EO capability guide · 2024 Framework
Communicating & Collaborating at EO
What the board is really testing when they ask an EO about working across teams, communicating clearly and consulting others, with one full high-scored answer set beside one that leaves marks on the table.
What the board is testing at EO
The capability
Communicating & Collaborating is one of the six capabilities profiled for Executive Officer under the 2024 Capability Framework. At EO it is marked through these sub-elements:
- Collaboration, Teamwork & Building Relationships
- Effective Communication
- Listening, Consulting & Engaging
At EO the board wants to see you work well across a boundary: with another unit, a frontline team, or the public. Not just being pleasant, but building the relationship that gets a shared piece of work done.
Effective communication is scored on clarity and fit for the audience: explaining a change so the person on the receiving end actually understands what to do differently.
Listening and consulting is the sub-element people forget. The strong answers show you asked the people affected before you acted, and changed something because of what they told you.
The question shapes boards use
Boards rarely name the capability outright. They ask for an example and score what you say against it. For Communicating & Collaborating at EO, the question usually lands in one of these shapes:
- Tell us about a time you worked with another team or unit to get something done.
- Describe a time you had to explain something complex or unwelcome clearly.
- Give an example of when you consulted people before making a change.
- Tell us about a time you built a working relationship that helped you deliver.
A high-scored answer, beside a low-scored one
Same candidate, same true example, two ways of telling it. The difference is not the story. It is whether the board can tick a behaviour and write down a result. Read both, then read the margin notes.
The scenario. A processing unit and a public-facing counter team share a form. The form is being redesigned, and the counter team keeps getting the same three questions from the public. The question asks for a time you worked with another team.
Our unit processed applications from a form, but it was the counter team who dealt with the public filling it in, and they were getting the same three questions over and over. When I was asked to help redesign the form, I did not want to guess at the fixes from my desk, so I went and sat with the counter team for a morning first.
I asked them to keep a tally for a week of every question the public asked, and I listened to a few live queries myself. Two of the three problems came from one badly worded box that almost everyone filled in wrong. I redrew that section, wrote a plain one-line instruction under it, and took the draft back to the counter team to check before it went anywhere, because they would be the ones living with it. I changed two things again on their feedback.
After the new form went live, the counter team told me those queries dropped by well over half, and the rejected-for-errors rate on our side fell too because the box was finally being filled in right. We have used that sit-with-the-frontline step for every form change since.
Why it scores
- Consulting is a real action: sitting with the counter team and running a week-long tally shows Listening and Consulting, not a token ask.
- Changed course on feedback: "I changed two things again on their feedback" proves he actually listened rather than just informed.
- Builds the relationship across a boundary: working with the frontline team as partners is the collaboration the board scores.
- The result is quantified on both sides: public queries down over half and the error-rejection rate down too.
- Communication fit for audience: a plain one-line instruction under the box is clarity aimed at the actual user.
I worked with another team on redesigning a form that was causing some issues. I have great communication skills and I get on well with everyone, so working across teams has never been a problem for me. We had a good working relationship and it all went smoothly.
The new form was much better in the end and both teams were happy with it. Good communication was really the key to the whole thing and it is something I pride myself on.
Why it loses marks
- Claims the skill: "great communication skills", "I pride myself on it" tells the board instead of showing a single act of communicating.
- No consultation shown: nothing about asking the other team or the public, so Listening and Consulting is missing entirely.
- No number: "much better", "went smoothly" gives the board no outcome to measure.
- Stays vague on the boundary: "worked with another team" with no detail of how the relationship actually helped deliver.
Quick take
Common questions
Is Communicating & Collaborating just about being friendly?
What is the difference between informing and consulting?
Start your example - your first one is free
A free account includes one AI coaching run on your own example, scored against Communicating & Collaborating the way a board would.
Write my first example