How do you ensure that you are a valued member of the team? Please provide an example where you have been able to contribute to the team’s success.

The pinnacle of being a valued member of the team is identifying the attribute that you possess that will be the most useful to achieving success for the team. Team members should supplement each other to produce the best collective result. Identifying how I could contribute best by utilising my skillset ensures that I can be a valued member of a team, through adapting to any situation presented.

[Feedback: Given the 250-word limit per answer, this paragraph is a little superfluous. When writing an answer to a competency question, stick to the STAR structure and avoid introductory paragraphs. Furthermore, this candidate has used the second personal pronoun in ‘[…] identifying the attribute that you possess that will be […]’ – you should avoid using it in your writing as (1) you should not be addressing the reader, and (2) it lends an unwanted informal tone to your writing.]

An example of a time when I was able to contribute to a team’s success was my involvement as the leader of a group that aimed to help the homeless in Cambridge. Winning the competition for spreading the most awareness and raising the greatest amount of money out of the competing teams signifies success from the team activity. Subsequently featuring in the Cambridge Mail demonstrates how as a collective entity my team strove to excel in the task undertaken.

[Feedback: The candidate quickly covers the ‘situation’ of their example; however, it quickly becomes unclear as to the task at hand. This is almost certainly due to the reduced word count effected by the first paragraph.

When writing your answers, you should remember that the reader has never read about your examples before and will not reread your answers to better understand what you have written. Therefore, make sure you explicitly lay out what the situation and the task at hand was. In light of this, the candidate could have improved their answer by introducing the group (what was the name), and the competition (the name, who it was organised by and what the objective was).]

As leader of the group, I evidenced my ability to take control of a situation and achieve the best possible outcome. It was valuable to work collaboratively by delegating responsibilities to each individual team member where that individual believed that they would be able to be of the most use. It was particularly important to be able to adapt to any obstacles faced, such as when a team member felt uncomfortable fulfilling one of the responsibilities attributed to them. Being able to adapt to the situation to provide a viable alternative is a skill vital to the work of a commercial solicitor.

[Feedback: This last paragraph is quite jumbled and comes as a result of not adhering to a strict STAR structure. Whilst the candidate’s answer does a decent job at highlighting their competencies, thought processes and introspection, it does not fit into the overall direction of the answer, namely, it does not coherently demonstrate how the candidate’s chosen example substantiates their teamwork competency.

When you write the ‘action’ part of your STAR answers, systematically work through: (1) what specific actions you undertook, and (2) why you undertook those actions. You should note that even when you are asked about working in a team, you need to discuss what you did to help the team, not what the team in general did.

When you write the ‘result’ part of your STAR answers, ensure that you discuss the result/response/outcome of the overall scenario and how your actions specifically contributed to such a successful result.

Finally, whilst the quality of your writing must be up to scratch, you should prioritise clear, content-filled writing over embellished, vague prose. You will have a chance to show off your articulacy in the interview but in the application form you must prioritise the communication of content.]

Can you tell us about a time when you have worked in a team? This could be in a work, educational or social capacity. (350)

• What were your particular responsibilities?

• How did you have to adapt your communication style?

• What did you learn from the experience?

During my time working at [redacted name of pub], I assisted with the training of new employees. This required a high degree of coordination with my colleagues because we had to balance the completion of pressing tasks whilst ensuring that newcomers were being sufficiently trained.

Without being given clear guidance on how to assist with the training, I used my discretion and initiative to help newcomers with the tasks that I had needed assistance with when I had been new. For example, during periods when the bar was not too busy, I took the opportunity to teach my colleagues how to make certain drinks that I knew were popular with our customers. I demonstrated where the correct glasses were and how to measure the alcohol accurately. It was important that I was acutely aware of the fluctuating levels of demand to ensure that priority was always given to serving customers promptly. I also learnt to be sensitive to the needs and feelings of each new team-member, particularly with regards to understanding how much training they had already received that day and how much information they could reasonably be expected to retain. This required regular communication with my new colleagues and as a result I formed strong bonds with them, built on trust and confidence.

Since I was not given direct responsibility for the training of a particular employee or for a specific task, it was necessary to frequently consult with my other colleagues to ensure I was not repeating training that had already been delivered. This was inefficient. I suggested to my manager that we divide and allocate the training to different team members. In this way, training would be more coordinated, and the newcomers would benefit from getting to know each of their colleagues in turn. My manager accepted my suggestion and implemented a mentorship-type training program.

Feedback: In competency questions like this, we advise following the CAR structure as this candidate has done. You should start by offering a concise summary of the context of your situation (including an overview of any tasks you needed to complete). Then, you should analyse specific examples of the steps you took to complete said tasks. Finally, you should explain the results of your actions in as much detail as possible. You should quantify the results with precise numbers and statistics wherever you can.

The candidate does well in outlining the time they worked within a team and the specific challenges they faced. You should also note how the candidate paints a clear picture of the exact steps they took to address these various challenges. The candidate addresses each challenge they faced before analysing in some detail how they overcame each.

We would also note that examples from non-legal work experience (such as hospitality work) are perfectly valid. These questions allow you to draw upon any example or experience from your wider profile, provided you can convincingly discuss the relevant competencies you picked up from these.

To improve, the candidate needed to drill down on how they adapted their communication style. The candidate briefly touches upon the fact that each newcomer had varying levels of experience, but it is insufficient for the candidate simply to assert that they “learned to be sensitive” to each newcomer’s needs. Instead, the recruiter would need specific explanations and examples of how the candidate adapted their communication styles so as to ensure a positive outcome. This is crucial because CRS specifically want you to discuss how you adapted and varied your methods of communication. The candidate would also have needed to elaborate on the overall outcome of their efforts, in keeping with the CAR structure. All we are told is that the manager implemented a mentoring programme in response to one of the candidate’s suggestions. This leaves some doubts about the overall impact of the candidate’s actions. You should always describe the outcome of your actions as specifically as possible for this reason.

The candidate also makes a minor spelling slip-up by spelling “programme” as “program”, which might lead a cynical recruiter to question the candidate’s writing proficiency. “Team-member” should also just be “team member”.

Please give an example of how you have made a positive contribution to a team.

Throughout secondary school, I was actively aware of the effect music had on my personal development. I felt lucky leading my school orchestra and playing in various nationally acclaimed ensembles. Yet, I became increasingly conscious of the lack of music access in my area. Understanding the true benefits of music-making, I pitched an idea to school governors to teach workshops to primary schools which was well received, especially as it was a programme completely unheard of. Whilst preparing, I considered how children approach learning and which techniques would pique interest, making sessions more productive. After the first workshop, my team and I analysed feedback to improve. Whilst everyone thought the programme was fine and did not need any changes, I realised that we could enhance the children's experience if we prepared alternative exercises and had the option of a backup programme. To provide this, I tested the new methods with small market-research groups to assess the effectiveness of the new approach and evaluate any further room for improvement. Just before the second workshop, a member disclosed her discomfort in presenting. Although this was stressful under pressure, it was important to me that everyone was comfortable. Therefore, I reallocated and delegated new roles whilst making sure there remained an element of flexibility so that people could seamlessly transition into others parts if needed. Following the success of the testing and the subsequent second workshop, we were able to confidently present the innovated workshop to schools throughout the year.

[Feedback: This is a typical competency-focused question which you may find on other application forms. The question warrants a situation, task, action, result (‘STAR’) or context, action, result (‘CAR’) structured response which is focused on the competency of teamwork (also referred to as ‘collaboration’).

The candidate begins by providing substantial contextual information. You should observe how the candidate leads the reader through their answer step-by-step, allowing the reader to get a better sense of the candidate’s motivations and thoughts about the scenario. You must remember that the recruiter does not know you personally, and, therefore, in these kinds of answers, you must include some expository information to ensure that the recruiter can fully understand what went on and the magnitude of your actions in the given context.

Furthermore, this answer is strong as it alludes to multiple competencies. Although the prompt demands that the candidate focuses on the competency of teamwork, such prompts also provide the opportunity to showcase other skills and traits. You should be aware that good teamwork often involves other competencies, such as organisation, communication, and persuasion. In this answer, the candidate alludes to several of these other competencies through the description and explanation of the actions they took. This is excellent as it shows the recruiter that the candidate understands what teamwork actually entails and highlights that they have a wealth of other competencies to deploy alongside their collaborative abilities.

Finally, the candidate’s answer should also be commended for having a clear structure. You should observe that the candidate broadly adopts a CAR structure. They begin with the scenario’s context by discussing the situation’s background (the workshops) before highlighting an issue that they faced (a team member’s discomfort concerning presenting). They then discuss what they did to resolve the issue prior to mentioning what the result was. By adopting a clear structure, you will help the recruiter to follow your answer and ensure that you do not miss out on any key details from your response.

To improve this answer, the candidate needed to have spent more of their word count on the action and result parts of their answer rather than the context. The question asks the candidate to focus on the competency of teamwork. However, over two-thirds of the candidate’s response is dedicated to exposition. Whilst the candidate’s efforts and motivations to set up the workshops are certainly commendable, they should not be the focus of this answer as they have nothing to do with positively contributing to a team. You should remember that such context is important to set up your answer, but it should be there to support the discussion of the issue at hand and your actions.

As the candidate spends most their word count on contextual information, they leave very little room to discuss why they needed to contribute to their team and how they did so. Indeed, the candidate’s description of their actions lacks specificity. Try to avoid standalone descriptions like ‘delegated’ or ‘[made] sure there remained an element of flexibility’; they are vague and do not communicate much to the recruiter. Instead, you should give examples and evidence of specific actions that you took. In doing so, you will show the recruiter what you did rather than merely telling them.

Finally, the candidate needed to have proofread their work before submission. The candidate misses an apostrophe when writing ‘so that people could seamlessly transition into others parts if needed’. With the application process becoming increasingly competitive, you should be aware that recruiters are likely to reject applications with typographical errors. Therefore, you should ensure that you use a spellchecker (such as Microsoft Word or Grammarly) when drafting your responses. Furthermore, you can also give your answers to a family member or trusted friend to proofread before you submit.]

Provide an example of how you made a positive contribution to a team and what the outcome was. (200 words max)*

I recently took part in a Model United Nations (MUN) 3-day conference, where I was working with 35 students and graduate representatives from 15 different countries. Our task was to collaborate with culturally diverse students to find resolutions to the social and economic causes of poverty. The process was challenging; There was a heated discussion on whether the MUN fund and policies should be more geared to health or education. I took charge of the situation and first asked the chair to give us a 10-minute break to cool-off. I then addressed the delegate groups separately. I used my cross-cultural awareness by actively listening and taking notes of what the delegates were saying, while also emphasizing that we had a common objective. I used affirmative language and nodded to encourage others to speak. I enjoyed facilitating clear communication among difficult delegates who remained at odds and the thought of completing the project energized me to continue despite the initial challenges. I felt a great sense of satisfaction our resolution paper was passed by the chair and I won the Honourable Mention award at the conference for my contributions and diplomacy skills.

Feedback: The candidate follows the “CAR” (“context”, “action”, “result”) structure throughout their answer, ensuring that it is both comprehensive and easy to follow. To improve the readability of their answer, the candidate could have split it into three paragraphs, one of each of the elements of the “CAR” structure, though this is a relatively minor point. At the same time, the candidate provides precise figures throughout their answer, e.g., “a […] 3-day conference”, “35 students”, “graduate representatives from 15 different countries”, outlining the context behind their chosen example in a vivid manner and impressing upon the recruiter the significance thereof. What makes their answer particularly effective, however, is the fact that it explains why teamwork was necessary within the given situation and what the candidate did in order to make a positive contribution to their team, step by step, in illuminating detail, e.g., “I used my cross-cultural awareness by actively listening and taking notes”, “I used affirmative language and nodded to encourage others to speak”. 

Shoosmiths' people are collaborative and frequently work together to provide solutions to clients. Tell us about a time when you worked in a team to solve a problem. In your answer you should include details about your role in the team and other team members, and how the outcome came about.

As an NHS legal assistant, our department received a court order for the disclosure of a mother and child's medical records and relevant staff statements by the 23rd January. The court orders were issued on the 6th January, but the solicitor did not receive the orders until the 21st January. Therefore, we had two days to disclose the records, when usually this is spread over a week. My supervisor requested that myself and another colleague assist her. She informed us of the difficult timeline, but I was determined to help.

[Feedback: This question focuses on the competencies of teamwork and problem-solving. As with the previous question, we would recommend adopting a clear STAR or CAR structure when writing your answer in response to this question.

In this first paragraph, the candidate nicely lays out the requisite context for their answer and the issue at hand. Importantly, the candidate provides specific dates, which helps the recruiter to understand the candidate’s predicament and the magnitude of the task. You should note, therefore, that the inclusion of specific detail is essential in crafting a good answer. The more detail you include, such as names, dates, times, and statistics, the easier it will be for the recruiter to understand your answer and build a picture of the kind of candidate you are.

There are no obvious points for improvement for this section. The candidate could have chosen to omit the last sentence, as it does not add anything substantive to the answer (its purpose is to add colour and flair). However, this is only necessary if the candidate was short on words and needed the extra word count to flesh out another more important part of their answer. You should remember that substantive content should always be prioritised over flair. A flowery, engaging answer that has little meaningful content will inevitably be rejected over a less engaging but more detailed and fleshed-out response.]

We first created a detailed plan to simplify the task. I regularly use hospital databases for claim preparations. I took responsibility for gathering the mother's records. My colleague specialises in infant claims and would gather the child's files. My supervisor often communicates with the hospital staff and knew best how to obtain statements. Hence, we planned to solve the problem by utilising our skill sets.

[Feedback: This paragraph bridges the gap between the context included in the first paragraph and the specific details of the candidate’s actions (included in the paragraph below). This section contains some additional information as to how the candidate and their colleague divided up the work and operated together. This is an excellent section as it helps the candidate to answer the question fully. You should note that the question asks the candidate to ‘include details about your role in the team and other team members’. Hence, this section operates to describe the candidate’s role in the context of their team (and what their other teammates did).

Once again, there is little to be improved with respect to this paragraph. The candidate could have been a little more explicit when it came to describing their specialism and role within the team. We would have rephrased the second and third sentences as follows:

‘I took responsibility for gathering the mother’s records, as I have extensive experience using hospital databases to prepare for medical negligence claims’.

This rephrasing puts extra emphasis on the candidate’s suitability for their chosen role within the team and better elucidates the supporting evidence for such suitability.]

I located the mother's records. However, I was unable to find her medical files from when she lived in Ireland. I informed my colleague. They explained how the hospital uses a separate database for the transfer of patient files. Additionally, my colleague could not identify notes relating to the child's previous admittance. I suggested checking the accident and emergency log as it is usually the first entry point. By collaborating to offer support, we completed our tasks. We updated our checklist and assisted our supervisor in gathering the statements, as she had a meeting to attend.

[Feedback: In this paragraph, the candidate goes into more detail concerning their actions and some of the problems both they and their colleague faced. The candidate has done well in providing a well-structured response. You should note how the candidate uses short sentences to make the answer easier to read. Furthermore, the candidate focuses their discussion on how they helped their teammate and how their teammate helped them. This is the essence of collaboration and teamwork and is something you should focus on in your answers.

Additionally, the candidate mentions how they worked with their teammate to assist their supervisor, given her unavailability. This is also an excellent inclusion. As a trainee solicitor, you will often be asked to take on some of your supervisor’s work when they are made unavailable. Hence, the candidate is demonstrating that they have not only the requisite collaborative skills but also real-world experience that will aid them in being a good trainee solicitor.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have elaborated further on how they ‘completed [their] tasks’. You should remember that the recruiter wants you to show them how you did things rather than merely have you tell them. In this case, the answer would be greatly improved if the candidate explained how they accessed the different databases and collected the relevant information.]

The following morning, we prepared and sent the disclosures to the solicitor. We achieved the deadline by having a clear understanding of our roles and by communicating struggles effectively. I developed my teamwork skills in a high-pressure situation, and I felt accomplished for successfully collaborating to complete the task.

[Feedback: This section focuses on the result of the candidate’s actions. This is a nice conclusion to the answer. The candidate describes how they sent off the documents and met the deadline. They also provide a small reflection on how they employed their teamwork skills and the gratification they felt. You must always remember to include a result/response section when you write your answers to competency-based questions. This section tells the recruiter that your actions were successful and gives you a chance to explain to the recruiter why the competency being tested was important. 

It is difficult to suggest improvements for this section. The word count is quite restrictive, and the candidate has only been able to allocate 49 words to it. Ideally, we would suggest including some more information as to the result of the candidate’s actions. For example, the candidate could have detailed what happened after they submitted the disclosures. Did everything go smoothly? Was their supervisor happy with them, and did they give them positive feedback? Nevertheless, given the restrictions, this is a decent result/response paragraph which serves its conclusionary purpose.]

Shoosmiths people are collaborative. What are the characteristics of a successful team? Share an example of an excellent team you have been a part of, what you achieved together and explain how this experience might benefit your future career. (300w/300w)

A successful team is one which can communicate and is well organised. For my first undergraduate dissertation I chose to make a short-film which I had to write, produce, direct and edit myself, but every other role had to be distributed to other people. I auditioned actors, interviewed make-up artists, camera operators and others. Finally, I managed to put together a group of 20 cast and crew ready to work on the film. We only had a few shooting days scheduled and a strict deadline. I had to make sure that everyone received their instructions in advance so they could be adequately prepared. I found that this gave everyone enough time to not only familiarise themselves with the material, but to also let them be creative with it. One of such creative changes was made by my camera operator, who changed the storyboard to experiment with a handheld camera during a fight scene which turned out to fit the style of the film better. There were times at which our plans were changed last minute, when some of the crew had to cancel right before the shoot day. However, due to great communication between the crew members I was told that this might be a possibility in advance, which in turn allowed me to have a replacement in place. As a solicitor I would often get to work as a part of a team, therefore I think that learning the team dynamics beforehand is crucial for the success of the team. Each of the solicitors in the team will have their delegated tasks and it is therefore very important that everyone can feel they can carry them out to the best of their abilities. They can only do so in a well organised group who can also communicate well.

Feedback: As with the previous question, this is effectively a competency question with slightly more nuance. Not only would you need to provide a STAR-structured example of a time that you worked in a team, but you also need to use that example to illustrate (1) what makes an effective team and (2) how that experience developed skills beneficial for your future career (an extension of the “result” section). We recommend that you lead in with a concise 1-2 sentence summary outlining what you believe the relevant characteristics are, before using your STAR example to illustrate your point (as the candidate has done here).

As with the previous answer, the candidate has done well in contextualising the situation and explaining the specific challenges they faced. First, they provide good (albeit excessive) detail on the context of the situation. Secondly, the candidate describes the “tasks”/challenges persuasively. We are told that the candidate managed a large team whilst having to follow a strict deadline of a few days. This makes the rest of the candidate’s answer more persuasive, since the recruiter understands the gravity of the situation that the candidate overcame.

This answer nonetheless suffers similar flaws as the previous answer. We would note the following as particular points for improvement:

1. The candidate describes the tasks/challenges in far too much detail. In total, the candidate 116 words from “We only had a few shooting days scheduled…” to “… when some of the crew had to cancel right before the shoot day” describing the various challenges they faced. This constitutes well over 1/3rd of the word count. The candidate should have written about the tasks/challenges far more concisely, so that they had sufficient space to write about the steps they took (and so illustrate their teamwork skills).

2. The candidate provides relatively little insight into the steps they took. We are told that there was “great communication” between crew members, and that the candidate “gave instructions” to everyone, but we are given little insight into the candidate’s actions beyond this. The candidate needed to drill down on how the team communicated and ultimately worked together to produce a positive result.

3. Some of the points do not quite address the question. For instance, the candidate describes in detail how they auditioned actors and interviewed crew members. This would be more indicative of leadership qualities rather than teamwork qualities.

4. The candidate does not round off their analysis with a “result”/specific outcome. Instead, the candidate provides somewhat generic descriptions about why solicitors need to work well in teams. This means it is unclear precisely how the candidate’s actions/steps helped them overcome the initial “task”/challenges.

5. The final sentences are not tailored enough to solicitors. It is true that solicitors need to delegate tasks and carry them out well, but this is just as applicable to any other industry. The candidate could have cut this rather generic/vacuous writing out in favour of more meaningful analysis elsewhere.

To avoid these issues, you should check your writing thoroughly to make sure that every sentence addresses the question in detail and in full.

Describe a time when you were working as part of a team where conflict arose. (250 words)

During my internship in Nepal, a client felt demotivated 5 days into her trek and did not think she was able to carry on. However, I disagreed with the ground agents who were responsible for the guides, [redacted hiking tour company], who suggested to bring the client and her guide down from the mountain.

[Feedback: Once again, this question merits a STAR or CAR structured response. Judging by the number of paragraphs used, this answer utilises a CAR structure and this section concerns ‘context’.

The candidate has detailed a specific time and event (their internship in Nepal) and has provided some information concerning the task or problem they faced (the demotivated client and the ground agents). Overall, this answer is good. The candidate provides some good detail (for example, ‘5 days into [the client’s] trek’), and it is a well-structured paragraph.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have included some more detail to flesh out the context of the experience further. Whilst the candidate may have detailed their internship in Nepal in the work experience section of the application form, they should have provided the necessary context concerning the experience in this answer. Do not assume that the recruiter has read the rest of your application form when writing your answers (they may read these answers first or may simply not be the one who reads other sections of the form). Hence, the candidate should have briefly described what their role was.

Additionally, the candidate should have explained that they worked as part of a team with the ground agents. You should note that the question focuses on a disagreement within a team. Hence, the candidate could have worded their response better to answer the question more explicitly.]

First, I set up a phone call with the managing director of [redacted hiking tour company] and asked about the company's reasoning for such decision; I learned there was a need to make every guide available, if possible, to meet the demands of the peak season for trekkers in the Himalayas. In response, I argued the client needed more encouragement. Whilst the ground agents dealt with hundreds of trekkers during the high season, it is often a once in a lifetime experience for the client. Following this conversation, we agreed to allow the client to continue and make her own decision.

[Feedback: This section shifts the candidate’s answer towards the ‘action’ aspect of the CAR structure. The candidate does well to describe exactly what they did. What is especially good is the fact that the candidate describes what their actions provoked: they received an answer to their question. Many candidates often describe what they did without explaining what the effect of their actions was in the relevant context, which often leads to a weak answer. The candidate also continues to describe the outcome of their action: they successfully negotiated the continuation of the client’s trek.

The candidate should also be commended for their apt explanation of their reasoning for taking action. The penultimate sentence of the answer is a very persuasive argument, and this response demonstrates the candidate’s ability to influence others and their empathetic capability.]

I learnt that by asking questions first, I avoided making assumptions. Through this, I saw the situation from a different perspective, such as the business need to bring the guide down. Additionally, if it is a matter I feel strongly about, I should confidently speak up as this, in turn, also allowed the other party to gain an alternative understanding. I also learnt the importance of being proactive when dealing with a disagreement. For instance, by instinctively making the call to the managing director, the group did not escalate the wrong decision further and risk providing bad customer service.

[Feedback: This paragraph is the ‘result’ section of the CAR structure. Here, the candidate describes what they learnt from the experience and relates their experience to the lessons learnt.

The candidate does well to reflect on their experience and consider what it taught them. Many candidates often use the ‘result’ section to either describe some of the skills they developed or to describe the end outcome of the experience. A good answer will interweave the two.

The candidate demonstrates many competencies in this section, namely, empathy, confidence, and proactivity. Although a competency question may focus on a specific competency (such as dealing with difficult people), your answers can include references to other competencies. You should remember that each question is a chance to showcase a wide range of your skills and talents. Individuals rarely employ competencies in isolation (teamwork often involves some amount of organisation, for example), so your answers should reflect that.

To improve this answer, the candidate could have employed some clearer phraseology. For example, the candidate writes ‘business need’. It would have been better to either write ‘the company’s need’ or the ‘commercial need’ (depending on what exactly the candidate was trying to communicate). Furthermore, the candidate could have saved space and made their answer stronger by taking out some of the qualifications to their response. For example, the candidate did not need to write ‘if it is a matter I feel strongly about’: you should confidently speak up whenever required; it should not require you to have a deep moral conviction to do so.

When you write your answers, you should try to avoid being hesitant or overly modest. You have a limited number of words, and, therefore, you must be as explicit as possible. Whilst you may feel that modesty produces a sophisticated, nuanced answer, such a response risks losing detail along the way. The recruiter will not spend time rereading your answer, so think about what you want to write and write it as clearly as you can.]

Tell us about a time when you worked successfully as part of a team. How might you benefit from this experience in your career at WFW? (250)

When I started university, I was determined to secure a place on the university rugby team. I had always wanted to play rugby, but the schools I attended did not offer it. So, despite no prior experience, I undertook trials and made it onto one of the teams. Once training started, it was quickly apparent that I was the only novice in a team of experienced players.

Feedback: This is a typical competency question requiring you to make good use of the STAR structure. Here, the candidate offers a concise outline of the situation they faced and the tasks they needed to carry out in order to achieve their objectives. We are told concisely that the candidate (1) wanted a place in the rugby team and (2) the candidate impliedly wanted to reach the same level as their experienced teammates. You should note that the candidate is succinct. They devote just 67 words to the situation/task, which leaves them nearly 200 words to drill down on their actions and the quantified/specific outcome. We always recommend that candidates devote no more than 25% of their answer to the situation/task. The true marks lie in your actions and the result. If you describe the actions/results in specific and quantified detail, then the recruiter can infer a variety of competencies from your writing.

As a minor point, the candidate should have provided more context on how they would achieve their goal. Currently, the candidate does not explain what they mean by “novice” and “experienced” skill levels, nor how they would achieve a higher skill level. Had the candidate explained this more thoroughly, then it would give the recruiter an objective benchmark against which they can evaluate the candidate’s success.

Although initially disheartened, I worked as hard as possible to develop the skills required to make a meaningful contribution to the team. I spent my free time, alongside the prescribed training regimen, learning the basics of the game to attain a level of knowledge which the rest of the team took for granted. I never missed any of the three weekly practice sessions, even when others felt able to skip training, perhaps because exams were coming up or the weather was particularly bad. I persuaded teammates to join me in arriving early for each session so we could work on some basic exercises before the others arrived. With their help, I made rapid progress during the season and was moved from the bench onto the starting line-up for matches. My dedication and resilience were recognised following the 2019/20 season when I was named Coach's Player of the Year. A key motivator was not wanting to let my teammates down: they had taken a risk with me as a novice player and I was determined to repay their trust.

Feedback: Here, the candidate drills down on the specific steps they took to achieve their objective. You should note that the candidate shows their competencies by describing specifically what they did, rather than simply telling us their competencies (e.g. “I developed teamwork skills by…”. We are given insight into (1) how the candidate organised their time so as to learn rugby, (2) how the candidate committed themselves to training exercises and (3) how the candidate worked together with their teammates in order to achieve their goal. In turn, this means the recruiter is free to infer a variety of relevant teamwork skills from the candidate’s writing.

You should also note how the candidate provides a specific, quantified outcome. They provide a named award from a specific year. In turn, this provides a quantified and tangible positive outcome resulting directly from their actions. In your own writing, you should quantify the outcome of your actions with specific details. You should provide named awards/certificates, contextualising statistics and numerical details as far as you can.

That said, this paragraph should have been improved in a few regards:

1. The candidate does not address the second part of the question, namely how this experience would benefit them at WFW. The candidate would need to reflect on what they learned from this experience, before explaining precisely how they would apply it during their career as a commercial solicitor at WFW. We’re mindful of the tight word count, but it’s important to address all elements of the question regardless.

2. The candidate’s steps/actions are vague at times. For instance, the candidate states that they “persuaded teammates” to train with the candidate early. The candidate never explains exactly how they motivated teammates to achieve this. In your own writing, you need to be as specific as possible. You need to drill down on precisely what you did in order to achieve the intended outcome.

3. Some of the candidate’s actions/steps are not relevant to the question. For instance, the candidate asserts that they “never skipped training” when other teammates did. It is not clear how these steps demonstrate the candidate’s teamwork skills. The questions asks you to explain how you work as part of a team, so you need to make sure that your steps focus on this point.

We are a global firm that works together with mutual respect and collegiality. Describe a time when you have enjoyed collaborating with people from different cultures and backgrounds or with different personalities. What made the experience so enjoyable? (250 words)

During my [redacted] legal internship, I took part in a challenging pitch presentation competition. I worked with five individuals from diverse backgrounds to design and deliver a pitch to a large tech company.

I took the initiative to organise meeting times with my team members to allow us to prepare adequately. I considered everyone’s timetables and selected the most adequate times for us to meet. We worked together to plan a schedule for the pitch to ensure that each member focused on different aspects of the pitch. In order to persuade the judges about our suitability, I researched the clients’ business and sector and considered how we could best advise them in light of the current affairs in the sector.

I collaborated with the other members of the team to produce a detailed presentation and took suggestions about ways to improve my section of the pitch. I particularly enjoyed this experience as the diversity in my team meant that we all had unique perspectives and experiences when working on the task. This allowed us to be even more productive by leveraging on our individual strengths.

As a result of our planning and organisation, we were able to successfully deliver our pitch to 3 partners at top UK law firms. We won the pitch presentation and received positive feedback from the judges. We were invited to a lunch at Simmons & Simmons where we were able to discuss and improve our ideas with senior associates and partners at the firm.

[Feedback: This is a good answer, but there’s scope to improve further.  The purpose of this question is to convey the firm’s values while teasing out the candidate’s experience of working within a team. 

The candidate chooses an interesting example which (1) demonstrates that s/he has previously won a place on a selective internship (i.e. not obtained through connections) that is directly related to law and (2) involves a group exercise which provides ample opportunity to talk about teamwork.  Importantly, the candidate directly answers the question by noting how much s/he enjoyed working in a diverse team because of the different perspectives that each candidate contributed.

However, the candidate does not say what the pitch is about.  We know it was delivered to law firm partners and that it concerns a large tech company, but there is no further context. 

The candidate probably overplays the diary management aspect of their role, which they devote two sentences to.  We would spend one paragraph discussing general project management (e.g. equitable division of work between team-members, agreeing internal deadlines, scheduling mock presentations prior to actual delivery).  We would then focus on the actual work that we did and how the diverse team contributed to a better result overall. 

Finally, it looks like the candidate makes a typo (“...I research the clients’ business and sector…”).  The candidate should use the singular form here (“client’s”).  The candidate evidently got away with this one, but this really should not have made it into the final submitted answer.]

We are a global firm that works together with mutual respect and collegiality.

Describe a time when you have enjoyed collaborating with people from different cultures and backgrounds or with different personalities. What made the experience so enjoyable?

In June of 2018, I made my way to the Ardennes region of Belgium where I would spend the next three months working in a professional kitchen on a camp.

[Feedback:  For these kinds of questions, we recommend adopting a situation, task, action, result/response (‘STAR’) structure or a context, action, result/response (‘CAR’) structure. If you stick to either of these structures, you will ensure you make the most of the 250-word limit and fully answer the question.

The candidate does well to include a short introductory sentence. This serves as important context for the overall answer. Including this kind of information at the very beginning provides the recruiter with the requisite expository information to understand your response. You should note how the candidate incorporates specific information in their answer: they state the month and year, the location, the duration of the scenario and a summary of what they did. This is achieved in under 30 words and is a good example to follow when you begin writing your answers.]

To my surprise, I was the sole native English speaker working on the camp. I was immediately immersed into a work environment with no relevant experience and required to work in a highly pressurised and fast paced kitchen. All of this was exacerbated by the fact that, as the sole English speaker, I was required to communicate in only Dutch and French, with the occasional Flemish word thrown in!

The kitchen staff included myself, Richard, the head Dutch chef, Bartek, a Polish student, and Hiliyeah, a Senegelese student. In addition to this, the restaurant staff consisted mostly of Dutch and Belgian waitresses.

[Feedback:  The above two paragraphs provide some additional context but mainly focus on the ‘task’, namely, the problem that the candidate needed to overcome. Crucially, this situation aligns with the question: it is a scenario in which the candidate ‘collaborat[ed] with people from different cultures and backgrounds or with different personalities’. Although it may seem obvious, you must ensure that you pick a personal experience that relates to the question. Many candidates often try to shoehorn irrelevant examples into their answers because they think the example is impressive. You must focus on answering the question – a less impressive example that relates to the question at hand will always be better than an irrelevant, more impressive one that does not.

The candidate continues to include specific information in their answer, such as the names of staff and their respective nationalities. This is excellent. Specific details help the recruiter build a clearer picture of you and your achievements. They also lend your answer credence; without specific information, the recruiter may find your answer unpersuasive as they cannot quantify the magnitude of your actions. Without any specific detail, a cynical recruiter may simply not believe you because anyone could have claimed the same things.

The only point of improvement concerning these two paragraphs concerns providing greater detail about the problems faced. The candidate goes into great detail to describe the language barrier between themselves and the rest of the kitchen staff. However, they could have gone into some more detail as to what specific issues the language barrier precipitated. This would have given the recruiter a better sense of the magnitude of the problem and permitted the candidate to go on and explain how they managed to surmount the problem.

You must remember to be as specific as possible and provide substantiating evidence for everything you write. Even a small addendum to sentences like ‘such as [insert example]’ help to optimise your answer.]

Admittedly, I found the work quite daunting in the beginning. However, as the first few days passed in the kitchen, the long services and stressful kitchen environment formed a strong bond between all the staff working. In addition to this we were all lodged in a somewhat rustic accommodation, with six people per caravan!

[Feedback: This paragraph details some of the candidate’s reflections on the experience. The section is useful as it begins to elaborate on how the difficulties precipitated by the scenario began to be overcome or, at the very least, tolerated. However, the candidate’s answer could be substantially improved by providing more analysis. Whilst the section adds more colour to their overall answer, the candidate simply describes events. You must ensure you use your limited word count to answer the question. Instead of adding the sentence about accommodation, the candidate could have used this space to discuss how they overcame the difficulties they faced by, for example, adapting their own behaviour.

You should ensure that you do not fall into the trap of narrating events. Whilst this can make for an entertaining read, it is not likely to further your argument. You should also avoid splitting your answers up into multiple short paragraphs. A 250-word answer should have two to four paragraphs, each with a PEEL structure. If you employ short paragraphs, as this candidate has done, you risk losing the thread of your argument.]

Personally, what really made this time so memorable and quite exceptional, was the different experiences and abilities each of us were able to bring to the table, be this in a work challenge or an evening discussion around dinner.

Working, living and travelling together allowed us to forgo any cultural, language or societal barriers that may have been there in a more formal environment.

[Feedback: These last two paragraphs address the final element of the question: what made the experience so enjoyable. The candidate does well in answering the question. Many candidates forget that the question they are asked may be comprised of several sub-questions. You must ensure you read the question carefully and answer every element.

The candidate also provides some relevant reflections on their experience. Naturally, the firm is looking for you to give some of the benefits of working with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Hence, the candidate has done well in mentioning that such diverse groups allow a range of ‘experiences and abilities’ to be ‘[brought] to the table’.

To improve this answer, the candidate should have included some stronger analysis and detail. Whilst the candidate states that ‘the different experiences and abilities’ made ‘this time so memorable and quite exceptional’, they do not give any specific examples to substantiate this point. It would have been good to see the candidate mention an example of such ‘different experiences and abilities’. This would have made the answer more engaging and, crucially, lent the answer more credence. Similarly, in the last paragraph, the candidate needed to have given a sense of how the barriers cultural, language, or societal barriers were forgone. When you write your answers, you must ensure that you have fully evidenced and explained your claims. The recruiter can only go off what you write in your answers: you should not leave anything up to their powers of inference, as there is no certainty that they will surmise what you want them to.

Finally, the candidate should have provided a link section. Whilst the candidate claims that the experience was enjoyable, they needed to have explained why it was enjoyable for them personally. What was it about the range of ‘experiences and abilities’ that was ‘[brought] to the table’ that the candidate personally appreciated? You need to remember that the recruiter wants to see a personalised answer. Any candidate can claim to appreciate or be interested in something. However, the very best candidates will provide evidence for their interest and demonstrate the authenticity of their claims.]

At RPC we work in a collaborative environment. Provide an example where you have demonstrated your ability to collaborate. You may want to make reference to your hobbies, interests and/or work experience to illustrate your answer. (300 words max) *

At university, I was a dedicated member of First Team Netball. As a team, we often had to advance strategies to utilise on the court to secure a victory against the opposition. Such collaborative problem-solving was necessary for closely fought games, as in the final fixture against [redacted university]. our biggest rival. [redacted university], familiar with our style of play, kept anticipating our moves, and at halftime, we were down by five goals.

Feedback: The aim of this first paragraph looks good, as it concisely sets out the situation faced by the candidate and the task they faced. We particularly like how the candidate writes succinctly and gets straight to the point. They begin by stating their position as a member of the netball team in a simple, short sentence. Then, the candidate provides some relevant context and identifies the stakes (namely that they had a crucial final fixture). Finally, the candidate specifies the task they faced and paints it with a specific, numerical detail that they were five goals down. This results in a coherent, succinct paragraph that communicates the situation clearly without compromising too much on detail.

You should also note how the candidate dedicates just 73 words towards setting out the situation/task. This is less than a third of the word count. In turn, this allows the candidate to drill down on their actions/results elsewhere in the answer. We typically advise candidates to spend no more than 25% of their word count on the situation/task element. The real marks lie in the actions and result. If you can drill down on the steps you took in high levels of specific detail, then the recruiter will infer a range of competencies from your writing.

As a minor point for improvement, the candidate should have improved their sentence structure here. The candidate often relies on long-winded sentences, as well as long sentences that are frequently broken up by misplaced commas. This makes the paragraph slightly disjointed to read. Had the candidate varied up their sentence structure, then the recruiter would follow (and so be persuaded by) their argument more easily.

When we assembled during the interval, some teammates started to complain. However, I did not see this as productive use of our time. I dealt with the conflict by acknowledging their frustrations. This fostered a supportive atmosphere, allowing me to gently re-direct the team’s focus towards explaining what we wanted to improve in our game. Subsequently, we combined our suggestions to develop a new strategy. Promoting a positive attitude encouraged my disheartened teammates to reframe their mindset, thus enabling a more constructive discussion. By building on each other’s contributions, we devised an innovative approach to the game, switching to shorter passes and driving away from the ball to clear more space. We drew level with [redacted university] and scored an additional two goals in the final push, securing a 33-31 victory for [redacted university].

Feedback: The candidate now moves on to the specific steps/actions they took in response to the situation. Generally, the candidate does this well. You should note how the candidate shows their competencies by describing the specific actions they took, instead of simply listing out their attributes/skills to the recruiter. The candidate also spends much of this paragraph describing precisely how they navigated the conflict and motivated teammates. We are clearly told that the candidate re-directed the team’s focus and worked with them to devise a new strategy. In turn, the recruiter has a clear picture of how the candidate works with their teammates, as well as the specific strategies they use to resolve conflicts.  You should be just as specific in your own writing. If you can drill down on your specific methods of teamwork, then you will demonstrate that you have the required social/collaborative skills to succeed in a law firm environment.

You should also note the level of detail used by the candidate in describing the outcome. The candidate not only states a positive outcome, but they substantiate it by providing specific numbers and details. This adds weight and gravity to the candidate’s achievements, which in turn convinces the recruiter that the candidate has high-level collaborative skills.

You should aim for similar levels of precision in your own writing. If you can back up your results/outcomes with quantifiable details, then you should do so.

That said, the candidate should have drilled down even further on the methods they used to deal with conflict. Currently, the candidate’s writing is a little thin. They assert that they “acknowledged frustrations” and “promoted a positive attitude”, but they do not go much further in explaining how they handled the complaints and managed conflicting personalities within the team. In your own writing, it is not enough simply for you to assert that you handled a conflict and worked well within a team. You need to unpack each and every specific action that you took, so that the recruiter can infer various competencies from your actions.

Demonstrating a cooperative spirit and being proactive in promoting the overall progression of a team form part of RPC’s core values. Intrinsic to this is listening to others and communicating clearly, allowing you to formulate and effect a creative solution. As in team sports, adapting to different personalities and drawing on varied perspectives is fundamental in a law firm. It facilitates the kind of diverse thinking that RPC recognises to be integral to offering exceptional client service. It also fosters an environment where people genuinely champion the successes of others - contributing to this resonates with me.

Feedback: The candidate now spends a lot of time explaining why they think teamwork is important at RPC. They make a lot of fair points and demonstrate good understanding of the importance of teamwork/social skills in a law firm environment.

However, this writing is not really called for by the question. It does not ask you to give your opinion on why teamwork is valuable at RPC. Instead, it asks you to focus entirely on an example where you demonstrated your collaborative skills. This means you should spend your entire answer unpacking a situation in which you applied teamwork skills, before concluding it with a detailed and quantified result. The candidate asserts that they would need to “adapt to different personalities” and “draw on varied perspectives”. However, the previous paragraphs do not go into much detail about how the candidate applied these principles during their example on the netball team. Had the candidate cut down this paragraph, they would have had more space to write about their actions/results elsewhere.

Even if we give this candidate the benefit of the doubt, we think the candidate should have tailored their writing towards RPC better. Currently, the candidate’s writing is quite generic. It is just as applicable to any firm as it is to RPC. For instance, the candidate asserts that they would need to “listen to others” and “adapt to different personalities” during their time at RPC. While true, this applies almost anywhere – not just RPC. The candidate should have been far more specific in explaining precisely how they would apply their skills at RPC, by drawing upon their research into RPC’s team structures and training approaches.

Shoosmiths people are collaborative and frequently work together to provide solutions to clients. Tell us about a time when you worked in a team to solve a problem. In your answer you should include details about your role in the team and other team members, and how the outcome came about?

[Feedback: Echoing the comments made above, the candidate largely follows the recommended STAR/ CAR structure throughout this answer. Again, we would have improved some of the sentence structures and the paragraph divisions to increase readability and flow, but these are relatively minor points. There is, however, more room for improvement in terms of content. The comments below address this point.

Whilst based in [redacted], the organisation made a commitment to remove all avoidable single-use plastic in food and drinks items. A dedicated cross organisation working group was set up to streamline the work being undertaken. I was given the responsibility to support this project centrally.

I developed a workshop on single-use plastic to help solve the problem of prevalence of single-use plastic in the organisation, by offering solutions on which alternatives to single-use plastic were feasible.

[Feedback: Taken together, these two paragraphs paint a picture of the situation/ context and make the “problem” at hand immediately clear to the reader. Nevertheless, they fail to elucidate a few crucial details. For example, we would have liked to see a brief explanation as to what the candidate means by “support[ing] this project centrally”, how they were given the responsibility to do so, and why they decided to develop a workshop (as opposed to e.g., a research report). We were also left to assume that the candidate was part of the cross-organisation working group and that developing the workshop was their task as part of the team. Remember that the reader should never be left guessing or making too many assumptions. To determine if your writing is sufficiently clear, mirror the wording of the question (as far as possible) and run your answer past a friend or family member who is not familiar with your chosen example.

The cross organisation working group formed the core team, and engaging with them was important to be able to understand the issues in different services and present solutions. This included services such as [redacted]. I set up meetings with the core team, to understand the nature of their operations and services. I incorporated these findings into my workshop, and based my research around the issues they were facing.

[Feedback: The candidate misses another opportunity to clarify whether they were part of the cross-organisation working group. Confusingly, they introduce yet another team, “the core team”, without explaining its purpose or the difference between it and the cross-organisation working group. Nonetheless, they do well to include details about the core team’s tasks, which is part of what question asks.

One would have expected the candidate to then provide a comprehensive explanation as to how they “worked in a team” to remedy the prevalence of single-use plastic in the organisation. However, they simply mention setting up meetings with the team. This does not amount to teamwork. Neither does including post-meeting findings into one’s own workshop. Teamwork presupposes a collaborative effort towards the same goal; this often requires a great deal of active communication between team members, brainstorming ideas, sharing responsibilities, delegating tasks, adapting to different styles of working/ situations, and managing conflict. In this case, the candidate could have revealed how they communicated with the core team in a productive manner (e.g., did they prepare a questionnaire for each team member? did they ask each individual to speak up in the meeting itself?).

Note: unnecessary commas in various places (e.g., “I set up meetings […], to understand”). 

I delivered a 2-hour workshop to the cross organisation group of senior officers as an advisory mechanism, and facilitated discussions throughout. The outcome was positive, and I received good feedback that the workshop had facilitated informed and positive decision making by managers. This example highlights my ability to work in a core cross-organisation and multi-disciplinary team, and present solutions as a result of this work. This is similar to the work of lawyers working in sectors, which cut across different practice areas, when they are required to work together on different issues for the same client.

[Feedback: Although the candidate informs the reader that the outcome was positive, they fail to explain “how [it] came about”. Crucially, it remains unclear whether the problem was solved – the candidate only mentions that the workshop influenced managers’ decision-making but omits to reveal to what extent it did so. The penultimate sentence is simply redundant and the very last the second fails to answer any part of the given question. Echoing the comments made above, the word count would have been better used to delve deeper into the “what”, “why”, and “how” of the candidate’s chosen example.

Note: missing hyphen at “cross organisation”.

Shoosmiths’ commitment to sustainable practices and recycling is also something which stood out to me as this is something that I am very passionate about.

[Feedback: This sentence is superfluous – it does not add any value to the overall answer because it is generic and vague. “Shoosmiths” can be easily replaced with e.g., “Linklaters” (or pretty much any other commercial law firm) without altering the meaning of the sentence. Crucially, a single sentence should not stand on its own unless it is a concluding remark (e.g., “Thank you for your kind consideration.”).