We Are Innovative and Open-Minded (Level 1)

What “We Are Innovative and Open-Minded” Means (CVF 2024)

In CVF 2024, we are innovative and open-minded means being open to new ideas and ways of working, questioning established approaches when something better exists, using creative problem-solving within values, lawfulness, and proportionality, learning from others, and adapting when needed.

This competency is easy to caricature. It is not:

• ignoring rules because “innovation”
• chasing novelty for its own sake
• dismissing experience and procedure as “old thinking” without evidence
• redesigning national policy as a brand-new constable on day one

It is the professional habit of asking: Is there a better way to achieve a safe, fair, lawful outcome here? and being willing to try a proportionate alternative when the first approach stalls.

Why This Competency Matters on the National Sift

Communities, colleagues, and problems are not identical. Rigid scripts fail when:

• a standard approach is not reducing harm
• a community offers local knowledge you have not used
• a colleague’s idea would solve the problem more fairly or efficiently
• feedback shows your first plan is not working

The SJT often rewards candidates who can adapt, listen to alternatives, and problem-solve creatively without abandoning safety or professionalism. It penalises candidates who treat “how we always do it” as a moral absolute even when the scenario shows that approach is failing—or who invent reckless shortcuts dressed up as creativity.

On the BSQ, open-mindedness statements often touch feedback, learning, flexibility, and willingness to consider other views. Extreme claims (“I never like any existing process” / “I never change my mind”) both undermine credibility.

Level 1 Lens: Practical Creativity, Not Strategic Redesign

Innovation at Level 1 is usually local, practical, and reviewable—a better conversation plan, a different information source, a community-based solution, a small process improvement—not a fantasy reorganisation of policing.

Level 1 Style Behaviours (Recognition Table)

Core Meaning Broken Down

1. Open to new ideas and ways of working

Open-mindedness starts with listening. On the SJT, an action that shuts down a reasonable alternative without consideration often rates lower. An action that gives a fair hearing to a new approach—and adopts it if it is better and safe—often rates higher.

Open-mindedness is not agreeing with everything. You can reject an unsafe idea after considering it, with reasons grounded in risk and professionalism.

2. Question established ways when better exists

Habit is efficient until it becomes harmful. Critical openness means distinguishing:

• Useful standard practice (consistent, fair, tested) from
• Empty custom (done only because it is familiar, even when it fails people)

If the scenario shows a standard approach is not working, clinging to it solely for tradition is weak under this competency.

3. Creative problem-solving within values and lawfulness

Creativity in policing is constrained by ethics and law. A clever idea that humiliates someone, discriminates, endangers the public, or corrupts evidence is not good innovation. The best SJT “creative” options usually expand the toolset for legitimate aims: engagement, prevention, partnership, communication, problem-solving—while staying proportionate.

4. Learn from others

Colleagues, partner agencies, and community members often hold pieces of the solution. Learning is a Level 1 strength, not a weakness. Actions that dismiss partners or the public as “not real work” often fail open-mindedness and collaboration / public service.

5. Adapt

Adaptation is the operational form of open-mindedness. When feedback, new facts, or failed attempts show the plan is not working, effective practitioners adjust. Stubborn repetition of a failed approach is not resilience; it is rigidity.

How This Competency Appears on the SJT

Actions that often rate higher (innovative and open-minded aligned)

• Trying a proportionate alternative when the first approach fails
• Considering a community-based or partnership solution where it fits the problem
• Welcoming a colleague’s constructive idea and testing whether it improves outcomes
• Adjusting communication style to reach a better result without abandoning standards
• Suggesting a practical improvement that stays within role and professional limits
• Learning from what similar situations taught the team

Actions that often rate lower (rigidity or reckless novelty)

• Refusing to consider any option except “how we always do it,” despite evidence of failure
• Dismissing feedback automatically as criticism of you personally
• Ignoring community or partner insight that could solve the problem safely
• Inventing a reckless shortcut that ignores risk, dignity, or professionalism
• Changing everything randomly with no link to the problem (novelty without purpose)
• Mocking new ideas so nobody shares improvements again

Balance: innovation vs ignoring safety

Common Traps for Candidates

1. Thinking innovation means rule-breaking. Unlawful or unprofessional “creativity” is counterproductive.
2. Thinking open-minded means agreeing with everyone. You can disagree after fair consideration.
3. Equating tradition with professionalism. Professionalism can include improving methods.
4. Equating change with chaos. Stable standards and adaptive methods can coexist.
5. Over-scoping. Level 1 is practical improvement, not pretending you are redesigning the whole service alone.
6. Ignoring analysis. Innovation without any fact base is guesswork; link this competency to we analyse critically.

Mini Scenarios (Recognition Practice)

Scenario A — Approach not working

Your first attempt to resolve a neighbourhood tension has not reduced complaints. A partner agency suggests a different engagement method that remains lawful and safe.

Scenario B — Colleague feedback

A colleague suggests your update to a member of the public was technically correct but hard to understand, and offers a clearer wording.

Scenario C — Community idea

Residents propose a practical, low-risk idea that could reduce friction (for example better lighting discussion via partners, a mediated conversation, or a timed engagement plan). Nothing in the scenario makes the idea unlawful.

Linking Innovation to Values and Other Competencies

• Public service: the purpose of new approaches is better outcomes for communities, not personal cleverness.
• Respect and empathy: open-mindedness includes taking seriously people who experience the problem differently.
• Courage: sometimes the open-minded option is unpopular with peers who prefer the old habit.
• We analyse critically: innovation should be evidence-informed; analyse whether the new way is actually better.
• We collaborate: many innovations are co-produced with partners and colleagues.
• We support and inspire: welcoming ideas builds a climate where people contribute.
• We take ownership: if you try a new approach, you still own the outcome and any need to correct course.

All Six Competencies: Closing the Level 1 Map

With this chapter, you now have the second trio of competencies that complete the SJT map:

Together with emotionally aware, take ownership, and collaborate (previous chapter), these six Level 1 competencies are what the national sift SJT assesses. You do not need to label each live scenario with a competency name—but fluency in what good looks like is how you rate actions consistently.

Mental Model for Live SJT Rating

For each action, ask:

1. Does this show openness to a better way, or locked habit?
2. Is any new idea proportionate, lawful, and safe?
3. Does it learn from colleagues, partners, or communities?
4. If the first plan failed, does the action adapt?
5. Is “creativity” solving the real problem—or just looking different?

Rate higher for constructive, safe flexibility. Rate lower for rigid refusal to consider options or reckless novelty that ignores public safety and professionalism.