Premium

Unlock Premium Features

Advanced AI, priority support, and exclusive templates

Upgrade Now
Federal Government (APS)

Selection Criteria Examples: APS5

APS5 sits above the more procedural APS4 level — you're expected to exercise independent judgement on issues that don't have an obvious right answer, coordinate the work of others on a task, and represent your team in dealings with other areas. Panels are looking for evidence of initiative and sound decision-making, not just reliable task completion.

What This Level Is Usually Assessed On

Typical CriterionWhat Panels Are Looking For
Supports strategy and changeAn example where you helped implement a change within your team — not just adapted to it yourself, but helped bring others along.
Achieves resultsEvidence of managing competing priorities or an ambiguous problem, where you had to decide the best approach yourself.
Supports productive working relationshipsAn example involving negotiation, coordination, or resolving a disagreement — not just getting along with people.
Displays personal drive and integrityA situation where you took ownership of a problem or mistake, or raised a concern, without being asked to.

Worked STAR Examples

Criterion: "Achieves results"

S
Situation

I was coordinating a small project to migrate a shared team spreadsheet to a new case management system, with a hard deadline set by a system-wide cutover date outside our control.

T
Task

I needed to complete the migration accurately while my team kept processing their regular caseload, without a clear precedent for how to sequence the work.

A
Action

I broke the migration into batches by case type, ran a pilot batch with two team members first to catch data-mapping issues early, then used what we learned to write a short checklist the rest of the team used for their own batches.

R
Result

The migration finished four days ahead of the cutover deadline with a data error rate under 1%, and the checklist I created was later adopted by two other teams migrating to the same system.

Criterion: "Supports productive working relationships"

S
Situation

Two team members I regularly worked with had a disagreement over how to divide a shared task, which was starting to slow down delivery and create tension in team meetings.

T
Task

As the person coordinating that piece of work, I needed to get both of them working productively again without either feeling overruled.

A
Action

I spoke to each of them separately first to understand their concerns, then brought them together to agree on a split of the task based on each person's strengths rather than an even 50/50 division, and documented the agreement so it wouldn't need revisiting.

R
Result

The task was completed on schedule, both team members said afterward that the split felt fairer, and I used the same one-on-one-then-together approach successfully on a similar disagreement a few months later.

Use these as a guide for structure and depth — your own response should be built from your own situation, task, action, and result.

Word Limits & Format

APS5 applications commonly ask for a combined pitch of one to two pages, though some agencies still request criterion-by-criterion responses of around 300–400 words each. Read the application instructions closely — some APS5 roles specifically ask for examples that demonstrate coordinating other people's work, and a response with no evidence of that will read as underqualified for the level.

Write Your Own Response

Give the AI your real experience and let it structure the STAR response for you.

Write My Response — FreeBrowse All Examples

FAQs

Common questions about APS5 selection criteria.

Not necessarily direct line management — coordinating a project, guiding a less experienced colleague, or leading a discrete piece of work all demonstrate the coordination skills panels expect at APS5, even without formal supervisory responsibility.

Very specific. Vague claims like "I'm good at managing competing priorities" don't pass at APS5 — panels want a real situation with a clear decision you made and a measurable or observable result, because that's the evidence that you can be trusted with ambiguity.