All the needed directions can be found at the 5HRF Tutor Support Session slids file. please follow it.
The total word count for all six activities is 4000 words +/- 10%.
You should relate academic concepts, theories and professional practice to the way organisations operate, in a critical and informed way, and with reference to key texts, articles and other publications and by using organisational examples for illustration.
All reference sources should be acknowledged correctly and a bibliography provided where appropriate (these should be excluded from the word count).
Article for selection
Attached is the article that can be used for Question 6:
1
About the author
Eugene Burke’s career to date
includes roles as a military
psychologist for the Royal Air
Force, United States Air Force
and NATO, establishing the
first occupational psychology
unit for the London Fire
Brigade, establishing his
own consultancy as well as
more recent leadership roles
in SHL and CEB for R&D,
product development, product
management, consulting
services and, most recently,
in developing and applying
solutions in talent analytics.
His recent projects include
the talents that drive
innovation effectiveness,
the future of the retail bank,
improving the success of high-
potential programmes, how
organisations can use analytics
to drive more effective
investment in graduate
recruitment, how HR can play
a key role in managing risk
for organisations, addressing
the challenges to global
assessment programmes,
as well as unpacking myths
around gender differences in
leadership potential and what
the differences between the
generations mean for effective
talent management.
As well as scientific articles,
book chapters and books,
Eugene has published articles
in Talent Management as well
as in T+D Magazine, People
Matters and the Harvard
Business Review, and featured
in articles for The Times,
Financial Times, Forbes and
the Wall Street Journal.
Eugene has held leadership
positions for professional
bodies such as the Association
of Test Publishers, the
Association of Business
Psychologists, the British
Psychological Society, ISO
and the International Test
Commission. In 2014, Eugene
was identified as one of the top
50 global influences in talent
analytics in a LinkedIn poll.
People and the creation of value
Why organisations need to up their
game on understanding, measuring and
leveraging human capital
Eugene Burke, Analytics Adviser to the CIPD
What marks the competent organisation is its
capability to create value through its people. This
is hardly a new insight. People, whether they are
leaders defining strategy, managers responsible
for executing that strategy or employees
committed to delivering on an organisation’s
goals, have been and always will be an essential
driver of value-creation. They are also a critical
factor in whether value can be and is destroyed.
What is new is the opportunity for organisations
to marshal the wealth of data they hold on
people, the tools now available to use that data
to effect and the emergence of coherent ways
of thinking about how the flow of value-creation
is enabled, or not, through people investments.
This is more than just a call to action for HR
functions and HR professionals. It is an essential
competency for leaders and managers in
organisations because it speaks to the quality of
decision-making in this information age. To build
that organisational competency, decision-makers,
whatever function they may sit in – including those
in finance and HR – need to understand how the
notion of value has changed and is changing.
They need to understand how an investment
in people links to value and be able to
track and measure whether those people
investments are delivering value today and
can be expected to deliver value tomorrow.
They need to be able to do that in two ways.
First, they need to be able to answer the question
of whether those investments are building the
people capabilities the organisation needs
– that is, is the organisation creating human
capital today that will sustain it into the future?
Second, they need to be able to demonstrate
how people investments are delivering value,
whether that is in the form of more-tangible
financials or the more-intangible forms of value
that are increasing in importance as current
thinking about how to define value matures.
2
The changing nature of leadership quality
While the pressures on organisations and their
leaders have increased, so have our expectations
about the quality of decisions that leaders
make. Those pressures and our expectations
for decision qualityi are framed by powerful
forces in this information age (Table 1).
Organisations are now more exposed than
ever before. Social media, a 24/7/365 online
news media as well as the arrival of companies
that publish employee perceptions of their
employers and their leaders1 may not have
i Decision quality, or DQ, refers to the choices made under
dynamic circumstances and the actions that follow from
those choices. The quality of a decision can be judged by six
characteristics: setting the right frame, considering alternatives,
gathering meaningful data, clarifying values and trade-offs,
the logic underpinning the evaluation of data and alternatives,
and whether a decision results in a commitment to action.
rendered organisations fully transparent, but
they have made them considerably more
translucent. From the outside, we may only
as yet be able to see the shadows behind
corporate walls, but those corporate walls
are becoming considerably less opaque.
As survey after survey shows, political and
economic uncertainty has become the new
normal.2,3,4 The issue for all stakeholders who
depend on an organisation for employment and
for the goods and services that the organisation
provides is not so much that leaders are having
to deal with uncertainty, but how effectively
they are planning for and managing the potential
impact of uncertainty on their organisations.
Executives report that they feel the pace of
change is increasing by virtue of globalisation5 and
the technologies now embedded in our working
and personal lives. This is a growing concern
for all of us generally,6 so how do we know
that those who lead organisations are keeping
up with the pace of change and how is that
reflected in the quality of decisions made about
strategy, execution of that strategy and people?
It would seem that there is something of a paradox
around pace. On the one hand, while executives
are struggling to keep up with what they see as
the increasing pace of business, evidence shows
that pace in the form of innovations, new product
launches and successful company start-ups is
slowing down.7 This paradox, real or otherwise,
says something about the confidence we have
that leaders and managers are focused on what is
critical to drive and sustain performance in their
organisations. Yet, in one recent industry study,
only 50% of organisations surveyed said they
had confidence in their systems for monitoring
the performance of their organisations.8
That raises the issue of how organisations
demonstrate effective governance and whether
boards and the C-suite have a clear line of sight
on the people practices in their organisation.
Informed leadership and management is a
significant factor in gaining the buy-in of
employees to executing organisational goals
and meeting organisational targets, and here is
where those softer people intangibles present
a very tangible risk to organisational success.
To compound the challenges faced by
organisations, survey after survey show that
organisations are failing to engage their
Exposure The corporate fire wall protecting
what happens inside organisations
is becoming less opaque and more
porous to news and social media.
How effective an organisation
is in managing and engaging
employees is now more exposed
to the outside world.
Uncertainty Two of the most consistent
concerns reported by CEO and
executive surveys is ongoing
uncertainty impacting on business
performance. Globalisation and
regulation are the two factors
most frequently reported.
Governance While governments have focused
on the competence of boards,
the issue of governance emerges
among employee and customer
surveys as reflected in their
perceptions of management
competence (employees) and
quality of product and service
delivery (customers).
Trust Persistent lack of trust among
employees and customers presents
risks of customer disaffection and
employee turnover with impacts
on operational costs as well as
brand reputation.
Table 1: Five forces shaping decision quality
3
employees,9,10 a trend that raises a very tangible
risk to organisations at a time when labour markets
are becoming tighter and mobility in those labour
markets is on the rise. That risk is high on the
radar of leaders in the for-profit and not-for-profit
sectors, with the retention of staff growing as a
concern among organisations globally.11
The nature of organisational value
So how do organisations make the intangible
more tangible and strengthen decision quality?
They start by articulating the value they intend
to deliver and are delivering, and they develop
methods for capturing the full value proposition
they offer across stakeholders within and
outside the organisation. That means they
need to understand the full nature of value.
They develop clearer articulations of capital,
including human capital. For some, the term
human capital may feel dehumanising. It isn’t.
By developing a clearer shared understanding
that people and people processes – whether
that is through hiring or training or reward –
should be seen as a form of investment, they
are actually showing a concrete commitment
to better organisational governance on behalf
of all stakeholders, including employees.
They develop insight into how people create
value and where to invest in their people to
sustain value-creation. To do that, they need
to develop frameworks that enable them to
understand the value-creation process and
optimise their investments in people.
Those frameworks enable them to marshal their
data and apply more joined-up thinking to gain
insights into what is working and what is not. One
clear benefit of those frameworks is to surface
assumptions and challenge the intuitions that have
led organisations into trouble all too frequently.
They are able to put a number on the value that
people investments, alongside other investments,
are delivering, explain how people sit within
the flow of value-creation in their organisation,
and how that flow of value-creation will be
sustained into the future through the people
investments being made today. And, all of
this starts with an understanding of how the
conception of value has changed and is changing.
The way in which we judge the value created by
organisations has changed. Take the valuation of
publicly quoted companies and take those quoted
on the S&P market index as an example (Figure 1).
In 1975, 83% of an S&P company’s market
capitalisation was down to tangibles – the assets
that can be more readily converted into cash.
Figure 1: Components of S&P 500 market value (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
83 68 20 1632
17 32 80 8468
Intangible assets Tangible assets
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015*
*Source Ocean Tomo,
LLC 2015
Then the 1990s came along and the
contribution of tangibles to company value
had dropped to only 32% and had halved again
by 2015 to only 16%. In short, and over just
four decades, the contribution of tangibles
to an S&P company’s valuation dropped
from four-fifths to around one-sixth.12
This shift in what drives a publicly quoted
company’s valuation raises a clear question:
how do you put a value on intangibles because
they are, by definition, intangible? Put a
different way, how do you predict a company’s
future performance and its potential to create
sustainable value when much of that value will
come from assets that are non-financial?
Those in the finance and investment worlds
are coming at this question by looking at how
companies themselves define value and how they
articulate the mechanisms through which they
will convert the capital they have into value.13, 14
The six capitals of the modern economy
Just as the notion of value has changed, so
the notion of the types of capital needed to
create value is changing. If intangibles are
the dominant driver of a company’s valuation,
financial capital provides too narrow a view
of what the organisation has available to it
or needs to create value. That view, a need
for broader understanding of different types
of capital, is growing and maturing.
Take the six capitals model offered by the
Institute of Integrated Reporting (IIR).15 This
4
model extends the notion of capital beyond the
financial to include natural capital, manufactured
capital, intellectual capital, social (and relationship
capital) and human capital (Table 2).
Financial
Capital
The pool of funds available to an organisation for use in the production of goods or
the provision of services obtained through financing, such as debt, equity or grants, or
generated through operations or investments
Manufactured
Capital
Manufactured physical objects (as distinct from natural physical objects) that are
available to an organisation for use in the production of goods or the provision of
service, including buildings, equipment and infrastructure (such as roads, ports, bridges,
and waste and water treatment plants)
Intellectuals
Capital
Organisational, knowledge-based intangibles including intellectual property, such as
patents, copyrights, software, rights and licences: ‘organisational capital’ such as tacit
knowledge, systems, procedures and protocols, and intangibles associated with the
brand and reputation that an organisation has developed
Human
Capital
People’s competencies, capabilities and experience, and their motivations to innovate,
including their alignment with and support for an organisation’s governance framework,
risk management approach and ethical values such as recognition of human rights;
ability to understand, develop and implement an organisation’s strategy; and loyalties
and motivations for improving processes, goods and services, including their ability to
lead, manage and collaborate
Social &
Relationship
Capital
The institutions and relationships established within and between each community,
group of stakeholders and other networks (and an ability to share information) to
enhance individual and collective well-being. Social and relationship capital includes
shared norms, and common values and behaviours; key relationships, and the trust
and willingness to engage that an organisation has developed and strives to build and
protect with customers, suppliers, business partners, and other external stakeholders;
and an organisation’s social licence to operate
Natural
Capital
All renewable and non-renewable environmental stocks that provide goods and services
that support the current and future prosperity of an organisation. It includes air, water,
land, forests and minerals as well as biodiversity and ecosystem health
Table 2: How the notion of capital has grown beyond the financial
This extension of the notion of capital speaks as
much to organisations in the public and not-for-
profit sectors as it does to for-profit organisations.
As the public purse has tightened in response
to recent financial crises and economic
uncertainty, debates about the merits of fiscal
and monetary policy are essentially debates
about the maintenance or erosion of social
capital in the quality of services delivered, and
in intellectual and human capital stock available
to support ongoing economic growth.
Think of health and education as two of
many possible examples. They have finite
resources in the form of finance as well as
plant and equipment. Those are the tangibles.
The challenge that both sectors face is how
to leverage those tangibles and meet the
expectations of stakeholders – that is, us –
in terms of the quality of life enjoyed today
and that can be expected in the future.
In the charity sector, actions to raise funds
have come into question largely because of the
negative impacts reported on social capital –
essentially, the trust and comfort donors have
in the charity organisations that rely on those
donations. But, to have impact, the notion of
capital has to go beyond a set of definitions.
There is a subtle yet important characteristic
of capital as defined in economics where
capital serves as the means to produce goods
5
and services. In contrast to the more inert
notions of resources and assets, capital is a
dynamic entity that is expected to change
and grow as organisations convert it into
value. Simply put, judgements of value are
founded on the expectation that an asset
or a resource has been recognised by the
organisation as a form of ‘capital’, and that
the organisation has a plan for how it will
grow those capitals and add value to them.
Human capital and breaking the
productivity puzzle
That puts the focus squarely on the quality of the
decisions made by organisations at a time when
productivity is sluggish. Productivity trends in
recent years have led to a spirited debate among
economists and those in finance. The Bank of
England has called it the ‘productivity puzzle’,
and one symptom of this puzzle is that, while
employment has been going up, the quantity of
goods and services produced per unit of labour has
been going down.
To quote…
‘Even six years after the initial downturn,
the level of productivity lies around
4% below its pre-crisis peak.’16
This puzzle has prompted the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) to undertake an extensive analysis of the
factors influencing productivity, noting that:
‘Productivity is the ultimate engine of
growth in the global economy. Raising
productivity is therefore a fundamental
challenge for countries going forward. This
new OECD report … shows that we are not
running out of ideas. In fact, the growth
of the globally most productive firms
has remained robust in the 21st century.
However, the gap between those global
leaders and the rest has increased over time,
and especially so in the services sector …
there is much scope to boost productivity
and reduce inequality simply by more
effectively allocating human talent to jobs.’17
The OECD research shows that productivity
of the average firm masks higher productivity
among firms operating at what the OECD calls
the global productivity frontier (see Figure 2).
In manufacturing, firms on the frontier grew at
double the rate of the average manufacturing
firm over the same period, while frontier firms
in the services sector grew at 5% in contrast to
an average growth rate of 0.3% – a difference
of 17 times in the rate of productivity growth.18
What characterises firms at the productivity
frontier? Access to financial capital is key, but so is
the adoption of operational best practices through
which the innovations that drive productivity are
diffused through the firm and across a sector. A
separate but related series of research studies
provides a surprising contrast in the impact on
productivity from effective management of human
capital compared with other investments.
Figure 2: The productivity gaps
between frontier firms and the rest (%)
‘Frontier’ firms
Everyone else
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Manufacturing
Services
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
‘Frontier’ firms
Everyone else
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6
Exploring the
management
practices and
performance of over
4,000 manufacturing firms
in Europe, the US and Asia,
researchers at Stanford, the London School of
Economics and McKinsey19 have identified 18
management practices that distinguish high-
performing firms. The startling contrast that this
research unearthed is that a one-point shift in
the quality of management practices had the
same impact on output (effectively productivity)
as a 25% increase in labour employed (that is,
adding to the cost of the workforce employed)
and a 65% increase in capital investment (that is,
plant, machinery and technology; see Figure 3).
As the authors comment:
‘For companies, this research is good
news, suggesting that they have access to
dramatic improvements in performance
simply by adopting good practices used
elsewhere. For policy makers, it lays down
a challenge. The overall performance of
most countries is determined not by the
performance of its leading companies,
but by the size of its “tail” of poor
performers. By developing environments
that promote good management practices
across all firms and by devoting as
much attention to the followers as to
the leaders, governments can drive the
competitiveness of their entire economies.’
While the fact that well-managed firms
perform more strongly isn’t that surprising,
the extent to which management practices
impact on productivity shows that many firms
would be better off investing in their human
capital to strengthen manager performance than
simply adding further cost in new labour or new
technologies and expecting those investments to
somehow yield and sustain higher productivity
levels. But that is exactly what many in the
long tail of poorer managed firms appear to be
doing. Those management practices also have
a significant impact on the quality of talent
that organisations attract and the willingness of
that talent to perform. This can be seen in one
sector – higher education – that is critical to the
development of intellectual capital. In a separate
application of the Stanford-LSE-McKinsey research
just described, researchers at the University of
Bristol found significant variations in effective
management practices within and across UK
universities. Those variations in management
practices were also found to have a significant
impact on the ability of those universities to attract
and retain stronger teaching and research talent
which, in turn, had significant impacts on student
satisfaction.20
Among the management behaviours having a
negative impact on university performance were
tolerance of poor performance and a lack of clear
alignment between compensation, rewards and
individual contribution. At a time when universities
are receiving lower funding from government,
these findings have substantial implications for
UK universities in maintaining their reputation
for teaching and research, and for retaining a
competitive position globally for student income.
Figure 3: The relative impact of
investments on firm output
65%
increase in
investment capital
A one-point
shift in
management
practices…
21
… has the same
impact on
productivity
as a…
25%
increase in the
labour force
7
Delivering on leadership through better decision-making
Another area to be considered is the quality of
the decisions which leaders make. Decision quality
is also under scrutiny at a time when employee
engagement is in a slump. Just as research is
now quantifying the impact of management
practices on firm productivity, research is
also quantifying the impact of employee
satisfaction and engagementii on the financial
returns and market valuation of companies.iii
Drawing on 100,000 employee ratings of their
employers published on glassdoor ratings
published on Glassdoor,iv researchers in the
finance faculty at the University of Kansas21 found
that those ratings predicted firm profitability and
market valuation to the extent that a one-point
positive shift in the star rating of an employer was
associated with a 52% difference in profitability
and an 8% difference in market valuationv (Figure
4). This is one example of a growing stream of
research showing that softer people factors have
a material impact on harder financial metrics of
value.22
ii Employee satisfaction and engagement are not the
same thing, but low satisfaction with an employer is a
driver of low employee engagement.
iii A curious feature of these research efforts is that they
are coming out of the finance and econometrics faculties
of universities who might be expected to be less biased
towards proving the value of human capital.
iv Glassdoor, www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/index.
htm?&countryRedirect=true, offers the strap line ‘Look
inside any company!’ It gathers and publishes star ratings
using data gathered from current and former employees,
including overall satisfaction with the company, career
development, compensation and benefits, work–life
balance, senior management and CEO approval.
v Profitability was measured through return on assets (ROA),
and market valuation was measured through Tobin’s q
market to book ratio.
Engagement surveys have become de rigueur
across organisations and yet there is something
of a contradiction in the way those surveys are
commonly used. On the one hand, they are
cited as the most commonly used strategic
check on the pulse of employee sentiment and
commitment. That reflects a concern that low
engagement will result in lower productivity,
lower employee retention and a higher premium
in attracting and hiring new employees.
On the other hand, engagement data are
frequently underutilised as an input to forward
strategic thinking and business planning. Research
on leading companies found that only 1 in 20
of those companies leveraged engagement
data for broader decision-making.23 That
tendency to exclude people data in business
planning was related to three failures:
• not knowing the strategic options that
engagement data offer despite the
frequent claims for engagement data
providing a strategic pulse-check on the
mood and intentions of employees
• not knowing how to segment engagement
data in the right way to enable that data to be
factored into decision-making and in a way that
non-HR leaders understand the value of doing so
• focusing on improving engagement scores
rather than using engagement data to
evaluate risks to their business plans – in
other words, engagement surveys become
a purpose unto themselves, with the focus
being on how to improve the survey rather
Note
that these figures are proportional
to the averages of the companies
in the study. The median Market
to Book (Tobin’s q) was 1.47 with
an interquartile range of 1.11 to
2.11, and the median ROA was
0.001 or 1% with an interquartile
range of 0.00 to 0.03
+8%
higher market
valuation
+52%
higher
profitability
A one-
point shift in
satisfaction
ratings of
employees is
associated
with a…
Figure 4: Putting a value on employee satisfaction
1 2
8
than on how to address engagement issues
and risks to organisational performance.
How can engagement data talk to organisational
risk? It is a reasonable expectation that evaluating
any business plan’s likely success would include an
evaluation of the key execution steps in that plan.
It is also a reasonable expectation that would, in
turn, be followed by an evaluation of the key talent
segments, the people, involved in each of those
steps. Here is where engagement data can play
a valuable role in rounding out the assessment
of risk by answering the question of how willing
those critical talent segments are to committing
to the proposed plan, and whether they are likely
to stay with the organisation long enough for the
plan to have a reasonable chance of success.
Low engagement scores for key talent segments
would suggest that the success of that business
plan depends on addressing engagement risks
or in adapting the plan to accommodate and
to monitor those risks. It might mean a delay in
implementing that plan. Either way, this is one
example of how data on people can and should be
factored into broader decision-making to test and
evaluate plans, to understand what the barriers
to execution are and how to address them.
Valuing your talent: why the time has come for organisations
to better measure their human capital
Why are organisations struggling to join up the
dots on how to build and leverage human capital?
Data isn’t the problem. Organisations are rich in
data on their people.24 And the problem is not
with the means to analyse that data. Data science
and analytics have seen a boom in growth across
organisations.25 What has been missing, and to
borrow from the wisdom of Albert Einstein, is
the means to make something as complex as
organisations and their people simple enough
for the flow of value through people to be
understood. That gap is now being closed through
the emergence of human capital frameworks.
An example of how the importance of these
frameworks has been recognised is the
partnership between the CIPD, the Chartered
Institute of Management Accounting (CIMA),
the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) and
the UK Commission for Employment and Skills
(UKCES). This partnership is a clear statement
that understanding the flow of value through
people is not just an issue for the HR function.
The Valuing your Talent (VyT)26 framework
lays out the flow of value through people
and people investments by treating various
elements of human capital as inputs to people
processes which, in turn, create outputs that
support organisational outcomes (see Figure 5).
This provides a tangible organising structure
for marshalling people data and people
measurements, and linking that data and those
measurements to organisational outcomes.
Workforce composition and
diversity
Regulatory compliance
Attraction and
recruitment
Workforce costs Workforce potential
Performance …
Tutor Session 1
5HRF
Tutor: Claire Elmugadam
[email protected]
Key Dates
Up and Coming Dates:
Release of the results for 5UIN Monday 7th June before 1pm
Re-submissions deadline for 5UIN Sunday 20th June before 12pm
Submission for Updated PDP and Reflection
for 5DVP
Sunday 20th June before 12pm
Cohort Cafe Tuesday 15th June at 13:30pm
Support Session Two Tuesday 6th July at 12:30pm/
18:30pm
Submission Date for 5HRF Sunday 18th July before 12pm
Agenda
✓ Overview of unit
✓ Questions & Criteria explained
✓ Do’s and Don’ts
✓ Format & Submission
✓ Questions
✓ 5DVP- Overview of reflection and
PDP
Objectives:
➢ Understand the purpose and key objectives of the HR function in contemporary
organisations
➢ Understand how HR objectives are delivered in different organisations
➢ Understand how the HR function can be evaluated in terms of value added and
organisational performance
➢ Understand the relationship between organisational performance and effective
HR management and development
Evidence to be produced:
A written essay of 4000 words +/- 10%
All referenced sources should be acknowledged using Harvard-style
referencing, and a bibliography provided where appropriate (these should be
excluded from the word count)
Assessment
Question Week
Number
Approx Word
Count
Analyse how the HR function varies between organisations. Include
a comparison of HR delivery in different sectors and organisations of
different sizes.
Three 500
Provide three examples of organisational objectives that the HR
function is responsible for delivering and briefly explain how these
have evolved over time
One and
Three
500
HR objectives can be delivered in many ways. Explain two significant
methods
Two 500
Evaluate the business case for managing HR in a professional,
ethical and just manner
Two 500
Provide a short description of at least two major theories of change
management. Briefly describe an example of change in the
organisation and apply one of the theories, including some
evaluation of the process, outcome and impact.
Two 500
You are planning to produce an evidential report highlighting the HR
function’s contribution to organisation success and development.
Provide a brief summary of the criteria and organisational data that
could be included and how it would be analysed.
Six 500
Read the article provided: It identifies and evaluates research
evidence linking HR practices with positive organisational outcomes.
Briefly summarise the findings and evaluate its validity, reliability and
persuasiveness.
Four and
Five
500
Explain how high-performance working and investment in human
capital can impact on organisational success and performance.
Does the article support this?
Four and
Five
500
Assessment
Criteria
AC2.2
AC1.1
AC2.1
AC1.3
AC1.2
AC3.1
AC4.1
AC4.2
4000 Words
+/- 10%
2.2 Analyse how the HR function varies between organisations. Include a
comparison of HR delivery in different sectors and organisations of different sizes.
Organisation X
• Provide a brief introduction to your chosen organisation (short paragraph)
• Describe the HR function within your organisation related to model e.g., Ulrich (1-2 paragraphs)
How does it run?
What is the structure?
What are the main duties/pressures?
Organisation Y
• A different organisation related to model e.g., centralised HR:
MUST BE DIFFERENT SECTOR AND SIZE eg:
Private vs Public sector (NHS, Civil Service, local and national govt )
Local vs Global
Large vs Small
Third Sector ( local and national charities and not for profit orgs like CIPD)
Include a comparison paragraph comparing both to add more depth if required.
You should use examples of specific organisations and compare how the
HR functions VARY between these organisations using models and theories.
Organisation one – small private sector organisation (centralised) compare to large public sector
organisation (Ulrich). How are their HR functions different?
VLC Info: Wk. 3
2.2 – Comparing Organisations and Models HR
Public Sector – Large Private Sector – Small
NHS (Ulrich)
https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/experts/advi
ce/business-partner-needs-boost
4 COM
Centralised HR
Metropolitan Police (Ulrich adapted)
https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/martin-
tiplady-hr-director-at-the-metropolitan-police-service-
gives-his-views-on-hr
Small Recruitment company – HR generalist with some
outsourcing?
Ministry of Defence
https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/long-
reads/articles/street-smart
Local Vets/Solicitors?
HR generalised or centralised or outsourcing?
Private Sector – Large Third Sector – Small
Tesco
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292607732
_The_role_of_Strategic_Human_Resource_Manageme
nt_within_Tesco_plc
CHAS Charity Hospice – HR generalist
Marks and Spencer
https://www.hrzone.com/perform/business/ms-hr-
business-partners-getting-the-balance-right
etc
etc etc
OR
CIPD Changing Models CIPD Report
https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/changing-operating-models_tcm18-10976.pdf
1.1 Summarise the organisational objectives that the HR function is responsible for
delivering and how these are evolving in contemporary organisations.
• Summarise three key objectives that your HR function has main responsibility for, for
example;
– Workforce Planning
– Learning and Development
– Employee Relations
– Building capability through people & performance
– Contributing to change
• Within your descriptions you MUST provide an overview of HR’s role in the success of this.
• Consider how these have evolved or are evolving within the organisation, for example;
Manpower planning has evolved into workforce planning
Training has evolved into learning and development
Industrial relations has evolved into employee relations.
Administrative approach to dynamic approach
Equal opportunities has evolved into diversity management
Strategic Partner
Business Partnering
AC 1.1
VLC Info:
Wk. 1
1.1 Summarise the organisational objectives that the HR function is responsible for
delivering and how these are evolving in contemporary organisations.
AC 1.1 – Requires you to describe three key objectives that your HR function has main
responsibility for. For example, if an objective of the organisation is to improve absence rates,
you would provide an overview of HR’s role in the success of this. You also need consider how
these have evolved/are evolving in the organisation.
AC 2.1 is more general and requires you to explain at least two different ways that HR
objectives can be delivered. Consider the advantages/disadvantages of examples such as shared
services, outsourcing or HRBP.”
2.1 Explain the different ways in which HR objectives can be delivered in
organisations.
*This part of question 2 is far more general*
• Explain two different ways in which HR objectives can be delivered in organisations.
Possible examples include:
Can also choose: HR Consultancy, HR Generalists/Specialists or Line Manger Supported by HR
You can use a table but you MUST provide summary narrative underneath:
• Explain the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches you have selected
…… ensure you are explaining
You MUST provide narrative and include:
• Models and theory to underpin your explanations, for example; Ulrich, Harvard, Warwick etc
and how these are used to deliver HR objectives
HR Business Partner
(Ulrich)
OutsourcingHR Shared Services (Ulrich)
VLC Info:
Wk. 3
2.1 Explain the different ways in which HR objectives can be delivered in
organisations.
Some things to consider in your explanation:
VLC Info:
Wk. 3
Advantages Disadvantages
Outsourcing Skills and knowledge Increased
legislative compliance
Efficiency
Reduced costs .
Saving management time
Giving up control
Impersonal
Distance
Shared services Improved credibility of function
HR becoming more strategic
Improved service quality
Responsive customer service
Boundary disputes
Gaps in service provision
Communication difficulties Customer
complaints over service
Objections within HR
HRBP React quickly to the needs of the
business
Accustomed with the services offered
Work closely with business leaders
Improves efficiency
Breadth of experience
Conflicting views of responsibility of
tasks
Can become tied down to
administrative tasks
Capability shortfalls
1.3 Evaluate the business case for managing HR in a professional, ethical and just
manner.
• Provide a brief introduction (3-4 sentences)
You could have 3 sub headings of Ethical, Professional and Just Manner
• Explain how HR is involved in/responsible for ensuring ethical business practice and what impact does this have on the
organisation if done well/badly
• Explain how and why HR should act professional, fair and just at all times, you could consider the following examples;
– Acting fairly to avoid discrimination
– Credibility within the organisation
– Encouraging recruitment & retention
– Diversity & Dignity at work
• In your discussions it would be good practice to include some work place examples and also include the following:
– Reference to the CIPD Profession Map
– Code of conduct/ethics
Evaluate – make judgements on why this is important for the HR professional?
Here, you need to explain how HR is involved in/or responsible for ensuring ethical business practice. Also, consider how
and why HR should be professional and fair at all times. You could support this with a workplace example.”
VLC Week 2
1.2 Explain the major theories of effective change management and how these are
implemented and evaluated.
• Select and explain two major theories of change management, examples include:
• Evaluate one of the theories and illustrate it in a practical sense by application to either a
workplace example or a hypothetical example
In your evaluation of your chosen model include:
• Advantages & Disadvantages
• Overview of outcome
• Overall impact
Lewin’s three-phase
model (Traditional)
Kotter’s eight-stage
model (Modern)
VLC Info: Wk. 2
3.1 Discuss the main criteria and methods used to evaluate the
contribution of the HR function
• Brief Introduction (3-4 sentences)
You need to consider how you can evidence HR’s contribution to success
• Provide a summary of at least 2 different types of information (organisational
criteria/data) you could select that would evidence HR’s contribution to success, for
example;
– Balanced scorecard
– Benchmarking (internal/external)
– SLA’s
– KPI’s
– Engagement surveys
• You need to discuss how they are/would be presented and analysed. How these methods
help assess how the HR function is contributing?
• You could use the following areas to focus on:
– Recruitment and selection data
– Learning and Development data
– Employee Engagement
VLC Info: Wk. 6
4.1 Identify and evaluate research evidence linking HR practices with positive
organisational outcomes.
• Briefly summarise the findings of the article – discussing content that links HR practices
with positive organisational outcomes (1 paragraph)
• Critically evaluate the article, include the following:
– Why it is valid?
– Do you agree with the findings?
– Is it useful?
– Is the document, in your view, of good quality?
• Consider how the article has linked HR practice with positive organisational outcomes:
– Comment on the persuasiveness of the findings.
Discussion points:
• High-performance working effectiveness
• HR services
• Human capital
• Building organisational capability
LOOK IN: Week 4, 5 & Assessment Week
VLC Info: Wk.
4&5
Article link can be
found in Assessment
Week
4.1 Identify and evaluate research evidence linking HR practices with positive
organisational outcomes.
I would recommend that you structure your response to AC 4.1 like your 5UIN literature review:
(500 words is a recommended approximate word count for this section)
Overview of article:
Briefly introduce the author and what the article is about….
Key Findings:
•Discuss some of the key findings – what does the author “Burke” say about …
•Human capital
•High-performance working effectiveness
•HR services
•Building organisational capability
•What does the article say about HR practices and positive organisational outcomes
You can write this in a good few paragraphs about what the article suggests. For instance investing in human capital is
key because it impacts productivity and profitability. Burke discusses that investing in its employees through training,
and career plans which supports organisational outcomes.
Quality of the article:
Discuss how valid and reliable the article is – you can draw on the date the article was written, is the research valid and
reliable that is used in the article? Is the article persuasive in its approach to the points made?
LOOK IN: Week 4, 5 & Assessment Week
VLC Info: Wk. 4 & 5
Article link can be found
in Assessment Week
4.2 Explain how high-performance working and investment in human capital
impact on organisational practice
• Provide an introduction/overview of High Performance Working and Human Capital (could
include definition of each – there are many definitions)
Belt and Giles (2009: 3) define HPW as ‘a general approach to managing organisations that aims to stimulate more effective
employee involvement and commitment in order to achieve high levels of performance’
Thomas et al (2013, p3) define Human Capital as the ‘people, their performance and their potential in the
organisation’
• Provide a clear explanation of how high-performance working and investment in human
capital can impact on organisational practice
• Consider what the article says from 4.1
• Apply wider reading and research to underpin
VLC Info: Wk.
4&5
LayoutQuestion
Analyse how the HR function varies between organisations. Include a comparison of HR
delivery in different sectors and organisations of different sizes.
Provide three examples of organisational objectives that the HR function is responsible for
delivering and briefly explain how these have evolved over time
HR objectives can be delivered in many ways. Explain two significant methods
Evaluate the business case for managing HR in a professional, ethical and just manner
Provide a short description of at least two major theories of change management. Briefly
describe an example of change in the organisation and apply one of the theories, including
some evaluation of the process, outcome and impact.
You are planning to produce an evidential report highlighting the HR function’s contribution
to organisation success and development. Provide a brief summary of the criteria and
organisational data that could be included and how it would be analysed.
Read the article provided on the VLC: It identifies and evaluates research evidence linking HR
practices with positive organisational outcomes. Briefly summarise the findings and evaluate
its validity, reliability and persuasiveness.
Explain how high-performance working and investment in human capital can impact on
organisational success and performance. Does the article support this?
Assessme
nt Criteria
AC2.2
AC1.1
AC2.1
AC1.3
AC1.2
AC3.1
AC4.1
AC4.2
What needs to be included?
Specific to 5HRF:
✓ Upload one Word document
✓ Include clear headings and sub-headings
✓ Word limit – 4000 words +/- 10%
General:
✓ Coversheet – include name, cohort, unit, tutor and word count
✓ Diagrams and tables should be numbered.
✓ Harvard Referencing (resources in Getting Started)
Assessment & Format
Any Questions?
Feel free to contact me on:
[email protected]
com
mailto:[email protected]
5DVP AC 3.3 PDP & Reflection due : 20th June
2021
For those who still need to submit their 3.3 PDP & Reflection
Unit 5DVP => ASSESSMENT WEEK => 5DVP assessment submission (Assessment criterion 3.3 – Reflection)
5DVP AC 3.3 PDP & Reflection
ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT (word or PDF) divided in TWO DISTINCTIVE
SECTIONS:
SECTION 1: Revised and amended PDP – copy the PDP you submitted with
your 5DVP assignment and IN A DIFFERENT COLOUR provide some updates
of what you managed to accomplish, new deadlines, new objective you wish to
include, any old one you wish to delete because it is not relevant, etc. There is
no right or wrong answer here.
* You could include a new column in the PDP with some key points of your
progress/development
SECTION 2: Write a reflection (approx. 500 words) including reasons for
changes to your PDP and reflection on what you did do. Think about the
development activities in your PDP (book, mentoring, conversation, website,
training, job role etc
What did you learn from it?
How can you/did you apply it and how valuable is it for your role and career?
What have you done well?
Areas you could improve?
Remember this is about your own CPD (Continued Professional Development) and the
units you have studied so far on this course. It is a requirement of the CIPD Code of
Professional Conduct to keep your knowledge up to date, and the maintenance of your
PDP’s as live documents is a great way of planning and recording this.
Unit 5DVP => ASSESSMENT WEEK => 5DVP assessment submission (Assessment criterion 3.3 – Reflection)
Thank You!
I hope you enjoyed the
session!
