I85PREP
⌘ K
EPSO SJT study materials
EPSO SJT study resources

EPSO SJT practice questions

One question at a time. Build your EPSO SJT understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are a policy officer in a directorate-general. A colleague from another unit asks you to share a draft impact assessment that is still marked 'internal working document'. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Decline without explanation and stop responding to the colleague's request.
  2. Forward the draft but add a note asking the colleague not to circulate it further.
  3. Send the draft, since colleagues within the same institution are entitled to internal documents.
  4. Check with the file owner or your line manager before sharing, and explain the document's status. Correct answer.

Explanation

Internal working documents have an owner and a defined circulation status; respecting that status means verifying authorisation rather than assuming institutional colleagues are automatically entitled. A brief explanation maintains the working relationship while protecting the document's integrity.

Question 2Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

During a meeting, a senior official presents figures that you believe are incorrect because you saw the underlying dataset earlier that morning. What is the most professional response?

  1. Say nothing at all and let the incorrect figures be recorded in the minutes.
  2. Send an email to all attendees after the meeting listing the errors you noticed.
  3. Interrupt immediately and state that the figures are wrong in front of everyone.
  4. Remain silent during the meeting and raise the discrepancy privately with the official afterwards. Correct answer.

Explanation

Accuracy matters, but so does the working relationship and the meeting's purpose; a private, evidence-based correction protects both. It gives the official the chance to verify and correct the record without public embarrassment.

Question 3Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are asked to draft a report on a topic outside your expertise, with a two-day deadline. Your workload is already high. What is the most effective first step?

  1. Accept silently and work long hours to deliver something on time.
  2. Refuse the task because it falls outside your competence.
  3. Clarify the scope and deadline with the requester and identify internal expertise you can consult. Correct answer.
  4. Delegate the drafting to a junior colleague without informing the requester.

Explanation

Clarifying scope and deadline allows realistic planning, and identifying internal expertise improves quality without overcommitting. This is a proactive, transparent way to manage a task that exceeds current knowledge.

Question 4Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A colleague repeatedly arrives late to joint meetings, delaying decisions that affect your team. You have already mentioned it once informally with no change. What is the most constructive next step?

  1. Start holding meetings without the colleague so the issue becomes visible to others.
  2. Complain about the colleague to other team members to build support.
  3. Report the colleague formally to human resources without further discussion.
  4. Raise the impact on the team's work directly with the colleague and agree a practical arrangement. Correct answer.

Explanation

A direct, impact-focused conversation addresses the behaviour while preserving the colleague's dignity and gives a chance to agree a workable solution. Escalation or exposure should follow only if a genuine attempt at resolution fails.

Question 5Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You notice that a procurement file you are handling contains a technical specification that appears tailored to one supplier's product. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Ask the requesting unit whether the specification is genuinely open to equivalent products and escalate if not. Correct answer.
  2. Continue the procedure but note your concern in a personal file for later reference.
  3. Award the contract to that supplier since the specification matches their offer.
  4. Withdraw the procedure immediately without informing anyone.

Explanation

Procurement rules require specifications to be non-discriminatory and open to equivalent solutions; a targeted clarification is the proportionate first step. If the specification cannot be justified, it must be escalated through the proper channels.

Question 6Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

Your manager asks you to prepare a briefing by Friday. On Wednesday you realise a key data source will not be available until Monday. What should you do?

  1. Wait until Friday and submit the briefing with the missing data omitted silently.
  2. Inform your manager as soon as you realise and propose options for delivering a partial briefing or a revised deadline. Correct answer.
  3. Submit the briefing on Friday using estimated figures presented as actual data.
  4. Ask a colleague in another unit to obtain the data informally and say nothing to your manager.

Explanation

Early, transparent communication lets the manager make an informed decision about priorities and deadlines. Offering options demonstrates problem-solving rather than simply reporting a problem.

Question 7Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A citizen sends a complaint that contains personal details about a third party who has not consented to their disclosure. How should you handle the information?

  1. Share it with colleagues in an internal newsletter as an example of citizen feedback.
  2. Delete the complaint entirely because it contains third-party data.
  3. Publish the complaint in full so the process is transparent.
  4. Use only what is necessary for handling the complaint and apply data-protection rules to the rest. Correct answer.

Explanation

Data-protection principles require that personal data be processed only where necessary and proportionate for a legitimate purpose. Handling the complaint while minimising and protecting third-party data balances the citizen's right to a response with privacy obligations.

Question 8Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are new to a team and discover that a long-standing internal procedure seems inefficient but everyone follows it. What is the most appropriate approach?

  1. Tell colleagues the procedure is outdated and that you intend to change it.
  2. Change the procedure immediately because you have identified a better way.
  3. Follow the procedure while you learn, and raise your observation with your manager once you understand the reasons behind it. Correct answer.
  4. Ignore the procedure and work in the way you consider most efficient.

Explanation

Newcomers often lack the context that explains an established procedure, so learning it first is prudent. Raising the observation once informed allows improvement without disrupting a process whose rationale you may not yet understand.

Question 9Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A stakeholder with a strong interest in your policy area sends you a detailed proposal and asks for a quick endorsement. You have doubts about its evidence base. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Forward the proposal to a colleague and let them deal with the stakeholder.
  2. Endorse the proposal to maintain good relations with the stakeholder.
  3. Acknowledge the proposal, explain that you need to review the evidence, and set out a realistic timeline for feedback. Correct answer.
  4. Reject the proposal outright without explanation.

Explanation

Acknowledging the proposal while being transparent about the review needed protects both the quality of the decision and the relationship. Setting a realistic timeline manages expectations and avoids a premature commitment.

Question 10Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are part of a selection panel and recognise one of the candidates as a friend of a family member. What should you do?

  1. Continue as normal because the connection is indirect and you can remain objective.
  2. Mention the connection to the candidate so they are aware of it.
  3. Declare the connection to the panel chair and withdraw from assessing that candidate. Correct answer.
  4. Continue on the panel but abstain from the final scoring discussion.

Explanation

Any personal connection that could create a conflict of interest must be declared so the panel can manage it. Withdrawing from assessing the candidate removes the risk of bias and protects the integrity of the selection process.

Question 11Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

Your team must deliver a joint report, but two colleagues disagree strongly about the recommended option. The deadline is approaching. What is the most effective way to move forward?

  1. Ask the more senior colleague to decide and stop discussing the matter.
  2. Structure a short discussion that records both positions and the evidence behind each, then escalate the choice to the responsible manager if needed. Correct answer.
  3. Postpone the report indefinitely until the colleagues agree.
  4. Choose the option you personally prefer and present it as the team's consensus.

Explanation

Structuring the disagreement around evidence clarifies where the real difference lies and preserves both perspectives for the decision-maker. Escalating only if consensus cannot be reached keeps the process moving without suppressing legitimate views.

Question 12Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You receive an email from a colleague in another institution asking for a copy of an internal evaluation report before it has been finalised and approved. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Send the current version and mark it as provisional.
  2. Ignore the request without replying.
  3. Explain that the report is not yet approved and agree to share it once the approval process is complete. Correct answer.
  4. Send the report because interinstitutional cooperation requires openness.

Explanation

Unapproved documents may change and do not yet represent the institution's position, so sharing them prematurely can create confusion. Explaining the status and committing to share after approval balances cooperation with procedural accuracy.

Question 13Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

During a busy period, you are asked to take on an urgent task from a colleague in another unit while your own deadlines are also pressing. What is the most effective approach?

  1. Assess the relative urgency and impact of both sets of tasks and agree priorities with your manager. Correct answer.
  2. Pass the new task to another colleague without discussing it.
  3. Accept every request and try to complete everything by working late.
  4. Decline all requests until your own deadlines have passed.

Explanation

Prioritisation requires comparing urgency and impact rather than simply accepting or refusing. Agreeing priorities with the manager ensures the decision reflects the organisation's needs, not only personal preference.

Question 14Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A colleague makes a comment in a meeting that you perceive as dismissive of a junior team member's contribution. What is the most appropriate immediate response?

  1. Laugh along to keep the atmosphere light.
  2. Respond with a similarly dismissive remark to show the colleague how it feels.
  3. Intervene calmly by inviting the junior colleague to finish their point and address the substance. Correct answer.
  4. Say nothing and raise it only with the junior colleague after the meeting.

Explanation

A calm intervention that restores the junior colleague's opportunity to contribute addresses the behaviour without escalating conflict. It models respectful conduct and protects the quality of the discussion.

Question 15Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are preparing a policy proposal and find a published study that strongly supports your preferred option, but you are aware of other studies with different findings. What should you do?

  1. Omit all citations so the proposal is not tied to any particular study.
  2. Mention the other studies only if a colleague raises them.
  3. Include a balanced summary of the evidence, noting where findings differ and why. Correct answer.
  4. Cite only the supportive study to keep the proposal persuasive.

Explanation

Evidence-based policy requires an honest account of the available evidence, including disagreement, because decision-makers need to weigh uncertainty. A balanced summary strengthens credibility rather than weakening the case.

Question 16Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

Your unit is reorganised and you are assigned new tasks that you find less interesting than your previous work. What is the most constructive response?

  1. Apply for a transfer immediately without discussing the situation.
  2. Complain about the reorganisation to colleagues in other units.
  3. Discuss with your manager how the new tasks fit your development and identify aspects you can build on. Correct answer.
  4. Continue to prioritise your old tasks and treat the new ones as secondary.

Explanation

A development-focused conversation turns a difficult change into an opportunity and gives the manager useful information. It also demonstrates adaptability, which is essential during organisational change.

Question 17Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are leading a small project team and one member consistently misses agreed milestones, though their work quality is high when delivered. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Remove the member from the team because deadlines are being missed.
  2. Report the member's performance to their manager without speaking to them first.
  3. Discuss the pattern with the member to understand the cause and agree concrete, checkable commitments. Correct answer.
  4. Take over the member's tasks yourself to ensure deadlines are met.

Explanation

Understanding the cause before acting allows a targeted solution and respects the member's strengths. Agreeing concrete commitments creates accountability without discarding a valuable contributor.

Question 18Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

While drafting a speech for a senior official, you find a statistic that seems persuasive but whose source you cannot verify. What should you do?

  1. Replace it with a verified figure or remove it, and inform the drafter of the reason. Correct answer.
  2. Use the statistic but add a footnote saying it is unverified.
  3. Attribute the statistic to 'various sources' to avoid scrutiny.
  4. Use the statistic because it supports the message effectively.

Explanation

Unverified statistics in official communications risk reputational damage if challenged. Substituting or removing the figure, with an explanation, protects accuracy and lets the drafter decide how to fill the gap.

Question 19Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A colleague asks you to approve a payment that falls just below a threshold requiring a second signature. You notice the amount is close to the threshold and the documentation is thin. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Request the missing documentation and follow the normal verification steps before approving. Correct answer.
  2. Split the payment into two smaller amounts to simplify the process.
  3. Approve it and ask a colleague to check the paperwork later.
  4. Approve it because it is below the threshold and time is short.

Explanation

Financial controls exist to ensure that spending is documented and verified, regardless of how close an amount is to a threshold. Requesting the missing documentation protects both the institution and the individual approving the payment.

Question 20Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are asked to give feedback on a colleague's draft that you think is well written but contains a significant factual error. How should you structure your feedback?

  1. Focus only on the factual error and ignore the rest of the draft.
  2. Praise the writing generally and avoid mentioning the error to protect the colleague's confidence.
  3. Rewrite the entire draft yourself and send it back without comment.
  4. Start with the strengths, then explain the factual error clearly with the evidence, and suggest a correction. Correct answer.

Explanation

Effective feedback is specific, balanced and actionable: acknowledging strengths maintains motivation while a clear, evidence-based account of the error enables correction. Suggesting a fix makes the feedback constructive.

Question 21Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are coordinating a cross-unit initiative and a unit you depend on has not responded to two requests for input. The deadline is in one week. What is the most effective approach?

  1. Escalate immediately to the unit's director without further contact.
  2. Contact the unit by telephone to understand any obstacle, then agree a specific deadline and escalate only if it is missed. Correct answer.
  3. Proceed without their input and note their non-participation in the final report.
  4. Send a third written reminder and continue waiting.

Explanation

A direct conversation can reveal constraints that written reminders miss and often unlocks progress faster. Agreeing a specific deadline creates accountability, with escalation reserved for a genuine failure to deliver.

Question 22Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You discover that a document you previously circulated contains a minor error that does not affect the conclusions. Several colleagues have already read it. What should you do?

  1. Quietly replace the file on the shared drive without telling anyone.
  2. Wait until someone notices the error before responding.
  3. Circulate a brief correction to the recipients noting the error and the corrected version. Correct answer.
  4. Say nothing because the error does not affect the conclusions.

Explanation

Transparency about errors, even minor ones, maintains trust and ensures that recipients rely on accurate information. A brief correction is proportionate to the error's significance.

Question 23Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A new colleague asks you to explain a complex internal process while you are working to a tight deadline. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Ignore the request until your deadline has passed.
  2. Agree a short slot later the same day and point them to the relevant written guidance in the meantime. Correct answer.
  3. Give a rushed explanation now and correct any misunderstandings later.
  4. Tell them you are too busy and suggest they ask someone else.

Explanation

Scheduling a defined slot protects your deadline while ensuring the colleague receives a proper explanation. Pointing to written guidance in the meantime is helpful and supports their autonomy.

Question 24Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are involved in drafting a position that will affect a group of stakeholders adversely. A colleague suggests softening the language to avoid criticism. What is the most appropriate approach?

  1. Make the language as technical as possible so fewer people understand the impact.
  2. Keep the substance clear and accurate, while ensuring the tone is respectful and the rationale is explained. Correct answer.
  3. Soften the language as suggested so the position attracts less opposition.
  4. Delay the position indefinitely to avoid the adverse reaction.

Explanation

Clear, accurate communication is essential when a decision has adverse effects, because stakeholders need to understand the rationale to respond meaningfully. Respectful tone addresses concerns about delivery without obscuring substance.

Question 25Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You realise you have made an error in a calculation that was included in a report sent to a senior manager yesterday. The error is small but changes a percentage. What should you do?

  1. Inform your manager promptly, explain the impact and provide a corrected version. Correct answer.
  2. Blame the error on the data source to reduce the impact on your reputation.
  3. Correct the figure in your own records and wait to see if anyone notices.
  4. Ask a colleague to mention the correction informally at the next meeting.

Explanation

Prompt disclosure of your own error, with an assessment of its impact and a corrected version, is the core of professional accountability. It allows the manager to act before the error propagates further.

Question 26Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are chairing a meeting in an EU institution. A colleague from another unit repeatedly interrupts a junior expert who is presenting data that contradicts the colleague's preferred policy line. The agenda is already behind schedule. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. End the discussion of that agenda item and reschedule it for a meeting when the colleague is absent.
  2. Intervene to protect the presenter's time, note that the evidence will be discussed after the presentation, and return to the agenda. Correct answer.
  3. Let the exchange continue so the substantive disagreement is fully aired before the meeting closes.
  4. Ask the junior expert to shorten the presentation so the colleague has time to respond in the same slot.

Explanation

A chair is responsible for both procedural fairness and the quality of deliberation, so protecting the presenter's speaking time while ensuring the objection is heard later satisfies both. Deferring the challenge rather than suppressing it keeps the evidence on the table and respects the challenger's right to contest it.

Question 27Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are handling a file in an EU institution and a national official asks you, informally at a conference, to confirm whether their country is mentioned in a draft that is still internal. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Confirm only that the country is mentioned, since this is not the substance of the draft.
  2. Give a general summary of the draft so the official is not disadvantaged compared with other member states.
  3. Decline to discuss the draft and suggest the official follows the formal access route once the document is released. Correct answer.
  4. Say nothing and avoid the official for the rest of the conference to prevent further questions.

Explanation

Internal drafts are not disclosable informally, and selective early disclosure would give one member state an advantage over others. Pointing to the formal access route protects both confidentiality and equal treatment.

Question 28Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are drafting a communication for an EU policy initiative. A colleague proposes adding a vivid anecdote that illustrates the intended benefit but is based on a single unverified case. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Remove the anecdote and replace it with a general statement of the policy objective.
  2. Include the anecdote but label it as illustrative rather than as evidence.
  3. Include the anecdote because vivid communication improves citizen engagement with EU policy.
  4. Seek verification of the case and, if it cannot be verified, use only claims supported by reliable sources. Correct answer.

Explanation

Communication by an EU institution must be accurate as well as persuasive, so the factual status of an illustrative case has to be established before publication. If verification fails, the claim should be dropped in favour of sourced material.

Question 29Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are working in an EU agency and notice that a supplier has invoiced for services at a rate higher than the one in the signed contract. The amount is small and the supplier has always performed well. What should you do first?

  1. Ask the supplier to correct the invoice and inform the responsible officer of the discrepancy. Correct answer.
  2. Ignore the discrepancy but note it in your own records in case of a later audit.
  3. Pay the invoice because the amount is immaterial and the relationship is good.
  4. Pay the invoice and deduct the difference from a future payment to the supplier.

Explanation

Financial regularity requires that payments match the contractual terms, and discrepancies must be corrected at source and reported through the proper channel. Informal offsets or silence leave the institution's accounts inconsistent with the contract.

Question 30Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A colleague in your unit is going on extended leave and hands over a file with a note saying a decision is 'practically agreed' with a stakeholder. You find no written record of that agreement. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Ask a different colleague to confirm informally what they remember of the discussions.
  2. Contact the stakeholder to confirm the understanding and record the confirmed position in the file. Correct answer.
  3. Wait until the colleague returns before taking any action on the file.
  4. Proceed on the basis of the note, since the colleague is accountable for the handover.

Explanation

An undocumented understanding is not a reliable basis for action, so it should be confirmed directly with the counterpart and put in writing. This preserves continuity while keeping the file auditable.

Question 31Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are a member of an evaluation panel scoring proposals. One proposal is written in a style you find unusually clear and you suspect it was drafted with professional editorial help. The rules do not prohibit such help. What is the most appropriate approach?

  1. Score presentation lower to offset the possible advantage in drafting support.
  2. Score strictly against the published criteria and disregard presentation quality beyond what the criteria require. Correct answer.
  3. Give the proposal a higher score because clarity indicates commitment to the project.
  4. Ask the applicant to declare whether external editorial support was used.

Explanation

Evaluation must follow the published criteria only, and presentation quality should count to the extent the criteria provide for it. Neither penalising nor rewarding suspected editorial support is consistent with equal treatment.

Question 32Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A trainee in your unit asks to sit in on a closed coordination meeting to learn how decisions are taken. Attendance is restricted to a named list. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Explain the attendance rule, offer to brief the trainee afterwards on the process, and suggest the proper channel to request access. Correct answer.
  2. Bring the trainee without asking, since learning benefits the institution.
  3. Refuse and tell the trainee that closed meetings are not relevant to their work.
  4. Ask the trainee to read the minutes instead and say nothing further.

Explanation

Access rules exist for confidentiality and should be respected, but the developmental need can be met by a debrief and by directing the trainee to the legitimate access route. This balances the rule with support for the trainee.

Question 33Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are preparing a briefing for a senior official who will meet national ministers. You have a strong personal view on the policy and believe one option is clearly superior. What is the most appropriate way to present the briefing?

  1. Present only the option you favour so the message is clear and consistent.
  2. Present all options as equally valid so the official is not influenced.
  3. Present your preferred option first and describe the others only briefly as alternatives.
  4. Present the options with their evidence, costs and risks, and note the arguments on each side objectively. Correct answer.

Explanation

Briefings for decision-makers must be balanced and evidence-based so the official can exercise judgement and defend the position. Personal preference may be noted but must not crowd out the alternatives and their risks.

Question 34Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You manage a small team in an EU institution and must allocate an unpopular but important task. One team member has the closest expertise but is already heavily loaded, while another has capacity but limited experience. What is the most appropriate approach?

  1. Assign it to yourself to avoid creating dissatisfaction in the team.
  2. Discuss the options with both members and agree an allocation with the support needed to manage the risk. Correct answer.
  3. Assign it to the experienced member because expertise matters most.
  4. Assign it to the member with capacity and let them learn without support.

Explanation

Allocation decisions should weigh capability, capacity and development, and a short discussion lets the manager match the task to the person with the right support. Taking the decision unilaterally either overloads the expert or exposes the task to avoidable risk.

Question 35Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

During a consultation on a draft EU measure, a well-organised campaign sends 5,000 near-identical responses, while detailed technical comments arrive from a handful of small stakeholders. How should you treat the input?

  1. Acknowledge all responses but analyse the substantive arguments on their merits, noting the campaign separately. Correct answer.
  2. Disregard the campaign responses entirely because they are not individually reasoned.
  3. Count the responses and report the campaign total as the main indicator of stakeholder support.
  4. Give priority to the technical comments because those stakeholders have greater expertise.

Explanation

Consultation analysis should weigh arguments rather than volume, while still recording the full range of responses transparently. Noting the campaign separately preserves the information about scale without letting it substitute for reasoning.

Question 36Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are asked to represent your unit at a working party where another service will defend a position your unit believes is based on outdated data. You have not been mandated to oppose it publicly. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. State your unit's disagreement firmly in the meeting so the record reflects the concern.
  2. Raise the data concern as a factual question, and report back so your unit can decide its formal position. Correct answer.
  3. Say nothing in the meeting and send a note of objection afterwards.
  4. Support the other service's position to preserve good relations between services.

Explanation

A representative without a mandate should surface relevant facts without committing the unit to a position it has not agreed. Reporting back allows the unit to decide whether to make a formal objection through the proper channel.

Question 37Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

A colleague in a partner organisation asks you to share a dataset that your institution holds. The dataset contains no personal data but is subject to a licence restricting redistribution. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Ignore the request so you do not have to refuse it directly.
  2. Share it, since the absence of personal data means the main restriction does not apply.
  3. Explain the licence restriction and direct the colleague to the channel for requesting access or a licensed copy. Correct answer.
  4. Share a subset that seems less sensitive so the colleague can start work.

Explanation

Licence conditions apply independently of data protection, so the restriction must be respected even where no personal data is involved. Directing the colleague to the proper access route is helpful and lawful.

Question 38Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are leading a procurement process and a bidder asks a clarifying question whose answer would help only that bidder. The deadline for questions has passed. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Decline the late question, or if it concerns a genuine ambiguity, share the clarification with all bidders equally. Correct answer.
  2. Extend the deadline for all bidders by the number of days remaining.
  3. Answer the bidder privately because the question is technical and the deadline was a formality.
  4. Answer privately but disclose the exchange after the award decision.

Explanation

Equal treatment requires that information affecting bids reaches all bidders at the same time, and late questions should not create an advantage. If the point reveals a real ambiguity, the remedy is a clarification circulated to everyone, not a private answer.

Question 39Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are asked to give a presentation on a new EU regulation to an audience of national practitioners. You are confident about most of the content but unsure about one transitional provision. What is the most appropriate approach?

  1. Present the provision as settled so the audience is not confused.
  2. Present your best interpretation as the official reading of the provision.
  3. Flag the provision as one you will confirm, and follow up with the audience in writing afterwards. Correct answer.
  4. Omit the transitional provision and hope no one asks about it.

Explanation

Acknowledging uncertainty and committing to a written follow-up maintains credibility and prevents practitioners from acting on an unreliable reading. Presenting an interpretation as official is misleading where the institution has not adopted it.

Question 40Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are coordinating a file and a colleague from another unit keeps sending substantive comments after agreed cut-off dates, delaying each version. Their comments are often useful. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Discuss the timetable with the colleague and agree a workable schedule with earlier notice of deadlines. Correct answer.
  2. Stop circulating drafts to the colleague so the timetable can be met.
  3. Accept every late comment and absorb the delay without raising it.
  4. Escalate the colleague's behaviour to their head of unit without first speaking to them.

Explanation

Useful contributions should be preserved, but the timing problem needs to be addressed directly with the colleague and solved through planning rather than exclusion or escalation. A conversation about deadlines and notice is the proportionate first step.

Question 41Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You receive a request under access-to-documents rules for an internal note that records a preliminary legal view. The note is part of an ongoing decision-making process. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Assess the request against the applicable exceptions and reply in writing with reasons for the outcome. Correct answer.
  2. Release a version with the legal reasoning removed but keep the rest unchanged.
  3. Refuse the request without explanation because legal views are always protected.
  4. Release the note immediately because transparency is the default principle.

Explanation

Access requests must be assessed against the specific exceptions in force, and the applicant is entitled to a reasoned written reply. Neither automatic refusal nor automatic release reflects the required case-by-case assessment.

Question 42Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are a team leader and a team member tells you confidentially that they are experiencing harassment from a colleague outside your team. They ask you not to act because they fear reprisals. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Explain the limits of confidentiality, inform them of the formal reporting channels, and support them in choosing a route. Correct answer.
  2. Report the matter immediately to the alleged person's manager without telling the team member.
  3. Advise the team member to resolve the matter informally with the colleague directly.
  4. Respect their wish for confidentiality and take no action for now.

Explanation

A manager must be honest about what can be kept confidential and ensure the person knows the formal channels available. Supporting the person's choice while making the institution's duty clear respects both their welfare and the organisation's obligations.

Question 43Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are asked to draft a response to a European Ombudsman inquiry about how your unit handled a complaint. You believe the unit acted correctly but the file shows one step was taken later than the internal standard requires. What is the most appropriate approach?

  1. Provide only the documents requested and add no commentary.
  2. Describe the process as fully compliant because the outcome was correct.
  3. Acknowledge the delay, explain its cause, and set out any corrective action taken. Correct answer.
  4. State that internal standards are indicative and need not be addressed in the reply.

Explanation

Replies to the Ombudsman must be accurate and complete, including shortcomings, together with context and any remedy. Concealing a known delay damages credibility and may itself become a finding of maladministration.

Question 44Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

Your director asks you to prepare speaking points that will criticise a member state's implementation record. You know the underlying data is solid but one comparison in the draft uses a different reference year from the others. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Remove all comparative data to avoid any challenge to the speech.
  2. Correct the comparison to a consistent basis, or remove it, and tell the director why the change was made. Correct answer.
  3. Keep the comparison because the overall message is supported by the other data.
  4. Add a footnote that the reference years differ and leave the comparison unchanged.

Explanation

A comparison that mixes reference years can mislead even when the broader conclusion holds, so it should be corrected or dropped. Informing the director preserves their ownership of the message and explains the change.

Question 45Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are mentoring a new colleague who is struggling with a complex file. You are under pressure on your own deliverables. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Send the colleague a long guidance document and ask them to come back when they have read it.
  2. Tell the colleague to ask someone else because you have no capacity.
  3. Agree a short focused session on the most difficult points and point the colleague to resources for the rest. Correct answer.
  4. Take over the file yourself so it is completed correctly and on time.

Explanation

Targeted support addresses the colleague's development need while protecting the mentor's own deadlines. Taking over the work solves the immediate task but removes the learning opportunity and does not scale.

Question 46Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are responsible for a communication campaign and a colleague suggests using a statistic that is technically accurate but, taken out of context, would suggest a stronger result than the data support. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Use the statistic and add a link to the full dataset at the end of the campaign.
  2. Present the statistic with the context needed to interpret it correctly, or choose a less misleading figure. Correct answer.
  3. Use the statistic because it is accurate as stated.
  4. Replace the statistic with a qualitative statement so no figure is used.

Explanation

Accuracy includes not misleading the audience, so figures must be presented with the context that determines their meaning. A link to a dataset does not correct an impression formed at the point of reading.

Question 47Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are chairing a selection board and realise after the interviews that one candidate was asked a question about family circumstances that is not relevant to the post. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Re-interview all candidates to restore equality.
  2. Remove the question from the record so the process appears consistent.
  3. Ignore it because the candidate answered well and the outcome is unlikely to be affected.
  4. Record the issue, inform the board, and agree how to ensure the assessment is based only on relevant criteria. Correct answer.

Explanation

An irrelevant and potentially discriminatory question compromises the fairness of the process and must be addressed transparently by the board. Recording and reviewing the assessment against the published criteria is the proportionate remedy.

Question 48Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You discover that a colleague has been sharing their system credentials with a contractor to speed up a recurring task. No harm has occurred and the contractor is trusted. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Report the colleague anonymously so you avoid a difficult conversation.
  2. Ask the contractor to confirm in writing that they will not misuse the credentials.
  3. Say nothing because no harm has occurred and the practice improves efficiency.
  4. Explain the security risk to the colleague, ask them to stop, and report the incident through the proper channel. Correct answer.

Explanation

Credential sharing removes individual accountability and breaches security rules regardless of whether harm has occurred, so it must be stopped and reported. A direct conversation plus formal reporting addresses both the colleague's understanding and the institution's obligation.

Question 49Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You are negotiating on behalf of your institution with an external partner. During a break, the partner mentions information suggesting their organisation may be in financial difficulty, which is relevant to the deal. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Pause to consider the implications, seek internal advice, and decide how to address the risk before proceeding. Correct answer.
  2. End the negotiation and inform the partner that the deal is cancelled.
  3. Use the information to press for more favourable terms immediately.
  4. Continue the negotiation without mentioning it, since it was said informally.

Explanation

Material information affecting the counterparty's ability to perform should be assessed before commitments are made, and internal advice ensures the response is consistent with the institution's rules. Acting on it tactically or ignoring it both carry reputational and practical risk.

Question 50Situational judgement / behavioural competence scenarios

You manage a team and learn that a high performer has been bypassing a required quality check on urgent files. The files produced so far have been of good quality. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Introduce a rule that all files must be checked twice to deter future shortcuts.
  2. Reassign the person to less urgent work as a sanction.
  3. Address it directly with the individual, require the check to be reinstated, and examine why the pressure arose. Correct answer.
  4. Leave it in place because the quality record is good and the checks slow delivery.

Explanation

Controls cannot be traded for speed on the basis of past results, so the check must be reinstated while the underlying pressure is examined. Addressing the cause as well as the behaviour makes the correction sustainable rather than punitive.