SJT Examples Mapped to Real Public Service Scenarios

The situational judgement test is the part of the Executive Officer assessment candidates talk about most after the fact, and usually not in a positive way. Plenty of people got solid scores on verbal and numerical and still ended up lower than expected on the Order of Merit because the SJT pulled them down. The first time I sat it, I was answering on instinct and I am fairly sure that cost me. Instinct is not always what the civil service is looking for.

This post walks through worked civil service SJT examples Ireland candidates can actually use, maps each scenario to the underlying behaviour being tested, and explains the reasoning behind the rankings so you can start to see the pattern.

---

What format does the publicjobs SJT use?

The SJT presented on publicjobs.ie assessments is not a tick-one-box test. The format most commonly reported by candidates in recent EO competitions is a rating scale: you are given a workplace scenario and a list of possible responses, and you rate each response on a scale from 1 (ineffective/counterproductive) to 5 (highly effective). Every response on the list gets a rating, and your score is based on how close your ratings are to the validated expert answer.

That scoring detail matters a lot. You are not just looking for the single best option. You are building a complete picture of how you would respond in a pressured, real-work situation. Fence-sitting, where you rate everything a 3 to avoid being wrong, scores very poorly because it signals nothing.

The scenarios are text-based: a paragraph describing a situation you would face as an EO, followed by five or more rated actions. PAS also uses an instant-messaging variant in some competitions where you choose one of three responses to a message chain. The exact format can vary by competition year, so check the candidate information booklet for your specific competition.

---

What do the scenarios actually look like?

Below are three worked examples. These are not taken from any published test; they are illustrative scenarios that reflect the types of situation reported by candidates and grounded in the 2024 Capability Framework dimensions the SJT is designed to measure, particularly Evidence Informed Delivery and Communicating and Collaborating.

Example 1: The deadline nobody told you about

Scenario: You are an Executive Officer in a government department. A colleague from another team sends you a message at 4:15 pm on a Friday saying they need a completed briefing note from your team by 9 am Monday. You were not previously aware of this deadline. Your line manager is on annual leave until Tuesday.

Possible responses - rate each 1 to 5:

A. Reply to the colleague to confirm you have seen the message, then complete the briefing note yourself over the weekend if needed.

B. Forward the message to your line manager’s personal mobile number so they can deal with it on their day off.

C. Do nothing until your manager returns on Tuesday, then explain you were not informed in time.

D. Contact a senior colleague within your team to make them aware and agree a plan between you before end of business Friday.

E. Reply to the colleague and ask them to extend the deadline given the short notice.

How to rank these:

The scenario is testing whether you take ownership of a time-sensitive problem, communicate proactively, and identify the right escalation level without dumping the problem on someone else or abandoning it.

Response D is close to the top. You are flagging the situation to a relevant colleague before the window closes and making a shared plan. That is collaborative, proportionate, and shows initiative without overstepping.

Response A is also strong. You are taking responsibility and following through. The only risk is that you are acting entirely alone on something that could benefit from a second pair of eyes.

Response E is middling. Asking for an extension is not unreasonable, but doing it as your first move without checking whether the deadline is genuinely fixed or flexible looks like avoidance rather than problem-solving.

Response B scores poorly. Interrupting a manager on annual leave when a peer-level solution is available shows poor judgement about escalation.

Response C scores lowest. Doing nothing when a deadline is known and the window is still open is the opposite of what Evidence Informed Delivery asks for.

---

Example 2: The citizen complaint that is not yours to answer

Scenario: A member of the public calls your office. They are upset and explain they have been waiting three months for a decision on an application. The application is handled by a different section. You can see in the shared system that the case is still open but you cannot see the detail.

Possible responses - rate each 1 to 5:

A. Tell the caller it is not your section and ask them to call the correct number.

B. Acknowledge the caller, check what information you are permitted to share, and give them a realistic explanation of who to contact and what to expect.

C. Promise the caller you will personally escalate the case and have someone call them back today.

D. Take the caller’s details and pass them to the correct section by email after the call, flagging the wait time.

E. Tell the caller the system shows the case is still open and that you cannot help further.

How to rank these:

This scenario tests Communicating and Collaborating alongside the civil service values of impartiality and service.

Response B is the highest. You are neither dismissing the caller nor overstepping your remit. You acknowledge, signpost accurately, and leave the caller with something useful. That is what a competent EO does.

Response D is solid but slightly weaker than B, because you are taking the right action without fully resolving the caller’s immediate confusion on the call itself.

Response C sounds helpful but it is not. You are making a promise you cannot keep and potentially creating a bigger problem. Integrity means not overpromising.

Response A is low. Redirecting without any acknowledgement or help is technically correct in terms of remit but signals no customer focus or initiative.

Response E is the weakest. Telling someone the system shows their case is open and then offering nothing more is unhelpful and likely to inflame the situation.

---

Example 3: The colleague who is cutting corners

Scenario: You notice that a colleague on your team has been submitting summary reports that appear to be missing required sign-off steps. The submissions are going through unchallenged. Your colleague is friendly and more experienced than you. There is no direct harm visible yet but the procedure exists for a reason.

Possible responses - rate each 1 to 5:

A. Raise the issue informally with the colleague directly before escalating anywhere.

B. Say nothing because the colleague is more experienced and may have a reason you are not aware of.

C. Raise it with your line manager, citing the specific procedure and what you have observed.

D. Check whether there is a formal reporting mechanism and use it immediately without speaking to the colleague first.

E. Mention it to a different colleague casually to see if they have noticed.

How to rank these:

Integrity is explicitly listed as one of the values publicjobs.ie says the SJT assesses. This scenario is testing it directly.

Response A is probably the top response. Raising it informally first is proportionate, gives the colleague a chance to explain, and respects the working relationship. If the conversation does not resolve it, escalation is still available to you.

Response C is also strong. Going directly to your line manager is appropriate, and depending on the severity of the breach, it may be the correct first step. Whether it ranks above or below A depends on how serious the procedure gap is.

Response B is clearly low. Deferring to experience when you have seen a potential breach is not impartiality, it is avoidance.

Response D may feel like integrity in action but skipping any direct communication and going straight to a formal mechanism for what may be an oversight reads as disproportionate. Context matters.

Response E scores lowest. Gossiping about a compliance concern instead of addressing it is contrary to integrity and achieves nothing.

---

What is the SJT actually measuring at EO level?

The 2024 Capability Framework replaced the older Competency Framework and organises behaviours across dimensions including Evidence Informed Delivery, Leading and Empowering, and Communicating and Collaborating. The SJT scenarios are designed to surface how you naturally respond to workplace situations that map to these dimensions.

At EO level, the biggest clusters being assessed appear to be:

• Ownership and initiative: do you act when it is your job to act, or do you pass the problem up or along?
• Proportionate escalation: do you know when to involve a manager and when that would be disproportionate?
• Integrity under social pressure: do you follow the correct procedure even when it is slightly uncomfortable?
• Citizen and colleague communication: do you acknowledge, signpost, and close loops?

For the full picture of how these map to the test structure, the publicjobs situational judgement test guide covers format, scoring, and where the SJT fits in the competition process. To understand the framework behind each scenario type, the 2024 Capability Framework behind every SJT scenario goes through each dimension.

---

Frequently asked questions

Does the SJT count toward the Order of Merit ranking?

Yes. Based on consistent candidate reports from the 2024 and 2026 EO competitions, the SJT and the verbal reasoning test both contribute to the Order of Merit score that determines your position in the interview queue. The numerical reasoning test is a pass/fail threshold only. This means your SJT score has a direct effect on how quickly you are called for interview in the demand-led batch system.

Why do two SJT options often feel equally valid?

They are designed to. The SJT is not testing whether you can identify the obviously right answer against three obviously wrong ones. It is testing the gradient of your judgement. Two actions can both be reasonable but one can be more proportionate, more timely, or better aligned with civil service values than the other. If you are rating everything in the middle to avoid being wrong, you will lose points on every question.

Is the job simulation test the same as the SJT?

Candidates often use the two terms interchangeably, and in practice they refer to the same Stage 2 component. The publicjobs.ie documentation refers to a “situational judgement test” and a “job simulation exercise.” The text-based scenario format described in this post is the most commonly reported version for EO competitions.

Can I practice with materials that actually resemble the publicjobs format?

Most available SJT practice packs are built for UK-style most-effective/least-effective formats or generic corporate scenarios. They do not reflect the rating-scale format, the euro-denominated numerical contexts, or the Irish public-sector scenarios that feature in the actual assessment. Generic prep is better than nothing but it will not train your instincts for the specific judgements PAS is looking for.

---

Try a real practice session before your test date

If reading through these worked examples made you realise you had been approaching the SJT differently, that is useful information and it is not too late to recalibrate. PublicServicePathway has a free taster with no card required so you can see what Irish-format practice actually feels like before you commit to anything.

Try the free SJT taster at psp-taster.pages.dev and see where your rankings land against the expert answers.