Here is an excerpt from an actual ECQ essay from several years ago on the Leading Change ECQ category for a high-ranking scientific position. This excerpt addresses the challenge and context portion only of this particular ECQ. It should illustrate the extent to which the challenge and context must be set up for the reader while including core competencies in the discussion.
Progress toward the goal of improving minority health and eliminating health disparities had been less than desired, a result of the programs’ primary support of pilot projects. The current programs were identified by a name, which had grown quite popular but did not identify the sponsor. The name of the programs needed to be changed to promote their sponsors. These were premier programs, congressionally mandated, and groundbreaking in design. They were well-received and supported, but were highly complex, with multiple components covering a number of disciplines, diseases, and health conditions, and actually exceeded the human resources available for adequate administration management. It was complex and challenging also because of the amount of science and the disciplines that were involved were very broad. Short-term research projects were favored over long-term, but we really needed to increase the number of long-term projects, while still supporting the short-term projects. In 2004, I coordinated and conducted the first program directors meeting and took that opportunity to solicit feedback from the principal investigators. One suggestion from the principal investigators was that the number of cores be decreased. This suggestion had merit, because having four cores limited the ability of the grantees to attract and retain the efforts of researchers and limited the funding available to support the research effort.
The main question became how to accelerate the pace of progress and step up research efforts to improve minority health and eliminate health disparities. Our objectives became clear, and through discussions with the director and center staff, I granted permission to: 1) decrease the complexity and size; 2) change the research focus and program name; 3) decrease the number of required components, but allow for additional components; 4) require a minimum number of long-term projects; 5) keep the portion of the budget that could be used for short-term projects, and allow the cap to be exceeded with permission of the center; and 6) provide technical assistance via telephone conference to promote the success and response that we desired from the community.
Following this excerpt the author went on to discuss the actions taken and results achieved with numbers and statistics, both KEY drivers to a successful ECQ document.
Executive Core Qualifications - ECQ 