What a selection criteria response actually is
A selection criteria response is a short written answer that shows how your experience matches a specific capability listed in a job advertisement or applicant guide. Many Australian Public Service agencies still ask for these responses, either as separate answers or folded into a resume or pitch.
A panel is usually trying to work out whether you have actually done the thing the criterion describes, not whether you understand what the words mean. That is why a definition of the criterion, on its own, tells a panel very little.
Most panels are reading many applications in a short amount of time. A response that names a real situation, explains what you personally did and states what happened is usually easier to assess than a general summary of your skills.
Panels usually also want to see judgement, not just a task completed correctly. That means noting a decision you made, a risk you weighed up or a trade-off you handled, rather than only listing steps in order. A response that reads as a checklist of actions, with no reasoning behind them, tells a panel less than one that shows why you chose a particular approach.
It also helps to remember that a written response is only one part of the process. Many agencies also use interviews, referee checks or work samples, so a criteria response does not need to carry the entire case for your suitability on its own.
STAR vs SAO: two accepted structures
STAR stands for Situation, Task, Action, Result. SAO stands for Situation, Action, Outcome. Both are widely used across the APS. If an agency prefers one, its applicant guide will usually say so.
STAR separates the task from the situation, which can help when the task was assigned to you rather than something you identified yourself. SAO is shorter and can suit tight word limits, since it merges situation and task into one step.
| Step | STAR | SAO |
|---|
| 1 | Situation: the context and why it mattered | Situation: context and the problem, combined |
| 2 | Task: what you were specifically responsible for | (folded into situation above) |
| 3 | Action: the steps you personally took | Action: the steps you personally took |
| 4 | Result: what changed, ideally with a measurable detail | Outcome: what changed, ideally with a measurable detail |
Either structure works well as a planning tool before you write a word limit-bound version. Choose the one that lets you fit a specific, honest example into the space allowed.
A useful way to plan is to write brief notes under each heading before drafting full sentences. This usually stops the situation section from growing too long and crowding out the action and result, which are often the parts a panel is most interested in.
Worked example: Communicates with influence, APS5
This example is entirely fictional and written to show structure, not to be copied into a real application.
In my previous team, a proposed change to our client intake process was causing confusion among frontline staff, and two teams disagreed about who should own a key step. I was asked to bring both teams to a shared position before the new process went live. I organised a working session with representatives from each team and set a clear agenda focused on the shared goal, reducing client wait times, rather than on who was right. During the session, I summarised each team's concerns back to them before proposing a compromise that split the disputed step by client type, which addressed both teams' main objections. I followed up with a short written summary so everyone had the same record of what was agreed. I also flagged one remaining risk to my manager rather than leaving it unresolved. Within two weeks, the new process was running with agreement from both teams, and the number of misdirected client enquiries dropped compared with the previous month. I later used the same written summary approach when introducing a smaller process change, because it had worked well the first time.
- Sentence one sets the situation and states why it mattered, without extra background.
- The task sentence makes clear this was assigned, not self-appointed.
- The action sentences describe specific steps in first person, not team activity.
- The result sentence gives a concrete, checkable outcome rather than a general claim.
- The closing sentence shows judgement carried into later work, without overstating impact.
How expectations change by level
The same criterion, such as communicates with influence or works with others, is usually assessed differently depending on classification. Scope, independence and the expectation of leading others tend to increase together.
| Level | Scope | Independence | Judgement and leading others |
|---|
| APS3/4 | Own tasks and immediate team activities | Works under regular guidance | Applies established procedures, escalates unclear situations |
| APS5/6 | A process, project or small team output | Works with limited day-to-day supervision | Adapts approach to context, may guide junior staff informally |
| EL1 | A program area, multiple stakeholders or a team | Sets own priorities within broader direction | Exercises judgement on ambiguous issues, formally leads others |
If you are unsure which expectations apply, the advertised classification and the APS work level standards are usually the most reliable reference, rather than assuming a criterion means the same thing at every level.
Common mistakes
- Restating the criterion in different words instead of describing a real situation.
- Listing general duties or a job description rather than one specific example.
- Leaving out the result, so the panel cannot tell what actually happened.
- Writing in "we" throughout, so your own contribution is unclear.
- Exceeding the stated word limit, which many panels will simply cut off or note.
- Copying an example from a template or another applicant, which reads as generic and risks repeating someone else's specific details.
Related templates and guides
Paper & Proof has a free worked selection criteria example, and a full APS Job Application Pack with worked examples at APS3/4, APS5/6 and EL1 level, including six annotated criterion responses. The same STAR and SAO planning approach carries across into interview preparation.