Public Sector Capability Frameworks: Named Examples from Around the World
Most governments have built a public sector capability framework at some point. What they have built varies considerably: some are whole-of-government leadership standards, some are profession-specific capability maps, and some are behavioural frameworks that describe how civil servants should work rather than what they need to be able to do. Understanding the difference matters if you are trying to use one of these frameworks as a reference, or if you are designing your own.
This article covers what a public sector capability framework is, why governments build them, and the named examples in use across Australia, the UK, Singapore, the United States, and beyond.
What Is a Public Sector Capability Framework
A public sector capability framework defines the capabilities, behaviours, or competencies expected of government employees, expressed in a structured form that supports workforce decisions. These decisions include recruitment, performance assessment, development planning, and succession.
The term covers a range of constructs. Some public sector capability frameworks define what people need to be able to do, the technical skills and capacities that enable effective performance. Others define how people are expected to behave: the leadership qualities, work practices, and values the organisation considers foundational. Most mature frameworks include both.
Why Governments Build Them
The core problem a public sector capability framework is designed to solve is inconsistency. Without a shared standard, different agencies within the same government make different hiring decisions, assess performance against different criteria, and develop people along different pathways. Mobility across agencies becomes harder. Succession planning becomes ad hoc.
A framework creates a common language. It allows governments to compare capability across agencies, identify gaps at a system level, and invest in development that applies across the whole of government rather than just within individual entities. Good capability framework design starts from these functional purposes: what decisions will this framework inform, and for whom?
Named Public Sector Capability Frameworks
Australia
Integrated Leadership System (Australian Public Service)
The Australian Public Service Commission's Integrated Leadership System is the whole-of-government capability framework for the Australian Public Service. Launched in 2004, it defines capability requirements across all APS classifications, from APS 1 through to the Senior Executive Service. It is organised around five core capability clusters: shapes strategic thinking, achieves results, cultivates productive working relationships, exemplifies personal drive and integrity, and communicates with influence. Each cluster is described at levels that reflect the increasing complexity and scope of responsibility expected at each APS classification level.
NSW Public Sector Capability Framework
The NSW Public Sector Capability Framework, administered by the NSW Public Service Commission, applies across the entire NSW public sector. It organises twenty capabilities into four groups: personal attributes, relationships, results, and business enablers. Each capability is defined at five proficiency levels. The framework is used in recruitment, performance assessment, and development planning across NSW government agencies and is one of the most detailed and consistently applied state-level frameworks in Australia.
Victorian Public Service Capability Framework
The VPS Capability Framework defines capability requirements across the Victorian Public Service, organised into five capability groups and four proficiency levels. It is used in recruitment, performance assessment, and career development across the Victorian public sector. Like the NSW framework, it applies at a whole-of-government level and provides a common standard for diverse role families across agencies.
Queensland Capability and Leadership Framework
The Queensland Public Service Capability and Leadership Framework (CLF) defines the capabilities and leadership behaviours expected of Queensland public servants. It is built around five core capabilities: supports strategic direction, achieves results, cultivates productive working relationships, displays personal drive and integrity, and communicates with influence. The CLF applies across all levels of the Queensland public sector. Research by the Australia and New Zealand School of Government has examined the evidence base for Queensland's leadership capability framework, noting that its structure reflects a sustained commitment to developing leadership capability as a system-wide priority rather than an agency-by-agency concern.
United Kingdom
The UK Civil Service uses a behavioural framework embedded within its Success Profiles recruitment model. The Civil Service Behaviours define the actions and activities expected of civil servants at different grades, covering areas such as delivering at pace, working together, making effective decisions, and seeing the bigger picture. Behaviours are assessed at set grade levels and are used in both recruitment and performance management.
Alongside the behaviour framework, the UK operates a Government Digital and Data Profession Capability Framework, which defines the technical skills and competencies expected of digital, data, and technology professionals across government. This sits alongside rather than within the main civil service behaviours model, reflecting the UK's profession-based approach to workforce capability.
Singapore
Singapore's Public Service Division administers the Leadership Competency Framework (LCF) for the Singapore Public Service. The LCF defines the intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies, as well as contextual understanding, expected of public service leaders at different levels, from middle managers through to Permanent Secretaries. The framework is tiered: competency expectations shift as leaders progress from operational to strategic roles. It is used in leadership selection, development, and 360-degree feedback processes. Singapore's approach is notable for its explicit attention to contextual understanding as a capability domain alongside the behavioural competencies more commonly found in Western frameworks.
United States
The US Office of Personnel Management administers the Executive Core Qualifications framework for the federal government's Senior Executive Service. The five ECQs are: leading change, leading people, results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions. Entry to the Senior Executive Service requires demonstration against the ECQs. The OPM also defines twenty-two leadership competencies and six fundamental competencies that sit beneath the ECQ structure, providing a more granular capability standard for federal leadership roles. The framework applies across federal departments and agencies and is the primary reference point for senior leadership capability in the US federal government.
Other Notable Frameworks
Canada: The Public Service Commission of Canada defines leadership competencies for the core public service, with a framework that covers creating vision and strategy, mobilising people, upholding integrity and respect, achieving results, and developing others. It applies across the Government of Canada and forms the basis for management and executive-level recruitment and development.
Ireland: Ireland's Public Jobs Capability Framework defines the capabilities expected of civil servants across five clusters: delivery, leading and managing, analysis and decision-making, interpersonal and communication, and specialist knowledge. It is used in recruitment and performance across the Irish civil service.
What a Public Sector Capability Framework Is Not
A public sector capability framework is not a job description. Job descriptions define accountabilities and outputs. A capability framework defines the capabilities needed to fulfil those accountabilities. Both are necessary for effective workforce management, but conflating them produces documents that do neither job well.
It is not a training catalogue. The frameworks described above define what is required of the workforce, not how that requirement is to be met through learning interventions. Development planning follows from capability assessment; it does not replace it.
Common Failure Modes
The most common failure in public sector capability frameworks is designing for compliance rather than utility. A framework that is used only to satisfy a mandatory tick-box in a recruitment process is not a capability system; it is additional administration. Frameworks that become embedded in real decisions, not just formal ones, are the ones that deliver value.
A second failure is updating the framework without updating the processes that depend on it. When the NSW Public Sector Capability Framework was revised, agencies were required to update their role descriptions, recruitment criteria, and performance processes to reflect the changes. Frameworks that are revised in isolation from the processes they inform quickly become disconnected from practice.
Trade-offs and Constraints
All of the frameworks described above involve the same trade-off: breadth versus precision. A whole-of-government framework must be applicable across enormously diverse role types, which means it will be expressed at a level of abstraction that may feel generic to practitioners in any specific discipline. This is why profession-specific overlays, such as the UK's Digital and Data Profession Capability Framework or Australia's APS Data Capability Framework, exist alongside the main government-wide frameworks.
Governments that try to resolve this tension by making their whole-of-government framework more detailed typically end up with something that is too complex to apply consistently. The more successful approach, reflected in the Australian and UK models, is a layered architecture: a behavioural or leadership capability core at the whole-of-government level, supplemented by profession-specific technical frameworks that sit beneath it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a public sector capability framework?
A public sector capability framework defines the capabilities, behaviours, or competencies expected of government employees. It is used for recruitment, performance assessment, development planning, and succession. Most mature frameworks cover both what employees need to be able to do and how they are expected to behave and lead.
What is the Australian Public Service capability framework called?
The Australian Public Service Commission's framework is called the Integrated Leadership System (ILS). It covers all APS classification levels and organises capability into five clusters: shapes strategic thinking, achieves results, cultivates productive working relationships, exemplifies personal drive and integrity, and communicates with influence.
What capability framework does the NSW Government use?
The NSW Government uses the NSW Public Sector Capability Framework, administered by the NSW Public Service Commission. It covers twenty capabilities across five proficiency levels, organised into four groups: personal attributes, relationships, results, and business enablers.
How does the UK Civil Service define capability?
The UK uses Civil Service Behaviours, embedded within the Success Profiles recruitment framework, alongside profession-specific capability frameworks for areas such as digital and data. Behaviours are defined at grade levels and used in both recruitment and performance management.
Does the US federal government have a capability framework?
Yes. The Office of Personnel Management administers the Executive Core Qualifications for the Senior Executive Service, built around five ECQs: leading change, leading people, results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions. The OPM also maintains twenty-two leadership competencies that underpin the ECQ framework.
Why do different Australian states have different capability frameworks?
State governments in Australia have constitutional responsibility for their own public services and design their frameworks to reflect their specific workforce context, legislative requirements, and organisational priorities. While there is significant structural similarity across Australian state frameworks, they are separate instruments maintained by separate bodies.