9.3 Recurring Scenario Families and How to Work Them
Key Takeaways
- OPM's own sample scenario involves a colleague asked to use an unfamiliar computer program, with four courses of action ranging from self-directed learning to escalation.
- Scenarios depict situations federal employees could encounter on the job and typically involve colleagues, customers, or competing demands.
- Working a scenario means identifying the real problem, the perspective you are answering from, and who is affected before evaluating any option.
- Options that address the underlying cause usually outrank options that address only the immediate symptom.
- Because you have five minutes, note key details from the video on scratch paper as you watch rather than relying on recall.
9.3 Recurring Scenario Families and How to Work Them
Quick Summary: OPM describes the videos as scenarios Federal employees could encounter on the job, and the assessment measures how you make decisions in common workplace situations involving colleagues, customers, and others. The published sample scenario is an ordinary workplace problem, not an exotic one, and the four courses of action illustrate the spread you should expect.
OPM's published sample
The sample scenario in OPM's own materials reads:
Barbara and Derek are coworkers. Barbara has just been provided with a new assignment. The assignment requires the use of a specific computer program. Derek walks over to Barbara's cubicle to speak to her.
If you were in Barbara's position, what would be the most and least effective course of action to take from the choices below?
- Try to find other coworkers who can explain how to use the new program.
- Tell your supervisor that you don't know how to use the program and ask him to assign someone who does.
- Use the program reference materials, tutorial program, and the help menu to learn how to use the new program on your own.
- Explain the situation to your supervisor and ask him what to do.
Several features are worth noting, because they generalise.
The problem is ordinary. An assignment requires a skill the person does not yet have. No crisis, no ethical dilemma.
The perspective is stated. If you were in Barbara's position. Answering as Derek, or as the supervisor, would produce different judgements.
The options span a range of self-reliance. One uses available resources independently. One seeks help from peers. One informs the supervisor and asks for direction. One asks to be relieved of the assignment.
No option is absurd. All four are things a real person might do. The set discriminates by degree, which is typical.
Apply Section 9.2's framework. Which option directly addresses the actual problem — that Barbara needs to learn a program to complete an assignment she has been given? Using the reference materials, tutorial and help menu addresses it directly and commits to action. Asking the supervisor to reassign the work to someone else does not address the problem; it removes Barbara from it, and it is the option least consistent with commits to action, even in uncertain situations.
Scenario families to expect
Since scenarios depict situations federal employees could encounter, the recurring families are the ordinary ones.
| Family | Typical problem | What usually reads as effective |
|---|---|---|
| Unfamiliar task or system | You lack a skill or knowledge the work requires | Use available resources; seek help proportionately; keep the work moving |
| Competing demands | Two tasks are due, or two people need you | Establish priorities on the facts; communicate about what will be late |
| Colleague friction | A disagreement or an unmet dependency | Address it directly with the person; keep it factual and private |
| Customer or public difficulty | Someone is frustrated, confused, or asking for something you cannot provide | Listen, establish the actual need, explain what can be done |
| Error discovered | You or someone else made a mistake | Correct it, inform whoever is affected, address why it happened |
| Unclear instruction | You do not know what is being asked | Clarify with the source before proceeding |
| Workload or pressure | Volume or deadlines exceed capacity | Prioritise, communicate early, propose a workable plan |
A repeatable procedure
Step 1 — Read the upper-left information. It sets up the situation before the video plays.
Step 2 — Read the question and write down the perspective. One line on scratch paper: answering as ___.
Step 3 — Watch the video and note details. Who is involved, what is being asked, what constraint or deadline is mentioned, what has already been tried. You may not have time to rewatch within five minutes, so capture details on the first pass.
Step 4 — State the real problem in one sentence. This is the pivotal step. "Barbara needs to learn a program to complete an assigned task" leads somewhere different from "Barbara has been given an assignment she cannot do."
Step 5 — Read all four options before judging any. They are calibrated relative to one another.
Step 6 — Find the least effective. Look for the option that risks a negative consequence, ignores the problem, or creates a new one.
Step 7 — Find the most effective. Look for the option that directly addresses the problem you named in Step 4, uses what is available, and accounts for those affected.
Step 8 — Confirm both selections are recorded and submit.
Symptom versus cause
A recurring discriminator: two options may both help, but one fixes today's instance while the other addresses why it happened.
A report arrives with the same formatting error for the third month running.
- Correcting this month's report fixes the symptom.
- Correcting it and letting the sender know what the correct format is addresses the cause.
The second is more effective because it prevents recurrence, and it is consistent with perceives the impact and implications of decisions. Where two options differ only in that one also addresses the cause, that one is usually the stronger.
Proportion
Match the size of the response to the size of the problem. A minor formatting question does not warrant a meeting with senior management, and a genuine conflict of interest is not resolved by a quiet word. On both ends, disproportion is what makes an option weak.
And still: answer honestly
OPM's guidance for this assessment is to read thoroughly, be honest, and not overthink. The structure in this chapter is a way of thinking clearly under a five-minute clock. It is not a code to crack. Where the framework and your genuine judgement about what would work agree, you are in good shape; where a clever theory pulls you away from what you would actually and sensibly do, follow the judgement.
In OPM's published sample scenario, Barbara is given an assignment requiring a computer program she does not know. Which course of action is least consistent with the Decision Making competency?
Two options both help with a recurring formatting error in a monthly report. One corrects this month's report; the other corrects it and tells the sender the correct format. Which is more effective, and why?
Why should a candidate write down the stated perspective before watching the scenario video?