Developing Self and Others: The Behaviour People Leave Thin
What Developing Self and Others actually rewards, why course lists and vague mentoring claims fall short, and a weak versus strong worked example.
“Developing Self and Others” tends to arrive on a shortlist and get the same two answers, over and over. Either the candidate lists the training courses they went on this year, or they say they mentored a junior colleague, in a single sentence that never says what changed. Both read like assertions. Neither reads like evidence.
The framework is built around a word most answers skip: acting. Attending a course tells an assessor you turned up somewhere. It does not tell them you learned anything or changed what you did afterwards. Being told you are approachable, or that a junior colleague liked working with you, tells an assessor nothing about your own actions either. The definition asks for something narrower and harder to fake.
This post quotes the official definition and the grade descriptors for Developing Self and Others, shows why the two thin patterns above miss both halves of it, and sets a weak answer against a strong one on the same prompt so you can see exactly what closes the gap.
What Does “Developing Self and Others” Actually Ask You to Prove?
It asks you to prove two separate things: that you actively develop yourself, and that you actively help develop other people. The official definition, in the Success Profiles Behaviours guidance, reads: “Focus on continuous learning and development for self, others and the organisation as a whole.”
Read that sentence slowly and notice what it does not say. It does not say “attend training”. It does not say “be approachable” or “be a good mentor”. The word doing the work across both halves is development, and development is something you cause, not something that happens to you or around you.
Developing Self and Others is one of the nine named Behaviours in the framework, and Behaviours is only one of the elements a vacancy can assess, alongside Strengths, Ability, Experience and Technical. Your advert states which elements the campaign is using, so check it before you assume this Behaviour applies to you at all.
Why Do So Many Answers Go Thin?
Because both halves of this Behaviour tempt a shortcut, and the shortcuts feel like real evidence until you check them against the definition.
The self half tempts a list. A candidate names three courses, a qualification, maybe a conference, and stops there, as though the list itself were the proof. But a course is something that happened to you. It says nothing about what you identified needed developing beforehand, or what you changed in how you worked afterwards.
The others half tempts a vague claim. “I mentored a junior colleague” or “I am always happy to help people on my team” reads like a character reference, not a worked example. It has no situation, no specific action, and no outcome you can point to in another person’s capability.
Both patterns fail for the same underlying reason. They are assertions about the candidate rather than evidence of what the candidate did.
What Is the Difference Between Attending a Course and Developing Yourself?
Attending is passive. Developing is something you do to yourself on purpose, and the framework’s own descriptors say so directly. At Administrative Assistant (AA) and Administrative Officer (AO) grade, developing yourself is demonstrated when you “identify gaps in your skills and knowledge and make plans of how to develop these” and “listen to and act on feedback from colleagues to find areas you can develop.” Neither line mentions a course. Both describe a sequence you control: notice a gap, plan for it, and, in the second case, take feedback and change something because of it.
A course can sit inside a strong answer, as the plan you made once you had identified the gap. It cannot stand in for the gap-finding or the acting on it. An assessor reading a list of course titles has no way to tell whether you sought them out because you had spotted something missing, or whether your manager booked you on and you turned up.
Does the “Others” Half Require You to Manage Someone?
No, and this is the part candidates most often get wrong before they even start drafting. Many rule themselves out of this Behaviour because they have never managed anyone, when the framework does not ask for management at all, only for something you did that improved someone else’s capability.
At AA and AO grade, the descriptor for the others half is: “share knowledge and skills learnt with colleagues to contribute to the learning and development of the whole team.” That is available to anyone in any team, on their first day in post, if they already hold a relevant skill. There is no line anywhere in the AA and AO descriptor about direct reports, appraisals or formal responsibility for anyone.
At Executive Officer (EO) grade, one level up, the scope widens slightly but the requirement is still not management: “support the development plans of all colleagues, recognising how diversity of experience/background can help to build an inclusive team culture” and “consider the contributions of all team members and delegate work to aid the learning and development of all.” Delegating a piece of shared work in a way that helps a colleague learn is not the same as being their line manager. It is something an EO with no formal authority over that colleague can still do.
If your working assumption has been “I cannot answer this one, I have never managed anyone”, that assumption is not supported by either grade’s descriptor. Look instead for the moment you noticed a colleague could not do something yet, and did something specific about it.
What Does the Framework Expect at Your Grade?
At AA and AO grade or equivalent, the full published examples of developing yourself and others are that you: “identify gaps in your skills and knowledge and make plans of how to develop these”, “take time to achieve development objectives”, “listen to and act on feedback from colleagues to find areas you can develop”, and “share knowledge and skills learnt with colleagues to contribute to the learning and development of the whole team.”
At EO grade, the same guidance raises both halves from your own effort to a wider circle: “identify gaps in own and team’s skills and knowledge”, “set and consistently meet development objectives”, “seek learning opportunities”, “support the development plans of all colleagues, recognising how diversity of experience/background can help to build an inclusive team culture”, “consider the contributions of all team members and delegate work to aid the learning and development of all”, and “encourage and listen to developmental feedback from colleagues.”
Two things stay constant across both grades. Feedback appears on both lists, and in both cases the framework asks you to act on it, not just receive it. And the others half never requires formal authority, only that you did something that changed what a colleague could do.
PublicServicePathway is independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the UK Government or Civil Service. The quotes above are copied directly from the published framework so you can check them against the descriptor for your own grade rather than taking this post on trust.
What Separates a Weak Developing Self and Others Answer From a Strong One?
The two answers below respond to the same illustrative prompt. Both were written for this article to show the difference in practice. Neither is a real candidate’s submission, and neither should be copied.
The prompt
Tell us about a time you developed your own skills or knowledge, and a time you helped someone else develop theirs.
A weak answer
“Over the past year I have completed three internal training courses: a report-writing workshop, an Excel intermediate course and a customer service refresher. I found all three useful and would recommend them to colleagues. I have also mentored a junior colleague who joined the team six months ago. I am always available if she has questions and I think she would say I have been a good support to her since she started.”
A strong answer
“After a piece of written work I submitted was returned by my manager with the comment that my recommendations were ‘clear but not prioritised’, which stung more than I expected, I asked her to talk it through rather than just correcting the document myself. She showed me I was listing options in the order I had thought of them rather than the order that mattered to the reader. I rewrote my next three pieces of work using a simple rule, most important point first, and asked her to flag it again if the problem came back. It did not. Once I trusted the change had stuck, I ran the same short exercise with a colleague who had joined two months earlier and was getting the same comment on his own drafts. I showed him my before-and-after versions rather than just telling him the rule, and his next report went out without the same feedback attached.”
Why the strong answer clears the bar and the weak one does not
The weak answer’s self half is a list, and nothing on the list shows a gap being identified or a plan being made. “I found all three useful” is the writer’s opinion of the training, not evidence of development for self, which is the definition’s own phrase. The others half is worse: “I am always available” and “I think she would say” are both claims the assessor is asked to take on trust, with no situation, no specific action and no outcome. Neither half touches “listen to and act on feedback” or “share knowledge and skills learnt with colleagues”, the two AA and AO lines this prompt is built to test.
The strong answer opens with feedback that was uncomfortable to receive, names it precisely, and then does the harder thing: it shows what changed afterwards, across three subsequent pieces of work, not just a promise to do better. That is “listen to and act on feedback from colleagues to find areas you can develop”, almost word for word. The others half then reuses the same fix on a colleague, showing rather than telling, which answers “share knowledge and skills learnt with colleagues to contribute to the learning and development of the whole team.” No management responsibility appears anywhere in it. The writer is not anyone’s line manager. What makes it strong is that a specific capability changed in another person, and the writer can point to the moment it changed.
FAQ
Can I use feedback that was hard to hear, or does it make me look bad? Feedback that was uncomfortable and something you acted on is stronger evidence than a comfortable example, because it shows the “listen to and act on feedback” part of the AA and AO descriptor. An assessor is marking what you did with the feedback, not judging you for having received it.
Do I need to have managed someone to answer the “others” half? No. Neither the AA and AO nor the EO descriptor mentions management or direct reports. Sharing a specific skill with a colleague, or delegating a task in a way that helped someone learn, is enough at both grades.
Can a training course be part of my answer at all? Yes, as the action you took once you had identified a gap, or as part of a development plan you set for yourself. It cannot be the whole answer. The framework asks what you did before and after the course, not that you attended it.
How is this different from Working Together? Working Together is about forming effective relationships and sharing information and support with colleagues. Developing Self and Others is narrower: it is specifically about learning and development, for you or for someone else, not about collaboration in general.
Does the example need to show a measurable improvement? No specific figure is required. What the descriptors ask for is that a gap was identified, feedback was acted on, or knowledge was shared, and that something changed as a result, whether that is your own work or a colleague’s.
Check the Descriptor for Your Own Grade Before You Draft
Read the AA and AO or EO wording that actually applies to your vacancy, not a summary of it, before you write either half of this answer. If Strengths also appears on your advert alongside this Behaviour, the Strengths guide is worth reading before you decide which element a prompt is actually asking about.