Prepare for APS graduate assessments by studying the APS Values (impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful, ethical), the Employment Principles, and the Code of Conduct, then rehearsing scenario questions where you name the relevant principle, separate fact from assumption, and commit to a specific action such as declining a gift and recording it, or giving frank advice while implementing a lawful decision.
Why generic judgement answers fall short of the APS Values framework
Scenario items in APS selection are designed to be answered against the APS Values in the Public Service Act 1999: impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical. An answer that is sensible but principle-blind leaves the marker unable to see how you would decide harder cases.
Start by learning the five Values as a decision checklist rather than as trivia. For any scenario, ask: does this involve political sensitivity (impartial), service delivery to the public (committed to service), documentation and transparency (accountable), treatment of colleagues or clients (respectful), or a conflict between private interest and public duty (ethical)? Naming the dimension turns a vague 'what would you do' item into a structured choice with a defensible answer.
The practical distinction to internalise is between a Values answer and an opinions answer. Suppose a scenario describes a supervisor asking you to delay an unfavourable report. An opinions answer says 'I would feel uncomfortable and speak up'. A Values answer says 'the APS is accountable and impartial, so the report should proceed accurately; I would confirm the request in writing and raise it with my supervisor or their manager if it stood'. The second shows you know which lever exists and how to pull it.
- Impartial: serve the government of the day, provide frank and honest advice, act apolitically
- Committed to service: professional, objective, innovative, efficient service to the public
- Accountable: open to scrutiny, transparent, submit to appropriate oversight
- Respectful: safe, inclusive environment, free from harassment and bullying
- Ethical: demonstrate leadership, act with integrity, disclose and manage conflicts of interest
Impartial is not neutral: the political-advice scenario
The most commonly confused Value is impartiality. It does not mean staying silent or refusing to act on government direction; it means serving the elected government faithfully while your advice stays frank, honest and based on evidence, regardless of its political convenience.
Worked scenario: your minister announces a policy direction and a senior executive asks you to prepare an options brief. You privately believe the direction has weak evidence behind it. A plausible mistake here is answering that you would 'flag your disagreement prominently in the brief so the minister hears the truth', or conversely that you would 'write only what supports the decision since the government was elected to decide'. Both answers treat impartiality as a personality trait rather than a duty with two halves.
The better decision separates the two halves explicitly: provide full, frank and honest advice through proper channels, and then implement the government's lawful decision professionally and with commitment, whether or not your advice was adopted. Why it matters: the first mistake risks partisanship in the advice; the second undermines the frank-advice duty. Strong answers also add a process step, such as checking the brief's factual claims with the data team, which signals the accountable Value at the same time.
Gifts, benefits and conflicts: applying the Code of Conduct, not guessing
Ethical scenarios about gifts, hospitality and private interests should be resolved by reference to the Code of Conduct and the agency's gifts and benefits policy. The recurring rule is disclosure and proper handling: never quietly accept, never quietly decline without recording, never improvise a personal policy.
Worked scenario: a contractor you deal with daily offers you two tickets to a major sporting event, mentioning 'it's just a thank-you'. A plausible mistake is deciding solo that the tickets are harmless, accepting them, and mentioning it afterwards to a colleague. That answer fails the ethical and accountable Values twice: the conflict was not declared before the decision, and no record exists. Another common error is the opposite overcorrection - answering that you would 'refuse all contact with contractors from now on', which damages the working relationship the agency actually needs.
The better decision follows the framework: thank the contractor courteously, state that you need to follow your agency's gifts and benefits policy, declare the offer to your supervisor or the designated officer, and accept whatever disposition the policy directs - typically declining, or registering and retaining the item only where policy permits. Why it matters: the assessment is testing whether you know that integrity questions in the APS are resolved by declared procedures with a paper trail, not by personal judgement calls. Note that agency-level gifts guidance is periodically updated at the APS-wide level, so treat 'check the current policy' as the operative habit rather than memorising any single rule.
Merit and the Employment Principles: how selection scenarios differ from Values scenarios
Merit is the thread connecting the Employment Principles: recruitment, movement and career advancement must be based on assessment of candidates' relative suitability against the requirements of the role. Scenario questions about 'fit', favouritism or shortcuts in process are testing whether you reach for merit rather than familiarity or speed.
Distinguish the three instruments you may be asked about. The APS Values describe how employees behave. The Employment Principles describe how agencies manage their workforce, with merit as the core principle - decisions are about relative suitability for the particular work. The Code of Conduct sets behavioural standards whose breach can lead to sanctions. A selection scenario is usually an Employment Principles question; a misconduct scenario is a Code question; a 'how would you behave' scenario is a Values question. Mapping the instrument first prevents you from citing the wrong authority.
Worked scenario: your manager suggests appointing a departing director's assistant to a vacancy without advertising, because 'we know her work and it will save weeks'. A plausible mistake is agreeing on efficiency grounds, since speed feels like service. The better decision is to identify that bypassing assessment removes the merit basis for the engagement and raises a conflict of interest for the manager, and to suggest a compliant alternative such as a short, documented assessment against the role requirements. Why it matters: the answer shows you can name the principle being strained and offer a workable process, which is the shape of almost every ethical-decision scenario in public sector selection.
| Instrument | What it governs | Typical scenario cue | Common misreading |
|---|---|---|---|
| APS Values (Public Service Act s.10) | How APS employees behave overall | 'How would you respond if...' | Treating them as vague aspirations instead of decision criteria |
| Employment Principles (s.10A) | How agencies make workforce decisions | Recruitment, promotion, 'who should get the role' items | Assuming efficiency or familiarity can justify skipping merit |
| Code of Conduct (s.13) | Standards whose breach may attract sanctions | Gifts, conflicts, misuse of information or resources | Answering from personal morals rather than declared policy |
A reusable self-check rubric for written scenario responses
Whatever format you face, apply the same four-part rubric to your practice answers: name the relevant Value or principle, separate confirmed facts from assumptions, choose an action that is lawful and within your role, and include a documentation or escalation step.
Practical exercise: write five practice scenarios of your own - one gift offer, one political sensitivity, one bullying observation, one data or privacy handling, one selection decision. For each, draft a 100-word response, then score it against the rubric: 1 point for naming the correct Value or Code element, 1 for identifying facts versus assumptions, 1 for an action within an entry-level officer's actual authority, 1 for a recording or escalation step. Expected observations when you self-check: early drafts typically score 2 of 4, usually missing the documentation step and misjudging what a junior officer may decide alone.
The rubric trains two habits that generic practice misses. First, it forces role calibration - many intuitive answers have the scenario-taker personally confronting a senior executive or reporting externally, when a realistic first step is consulting a supervisor, the agency's integrity or HR area, or the relevant policy. Second, it makes escalation a graded ladder rather than a leap: discuss, document, then escalate only if unresolved. Score 4 of 4 on three consecutive fresh scenarios as a learning milestone - it indicates the framework is automatic, not a prediction of any selection outcome.
Work style and judgement questionnaires: consistency and the APS frame
Situational judgement and work style questionnaires reward a stable, APS-anchored profile: the same underlying traits are probed from several angles, so answers drafted from instinct one day and image-management the next produce an inconsistent picture. Anchor every item in the role you are applying to do.
Before responding to any item, briefly picture yourself as a graduate in a policy or service-delivery team: you work in a hierarchy, decisions are documented, advice is frank but delivered through your supervisor, and the Values apply to everything. From that vantage, items about following procedures versus improvising usually resolve toward following the procedure while suggesting improvements through the proper channel; items about teamwork versus individual glory resolve toward shared credit and shared accountability.
A useful contrast to study is process-oriented versus outcome-oriented answers. Both matter in the APS, but for an entry-level applicant the defensible position is process-first: get the record right, check the delegated authority, seek advice on anything grey. An answer that praises 'finding shortcuts around red tape' may sound dynamic in a private-sector frame, but in the APS frame it collides with the accountable Value. Rehearse translating your natural instincts into this frame before the assessment, not during it.
A four-week preparation sequence with readiness checks
Structure preparation around the framework first, application second: one week on the primary instruments, two weeks on scenario practice against the rubric, one week on mixed timed sets and self-audit. Adapt the pace to your schedule; the sequence matters more than the calendar.
Week 1: read the APS Values, Employment Principles and Code of Conduct from the APSC website and write a one-line plain-English paraphrase of each element. Week 2: build and answer five original scenarios per instrument, scoring each with the four-point rubric; keep an error log classifying every miss as wrong instrument, missing documentation step, or role overreach. Week 3: convert your log into drill sets targeting your weakest classification only. Week 4: complete mixed 20-minute timed sets, then re-read the Values and check whether each missed item had a Value you could have invoked.
Readiness checks before you finish: you can list the five Values unprompted and give a scenario cue for each; you can explain impartiality as frank advice plus faithful implementation in under 60 seconds; your last three timed scenario responses each score 4 of 4 on the rubric; and your error log shows no wrong-instrument errors in the final week. One practical note: for administrative matters such as current application processes and any program-specific requirements, rely on the APSC and the employing agency's own pages rather than secondary summaries, since these change without notice.
References and further reading
Use these references to explore the concepts and check the latest information from the relevant organizations.