Strength Based On GES Flashcards
(28 cards)
You’re asked to interpret economic data to advise on a live policy decision, with little time to prepare. What do you do?
I thrive in situations like this. I’d begin by scanning the dataset to identify key trends quickly, drawing on my intuition for which indicators matter most in a policy context. I’d break down the question and link it to relevant economic theory to guide my thinking. My instinct is to create clarity under pressure — whether by prioritising what’s most decision-critical or simplifying assumptions where needed. I’m confident using data to drive timely insights, and I stay calm when working to tight deadlines.
You’re collaborating on a cross-government project where each department has different priorities. How do you approach this?
I naturally look for common ground. I’d start by understanding what each team values most, then frame my contributions in a way that links those aims to shared outcomes. I enjoy building rapport and seeing how different perspectives fit together. When tensions arise, I stay constructive — keeping things focused on the goal, not personal positions. I see collaboration as a strength, and I’m at my best when helping a team align around a challenge that requires diverse input.
You’ve been asked to analyse a policy proposal that conflicts with your own view. How do you approach the task?
I take pride in being objective. I’d focus on the evidence and apply economic frameworks rigorously, regardless of personal views. I’m naturally analytical, and I enjoy the challenge of understanding arguments from all sides. Rather than forcing a conclusion, I’d present trade-offs clearly and outline assumptions. I see value in making balanced, evidence-led contributions, especially when the stakes are high or views are polarised. It’s important to me that decision-makers can trust my impartiality.
You’re in a meeting where senior officials challenge your economic modelling. What’s your reaction?
I welcome challenge — it shows people are engaged and helps me test the robustness of my work. I stay composed and listen carefully before responding. If something needs clarification, I explain my assumptions clearly and link them to the evidence. If I’ve made an error, I own it and adapt. I don’t see scrutiny as a threat — it’s a chance to improve and learn. I value rigour and enjoy situations where I have to think on my feet while still being respectful and clear.
You’ve been given a completely unfamiliar area of economics to lead on. How do you get up to speed?
I’m energised by steep learning curves. I’d start by getting a feel for the big picture — reading relevant literature, talking to colleagues, and identifying the key policy questions. I learn fast by doing, so I’d take on a small piece of work to build confidence. I’m curious and persistent, and I don’t mind asking questions early on if it helps me progress faster. I’ve often found that coming in fresh helps me spot things others miss — I bring a structured approach and ask useful questions that challenge assumptions.
You’re asked to simplify a complex piece of economic analysis so that a minister can make a quick decision. How do you respond?
I’m at my best when translating complexity into clarity. I’d start by identifying the single most important message the minister needs to know, then strip away detail that doesn’t serve that decision. I instinctively think about the audience’s priorities — in this case, speed and clarity — so I’d reframe technical findings into plain language and likely outcomes. I care about making sure evidence is actually used, not just technically accurate. This kind of challenge suits both my analytical mindset and my communication strengths.
You’re working on a long-term project, but another urgent task suddenly lands on your desk. How do you approach the situation?
I’m naturally decisive under pressure. I’d pause to reassess my priorities and timelines, balancing short-term urgency with longer-term delivery. I’m comfortable switching gears quickly without losing focus. Where possible, I’d renegotiate deadlines or ask for help if needed, but I stay solutions-focused and try not to let pressure disrupt my momentum. I’m motivated by responsibility and like to keep people in the loop so they can trust I’ll deliver. I see these moments as a test of good judgement and resilience.
A senior economist gives you negative feedback on a piece of work you thought was strong. What’s your response?
I see feedback as an essential part of growth. My first reaction would be to listen carefully, ask clarifying questions, and try to understand their reasoning fully before reacting. I’m reflective by nature and want to improve — I’m not defensive. Once I’ve understood the gaps, I’d rework the analysis or communication, and I’d take note of what I can apply to future work. I
You’re working with a policy team that doesn’t have much experience with economics. They’re unsure how to use your analysis. What do you do?
I’d take time to understand what they’re trying to achieve and frame my analysis around that. I enjoy building those bridges — helping non-specialists feel confident in using economic evidence. I’d explain the analysis in a way that highlights real-world implications, not just statistical output. I’m naturally empathetic in how I communicate, and I believe collaboration works best when everyone feels included and informed. It motivates me to see my work shaping good policy decisions, especially when I’ve helped make it accessible.
You’re on a project with tight timelines and a team that’s still forming. Everyone’s waiting for someone to take the lead. What do you do?
I naturally step up in moments like that — not to control things, but to give the team direction. I’d suggest we clarify responsibilities and timelines so we can move forward together. I’m someone who thrives in structure but doesn’t wait around for permission to act. I’d keep checking in with others to make sure we’re all aligned and supporting each other under pressure. I enjoy motivating people and creating momentum, especially when the group needs a push to get going.
You’re given conflicting advice from two senior colleagues about how to approach an economic appraisal. How do you handle it?
I’d listen to both perspectives carefully, then step back and weigh them against the objectives of the appraisal. I try not to defer blindly — I like to think critically, especially when there’s ambiguity. I’d examine the assumptions behind each suggestion and consider how each approach might affect outcomes, especially for the intended users of the analysis. If needed, I’d ask for clarification or even suggest a compromise approach. I enjoy using my judgement to navigate complexity and stay focused on impact, even when others disagree.
You’ve got to explain the economic rationale behind a controversial policy to stakeholders who are likely to disagree. What’s your approach?
I’d focus on listening first — understanding their concerns so I can meet them where they are. I don’t shy away from difficult conversations, and I think clarity builds trust even when people disagree. I’d explain the evidence base behind the policy and the economic trade-offs involved, avoiding technical jargon but staying honest about the uncertainties. I see communication as more than just explaining — it’s about connecting. I find it rewarding when I can help others feel heard while still giving them confidence in the analysis.
You’ve been working on a high-profile report for weeks, and two days before submission, the scope changes. How do you deal with it?
I’d re-centre immediately on the new objective — what success now looks like. I’m good at staying calm and getting practical under pressure, especially when the stakes are high. I’d triage the existing work to see what still fits, what needs reframing, and what’s no longer relevant. If help is needed, I’d flag that early — I don’t believe in hiding difficulties. My focus would be on delivering something that still meets the brief and reflects quality. I find these moments energising because they demand adaptability, judgement, and clear thinking.
A junior colleague is struggling with the economic techniques needed for a shared project. What do you do?
I naturally want to help — I see team success as shared success. I’d offer to go over the tricky bits with them, using plain examples or walking through it together. I know what it’s like to feel stuck, so I try to create a safe space for questions. I also believe in encouraging autonomy, so I’d check in later to see if they’re gaining confidence. Supporting others is something I enjoy — it brings out both my people skills and my understanding of the material.
You’re asked to model the potential economic impact of a new policy, but the data is incomplete and messy. How do you proceed?
This is where I come alive analytically. I’d assess what data is usable and where assumptions can reasonably fill gaps — always flagging uncertainty clearly. I’m comfortable dealing with imperfect information, as long as I document decisions transparently. I’d use economic theory and judgement to shape a model that’s fit-for-purpose, even if not perfect. I enjoy this kind of challenge — it’s where evidence, logic, and communication all come together to support decision-making.
You’re asked to contribute to a cost-benefit analysis, but the benefits are hard to quantify. How do you respond?
I’d start by identifying where qualitative judgement can complement the numbers. I’m comfortable using structured reasoning to explain value even when it’s not easily measurable. I’d explore proxies, external benchmarks, or sensitivity analysis where possible, and be transparent about limitations. What matters to me is that decision-makers still have a clear, honest picture. I enjoy this kind of work — it blends technical thinking with creativity and a strong sense of public responsibility.
You’ve written a draft report and get feedback that it’s too technical for a policy audience. What do you do?
I take that as useful insight. I’d step back and ask, “What do they really need to know?” Then I’d reframe the report so the core messages are clearer, using plainer language and visuals where helpful. I care a lot about whether my work actually gets used — not just how precise it is. I find it satisfying to turn detailed analysis into something that empowers decision-makers. Communicating well is a skill I’ve worked hard to develop, and I value the impact it can have.
You’re working on a model but you keep finding small errors as you go. How do you handle it?
I try not to let frustration get in the way — I see this as part of the process. I’d pause and methodically test the logic, ideally breaking it into smaller steps to isolate issues. I enjoy refining things until they’re solid — there’s something satisfying about making sure a model holds up. If I suspect deeper issues, I’d ask a colleague to sense-check with me. I value precision, but I also know when to stop chasing perfection and focus on what’s good enough for the decision at hand.
You’re asked to brief a senior official with very limited time. They need the essentials in two minutes. How do you approach it?
I’d think hard about what matters most: what’s the decision, what are the key risks or trade-offs, and what evidence backs each point. I’d focus on being sharp, not shallow — precise wording, confident delivery, and no unnecessary background. I enjoy these moments because they test clarity of thought under pressure. I like giving people what they need without overloading them, especially when their time is limited but the stakes are high.
You’re working with operational staff who don’t see the relevance of your economic input. What do you do?
I’d start by understanding their view — if they’re sceptical, they probably haven’t seen how the analysis helps them. I’d explain what economics can add in real terms: whether that’s saving time, improving outcomes, or informing better decisions. I enjoy bridging gaps like this. It motivates me when I can connect technical thinking to frontline realities. I see economics as a practical tool, not just theory — and I like showing others how it can support their goals.
You’re given a dataset with unusual results that don’t match your expectations. What’s your instinctive reaction?
My instinct is curiosity, not panic. I’d double-check the data and methods first to rule out errors. If it holds up, I’d start thinking about what the data might be telling me — could something have changed in the real world? I like puzzles like this because they challenge assumptions. It’s also where good policy starts — spotting when reality doesn’t match our models. I’d want to understand it, not explain it away.
You’re asked to make a recommendation on a policy that would benefit one group but disadvantage another. What do you focus on?
I focus on transparency and fairness. I’d start by mapping out the trade-offs and who gains or loses, being clear about scale, timing, and uncertainty. I’m not afraid to highlight uncomfortable findings — I think honesty is part of public service. What matters to me is that decisions are informed, not convenient. I enjoy helping others see the full picture, even when there’s no perfect answer. That’s where good economics can really make a difference.
You’re asked to brief a ministerial team on a policy area you’ve only just joined. How do you prepare?
I’d immerse myself fast — I’m used to picking things up quickly and finding the core message. I’d identify key numbers, known challenges, and the most likely questions. I’d also speak to colleagues to sense-check my understanding. I don’t need to know everything — just the most relevant things for the decision at hand. I enjoy getting up to speed on new topics because it keeps my thinking fresh, and I like the responsibility of shaping how others understand an issue.
You’re asked to lead a review of past policy performance. What’s your natural starting point?
I’d begin by understanding what success was meant to look like and whether the available evidence captures that. I like thinking about outcomes, not just outputs. I’d also look at any unintended consequences — those can be just as revealing. I naturally question assumptions and think in terms of impact. I find evaluation rewarding because it gives the public real accountability, and it helps future policy be smarter, fairer, and more effective.
