The Borrowed Teamwork Example
You are a Clerical Officer in the HR unit of a Civil Service department. You have been asked to carry out a pre-interview quality check on application forms for an internal Executive Officer competition. Thirty-two staff have applied. Candidates must provide examples under five competencies, including 'Teamwork' and 'Customer Service'. While checking, you notice that two applications contain almost identical wording under 'Teamwork'. Both describe a cross-office project to redesign a forms process. One applicant writes, 'I led the project and assigned tasks to three colleagues.' The other writes, 'I supported the project lead and completed the process map.' The first applicant is a friend of yours. You know the project was actually led by a third colleague who has not applied. The competition rules require examples to be the applicant's own work and to accurately describe their role. The selection board meets on Monday. Your manager is on annual leave.
1. What should you do about the two applications, and why?
Read the worked answer
I should treat this as an assessment-integrity issue, not a private word with my friend. The near-identical wording suggests copying, and the 'I led' claim conflicts with what I know about the project. But I should not decide the outcome myself: the selection board owns the competition, and both candidates are entitled to fair procedure.
My steps would be: preserve both application forms and note the identical passages; check whether the wording appears in any shared template or intranet page; and report the matter factually to the board chair or the competition manager, declaring that one applicant is a friend so that my involvement can be managed. I would avoid confronting either candidate informally. The board should write to both candidates, set out the specific concern and invite a short written clarification. One may have copied wording but accurately described a support role; the other may have exaggerated. Those are different problems and may warrant different responses. The key is that the process is transparent, documented and applied equally, and that my friendship does not influence how the evidence is handled.
2. How should the board assess the 'I led' claim if the candidate insists it is accurate?
Read the worked answer
The board should not resolve a factual dispute by asking, 'Who seems more credible?' It should use the competency framework to test evidence. 'Teamwork' at Executive Officer level requires more than being present on a project; it requires specific actions, an understanding of the team's goal, handling of differences, and a clear account of one's own contribution. The board can ask both candidates the same structured questions: What was the project's objective? Who did what? What did you personally decide? What would your colleagues say your contribution was? What would you do differently?
If the 'I led' candidate cannot give specific details about assigning tasks, managing performance or resolving issues, the claim is not supported. If the actual project lead can confirm the role, that is useful corroboration, but the board should be careful not to turn the competition into a disciplinary investigation without due process. The board should record its reasoning: which evidence was accepted, which was not, and why. It should also consider whether the behaviour breaches the Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour. Competency-based assessment is not about catching people out; it is about requiring applicants to give truthful, specific, personal evidence and scoring that evidence consistently.
3. What does this scenario show about using the competency framework to assess evidence rather than impression?
Read the worked answer
It shows that the framework is a control against impression management. A candidate who is confident or known to the panel can create a favourable impression; a copied or inflated example can sound impressive. The framework forces the assessor back to specific questions: What was the situation? What did this candidate actually do? What was the result? Which competency indicator does that action demonstrate?
In this case, the words 'I led' and 'I supported' point to different levels of ownership. The board should not simply reward the stronger verb; it should test whether the behaviour behind the verb exists. It should also apply the same probing to all 32 candidates, otherwise the two flagged applications are being held to a higher standard. The pre-interview check is a quality control, not a substitute for interview assessment. The lesson is that evidence must be personal, specific and verifiable, and that panel members must be able to explain their scores by reference to the indicators, not by reference to how plausible or likeable a candidate seemed.