How assessors judge Working Together at the sift
Assessors do not read your statement and ask whether they like it. They score it against Working Together indicators for the grade. This guide explains the positive and negative signals they use, and what separates an acceptable 4 from a strong 5.
What the assessor is actually doing
At the sift, an assessor reads your statement with the behaviour descriptor beside them. They look for evidence that matches the indicators for that grade, and they score on the 1–7 scale used across the Civil Service. Most departments sift statements individually, so a weak Working Together statement can end an application even if everything else is strong.
Assessors are trained to score evidence, not impressions. They cannot give you credit for what you must have done, only for what the statement says you did. A well-told ordinary example beats an extraordinary one told vaguely, because the ordinary one contains scoreable actions.
Positive indicators assessors look for
Positive indicators are the signals that map to the Working Together descriptor. For this behaviour, they cluster around four themes:
- Relationship-building: you deliberately built or repaired a working relationship, rather than just transacting with people.
- Inclusion: you involved the right people early, sought out views different from your own and let them shape the outcome.
- Constructive conflict: you surfaced disagreement, heard all sides and resolved it without blame or escalation as a first resort.
- Shared ownership: you gave others a real stake — shared plans, shared credit, decisions made together — rather than directing alone.
Why this scores well
Statements that score well name the specific moves: 'I met each team leader separately before bringing them together' tells the assessor exactly how you built the relationship.
Negative indicators that pull scores down
Negative indicators are not just bad behaviour; they are absences and habits that stop the assessor finding evidence:
| Positive signal | Negative signal |
|---|---|
| 'I' actions that built the collaboration | 'We' throughout, so your contribution is invisible |
| Disagreement surfaced and resolved | Conflict hidden, avoided or instantly escalated |
| Other people's views changed the plan | The plan was yours and others simply complied |
| Credit shared and relationships that lasted | Lone-hero framing where you did everything |
| A result both sides benefited from | A result that only helped your own team |
The most common negative signal is the lone-hero story. Working Together statements must use 'I' for your actions, but the story should be about how you made a group work, not how you carried it. If everyone else in your statement is a spectator, the assessor has nothing to score.
What separates a 4 from a 5
On the 1–7 scale, 4 is generally an acceptable demonstration and 5 is a good one. For Working Together, a 4 typically shows a genuine example with clear personal actions and a result, but one dimension is thin: the disagreement is glossed over, the other people's views never change anything, or the collaboration ends when the task ends.
A 5 adds those dimensions. The example includes real friction and shows how you handled it. Different perspectives visibly shaped the outcome. The relationship or mechanism outlasted the task. The result is quantified and benefits more than one party. The difference is rarely drama; it is depth of evidence.
For example, 'we agreed a rota' might reach 4. Explaining that you met both team leaders separately, used six weeks of call data to make the discussion fair, and set up a monthly meeting that still runs is what pushes the same story to a 5.
How to check your draft against the criteria
Print the descriptor for your grade next to your draft. For each paragraph of your Action section, ask which indicator it evidences. If a sentence describes what happened but not what you did with other people, cut or rewrite it. Then check the result: does it contain a number, and does it show the collaboration — not just the task — worked?
Tip
Give your draft to someone who does not know the story and ask them one question: what did you personally do to help people work together? If they cannot answer in one sentence, neither can the assessor.
Frequently asked questions
In practice, yes. Assessors are given the behaviour descriptor and indicators for the grade and look for matching evidence, then award a score on the 1–7 scale. They score what is written, not what they can infer, so vague statements score low even when the underlying experience was strong.
The lone-hero story: the applicant describes a group task but only their own heroics, with 'we' hiding their personal actions and no sign of anyone else's contribution. Assessors cannot score teamwork from a story where nobody else does anything. Show the relationships, not just the task.
No — handled well, it raises it. Assessors look for constructive handling of disagreement because that is in the descriptors at most grades. What hurts is blame language, describing colleagues negatively, or escalating immediately to a manager. Show listening, fairness and a resolution you helped create.
Yes, if you show honest reflection and a clear result for the part that worked. Assessors score the evidence you present. A statement where everything went perfectly can look less credible than one where you describe a real setback, adjusted your approach and still delivered a measurable outcome.
Next step
Get the free STAR template — the same structure used in every example on this site.
Download the template pack