5HR02 AC1.1 – AC1.3 Talent Management and Workforce Planning

Moving from an employment relations background into a resourcing role brings a slightly different lens. The focus stretches beyond individual cases into something broader, yet the same issues keep resurfacing in quieter ways. Talent management and workforce planning, as framed within 5HR02 AC1.1 – AC1.3 Talent Management and Workforce Planning, are not only about forecasting or pipelines. There is a constant, underlying connection to fairness, process, and how people experience decisions made about them.

Principles of unfair dismissal, particularly in relation to capability and misconduct, sit uncomfortably close to workforce planning decisions. There is sometimes an assumption that dismissal is a separate, reactive process. In reality, gaps in performance management or unclear expectations often trace back to weaknesses in talent planning or role design. Capability concerns, for instance, may reflect missed opportunities in development or poor alignment between role requirements and actual skills. Misconduct cases, on the other hand, can raise questions about culture, communication, and consistency in standards.

Employee grievances add another layer. At first glance, grievances may appear isolated, but patterns tend to emerge over time. Concerns around management behaviour, workload pressures, or perceived unfair treatment often link back to issues in workforce planning, whether that is resourcing gaps, unclear structures, or limited progression routes. It does not always present itself neatly. Sometimes it feels fragmented, almost incidental, yet the connection is there.

Handling grievances effectively becomes part of maintaining organisational stability. A process handled poorly can disrupt not just one relationship, but wider team dynamics. In contrast, a fair and thoughtful approach supports trust, which quietly feeds into employee retention and overall organisational capability. The link to talent management becomes clearer the more these situations are observed in practice.

5HR02 AC1.1 – AC1.3 Talent Management and Workforce Planning

Task: Questions AC1.1 – AC1.3 guide

Scenario

You work for a large organisation that has just completed a restructure of its people function. You work in the resourcing team having previously specialised in employment relations. Your new manager is an experienced resourcing specialist and is delivering a webinar at a forthcoming CIPD branch event. The event is popular, with many bookings made. When participants make a booking, they are asked to include questions they would like answers to.

Your manager is keen to develop your knowledge of talent management and workforce planning and has asked you to prepare full written answers to the 15 questions the participants have raised. The questions are varied, and you want to impress your new manager with your answers as well as your ability to independently research any areas you are unfamiliar with. The questions will be answered during the webinar, so it is important your answers are focused, clear and concise.

In addition, you should make appropriate use of academic theory and practical examples to expand your responses and illustrate key points. Please ensure that any references and sources drawn upon are acknowledged correctly and supported by a bibliography.

To help the reader, please make use of headings and assessment criteria references to signpost the assessment criteria being addressed.

Briefing paper

You are to address the following 15 questions.

How can organisations strategically position themselves in competitive labour markets? (AC 1.1)

The assessor wants you to explain the different ways organisations make themselves attractive to potential employees in a crowded market. Not just what they do day-to-day, but how they plan, think ahead, and make choices that give them an edge.

So, when you’re answering this, you need to do three things:

1. Define the idea – what does it mean for an organisation to “position itself” in a labour market?
2. Show strategies or methods – what practical steps or approaches can be used?
3. Ground it in real examples – this is where the case study and any UK-based examples come in.

Bringing in the Case Study

Remember, in your scenario you’ve joined the resourcing team after a restructure. The organisation has reshaped its people function. That’s useful context because it hints that they are rethinking how they recruit, how they keep people, and how they present themselves externally.

So, if you’re answering this for your written submission, you could imagine how your own organisation might be trying to re-establish its reputation in the job market after a period of change.

For instance, after a restructure, some staff may have left, and there may be talk in the industry about job security. To counter that, the company might decide to promote its long-term career development opportunities, or highlight new benefits it has introduced to reassure potential candidates. That’s one way of “strategically positioning” itself.

Defining Positioning

• At its simplest, positioning is about how people on the outside view your organisation compared with others. Do jobseekers think of you as a stable employer? Do they think you offer career growth? Or do they associate you with constant restructures?
• So, a strategic position means shaping that reputation deliberately, not leaving it to chance.

Ways to Position

• Employer Brand: Many organisations invest in a clear employer brand. That could mean emphasising their culture, their training, or their inclusivity.
• Pay and Benefits: Competitive salary is one thing, but increasingly people look at flexible working, health benefits, pensions, even things like volunteering opportunities.
• Career Development: Structured career paths, professional learning support, mentoring. In competitive markets, this is often as attractive as pay.
• Values and Ethics: For some sectors in the UK, especially with younger talent, environmental commitments or diversity policies matter a great deal.
• Workforce Planning: Thinking ahead about future skills needed. If your organisation knows that in five years it will need digital specialists, you can start building relationships with universities now.

What the Assessor is Looking For

If we translate this into assessor language, they’re asking:

• Does the learner show they understand what competitive labour markets mean?
• Have they shown how organisations can make deliberate choices to stand out?
• Are examples used to demonstrate those choices, both in theory and in practice?
• Is there evidence of wider reading, perhaps citing academic sources (like Armstrong on HRM, or CIPD research on employer branding)?

Sample Response AC 1.1

When we talk about positioning in the labour market, what we really mean is the way an organisation is perceived by potential and current employees in comparison with other employers. In a competitive environment, where several organisations are seeking the same talent, it becomes important to think carefully about how to stand out. It is not just about filling vacancies quickly; it is about creating a deliberate strategy that attracts the right skills and builds long-term capability.

One of the strongest tools an organisation can draw on is its employer brand. Armstrong (2020) describes this as the reputation and image an organisation projects to the labour market. If candidates consistently hear that a company values development and progression that becomes part of its appeal. For example, in our case study organisation, following the restructure, there may be a need to rebuild external confidence. Positioning the company as one that invests in learning opportunities, even after a period of change, can help counter any concerns about stability.

Pay and benefits are another clear way to compete, though not the only one. Research from the CIPD (2022) shows that flexible working has become one of the most decisive factors in job choice across many UK sectors. An organisation that can offer hybrid roles, or compressed hours where operationally possible, positions itself as more attractive than one that offers only a higher salary. In practice, a resourcing team might benchmark competitor packages and then shape offers that reflect not just pay, but also wellbeing support, health benefits, and career pathways.

Workforce planning is also central. Wright and McMahan’s (2011) resource-based view reminds us that sustainable advantage comes from unique skills and capabilities. Organisations that can anticipate future shortages, for example in digital or clinical expertise, and start building links with universities or apprenticeship providers, are more likely to secure those skills before rivals. In our case study, the team could partner with local colleges to create a pipeline of talent into specialist roles that are expected to be hard to fill in three years’ time.

Examples from the UK show how distinctive positioning can work in practice. John Lewis has long emphasised its partnership model, giving staff a share in profits. This strategic choice has differentiated it in the retail sector, where margins are tight and competition for customer service skills is constant.

Overall, strategic positioning is about sending consistent signals to the market, through brand, benefits, values, and forward planning. Organisations that take this approach are not only more likely to attract scarce talent, they also build a reputation that helps retain it, which is equally important in competitive markets.

What is the impact of changing labour market conditions on resourcing decisions? (AC 1.2)

The criterion is asking you to explain how changes in the labour market affect the way an organisation makes decisions about resourcing.

That’s quite broad. So let’s reframe it in simpler terms:

• “Labour market conditions” = things happening in the wider job market. Think skills shortages, unemployment rates, wage levels, migration patterns, demographics, even technology shifts.
• “Resourcing decisions” = how the organisation decides who to hire, where to find them, what kind of contracts to offer, or how to keep them.

So the examiner is looking for you to connect the two on how external labour changes directly influence internal HR decisions.

Go back to the case study

In our scenario, you’re part of a large organisation’s resourcing team after a restructure. Your manager wants you to prepare written answers for a webinar.

Identify key labour market conditions

Let’s break down some real examples that could appear in the UK labour market:

1. Skill shortages – For example, a shortage of nurses or care workers in the UK means healthcare organisations compete harder for talent.
2. Demographics – An ageing population means some sectors face more retirements and fewer younger entrants.
3. Migration policies – Post-Brexit rules have reduced the flow of workers in hospitality and agriculture, changing how those sectors recruit.
4. Technology – The rise of automation and AI changes the type of skills required.
5. Economic shifts – A downturn might increase applicant numbers, but wage expectations may be lower.
6. Geography – Regional differences; London labour markets look very different to rural ones.

Link conditions to resourcing decisions

This is where the marks are. You need to show that when the labour market shifts, organisations have to respond in their resourcing approach. Think of it almost like cause and effect. Condition changes → organisation adapts resourcing decisions. Let’s use some examples:

• Skill shortages push organisations to reconsider their pay packages, offer training, or look internationally for talent.
• An ageing workforce might mean investing more in succession planning or apprenticeships to fill future gaps.
• Post-Brexit migration limits in hospitality led many employers to rely on local recruitment campaigns, higher wages, or flexible working offers.

Tie it back to the case study

In your case, you’re part of a large organisation that has just restructured. You could say something like:

• Because of shortages in the external market, the resourcing team may decide to put more emphasis on internal development and redeployment, making use of the new structure.
• The organisation might also decide to adopt hybrid or flexible contracts if certain roles are hard to fill.
• If the restructure means cost pressures, the labour market’s high competition for talent could force tough decisions about which roles are business-critical.

Sample Response AC 1.2

Labour market conditions never remain still, and organisations are forced to respond in how they make decisions about resourcing. For a resourcing team, this often means weighing up supply and demand for skills, predicting availability in different regions, and deciding whether to look externally or build talent internally.

One example is the effect of skills shortages. Across the UK we have seen healthcare, social care, and digital roles particularly affected. When demand for people is greater than the available supply, an organisation has little choice but to adjust. Pay packages may need reviewing, or there may be a stronger case for apprenticeships and graduate schemes to grow talent from within. In our own organisation, following the restructure, the resourcing team has started to work more closely with learning and development colleagues to identify which roles can realistically be trained internally rather than relying on an external market that is difficult to recruit from.

Demographics are another factor shaping resourcing decisions. With an ageing workforce, retirements are becoming more frequent in certain sectors. This means resourcing strategies often extend beyond immediate hiring and include succession planning. For example, in a large organisation such as ours, planning for upcoming retirements is now a routine part of workforce planning, with resourcing decisions covering not only who to hire today but also how to secure the next generation of talent.

Migration has also influenced resourcing choices. Following Brexit, many organisations in hospitality, construction, and agriculture found fewer overseas workers available. The outcome was greater reliance on local recruitment campaigns and, in some cases, higher wages to attract staff. For our resourcing team, this could mean strengthening links with local colleges and universities, or reconsidering the balance between permanent and fixed-term contracts depending on availability.

Economic shifts play a role as well. During downturns, labour supply usually increases, which can change the focus from attraction to careful selection. On the other hand, during periods of growth, competition intensifies, and organisations may need to act faster in recruitment or provide more flexible working options.

Academic theory can help frame this. Labour Market Segmentation theory, for instance, shows that organisations face different challenges when resourcing for highly skilled “primary” roles compared to lower paid “secondary” ones. This is visible in practice, as our organisation treats resourcing for senior professional roles very differently to entry-level support roles.

Altogether, labour market conditions place a strong influence on how resourcing decisions are made. Whether it is adjusting pay, rethinking contracts, developing people internally, or targeting different groups of applicants, organisations are continually adapting. For a resourcing professional, understanding these shifts is not just helpful, it is central to making decisions that keep the workforce sustainable in the long run.

What is the role of government, employers and trade unions in ensuring future skills needs are met? (AC 1.3)

Read and Understand the question

• The verb here is describe / explain the role of three stakeholders, one section for government, one for employers, one for trade unions, then a short synthesis showing how they work together.
  • Keep the answer focused on future skills needs (new skills required because of digital change, demographics, new service models).

Define the key terms

Start with short definitions so the assessor knows you’re on the same page. Then very briefly say who the three stakeholders are (public policy makers; private employers; employee representative bodies).

Choose a short theoretical frame

Pick one or two theories to give structure. Two compact, useful choices are:

• Human capital theory – (people’s training and education raise productivity; investment in skills is like investment in capital). This helps explain why governments or employers fund training.
• A short, practical workforce-planning cycle (forecast → gap analysis → action plan → review) to organise the “how” in practice. Use an IES/CIPD workforce planning guide for wording and practical steps.

Government – what to say and how to evidence it

1. a) Say the public levers: policy, funding, regulation and local planning. Keep it concrete: mention apprenticeships, funding rules and local skills planning.
2. b) Explain why governments act: skills are partly a public problem (market failures, externalities, labour market friction). Use human capital theory briefly to explain the economic rationale.

Employers – what to say and how to apply it

1. a) Employers are responsible for planning their workforce, investing in training, and creating on-the-job learning routes. Use the workforce-planning cycle to show how employers identify gaps and act.
2. b) Practical mechanisms to mention: internal reskilling programmes, apprenticeships, partnerships with colleges, use of levy transfers or consortiums, talent mobility and succession planning.

Trade unions – what to say and how to apply it

1. a) Describe union roles briefly: representing members’ interests in training, negotiating training clauses, running learning reps (ULRs) and working with employers on access and progression.
2. b) Say why unions matter: they can increase take-up of training, reduce resistance to change, and make sure training leads to career progression rather than just short-term upskilling.

Show how the three work together

Give one clear example of coordinated action: e.g. an employer uses the apprenticeship levy and LSIP findings to design a programme; unions help shape the content and drive uptake through ULRs; local colleges deliver the course; government rules and funding underpin the deal. This demonstrates you can see the system, not just each actor in isolation.

Sample Response AC 1.3

Future skills needs refer to the abilities and knowledge that organisations and the wider economy will require in the coming years, particularly as work changes through digital systems, demographic shifts, and new service models. To meet these needs, three groups tend to carry most of the responsibility: government, employers, and trade unions. Each has its own part to play, and often the best outcomes come when they work in combination rather than isolation. Human capital theory is a useful lens here, as it suggests that investment in people, much like investment in equipment, produces long-term economic returns.

The government’s role is largely about shaping the conditions. Policy, funding, and regulation are the main levers. In the UK, this is visible in apprenticeship funding rules, which set out how employers can claim back or transfer levy money to support training. Another example is the Local Skills Improvement Plans, which encourage employers and training providers to coordinate around regional priorities. Without this kind of central involvement, many sectors would underinvest in training because the benefits spill into the wider labour market, not just the organisation that pays. In our own organisation, the restructure of the people function has revealed gaps in resourcing analytics. Government schemes could be used here to part-fund apprenticeships in digital HR roles, which in turn helps our team meet future demand.

Employers, on the other hand, carry the immediate responsibility for planning and delivery. They are the ones who can forecast skills gaps, commission training, and decide on reskilling or redeployment. Workforce planning guidance from bodies such as CIPD describes this as a cycle, scanning future needs, identifying gaps, putting interventions in place, and then reviewing outcomes. In our case, the resourcing team might set a two-year plan for building digital recruitment capability, mixing external hiring with internal reskilling. Employers can also partner with colleges or other organisations to stretch their resources further. For instance, we could transfer a portion of our levy funds to a smaller supplier and ask them to develop shared modules in candidate analytics.

Trade unions complete the picture. They represent employees, negotiate over training access, and can raise the credibility of development programmes. Through union learning representatives, they often help workers take up training who might otherwise feel excluded. In restructuring scenarios, unions also bring fairness to redeployment and retraining, which keeps morale steady. If we worked with union reps to shape a retraining pathway for staff moving into new resourcing roles, uptake and trust would likely improve.

Together these three forces reduce the risk of mismatch between what the labour market offers and what organisations require. For our organisation, a practical next step would be to run a skills audit, then link government funding, employer planning, and union involvement into a joint training initiative. That way, future skills are not left to chance but are consciously developed through shared responsibility.

Guide Objective

Conclusion

Bringing these strands together, it becomes apparent that unfair dismissal, employee grievances, and grievance handling are not isolated concerns. They sit within the wider context of talent management and workforce planning, even if that connection is not always acknowledged openly. Decisions around capability and misconduct, when managed with care and consistency, contribute to a sense of fairness that supports longer-term workforce stability.

The key causes of employee grievances, often linked to communication gaps, perceived inequity, or pressure within roles, tend to reflect deeper workforce planning challenges. There is a sense that these issues surface where planning has not quite translated into day-to-day reality. Not entirely, at least. It is rarely just about the immediate concern raised. Something underneath usually needs attention, whether that relates to role clarity, development opportunities, or management capability.

Effective grievance handling carries more weight than it might first appear. Beyond resolving individual concerns, it reinforces trust and signals that concerns are taken seriously. Over time, this can influence employee retention, engagement, and even how confident people feel contributing to the organisation. There is a practical side to it, certainly, but also something less tangible that shapes the working environment.

Within 7HR02 -Talent Management and Workforce Planning, these connections suggest that legal awareness and people management practices should not sit apart from workforce planning. A more joined-up view, though not always easy to maintain, tends to lead to more stable and realistic outcomes. There may still be inconsistencies, and perhaps that is inevitable, but recognising the links is a useful starting point.

We also support CIPD Level 5 learners based in Ireland, Kuwait, Singapore, and Dubai, offering guidance that reflects both local expectations and broader professional standards.