in reverse chronological order, and pitches are no different. Drawing on examples from more than five years ago is a red flag to senior recruiters — it suggests either lack of recent senior experience or examples that haven't held up to time.
- Choose examples that map to multiple criteria. A single strong example demonstrating change leadership across an EL2-scale program can simultaneously evidence Shapes Strategic Thinking, Achieves Results, and Cultivates Productive Working Relationships. Three criteria, one example. That's how senior-grade pitches work.
Worked EL2 pitch example
The pitch below is for an EL2 Director of Strategy role at a fictional federal agency, with selection criteria covering strategic direction, complex stakeholder management, change leadership, and high-level advice. It uses anonymised employer descriptors throughout — a senior writer's convention for showing real client-quality work without identifying organisations. Total word count: approximately 1000 words.
Worked EL2 pitch — approximately 1000 words
Opening (~120 words)
I apply for the role of EL2 Director, Strategy with confidence in my ability to influence strategy at agency level, lead teams through significant change, and provide high-level advice to senior management on complex matters with political and operational consequences. I bring fifteen years' experience across a federal services delivery agency, a state-based regulatory authority, and most recently a federal social policy department, where I have led the development and embedding of strategic frameworks, represented the agency to central agencies and Ministers' offices, and led EL1 managers through periods of substantial reform. I currently act at EL2 in my substantive role and hold a current Negative Vetting 2 clearance. My approach to strategic leadership is grounded in the APS Values and the principles of stewardship, integrity and impartial advice.
Body example one — influencing and developing strategy (~270 words)
In my current acting EL2 role, I led the development of a new strategic framework for the People Group following a Ministerial-level decision to consolidate three previously separate workforce functions. The framework needed to translate a contested executive direction into operational practice across a workforce of approximately 4,500 staff, while preserving service continuity through the transition. When I assumed responsibility for the work program, the previous draft had stalled in central agency consultation and the implementation timeline was eight weeks shorter than the consolidated function realistically required. I redirected scope in week two, identifying that we needed to address three separate strategic questions sequentially rather than as a single integrated framework. I shaped this revised approach with the SES Band 2 sponsor, presented it to the agency Executive Board for endorsement, and led the redrafting through three central agency consultation cycles. I led a working group of eleven across two divisions, including four EL1 managers I had not previously worked with, and personally drafted the integrated narrative connecting the three sub-frameworks. The framework was endorsed by the Executive Board on schedule, accepted by central agencies without material amendment, and has now been operating for nine months with measured improvements in workforce engagement scores and reduced internal escalations on workforce matters. The Deputy Secretary subsequently nominated the work for an Australia Day award and cited the strategic framing approach in her annual address to the agency. I now use the same approach to lead two further strategic development programs in parallel.
Body example two — high-level advice and external representation (~230 words)
While at the federal services delivery agency, I represented the agency in negotiations with three peer Commonwealth departments and two state authorities on a contested cross-jurisdictional service delivery reform. The reform had political significance — it was a Ministerial commitment with a defined timeline — and substantial operational complexity, with cost-sharing arrangements that had not been settled. I led the agency's contribution from EL2 level under SES Band 1 sponsorship, providing high-level advice to my Deputy Secretary on the agency's preferred negotiating position and the trade-offs between operational integrity and political deliverability. The negotiations stalled three times over the six-month period, twice on funding and once on operational responsibility allocation. On each occasion I authored the strategic advice on how to unlock the position, taking responsibility for advice that, if taken and shown to be wrong, would have material consequences for the Minister. The reform was settled within the original timeline, with cost-sharing arrangements close to the agency's preferred position. The Deputy Secretary subsequently asked me to lead the agency's contribution to a second cross-jurisdictional reform process on a different policy area. The First Assistant Secretary in one of the peer departments specifically commented that my advice had been calibrated well to the political context — high enough to be useful, not so high that it lost operational reality.
Body example three — leading change through EL1 managers (~250 words)
At my previous state-based regulatory authority, I led a structural reform of the policy and operations branches over an eighteen-month period at substantive EL2 level. The reform required combining two previously separate teams (totalling approximately sixty staff) under a unified branch leadership structure, with three EL1 managers reporting to me. Two of the EL1s had no previous experience with the other team's work, and the merged team had a documented engagement problem from the pre-reform period. I designed the change approach in collaboration with my SES sponsor and the People function, sequencing the structural change to follow rather than precede capability development — a sequencing decision that delayed visible reform by three months but materially reduced the implementation risk. Over the eighteen months I led the three EL1s through structured weekly performance discussions, redesigned the branch's work allocation pattern to give each EL1 genuine cross-functional responsibility, and supported one EL1 through a successful application to act at EL2 within twelve months. The branch retained 91% of staff through the eighteen months — against a comparable agency-wide average of 73% during the same period. Engagement scores in the two annual surveys post-reform were materially higher than pre-reform levels. The Chief Operating Officer cited the sequencing approach in a subsequent review of organisational change practice across the authority and asked me to brief other branches on the methodology.
Close (~110 words)
I offer to the role a track record of shaping agency strategy under political and operational pressure, providing high-level advice that has held up under scrutiny, and leading EL1 managers through structural change while protecting service delivery. I particularly value the agency's published commitment to integrity, evidence-based policy, and 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 shaping strategy and influencing senior decision-making (EL2 calibration — not just leading complex work well), specific decisions the candidate made (causality), real stakes (4,500 staff workforce framework, Ministerial commitment under timeline pressure, sixty-staff structural reform with retention measured), and integrity-in-action (the strategic framing decision under political constraints, the calibrated advice under Ministerial-level pressure, the change-sequencing call that traded visible speed for implementation risk). It doesn't claim SES1 behaviours that would be over-pitched at EL2 — there's no "set the strategic direction for the agency" or "principal advisor to the Secretary." It also doesn't sit at EL1 — every example shows the candidate shaping strategy or influencing senior decision-making, not just leading work.
The same criterion at three levels
Below is the same selection criterion — "Demonstrated ability to provide strategic advice and lead complex change in a politically sensitive environment" — 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 the agency's response to a critical Ombudsman finding by designing and delivering a six-month review programme across two branches, balancing operational demands 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, providing high-level advice to the Deputy Secretary on positioning the response within the Department's wider integrity reform agenda. I designed the review architecture, secured Executive Board endorsement and co-authored the Ministerial briefing setting out 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. Three EL1 managers reported to me through the program."
"I set the agency's strategic direction for the response to a critical Ombudsman finding, working directly with the Secretary and the agency Executive Board to position the reform within the Department's integrity stewardship agenda. I held corporate accountability for the response, briefed the Minister directly on three occasions, and represented the agency to the APSC and the Ombudsman through the resolution period. The reform program I established has been adopted by two further agencies as the basis for their own integrity reform work, and I've been asked to contribute to the next iteration of APSC integrity guidance."
Each of these is a legitimate response — at the right level. The EL1 version describes complex work led well but doesn't show shaping strategy at agency level. The SES1 version claims corporate strategic direction-setting and direct Ministerial advisory relationships an EL2 wouldn't usually own. The EL2 version is honest: leading the strategic response, providing high-level advice to the Deputy Secretary, co-authoring the Ministerial briefing (rather than briefing the Minister directly), leading three EL1 managers, with measurable results.
This is what the TRW Response Strength Framework calls Calibration — and at EL2 specifically, it's the dimension that decides most outcomes. The EL1 voice gets you shortlisted at EL1. The SES1 voice gets you flagged as over-reaching. The EL2 voice — shaping strategy, providing high-level advice, leading EL1 managers through change — is the one that converts.
2026 context: what's changed at EL2
Four things have shifted since this article was originally written in 2022 that materially affect how EL2 applications are scored:
- Post-Robodebt integrity weighting. Following the Royal Commission's report and the APSC's subsequent integrity reforms, panels are reading the "Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity" cluster more carefully — particularly at EL2, where the candidate is expected to be embedding a culture of integrity rather than just modelling it. Examples that show you provided forthright advice on a politically sensitive matter (especially when unwelcome), escalated a concern at risk of personal cost, or held a line on the APS Values in a contested context now carry weight they didn't before 2023.
- 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 EL2 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 leadership has changed what "leading EL1s" looks like. Most EL2 roles now involve managing EL1s working in combinations of co-located, remote and rotating arrangements. Examples that show distributed leadership, async working rhythms across teams, and managing performance without daily in-person observation now read as more current than examples assuming traditional in-office structures.
- The Hierarchy Review trajectory. Even though the 2024 review's recommendations on EL2 recalibration haven't been formally implemented, panels are increasingly looking for evidence of the leadership behaviours the review described — broader spans of control, more representational responsibility, stronger corporate leadership identity. EL2 examples that show those behaviours read as forward-aligned to where the level is heading.
Common EL2 pitch pitfalls
The patterns we see most often when reviewing EL2 client drafts. Each maps to a specific failure mode and has a specific fix.
Under-pitching to EL1
The pattern: the candidate describes leading complex work well — shaping work, influencing stakeholders at executive level, developing capability in others — but the examples don't show shaping strategy or influencing senior management and Ministers. The pitch reads as a strong EL1 submission rather than evidence of EL2 capability. This is the single most common reason EL2 applications fail to convert.
The fix: for every example, ask: "what about this involved shaping strategy or providing high-level advice to senior management?" If the answer is thin, the example is wrong for an EL2 pitch. Examples that involve influencing strategic direction, providing advice that materially shaped a senior decision, or representing the agency externally at executive level are the ones that show EL2 capability.
Over-pitching to SES1
The pattern: "I set the strategic direction for the agency," "I briefed the Minister directly," "I held corporate accountability for..." Strategy-setting vocabulary borrowed from SES work that wasn't actually the candidate's at EL2. Panels read this as either an SES candidate reaching for the wrong role or an EL2 hoping nobody will check.
The fix: if the example is a real SES acting role or stretch assignment, keep the language. If it's an EL2 substantive role being described in SES voice, calibrate down. EL2 influences strategy and provides advice to the SES; SES1 sets strategic direction and holds accountability for it.
No strategic-shaping example
The pattern: the pitch demonstrates strong delivery, good relationships and integrity — but no example shows the candidate "influencing and developing strategy" or providing high-level advice that materially shaped a senior decision. The Shapes Strategic Thinking cluster is the one most often under-evidenced at EL2, and it's the cluster that most distinguishes the level from EL1.
The fix: include at least one example where you took a strategic question and produced thinking or advice that shifted a senior decision — at executive board level, in a Ministerial briefing process, in a central agency consultation, or in a cross-portfolio negotiation. Strategy-shaping is the load-bearing capability at EL2.
All delivery, no influence
The pattern: the pitch is strong on what was delivered — programs landed, timelines met, stakeholders managed — but thin on the influence behind those outcomes. EL2 is where panels start scoring you on what you persuaded others to do, not just what you delivered yourself. A pitch that's all delivery and no influence reads as operational rather than strategic.
The fix: for each example, name the specific influence move — the briefing that changed the SES decision, the negotiation that unlocked the cross-portfolio deal, the framing that secured the Executive Board endorsement. The influence is the EL2 evidence.
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 EL2 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 scale of program or staff. (If confidentiality is a concern, anonymise as we do — "a federal services delivery agency" — but keep the texture.)
No integrity-under-pressure 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 in a contested context, or holding a line on the APS Values when there was a cost to doing so. In 2026, at EL2 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 the path of least resistance was the other way. The "Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity" cluster is now scored harder than it was pre-Robodebt — and at EL2 panels are looking for evidence you've embedded integrity, not just modelled it.
A closing note
EL2 is a particular kind of pitch to write because it's a particular kind of work to do. You're not setting agency-level strategic direction. You're not the principal advisor to the Secretary. You don't carry corporate accountability for a Branch. But you are shaping the strategy that those above you will set, influencing the senior decisions that will determine how the agency operates, providing the high-level advice that lets Ministers and senior management make those decisions well, and leading the EL1 managers who will make the operational reality match the strategic intent.
The pitches that convert — to EL2 substantive roles, to SES acting opportunities, to long-listings for senior selection panels — are the ones that calibrate honestly to that level. Not under-pitched as EL1 stretching up. Not over-pitched as SES reaching down. EL2 work, written in EL2 voice, evidenced through specific decisions and behaviours that show the candidate being that level of strategic leader.
Read more
Or have us write yours
An EL2 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 pitch calibrated specifically to the EL2 work-level standard — neither under-pitching to EL1 nor over-pitching to SES. Every pitch is custom-built. No AI. No offshore. No templates. View our selection criteria service →