NSW Clerk Grade selection criteria examples and PSCF capability guide.

I act with integrity in my professional conduct, including in situations where doing so creates short-term difficulty (restate the capability). In my current role as a Senior Project Officer (Clerk Grade 7/8) with a NSW state agency, I led the procurement evaluation for a major contracted services panel (situation). During the evaluation, one of the bidders — a long-term provider whose contract was due to expire — submitted documentation that suggested they had not declared a recent corporate restructure that materially affected the entity tendering (task).

I raised the issue formally with my Director within two days of identifying it rather than letting the evaluation continue under the assumption it was a clerical oversight. I documented the specific clauses in the tender response that appeared inconsistent, the regulatory and policy reasons the inconsistency mattered, and the procedural options open to the evaluation panel. I made sure my advice was framed neutrally — not as an allegation, but as a procedural matter that needed resolution before the evaluation could continue with integrity. I declined a phone call from the bidder's account manager asking about the evaluation timeline during this period, and noted the contact attempt in my evaluation file (actions).

The matter was resolved through formal clarification requests, with the bidder providing complete restructure documentation and being assessed accordingly. The evaluation proceeded to a defensible outcome. My Director referenced the handling of the matter in my performance discussion as an example of the professional standards she expected from her senior officers (result).

I work collaboratively with colleagues across teams and functions, including in situations where shared outcomes require sustained coordination (restate the capability). In my current role I coordinate quarterly reporting that draws on inputs from four different teams within our cluster — including two that had a history of friction over reporting timelines (situation). My responsibility was to deliver the consolidated quarterly report to the cluster executive on a fixed deadline (task).

I started by meeting each contributing team lead one-on-one rather than calling a single coordination meeting. This let me understand each team's competing priorities and constraints in their own terms before introducing the shared deadline. From those conversations, I mapped where each team's contribution sat in their broader workload and identified two specific points in the quarter where collisions with other reporting commitments were creating the friction. I proposed a revised input schedule that staggered the contribution points by ten working days, which removed the collision without changing the final delivery deadline. I documented the new schedule clearly and sent it to all four leads with the rationale, so the change was visible rather than imposed. Across the quarter I held a short 20-minute Teams check-in every three weeks — tight, structured, and ending on time — rather than monthly coordination meetings that had previously been treated as optional (actions).

The quarterly report was delivered on time. Both teams that had previously raised friction noted in feedback that the revised approach worked better for them. The schedule and check-in approach has continued through three subsequent cycles (result).

I deliver quality outcomes within agreed timeframes, including coordinating inputs across multiple contributors and managing competing priorities (restate the capability). In my current role I was assigned ownership of the cluster's annual workforce planning submission — a 40-page document drawing on data from HR, finance, three operational divisions, and the senior executive team (situation). The submission had a hard deadline driven by the Department of Premier and Cabinet's annual planning cycle, and the previous year's submission had been delivered four working days late (task).

I mapped every contributing input against the deadline working backwards, identifying which contributors needed to deliver what, when, and with what dependencies. I shared the timeline with each contributor in the first fortnight so capacity issues could be raised early. I built two weeks of buffer between the latest input arrival and the deadline, knowing from the previous year's experience that the buffer would be needed. I held a fortnightly 30-minute Teams stand-up across contributors — tightly structured and minuted, not a status meeting for status's sake. When two contributors were tracking late at the four-week mark, I escalated to my Director with a specific request rather than a general flag. I drafted my own sections of the report in parallel with collecting inputs rather than sequentially. I built a structured review cycle with the Director and the executive sponsor in the final fortnight rather than presenting one finished document at the end (actions).

The submission was delivered three days ahead of the formal deadline, with all sections substantively complete on first submission. The cluster executive sponsor noted in feedback that the report read more coherently than the previous year's edition. The approach has been adopted as the model for the following year (result).

I analyse issues to identify root causes and develop solutions that address underlying problems rather than symptoms (restate the capability). In my current role I noticed over two consecutive quarters that complaint volumes for one of our service streams were rising steadily, against a stable complaint pattern across other streams (situation). The complaint handling team had been responding individually to each complaint, but the underlying cause had not been investigated (task).

I worked through 40 complaints from the previous quarter rather than relying on the aggregate complaint categories, which were too broad to be useful. From the detailed reading I identified that 60% of the complaints traced back to a single procedural change made eight months earlier — a change that had been implemented without a feedback loop, so its downstream effects had not been visible to the team that made it. I documented the pattern clearly, including the specific procedural change, the failure mode it produced, and the complaint texture that resulted. I drafted a one-page summary for the procedural-change team rather than the complaint team, because the leverage point sat there. I proposed a specific procedural adjustment that would address the underlying problem, with a piloting approach to test the fix before rolling it out broadly. I made the case in terms the procedural-change team cared about — complaint volume, reputation risk, ministerial correspondence load — rather than just the technical issue (actions).

The adjustment was piloted in two locations over six weeks, with complaint volumes returning to the baseline within four weeks. It was rolled out across the service stream the following quarter. Complaint volumes are now at the lowest level in 18 months (result).

I adapt my communication to diverse audiences, including senior stakeholders, and present complex information in accessible ways that support decision-making (restate the capability). In my previous role I was responsible for advising a Deputy Secretary on a contested regulatory matter that involved technical, legal, financial, and political dimensions (situation). The Deputy Secretary had limited time and needed to brief the Minister within a working week (task).

I produced three different versions of the same content, each calibrated to the audience that would receive it. For the Deputy Secretary, a two-page briefing structured as: the issue in one sentence, the recommendation in one sentence, the rationale in three paragraphs, the risks in a bulleted list. For the Minister's office, a one-page version with the political dimensions framed explicitly and the technical detail stripped out. For the technical team feeding into the briefing, a four-page working paper that retained the analytical detail their later work would need. I sent the Deputy Secretary the two-page briefing first, with the longer technical paper attached for reference rather than read. I had the Minister's office version ready to go as soon as the Deputy Secretary asked for it, rather than waiting. I attended the Deputy Secretary's pre-meeting with the Minister's office staff to handle technical questions if they arose, freeing her to focus on the strategic discussion (actions).

The Deputy Secretary briefed the Minister successfully within the working week, and the Minister's office subsequently asked for the same officer (me) to be involved in the follow-up briefings. The two-page briefing template has been adopted across the policy team for similar matters (result).

I manage staff with a focus on building their capability for the next level of work and addressing performance issues directly when they arise (restate the capability). In my current Clerk Grade 9/10 role, I formally manage five direct reports across Clerk Grade 5/6 and 7/8 levels, including one who joined the team underperforming against the role expectations (situation). My responsibility was to develop the team's overall capability while addressing the specific performance concern (task).

I established a development plan for each direct report in the first month of supervising them, mapped to the PSCF capabilities at the level above their current grade. For each, I identified one stretch assignment and one development goal. I held fortnightly one-on-ones structured around their work rather than mine, leaving space for issues to emerge without competing with my agenda. For the underperforming team member, I addressed the specific gap directly within four weeks of identifying it — with a written summary of what was expected, what was being observed, and a four-week check-in commitment. I made a point of noting both their progress and their setbacks honestly, not just the positive ones. When the four-week check-in showed insufficient progress, I escalated to formal performance management proportionately rather than letting it slide (actions).

Three direct reports were promoted to the next clerk grade across the development cycle. The underperforming team member responded constructively to the formal process and is now meeting role expectations. The team's annual engagement scores were the highest in the branch (result).