Choose from a wide range of NEWCV resume templates and customize your NEWCV design with a single click.
Use ATS-optimised Resume and resume templates that pass applicant tracking systems. Our Resume builder helps recruiters read, scan, and shortlist your Resume faster.
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create Resume
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create ResumeTo match a person specification properly, you need to show clear evidence that you meet each essential criterion, not simply repeat the wording from the job advert. In the UK job market, especially in public sector, NHS, education, charity, university, council, and structured corporate recruitment, the person specification is often the shortlisting checklist. If your application does not prove the criteria, you may be rejected even if you are genuinely capable of doing the job. I look for evidence, context, impact, and relevance. A strong response tells me what you did, where you did it, how you did it, and why it matters for this role. A weak response says, “I have excellent communication skills.” A stronger one proves it.
A person specification is the employer’s list of the skills, experience, knowledge, qualifications, behaviours, and personal attributes they believe are needed to do the job well. It usually sits alongside the job description, but the two documents do different things.
The job description explains the role. The person specification explains the person they are trying to hire.
That distinction matters more than candidates realise. Many applicants read the job description, understand the tasks, and then write a general application about why they want the job. That is not enough when the employer is scoring applications against criteria.
In many UK recruitment processes, especially structured ones, the person specification may be split into:
Essential criteria
Desirable criteria
Qualifications and training
Experience
Skills and abilities
When candidates ask why they keep getting rejected despite being qualified, I often look at the application and see the problem immediately. They have described themselves well, but they have not matched the person specification.
That sounds like a small difference. It is not.
A recruiter or hiring manager is usually not reading your application as a personal essay. They are checking whether you meet the role requirements. In structured recruitment, they may literally be scoring each criterion. Your application is not just being read. It is being assessed.
This is especially common in the UK public sector and organisations with formal hiring procedures. NHS applications, council roles, civil service style applications, university jobs, housing associations, charities, and many education roles often expect candidates to address the person specification directly. If you ignore it, you are making the shortlister work too hard.
And here is the blunt truth: most shortlisters will not do that work for you.
They will not dig through vague paragraphs trying to infer that you meet a criterion. They will not generously assume that “strong interpersonal skills” means you have managed difficult stakeholders, handled complaints, led meetings, and influenced senior colleagues. You need to make the evidence easy to find.
A strong application reduces doubt. A weak one creates extra questions.
Knowledge
Personal qualities or behaviours
The essential criteria are the non negotiables. If the employer says experience of stakeholder management is essential, they are not politely suggesting it would be nice. They are telling you that, at shortlisting stage, they need to see evidence that you have done it or can clearly demonstrate equivalent experience.
The desirable criteria are not always required, but they can become the tie breaker. When a role has many strong applicants, desirable criteria suddenly become very useful. This is one of those small hiring realities candidates often underestimate. Employers may say “desirable” because they do not want to narrow the applicant pool too much, but when they receive fifty strong applications, desirable criteria help them rank people quickly.
The biggest mistake I see is candidates treating the person specification like a keyword list.
They copy phrases from the advert and scatter them into their CV, supporting statement, or application answer:
“I have excellent communication skills, strong organisational skills, stakeholder management experience, and the ability to work under pressure.”
That may look aligned at first glance, but it does not prove anything. It reads like someone has copied the menu rather than cooked the meal.
Matching the person specification does not mean repeating the criteria. It means proving them.
Recruiters and hiring managers are looking for evidence that feels specific, credible, and relevant. They want to see that you understand what the criterion means in practice.
For example, “ability to work under pressure” does not mean you should write, “I work well under pressure.” Almost everyone writes that. It tells me nothing.
It is stronger to explain a situation where you handled competing deadlines, protected quality, prioritised urgent work, communicated delays early, and still delivered what mattered. That shows judgement. And judgement is what employers are really trying to assess behind many vague criteria.
Before you write anything, read the person specification carefully and separate it into decision points. Do not start writing from the top of your head. That is how applications become long, warm, and strangely useless.
I would break it down like this:
Which criteria are essential?
Which criteria are desirable?
Which criteria are repeated in different wording?
Which criteria are technical requirements?
Which criteria are behavioural requirements?
Which criteria need examples rather than claims?
Which criteria are likely to be scored heavily?
Some criteria are obvious. If the role asks for experience using Excel, Salesforce, SAGE, SIMS, EMIS, or another system, you need to mention the tool and the level you used it at.
Some criteria are more coded. “Ability to build effective working relationships” often means the role involves internal stakeholders, external partners, customers, clients, patients, service users, suppliers, or senior leaders. The employer wants someone who can work with people without creating chaos. A charming sentence about being a people person will not carry much weight.
Some criteria hide the real pressure of the job. “Able to manage competing priorities” may mean the team is busy, reactive, under resourced, or dealing with frequent urgent requests. The employer wants to know whether you can stay organised without needing constant rescue.
This is where candidates should stop reading like applicants and start reading like hiring decision makers.
The question is not, “Do I have this skill?”
The better question is, “What evidence would make a shortlister confident I have this skill?”
When matching a person specification, always prioritise the essential criteria first. This sounds obvious, yet many candidates spend half their statement explaining why they are passionate about the organisation and then only lightly touch the actual requirements.
Passion is lovely. Evidence gets you shortlisted.
For each essential criterion, you should be able to point to a clear part of your application that proves it. If you cannot find that proof, the shortlister probably cannot either.
A practical way to check your application is to create a simple matching table before you write the final version. You do not always need to include the table in the application, but it helps you organise your evidence.
Use this thinking process:
Criterion: Experience of managing confidential information
Evidence: Handled employee records, payroll documents, safeguarding notes, medical information, financial data, or client files
Proof detail: Explain the setting, sensitivity, process, and outcome
Relevance: Connect it to the role’s need for accuracy, discretion, and compliance
This is much stronger than writing, “I understand the importance of confidentiality.”
Most candidates understand the importance of confidentiality. The employer wants to know whether you have practised it properly when mistakes would have consequences.
There are two common ways to match a person specification in a UK job application.
The first is a criteria by criteria structure. This is useful when the employer has a formal application form or specifically asks you to address the person specification.
The second is an integrated supporting statement. This is useful when you need to write a flowing personal statement, cover letter, or application answer while still making sure each criterion is covered.
This structure is direct and easy for shortlisters to assess. It works particularly well for public sector, NHS, council, charity, education, and university applications.
You can use headings that reflect the main criteria, such as:
Experience of working with vulnerable service users
Communication and stakeholder engagement
Organisation and workload management
Knowledge of safeguarding procedures
Ability to use relevant systems and maintain accurate records
The benefit of this structure is clarity. The risk is that it can become robotic if every section sounds like a forced answer. You still need to write naturally and give proper examples.
This structure works better when the employer wants a more narrative response. You still match the criteria, but you do it through focused paragraphs rather than separate headings for every requirement.
A strong integrated statement might move through:
Your relevant background
Your strongest matching experience
Technical or role specific skills
Behavioural evidence
Motivation for the role and organisation
A concise closing paragraph
The danger with this format is drifting into autobiography. Do not tell your whole career story. The purpose is not to explain your life. The purpose is to prove fit for this role.
Good evidence is specific enough to be believable and relevant enough to be useful.
When I screen applications, I do not need dramatic stories. I need clean proof. A good example usually includes:
The situation or context
Your responsibility
The action you took
The skill or judgement you used
The result or impact
Why it is relevant to the role
You do not need to turn every example into a long STAR answer, but you do need enough detail for the reader to trust it.
Weak Example
“I have strong organisational skills and can manage a busy workload effectively.”
This is weak because it is only a claim. It gives no setting, no scale, no complexity, and no outcome.
Good Example
“In my current administrative role, I manage a shared inbox, arrange appointments for multiple team members, update confidential records, and respond to urgent queries from clients and external partners. I use task lists and priority categories to separate time sensitive issues from routine admin, which has helped me keep response times consistent during busy periods.”
This is stronger because it shows what the person actually does. It proves organisation through workload, method, and outcome.
Weak Example
“I have excellent communication skills and enjoy working with different people.”
Again, too vague. It sounds pleasant, but it does not help the shortlister score the criterion.
Good Example
“I regularly communicate with clients, colleagues, and external suppliers, adapting my style depending on the situation. For example, I have explained process changes to customers who were frustrated, chased missing information from suppliers, and updated managers when deadlines were at risk. I focus on being clear, calm, and practical, especially when the conversation is difficult.”
This works because it shows range. Communication is not one skill. It is a group of behaviours, including clarity, listening, tone, judgement, timing, and follow up.
Most applicants use the same words: organised, motivated, reliable, hardworking, flexible, passionate, team player, excellent communicator.
There is nothing wrong with those qualities, but they are not persuasive on their own. Hiring managers have read them hundreds of times. At some point, “I am hardworking” becomes background noise.
The way to stand out is to make the skill visible through behaviour.
Instead of saying you are organised, show what you organise.
Instead of saying you are proactive, show what you noticed before anyone asked.
Instead of saying you are good under pressure, show what pressure looked like and how you handled it.
Instead of saying you are a team player, show how you supported colleagues, shared information, solved problems, or improved the way the team worked.
This is where a lot of candidates accidentally weaken themselves. They think confidence means making big claims. In recruitment, confidence often comes from precision. A specific example feels more confident than a loud adjective.
You do not always need to meet every desirable criterion. You do need to be honest about the essential criteria.
If you are missing one desirable requirement, you can still be a strong candidate if your essential match is solid. But if you are missing a key essential requirement, you need to think carefully before applying, especially in a competitive UK process where criteria are scored.
That does not mean you should automatically rule yourself out. Sometimes candidates have equivalent experience but do not recognise it.
For example, a person specification might ask for “experience of case management.” A candidate from a customer service, housing, recruitment, student support, social care, complaints, or account management background may have relevant evidence if they have managed people, records, actions, follow ups, and outcomes over time.
The key is not to pretend. The key is to translate your experience accurately.
You might write:
“Although my experience has been in customer support rather than formal case management, I have managed ongoing customer issues from first contact to resolution, maintained accurate notes, coordinated with internal teams, and followed up until the issue was closed. This has given me a strong foundation in managing cases, tracking actions, and communicating clearly with people throughout a process.”
That is much better than either ignoring the criterion or falsely claiming direct experience you do not have.
Recruiters are not allergic to transferable experience. We are allergic to vague stretching.
Partly meeting an essential criterion is trickier. You need to show the closest relevant evidence and reduce perceived risk.
For example, if the role asks for experience using a specific system you have not used, but you have used similar systems, say that clearly.
Weak Example
“I am confident I could learn your system quickly.”
This may be true, but it gives the employer little reason to believe you.
Good Example
“I have not used iTrent directly, but I have used Workday and SAP SuccessFactors to update employee records, run reports, and maintain accurate HR data. I am confident learning new systems because I already understand the importance of data accuracy, access controls, audit trails, and consistent record keeping in HR environments.”
The stronger answer does three useful things. It is honest, it provides adjacent evidence, and it explains why the learning curve is manageable.
That is how you handle gaps professionally. You do not hide them. You frame them.
A good person specification response is complete, but it is not bloated.
Some candidates write too little. Others go the opposite way and produce a long, exhausting statement that includes every job they have ever had, every task they have ever touched, and several paragraphs of motivation that nobody asked for.
Long does not automatically mean strong.
A strong application is selective. It chooses the most relevant evidence and presents it clearly. If you write five paragraphs for one criterion and half a sentence for another, your balance is off.
Think of the shortlister’s job. They need to identify whether you meet the criteria quickly and fairly. Your job is to make that easy without sounding like a checklist written by a committee.
Good matching feels like this:
Clear enough to score
Specific enough to trust
Concise enough to read
Relevant enough to shortlist
Human enough to remember
Poor matching feels like this:
Lots of claims
Little evidence
Repeated phrases from the advert
No examples
Unclear relevance
Too much personal background
No obvious link to the essential criteria
There is a difference between being thorough and making the reader excavate your suitability with a tiny spoon. Please do not make hiring teams do archaeology.
Candidates often imagine their application being read slowly, carefully, and emotionally from start to finish. Sometimes it is. Often, it is not.
In a busy recruitment process, applications are reviewed with a purpose. The reader is looking for reasons to shortlist, reject, or discuss. They may scan first, then read properly if the application looks relevant.
That means your strongest evidence should not be buried.
I notice:
Whether the application has clearly addressed the essential criteria
Whether the examples sound real or generic
Whether the candidate understands the level of the role
Whether their evidence matches the complexity expected
Whether they have inflated simple tasks into strategic claims
Whether their writing is clear enough for the role
Whether there are obvious gaps or unexplained jumps
Whether the candidate has tailored the response or sent something generic
Hiring managers are often even more practical. They are thinking, “Can this person do the job, fit the team, handle the pressure, and reduce my problems rather than create new ones?”
That is the hidden question behind most shortlisting decisions.
Your application should answer it.
If the application requires a CV, the person specification should shape what you include and prioritise. This does not mean stuffing your CV with copied phrases. It means making your most relevant evidence visible.
Your professional profile should reflect the role’s main requirements. Your key skills section should align with the essential criteria. Your job bullet points should show relevant achievements, responsibilities, systems, stakeholders, and outcomes.
For example, if the person specification asks for:
Experience managing competing deadlines
Strong written and verbal communication
Ability to maintain accurate records
Experience working with internal and external stakeholders
Your CV should not simply say:
“Excellent communicator with strong organisational skills.”
It should show:
Managed high volume administrative tasks across multiple deadlines
Maintained accurate records using relevant systems
Liaised with internal teams, clients, suppliers, or service users
Produced written updates, reports, emails, minutes, or case notes
Prioritised urgent requests while maintaining quality and confidentiality
The wording can be natural, but the evidence must be findable. An ATS may scan for relevant terms, but a human still decides whether those terms mean anything. Matching a person specification is not just about passing software. It is about convincing the person reading after the software has done its boring little gatekeeping routine.
A supporting statement is often where candidates win or lose the shortlist.
This is where you should directly connect your background to the criteria. In the UK, many employers use supporting statements to assess how well you understand the role and whether you can evidence the person specification properly.
A strong supporting statement should:
Open with a direct summary of your fit for the role
Address the most important essential criteria early
Use specific examples rather than generic claims
Show relevant knowledge of the organisation or sector
Explain transferable experience clearly where needed
Stay focused on the role rather than your whole career history
End with a confident, relevant closing paragraph
A weak supporting statement usually does one of these things:
Talks mostly about why the candidate wants the job
Repeats the person specification without evidence
Gives broad personality claims
Uses the same statement for every application
Includes irrelevant personal history
Fails to address obvious essential criteria
Sounds enthusiastic but not qualified
Enthusiasm helps when the evidence is already strong. It does not replace evidence.
When candidates feel stuck, I suggest using a simple evidence matching framework before writing the final application.
For each criterion, ask yourself:
Look beyond the wording. “Stakeholder engagement” may mean influencing, relationship building, expectation management, conflict handling, or keeping people informed.
Think across jobs, projects, volunteering, placements, education, freelance work, caring responsibilities, or community roles where relevant.
Were you doing this occasionally, daily, independently, under supervision, across teams, with senior people, or in a regulated environment?
Use a specific task, project, responsibility, result, system, process, or example.
Connect the evidence back to the employer’s need.
This framework stops you from writing empty statements. It also helps you avoid underselling yourself. Many candidates have good evidence, but they present it too casually because they assume the reader will understand the relevance. Do not assume. Make the relevance obvious.
One of the most common mistakes is responding to the job title instead of the criteria. A candidate sees “Project Officer” and writes a project based application, but the person specification is heavily focused on stakeholder coordination, data reporting, grant administration, and public sector governance. The title gives the category. The person specification gives the scoring route.
Another mistake is treating all criteria equally. Some requirements carry more weight than others. If a role is heavily compliance based, your evidence around accuracy, process, confidentiality, and regulation needs to be strong. If a role is stakeholder heavy, your communication evidence needs depth. If a role is technical, vague enthusiasm will not compensate for missing practical skill evidence.
Candidates also make the mistake of using examples that are too old, too small, or too unrelated. An example from ten years ago may still be useful if it is highly relevant, but recent evidence usually carries more weight. A tiny example can work for an entry level role, but for a senior role it may make you look under level.
Another issue is exaggeration. Hiring teams can usually sense when someone has inflated their involvement. “Led the implementation of a new system” means something very different from “attended training and helped update records after the system changed.” Be accurate. Strong candidates do not need to over decorate.
The final big mistake is not proofreading against the criteria. Before submitting, go back to the person specification and check whether every essential point is clearly covered. Not vaguely implied. Clearly covered.
Person specifications often use polite, formal language. Behind that language, there is usually a practical concern.
When an employer says “able to work independently”, they often mean they do not want to handhold someone through every task.
When they say “excellent attention to detail”, they may be dealing with errors that create complaints, compliance issues, financial mistakes, safeguarding risks, or reputational problems.
When they say “resilient and able to work under pressure”, they may mean the environment is busy, emotionally demanding, fast moving, or not always perfectly organised.
When they say “strong stakeholder management skills”, they may mean you will need to handle conflicting priorities, difficult personalities, unclear expectations, or senior people who want things yesterday.
When they say “flexible approach”, they may mean priorities change, processes are not always tidy, and the role may involve tasks outside a narrow job description.
Your application is stronger when you respond to the practical reality, not just the polite wording.
For example, if a role asks for resilience, do not simply say you are resilient. Show how you stay calm, prioritise, communicate, and keep standards up when things are busy or difficult.
That is what the employer is really trying to understand.
A good application is not just well written. It is easy to assess.
Use clear paragraphs. Use headings if appropriate. Keep examples close to the criteria they support. Avoid hiding important evidence in the middle of a long paragraph about your passion for the organisation.
Use the employer’s terminology where it is natural, but do not parrot the advert. If they say “service users”, use “service users” if that fits your experience. If they say “stakeholders”, use “stakeholders” where relevant. This helps alignment, but the real value still comes from evidence.
Be specific about systems, sectors, responsibilities, and outcomes. In the UK job market, employers often compare candidates with similar sounding experience. Detail helps them understand your level.
For example, “administration experience” could mean anything from basic filing to managing complex records in a regulated service. “Customer service experience” could mean quick retail interactions, complaint resolution, account management, patient support, or handling vulnerable callers. Give enough context so the employer can place your experience correctly.
That is what good matching does. It removes ambiguity.
Here is how a candidate might match a criterion without sounding robotic.
Criterion: Experience of managing competing priorities and working to deadlines
Weak Example
“I am highly organised and able to work to deadlines. I can prioritise my workload and work well under pressure.”
This says the right words but proves very little.
Good Example
“In my current role, I manage a varied workload that includes responding to client queries, updating records, preparing documents for meetings, and supporting colleagues with urgent requests. I prioritise tasks by deadline, risk, and impact, and I communicate early if timescales need to be adjusted. For example, during a busy reporting period, I balanced daily inbox management with preparing data for a senior team meeting, making sure urgent client issues were handled first while still delivering the report accurately and on time.”
This works because it shows the employer how the skill appears in real working life. It also shows judgement, which is often what “prioritisation” really means.
Another example:
Criterion: Ability to communicate effectively with a range of people
Weak Example
“I have excellent written and verbal communication skills and enjoy working with people from different backgrounds.”
Fine, but forgettable.
Good Example
“I communicate with colleagues, clients, and external contacts daily, adjusting my approach depending on the person and the situation. I have handled routine queries, clarified missing information, explained processes to people who were unfamiliar with them, and escalated sensitive issues when needed. I am comfortable keeping communication clear and calm, especially when someone is frustrated or when the information needs to be accurate.”
This is stronger because it shows range, judgement, and emotional control.
Include enough detail to prove the criterion, but not so much that the main point disappears.
For a supporting statement, a paragraph of five to eight lines may be enough for a major criterion. Smaller criteria can often be covered in shorter sections if the evidence is clear.
For a CV, you need tighter wording. Use bullet points that show responsibilities and outcomes. Do not write long paragraphs under every role.
For an application form with separate criteria boxes, answer each criterion directly and avoid copying the same example into every box unless the employer allows overlap. Repeating one story for five different criteria can make your experience look narrow.
The level of detail should match the level of the role. A senior role needs evidence of ownership, judgement, influence, risk management, decision making, leadership, or strategic contribution. An entry level role can focus more on reliability, learning ability, customer handling, organisation, accuracy, and motivation.
This is a common mismatch. Senior candidates sometimes write too task based. Junior candidates sometimes try to sound strategic when practical reliability would be more convincing.
Match the level, not just the words.
Before sending your application, check it against the person specification one last time.
Ask yourself:
Have I clearly addressed every essential criterion?
Have I used evidence rather than claims?
Are my strongest examples easy to find?
Have I included relevant desirable criteria where possible?
Have I explained transferable experience clearly?
Have I avoided copying phrases without proof?
Is the application tailored to this specific UK role and employer?
Does the level of my evidence match the level of the job?
Have I removed irrelevant detail?
Would a shortlister be able to score my application without guessing?
That final point matters most. If the recruiter or hiring manager has to guess, you have not matched the person specification properly.
Your goal is not to sound impressive in a general way. Your goal is to make the shortlisting decision easier.
Written by Simar Malhi, a recruiter and headhunter with international recruitment experience. I write about CVs, job applications, hiring decisions, and the reality behind recruitment processes. My goal is to help candidates understand more honestly how employers, recruiters, and hiring managers actually select candidates.
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin