CCAT Test

CCAT Situational Judgement Test

1. Question 1 of 10

   You work in the membership office of a golf club. Members’ subscriptions are due, and a discounted rate applies to anyone who joined before 2015. A member who joined in 2018 asks you to record him as a pre-2015 member, saying he has been coming as a guest since 2012 and that nobody would ever check. He is friendly and well known at the club. The club secretary is in her office. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Tell him you cannot change the joining date and suggest he takes it up with the club secretary himself if he believes his guest years should count.
   2. Record him at the pre-2015 rate, since he has genuinely been coming to the club since 2012 and the discount is meant to reward long- standing members.
   3. Apply the standard rate but note on his file that he has attended since 2012, so that the club can consider a discretionary discount at some point in the future.
   4. Tell him the joining date is a matter of record and you cannot change it, and offer to ask the secretary whether guest years have ever been counted towards the discount.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Tell him the joining date is a matter of record and you cannot change it, and offer to ask the secretary whether guest years have ever been counted towards the discount.

   Least effective: B. Record him at the pre-2015 rate, since he has genuinely been coming to the club since 2012 and the discount is meant to reward long- standing members.

   A: Passes responsibility to others: the refusal is right and the handoff is thin. He has raised a question about how guest years are treated, and sending him to make his own case leaves you having merely declined.

   B: Falsifies a membership record: his joining date is a fact, and rewriting it to produce a discount he is not entitled to is dishonesty dressed as fairness. It also charges every other member for the shortfall.

   C: Delays the decision: it charges him correctly, which is right, and parks his actual question on a file note that nobody is due to read. The secretary is in her office today.

   The most effective response is to tell him the joining date is a matter of record and offer to ask the secretary whether guest years have ever counted: the date is a fact and not yours to alter, but the question underneath it is legitimate and the secretary can answer it. Refusing clearly and taking the question forward does both jobs. It beats telling him to take it up with the club secretary himself, because that refuses in the same way but leaves him to make his own case, when you are standing beside the person who decides. It beats applying the standard rate and noting on his file that he has attended since 2012, because a note for future consideration answers nobody today, and the secretary is available now. The least effective response is recording him at the pre-2015 rate: it rewrites a factual record to create an entitlement that does not exist, and the reasoning offered, that he has been around a long time, is exactly the reasoning that makes small falsifications feel reasonable. That is worse than the other two, which charge him correctly. The principle: refuse to alter a record, then take the fair question underneath it to the person who can actually decide it.

2. Question 2 of 10

   You work on reception at a caravan park. A family has booked a pitch with electric hook-up for the weekend, arriving tomorrow. This afternoon the electrician reports that the hook-up point on their pitch has failed and cannot be repaired until Monday. A pitch with a working hook-up is free but is further from the facilities. The family are contactable. The park manager is on site. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Ring the family today, explain the hook-up has failed, and offer either the pitch further from the facilities or their original pitch without electricity.
   2. Move the booking to the pitch with the working hook-up and email the family the new pitch number so they know where to go on arrival.
   3. Ring the family to say there is a problem with their pitch and that you will confirm the arrangements once the park manager has decided what to offer.
   4. Leave the booking as it is and explain the problem when they arrive tomorrow, since they may not use much electricity over a single weekend.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Ring the family today, explain the hook-up has failed, and offer either the pitch further from the facilities or their original pitch without electricity.

   Least effective: D. Leave the booking as it is and explain the problem when they arrive tomorrow, since they may not use much electricity over a single weekend.

   B: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: they may have chosen that pitch for its distance from the facilities, so the trade between a working hook-up and the walk is theirs to make.

   C: Delays the decision: you already know the hook-up is broken until Monday and that an alternative pitch is free, so withholding both leaves them unable to plan and shortens the notice they have.

   D: Hides the problem: they booked and paid for a hook-up, and being told on arrival removes any chance to bring different equipment, change dates or go elsewhere. Deciding for them that they will not miss it is not yours to decide.

   The most effective response is to ring the family today, explain the hook- up has failed, and offer either the pitch further from the facilities or their original pitch without electricity: they booked a pitch with power, the failure changes what they paid for, and only they can weigh a working hook-up against a longer walk. Ringing today leaves them a day to decide or re-pack. It beats moving the booking to the pitch with the working hook-up and emailing the new number, because that assumes the electricity matters more than the location, which may not be true for this family. It beats ringing to say there is a problem and that you will confirm once the park manager has decided, because you already hold everything they need to choose. The least effective response is leaving the booking and explaining when they arrive tomorrow: it lets them discover on arrival that the hook- up they booked does not work, with no time to adapt. That is worse than the other two, which decide for them or tell them partially, but do tell them in time. The principle: when a booked feature fails, tell the customer at once and give them the real choices.

3. Question 3 of 10

   You are a travel consultant at a high street travel agency. A couple booked a package holiday with you last week. This morning the tour operator emails to say their hotel has been changed to a different one two miles from the beach, not the beachfront hotel they chose. They fly in three weeks. The couple specifically asked for a beachfront hotel when they booked. Your branch manager is in this afternoon. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Email the couple explaining that the operator has made a change to their accommodation and that you will send the new hotel details once you have checked what alternatives might be available.
   2. Ring the tour operator and push for the couple to be reinstated at the beachfront hotel before you contact them, so that you can present the problem and its solution together.
   3. Ring the couple today, explain that the operator has moved them to a hotel two miles from the beach, and set out what their options are before deciding what to ask the operator for.
   4. Say nothing for now, since the operator may yet move them back, and tell them at the airport briefing if the hotel has not changed back by the time they travel.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: C. Ring the couple today, explain that the operator has moved them to a hotel two miles from the beach, and set out what their options are before deciding what to ask the operator for.

   Least effective: D. Say nothing for now, since the operator may yet move them back, and tell them at the airport briefing if the hotel has not changed back by the time they travel.

   A: Delays the message: it tells them a change has happened while withholding the part that matters to them, that the new hotel is not on the beach they specifically asked for.

   B: Delays the decision: the instinct is decent and the clock is theirs, not yours. They have three weeks to decide whether to accept, change or cancel, and every day you spend negotiating is a day taken off that.

   D: Hides the problem / silent deadline slip: they discover at the airport that the one thing they specified is gone, with no time to decide anything. Waiting on a change that may not come is concealment, not patience.

   The most effective response is to ring the couple today, explain that the operator has moved them to a hotel two miles from the beach, and set out their options: they chose a beachfront hotel deliberately, the change removes exactly that, and with three weeks to travel they still have real choices. Telling them today, in full, is what makes those choices available. It beats emailing that the operator has made a change to their accommodation, because a vague notice withholds the single fact they care about and forces them to ask. It beats pushing the operator to reinstate the beachfront hotel before you contact them, because negotiating first, however well meant, spends their decision-making time on a position they have not been consulted about. The least effective response is saying nothing and telling them at the airport briefing: it is the only response where they learn when nothing can be changed, and it gambles their holiday on the operator reversing a decision it has already made. That is worse than the other two, which communicate late or partially but do not let them travel in ignorance. The principle: when a booking changes in the specific way a customer cared about, tell them at once and let them choose what to do about it.

4. Question 4 of 10

   You are an administrator in a pension scheme’s benefits team. Checking a routine calculation you notice that the formula used for a group of about thirty members appears to apply the wrong revaluation rate, which would mean they have been underpaid for several years. You are relatively new and the calculation is complex. The scheme actuary reports quarterly. Your benefits manager is in the office. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Work through the whole group's calculations yourself over the coming weeks so that you can present a fully evidenced case rather than a suspicion.
   2. Take your workings to the benefits manager today, explain which rate appears to have been applied and that the calculation is complex and you may have it wrong.
   3. Raise it with the scheme actuary at the next quarterly report, since the revaluation rate is a technical question that falls squarely within the actuary's remit.
   4. Leave it, since the formula has presumably been reviewed and audited over the years and you are new enough to be misreading a calculation you do not fully understand.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: B. Take your workings to the benefits manager today, explain which rate appears to have been applied and that the calculation is complex and you may have it wrong.

   Least effective: D. Leave it, since the formula has presumably been reviewed and audited over the years and you are new enough to be misreading a calculation you do not fully understand.

   A: Delays the decision: weeks of solo checking on a complex calculation postpones a possible underpayment to thirty pensioners, when the benefits manager could confirm the principle in an afternoon.

   C: Delays the decision by choosing the wrong route: the actuary is the right technical authority and the wrong clock, and the benefits manager is the person who can involve them now rather than in three months.

   D: Fails to escalate a genuine risk: thirty pensioners may have been underpaid for years, and the reason for silence is that others must have checked, which is the assumption the error itself disproves. Being unsure is a reason to ask, not to say nothing.

   The most effective response is to take your workings to the benefits manager today, explain which rate appears to have been applied and that you may have it wrong: you may have found a long-running underpayment to thirty pensioners, you cannot confirm it, and she can either dismiss it or escalate it to the actuary within the day. Saying plainly that you may be mistaken is honest and costs nothing. It beats working through the whole group’s calculations yourself over the coming weeks, because that postpones a possible underpayment while you build certainty someone else could reach far faster. It beats raising it with the scheme actuary at the next quarterly report, because that is the right expertise on a three- month delay. The least effective response is leaving it because the formula has presumably been reviewed and audited over the years: it lets a possible multi-year underpayment stand on exactly the assumption your own check calls into question. That is worse than the other two, which are too slow but do act. The principle: take an uncertain but serious finding to whoever can confirm it, promptly, and be open about your own uncertainty.

5. Question 5 of 10

   You are an administrator in a college admissions office. It is results week, your colleague who shares the enquiry inbox is off sick, and incoming enquiries have roughly doubled since Monday. You have also promised the finance office an enrolment reconciliation they need before they can start invoicing tuition fees. This morning the queue of unanswered enquiries is growing visibly, and your team leader asks how you plan to manage the day. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Assure your team leader you will cover the doubled enquiries and still deliver the reconciliation today, so nobody needs to worry about the absence.
   2. Set the reconciliation aside for the week and put all your time into the enquiry queue, assuming the finance office can start invoicing a little later.
   3. Take a few minutes to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover today and where support is needed, then work through the enquiries steadily.
   4. Tell your team leader, in front of the rest of the team, that the situation is unmanageable and management should have arranged cover, and continue only with your normal workload.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: C. Take a few minutes to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover today and where support is needed, then work through the enquiries steadily.

   Least effective: D. Tell your team leader, in front of the rest of the team, that the situation is unmanageable and management should have arranged cover, and continue only with your normal workload.

   A: Over-promises: committing to absorb a doubled enquiry load and still deliver the reconciliation today gambles on a pace one person is unlikely to sustain, and sets up a late failure that is harder to manage than an honest assessment now.

   B: Abandons own committed work: dropping the reconciliation on an assumption leaves the finance office unable to start invoicing, without checking what they actually need, a promise quietly shelved rather than pressure honestly managed.

   D: Blames others publicly: announcing in front of the team that the situation is unmanageable, while refusing to adapt, turns pressure into complaint; it does nothing to reduce the queue and undermines the team leader and colleagues who still have to cope.

   The most effective response is to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover and where support is needed, then work the queue steadily: it meets the spike calmly and gives an honest picture of what one person can and cannot do, which keeps output up without pretending the pressure away. It beats assuring your team leader you will cover everything, because that promises a pace one person is unlikely to sustain, and the resulting failure would surface late in the day when it is hardest to fix. It beats setting the reconciliation aside for the week, because that quietly shelves a commitment the finance office is relying on, based on an assumption about their timetable rather than a conversation. The least effective response is declaring the situation unmanageable in front of the rest of the team and doing only your normal workload: unlike over-promising, which at least throws effort at the problem, and unlike shelving the reconciliation, which at least keeps the enquiry queue moving, it converts pressure into public blame and refusal, helping nobody and souring the team on a difficult day. The principle: under a workload spike, stay composed. Assess honestly, tell people what is realistic, and keep working, rather than over-promising, quietly dropping commitments, or blaming.

6. Question 6 of 10

   You are an analyst at a market-research agency. A client’s marketing director is building a product-launch presentation for Thursday around survey results you are producing. Today, Tuesday, you find your fieldwork supplier has so far delivered only half the promised responses; the remainder arrive tomorrow night, and the headline figures may shift once they are in. The marketing director has just emailed asking for the figures today so she can start building her presentation. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Send the preliminary figures now, stating clearly they are based on half the sample and flagging which headline numbers may move when the remaining responses arrive tomorrow night.
   2. Hold the figures back until the full sample has arrived and been checked tomorrow night, so the marketing director only ever sees numbers that will not change.
   3. Reply that the results are in good shape, and send the figures today without mentioning the missing half of the sample, since the final numbers will probably be close.
   4. Raise the problem with your own account manager first and leave it to them to decide what, if anything, the client should be told about the sample.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Send the preliminary figures now, stating clearly they are based on half the sample and flagging which headline numbers may move when the remaining responses arrive tomorrow night.

   Least effective: C. Reply that the results are in good shape, and send the figures today without mentioning the missing half of the sample, since the final numbers will probably be close.

   B: Delays the message: the marketing director has asked for the figures today to start building a Thursday presentation, and withholding everything until tomorrow night costs her a full day of preparation when a clearly-caveated interim answer would serve her now.

   C: Falsely reassures the stakeholder: telling the client her results are in good shape while knowingly omitting that half the sample is missing is dishonesty about reliability. She may lock claims you know are unstable into a launch presentation, a different kind of wrong from being slow or indirect.

   D: Tells the wrong audience first: briefing the account manager is sensible, but leaving the whole decision with them delays a straightforward factual caveat the marketing director needs today, while her request for the figures sits unanswered.

   The most effective response is to send the preliminary figures now, stating clearly that they rest on half the sample and flagging which headline numbers may move: the marketing director asked for figures today, and a plainly caveated interim answer lets her start building the presentation without locking in claims that could change tomorrow night. It beats holding everything back until the full sample is checked, because that costs her a full day of preparation against a Thursday deadline when a clearly caveated answer meets her stated need now. It beats routing the issue through your account manager first, because that delays a simple factual caveat the client needs today, and her request goes unanswered in the meantime. The least effective response is telling her the results are in good shape and sending the figures without mentioning the missing half: unlike holding them back, which is slow but honest, and unlike escalating internally, which at least surfaces the problem to someone, it assures the client of a reliability you know the numbers do not have. If the headline figures shift tomorrow night, she has built her launch on numbers you knew were unstable. The principle: give stakeholders what they need on time, with an honest statement of how reliable it is, never certainty you do not have.

7. Question 7 of 10

   You are a finance assistant at a charity. Reconciling the restricted funds you notice that a grant given specifically for a youth project appears to have been spent on general running costs over several months. You are new and may be misreading the fund codes. The trustees meet in a fortnight and the grant’s annual report to the funder is due next month. Your finance manager is in the office. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Take your workings to the finance manager this week, explain what the codes appear to show and that you may have misread them, and ask her to check before the trustees meet.
   2. Spend the next fortnight tracing every transaction yourself so that you can present a complete and certain picture rather than a half- formed concern.
   3. Leave it, since you are new, the fund codes are complicated and the finance manager and the auditors will have reviewed the restricted funds already.
   4. Raise it directly with the trustees at their meeting in a fortnight, since restricted funds are their responsibility and the finance manager may have been involved in the spending.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Take your workings to the finance manager this week, explain what the codes appear to show and that you may have misread them, and ask her to check before the trustees meet.

   Least effective: C. Leave it, since you are new, the fund codes are complicated and the finance manager and the auditors will have reviewed the restricted funds already.

   B: Delays the decision: certainty is worth having and a fortnight of solo work takes you past the trustees' meeting, when the finance manager could confirm or dismiss it in an hour.

   C: Fails to escalate a genuine risk: a restricted grant may have been misapplied with a report to the funder due next month, and the reason for silence is an assumption that others have checked, which is what your own reconciliation calls into question.

   D: Escalates prematurely: you are new, you may have misread the fund codes, and going to the trustees first implies wrongdoing by the finance manager on the strength of a reading nobody has checked.

   The most effective response is to take your workings to the finance manager this week, explain what the codes appear to show and that you may have misread them, and ask her to check before the trustees meet: you may be right or you may have misread, and she can establish which in an hour, well before the meeting and the funder’s report. Saying plainly that you may be wrong is honest and costs nothing. It beats spending the next fortnight tracing every transaction yourself, because reaching certainty that way takes you past the meeting where it would have mattered. It beats raising it directly with the trustees at their meeting, because going there first, as a new member of staff working from an unchecked reading, implies misconduct by your manager before anyone has confirmed there is even an error. The least effective response is leaving it because the fund codes are complicated and others will have reviewed them: it leaves a possible misuse of restricted funds unexamined with a report to the funder due next month. That is worse than the other two, which act too slowly or in the wrong order but do act. The principle: take an unconfirmed but serious finding to the person who can confirm it, promptly, and be honest that you may have it wrong.

8. Question 8 of 10

   You work in a commercial laundry. Your colleague Aled is loading a large hotel order alone against a 2pm van departure, and it is 1pm. The load needs two people to make the deadline. You have finished your own machines and have nothing else assigned. The shift supervisor is dealing with a breakdown at the other end of the building. Aled has not asked for help. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Go over to Aled, tell him your machines are finished and you will take half the load, and work with him until the order is ready for the van.
   2. Carry on tidying your own area, since the hotel order is Aled's job today and he has not asked anybody for help with it.
   3. Ask Aled whether he wants help and get on with something else if he says he is fine, since he knows how the hotel order is sorted and may prefer to keep his own system.
   4. Find the shift supervisor and tell her the hotel order will miss the 2pm van unless someone else is put on it.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Go over to Aled, tell him your machines are finished and you will take half the load, and work with him until the order is ready for the van.

   Least effective: B. Carry on tidying your own area, since the hotel order is Aled's job today and he has not asked anybody for help with it.

   B: Waits to be asked: a two-person load is being done by one person against a van departure, and the reason for not helping is that he has not asked. Waiting to be asked is what causes the order to miss the van.

   C: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: a colleague an hour from a van departure will usually say he is managing, so the question is polite and predictably leaves him loading alone.

   D: Escalates prematurely: you are the person she would send, she is dealing with a breakdown, and the walk there and back costs minutes the load does not have.

   The most effective response is to go over to Aled, tell him your machines are finished and you will take half the load, and work with him until the order is ready: the load needs two people, there is an hour, and your own machines are done, so joining him is the only response that actually makes the van. Telling him your work is finished removes any need for him to ask. It beats asking whether he wants help and getting on with something else if he says he is fine, because a colleague under time pressure will usually decline a general offer, and the load is no further forward. It beats finding the shift supervisor to say the order will miss the 2pm van, because you are the resource she would send, and fetching her costs minutes while she is handling a breakdown. The least effective response is carrying on tidying your own area because he has not asked anybody: it leaves a two-person load with one person and a van departure that will be missed. That is worse than offering, which at least asks, and worse than telling the supervisor, which at least raises it. The principle: when a colleague plainly cannot finish alone and you are free, take half the work rather than waiting to be asked.

9. Question 9 of 10

   You are an administrator in a university department. You and your colleague Helen both support the same group of academics. Helen believes urgent requests should be dealt with in the order received; you triage by deadline. An academic has complained that his conference paper submission was handled after a routine expenses claim and nearly missed its deadline. Your department manager has asked the two of you to agree an approach. Thirty requests are waiting. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Carry on triaging by deadline, since it plainly works better and the complaint proves it, and leave Helen to work in whatever order she prefers.
   2. Agree to Helen's first-come-first-served order, since it is transparent, and ask the academics to mark anything genuinely urgent when they send it.
   3. Ask the department manager to decide which approach the office should use, and continue as you each have been until she rules.
   4. Work through the thirty waiting requests with Helen today by deadline, then write down the rule you have both used and take it to the department manager to confirm.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Work through the thirty waiting requests with Helen today by deadline, then write down the rule you have both used and take it to the department manager to confirm.

   Least effective: A. Carry on triaging by deadline, since it plainly works better and the complaint proves it, and leave Helen to work in whatever order she prefers.

   A: Avoids the difficult conversation: it declares yourself right without speaking to Helen and accepts that the office will keep running two incompatible systems. The manager asked the two of you to agree, and this is a decision not to.

   B: Prioritises harmony over honesty: it concedes the point rather than resolving it and moves the triage burden onto academics, who have every reason to mark their own request urgent.

   C: Delays the decision: it seeks the right ruling while thirty requests keep being handled two different ways, which is the practice that produced the complaint.

   The most effective response is to work through the thirty waiting requests with Helen today by deadline, then write down the rule you have both used and take it to the department manager to confirm: there are thirty requests waiting and a genuine disagreement to settle, and clearing the backlog together both fixes today and demonstrates the rule in practice. Writing it down and having it confirmed turns a private preference into an office standard. It beats agreeing to her first-come-first-served order and asking academics to mark anything urgent, because that reintroduces exactly the failure that was complained about, and inviting people to flag urgency invites everyone to flag everything. It beats asking the department manager to decide while you each continue as you have been, because that leaves thirty requests handled two different ways in the meantime. The least effective response is carrying on triaging by deadline and leaving Helen to work however she prefers: it decides the disagreement unilaterally, never speaks to her, and leaves the office running two incompatible systems, which is the precise thing the manager asked you both to stop. That is worse than the other two, which at least seek agreement. The principle: clear the backlog together using an agreed rule, then have the rule confirmed, rather than conceding, waiting or going it alone.

10. Question 10 of 10

    You work in a procurement office. You are collecting quotes for a printing contract. One of the bidders is a company owned by your brother-in-law; he did not know you were involved and submitted through the normal channel. His quote is genuinely the cheapest. The evaluation is due next week and your procurement manager does not know of the connection. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

    1. Continue with the evaluation and score strictly on price and quality, since his quote is genuinely the cheapest and the process will produce the right answer anyway.
    2. Tell your procurement manager about the family connection now and ask to be taken off the evaluation of this contract.
    3. Say nothing about the connection and let the evaluation run, since he submitted through the normal channel and had no idea you would be involved in assessing it.
    4. Exclude your brother-in-law's quote from the shortlist so there is no question of favouritism, and evaluate the remaining bids as normal.
    Show the answer

    Most effective: B. Tell your procurement manager about the family connection now and ask to be taken off the evaluation of this contract.

    Least effective: C. Say nothing about the connection and let the evaluation run, since he submitted through the normal channel and had no idea you would be involved in assessing it.

    A: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: whether you can fairly evaluate a relative's bid is not yours to decide. Even a perfectly scored outcome is unsafe if the connection is only discovered afterwards.

    C: Breaches confidentiality or process: it conceals a conflict of interest from the people running a competitive tender. The innocence of how the bid arrived does not cure the fact that only you know, and you are scoring it.

    D: Removes the cheapest compliant bid: it removes a compliant and cheapest bid on your own authority, which is as much an unauthorised intervention as choosing it would be, and it costs the employer money.

    The most effective response is to tell your procurement manager about the family connection now and ask to be taken off the evaluation: you have a conflict of interest, the remedy is to declare it and step back, and doing so now leaves time before next week for someone else to take it on. It protects the process, the employer and your brother-in-law’s legitimate bid. It beats continuing the evaluation and scoring strictly on price and quality, because a fair score does not fix an undeclared conflict; if the connection emerges later, the whole award is open to challenge however well it was scored. It beats excluding his quote from the shortlist to remove any question of favouritism, because that is an intervention of your own that drops the cheapest compliant bid and costs the employer money. The least effective response is saying nothing about the connection and letting the evaluation run: it hides a conflict from the people running a tender while you continue to score it, the one response that leaves nobody able to protect the process. That is worse than the other two, which act wrongly but at least without concealment. The principle: declare a conflict of interest to the person running the process, and let them decide what you should and should not touch.