All 9 Civil Service Behaviours with STAR Examples at Every Grade

**TL;DR.** The Civil Service uses 9 behaviours, defined in the Success Profiles framework on gov.uk. Behaviour examples are scored on the Action section — what you decided and what you did — not on the Situation. The same behaviour means very different things at different grades. This guide gives one worked STAR example per behaviour, calibrated to a different grade for each, with notes on what the assessor is looking for and what would lower the score.

You have just opened the application form for an HEO post at the Department for Education. The form has three behaviour boxes, each 250 words. The behaviours are *Making effective decisions*, *Working together*, and *Delivering at pace*. You have until Friday.

If your draft sounds like every behaviour example you've ever read — generic, in third person, with the Action section squeezed into two sentences — you are about to score 1s and miss the shortlist. This guide gives you one fully worked example for each of the 9 Civil Service behaviours, each calibrated to a different grade, so you can see what scores 4 versus what scores 1 across the full range.

The 9 behaviours are taken verbatim from the Civil Service Careers behaviours page and the Success Profiles publication on gov.uk.

How behaviours are scored

Two assessors read your behaviour example independently and score it against the level descriptor for the grade. The score is on a 1–7 scale (some departments use 1–5). The Action section accounts for around 60% of the word count — and around 80% of the score. The Situation and Task should be one sentence each. The Result should be one sentence with a verifiable outcome.

• **Using "we" instead of "I".** The assessor cannot score "we". Use "I" throughout, even when the work was collaborative — describe your individual contribution.
• **Vague Actions ("I worked with the team").** Name the specific things you did, the order you did them in, and the judgement you exercised.
• **No Result, or a Result that cannot be attributed.** "The project went well" is not a Result. "The pilot reduced error rates by 18% over six weeks" is.
• **Wrong grade level.** EO-level evidence in an HEO application is screened out as not yet ready.
• **Going over the word limit.** Truncated answers lose marks at the end. Stay 10–15 words under.

1. Seeing the big picture — Grade 7 example (250 words)

*As a Grade 7 strategy lead in a transport directorate, I was asked to review whether our regional investment programme was meeting the cross-government commitment to net zero by 2050. The existing programme had been built around three regional priorities set in 2018. I started by mapping every project in the programme against the UK net zero carbon budget framework and identifying which projects were likely to have a positive, neutral, or negative carbon impact over a 25-year horizon. I found that 40% of the spend was on projects that would lock in carbon emissions for at least the next decade. I drafted a strategic recommendation paper for the Director, presenting three options: continue as planned, retrofit existing projects with carbon mitigations, or rebalance the programme towards low-carbon investment. I built the recommendation around the trade-offs between regional political commitments, departmental net-zero targets, and Treasury value-for-money rules. The Director adopted Option 3 and the programme was rebalanced over the following 18 months. The revised programme reduced its projected lifetime emissions by 22% while protecting the regional spending envelope, and was cited in the department's annual carbon report.*

**Why this scores well at Grade 7:** It shows strategic awareness of cross-government commitments, builds the recommendation around real trade-offs (political vs. financial vs. environmental), and produces a measurable outcome that the assessor can verify. It does not name the directorate or the minister, which is correct — keep examples generic enough to protect confidentiality.

**What would lower the score:** Saying "I worked with the team" instead of "I drafted the recommendation". Skipping the trade-offs and presenting the answer as obvious. Failing to quantify the outcome.

2. Changing and improving — HEO example (250 words)

*In my role as an HEO casework manager, I noticed that my team's average case turnaround time had risen from 12 days to 19 days over six months. I asked my line manager whether I could investigate the root cause. I started by mapping the casework process step by step and timing each step using two weeks of live cases. I identified that 4 of the 11 process steps were waiting on input from a separate team that had recently restructured, and that 60% of our delay was concentrated in those four steps. I drafted a short proposal to merge the two teams' weekly catch-up meetings and create a shared escalation log. I tested the proposal with my line manager, the lead in the other team, and three of my caseworkers before formalising it. After four weeks of running the new process, average turnaround dropped to 11 days — below the original baseline. I documented the change for the team handover pack and the new process was adopted by two adjacent casework teams the following quarter.*

**Why this scores well at HEO:** Specific data (12 days, 19 days, 11 days), specific intervention (merged meetings, shared log), pilot before scaling, and a result that exceeded the baseline. The example shows independent judgement, ownership of the problem, and influence beyond the immediate team.

**What would lower the score:** Saying "the process was inefficient" without naming the bottleneck. Implementing the change without testing it first. Reporting the result as "things improved".

3. Making effective decisions — SEO example (250 words)

*As an SEO programme manager I was running a £2.4m grant scheme with an end-of-year deadline. Three weeks before the deadline, I discovered that one of the four delivery partners had not started spending and was unlikely to deliver against the agreed milestones. The contract included a clawback clause but invoking it would create a public dispute and risk reputational harm to the scheme. I had three options: extend the deadline, reallocate the funding to the three other partners, or invoke the clawback clause. I assessed each option against three criteria — value for money, scheme reputation, and precedent for future grants. I requested an urgent meeting with the partner to understand the cause of the underspend, discovered that the delay was due to a procurement freeze beyond their control, and confirmed they could deliver if granted a six-week extension. I drafted a recommendation paper for my Grade 7, presenting all three options with my recommended option (extend deadline, with a revised milestone schedule and weekly check-ins). The Grade 7 approved the recommendation. The partner delivered to the revised schedule, the scheme spent in full, and the precedent set the tone for the next grant cycle.*

**Why this scores well at SEO:** Three explicit options weighed against three explicit criteria, root-cause investigation, and a recommendation rather than a unilateral decision (correct at SEO level). The Action shows judgement, not just process.

**What would lower the score:** Recommending only one option without showing the alternatives. Skipping the root-cause investigation. Implementing the extension without senior approval — at SEO you escalate decisions of this magnitude.

4. Leadership — Grade 6 example (250 words)

*As a Grade 6 head of operations, I led a function of 60 staff across three teams that had received a critical internal audit finding for inconsistent decision-making across the three teams. The audit had identified that similar cases were being decided differently by different teams, creating fairness risks for the public. I established a programme to redesign our operating model. I started by personally chairing a weekly leadership meeting with the three SEO team leads, then commissioned a peer-review process where each team reviewed a sample of the others' decisions monthly. I introduced a quarterly calibration session where I personally led case discussion to surface and resolve interpretation differences. I also revised the line management structure so that the three SEO leads reported into a single principal officer post, with the principal officer accountable to me for cross-team consistency. After six months, internal audit re-tested a sample of cases and found consistency had risen from 71% to 94%. The function was cited in the department's annual report as an example of effective response to internal audit recommendations.*

**Why this scores well at Grade 6:** Strategic intervention (operating model change), personal accountability (chairing the meetings, leading calibration), and a structural change (revised reporting line). The example shows leadership of a function, not just a team.

**What would lower the score:** Saying "we improved consistency" without naming the audit baseline or the specific changes you led. Failing to take personal responsibility for the leadership moments. Describing the change as a project rather than a structural reform.

5. Communicating and influencing — EO example (250 words)

*As an EO in a policy team, I was asked to brief our deputy director ahead of a stakeholder meeting where she would explain a controversial new regulation to industry representatives. Our existing briefing template ran to eight pages and the deputy director typically had ten minutes to read it. I asked her what she actually used in the briefings she read, and she said the first page and any direct quotes. I redesigned the template to a one-page summary with the key message at the top, three anticipated questions and short responses below, and one supporting evidence quote. I tested it with her in a 20-minute review and refined it based on her feedback. I used the new template for her next three stakeholder meetings. After the third meeting she told me she had used the briefing materially to handle a difficult question that had not come up before, and asked me to share the template with three other policy teams. I drafted a short note explaining the format and circulated it. Two teams adopted the template within a month.*

**Why this scores well at EO:** Adapted to the audience (deputy director's actual reading habits), tested and refined, produced a verifiable outcome (used in real meetings), and the influence spread to other teams. EO-level evidence is about owning your own outputs and showing initiative within your team.

**What would lower the score:** Saying "I made the briefings shorter" without describing how you tested it. Failing to name the outcome (used in real meetings) or the spread (adopted by other teams).

6. Working together — HEO example (250 words)

*As an HEO digital project manager, I was leading the launch of a new internal tool used by colleagues in three different policy teams. The teams had different priorities and had been historically resistant to standardising tools. I began by visiting each team in person to understand how they currently worked and what they needed from the new tool. I documented their needs in a shared requirements document and ran a one-hour workshop with representatives from each team to identify common requirements and resolve conflicts. Where the teams disagreed (e.g. one wanted a strict approval workflow, another wanted a flexible one), I proposed compromise solutions and asked each representative to test the proposed compromise with their team before the next workshop. I held three workshops over four weeks. By the third workshop, all three teams had agreed on a single shared specification. The tool launched on time, all three teams adopted it within a month of launch, and one team subsequently asked to add a fourth workflow that we built into the next release.*

**Why this scores well at HEO:** Personal action (visiting teams, running workshops, drafting compromises), demonstrates collaboration without claiming credit for the work of others, and produces a verifiable outcome (three teams adopted the tool). The example shows independent judgement and delivery through others.

**What would lower the score:** Saying "we worked collaboratively" without naming the specific actions you took. Skipping the conflict-resolution detail. Failing to describe the outcome.

7. Developing self and others — SEO example (250 words)

*As an SEO managing a team of four caseworkers, I noticed that my newest joiner had been struggling with a particular type of complex case for two months. He was completing the cases but his line manager (me) was finding errors at quality review. Instead of escalating it to a performance issue, I sat down with him and asked him to walk me through his approach to the most recent case. I identified that he had not been taught the trust's escalation criteria and was making interpretive decisions that needed senior input. I designed a four-week structured coaching plan: one shadowing session per week, one hour of joint case review, and one piece of self-directed reading from the casework manual. I also paired him with a more experienced colleague for a peer-mentoring relationship. After four weeks his case quality scores had risen from 62% to 89% and he successfully handled his first complex case independently. I shared the coaching plan template with my line manager who circulated it to the other team leads in the directorate.*

**Why this scores well at SEO:** Personal coaching action (not just delegating to training), structured intervention (four-week plan with named components), measured outcome (62% to 89%), and the influence spread (template shared and adopted). SEO evidence shows you developing others, not just yourself.

**What would lower the score:** Saying "I helped him improve" without describing the structured intervention. Failing to attribute the improvement to your coaching. Describing it as a performance management issue.

8. Managing a quality service — Grade 7 example (250 words)

*As a Grade 7 service owner I was responsible for an internal HR service used by 4,000 staff across the department. Service satisfaction had dropped from 78% to 64% in the previous quarter and I had been asked to recover it. I started by analysing the service desk data and identified that 60% of complaints were about response times for a single query type — annual leave entitlement queries — which were now taking an average of 7 days to resolve. I commissioned a workflow review and discovered that the queries were being routed through three different teams sequentially. I redesigned the workflow to a single specialist team with direct access to the HR system, recruited an additional specialist, and introduced a 48-hour SLA. I monitored the change weekly for two months. Average response time dropped to 1.5 days and satisfaction scores recovered to 82% over the next quarter. The service was cited as an example of effective service recovery in the department's quarterly performance report and the model was adopted by two other internal services.*

**Why this scores well at Grade 7:** Data-driven diagnosis, structural intervention, named SLA, sustained monitoring, and a service-level outcome. Grade 7 evidence shows ownership of a function and accountability for service quality.

**What would lower the score:** Saying "complaints went down" without quantifying. Failing to name the specific intervention (workflow redesign, recruitment, SLA). Describing it as a project rather than ongoing service ownership.

9. Delivering at pace — HEO example (250 words)

*As an HEO project manager I was given a four-week deadline to launch a new policy briefing series to coincide with a high-profile parliamentary debate. The original timeline had been six weeks but the debate had been brought forward. I started by drafting a delivery plan that broke the four-week deadline into three milestones: research and outline (week 1), drafting (weeks 2–3), and clearance and publication (week 4). I held a kick-off meeting with the four contributors and assigned each a clear deliverable with a hard deadline two days before each milestone. I instituted daily 15-minute stand-ups in the final two weeks. When one contributor flagged a delay in week 2 due to a separate emergency tasking, I personally drafted that contributor's section in evenings to keep the timeline. I held a final clearance call with the deputy director on day 26 and delivered the published series on day 28 — two days before the parliamentary debate. The series was used in the debate by both opposition and government speakers, and was cited in the department's quarterly highlights.*

**Why this scores well at HEO:** Specific timeline (four weeks, three milestones, daily stand-ups), personal action when the plan slipped (drafted a section in the evenings), and a verifiable outcome (used in the debate). HEO evidence shows independent ownership and delivery against a hard constraint.

**What would lower the score:** Saying "we delivered to the deadline" without describing the structure of the delivery plan. Failing to describe what you personally did when the plan was at risk. Failing to verify the outcome.

How SpecMatch generates these for you

SpecMatch reads the job advert, identifies which of the 9 behaviours the role assesses, calibrates the language to your exact grade, and writes one STAR example per behaviour from your real career history. The output is in first person, fits the word limit (250 or 500 words), and is written in plain prose that pastes into Civil Service Jobs without formatting issues.

The Pro plan covers behaviour example generation. Start free to see how it handles your specific job.