7CO01 Assignment Example

7CO01 Work and Working Lives Assignment Example

The 7CO01 Assignment Example asks us to examine how work is evolving, how it’s structured, experienced, and understood in today’s changing business environment. In this example, we take a more natural route, not just ticking academic boxes, but thinking honestly about what work really means, both professionally and personally. It’s not always a clean or complete picture,  some thoughts shift halfway through, and that’s intentional. Real working lives are rarely tidy. This assignment reflects that uncertainty while still engaging with core concepts in a serious, reflective way. Hopefully, it feels familiar, maybe even a bit relatable.

Question 9 (AC 3.1): Analyse any one of the major published models that have been developed to guide managers when leading organisations through major change episodes. Explain what features of the model you find most and least useful from the perspective of contemporary people management. Justify your answer with reference to published examples or your own experience and observations.

When organisations undergo major changes, whether that’s a restructure, a merger, or a digital overhaul, leaders often turn to established change management models to help steer the process. One such model that’s frequently cited is Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model. It’s been around since the 1990s and is still widely referenced in both academic and professional spaces. Though it’s not without criticism, there’s something reassuring about its clear sequence, eight steps, each with a defined purpose. It feels manageable, even when the change itself doesn’t.

The model begins with creating a sense of urgency. That part, I think, is still very relevant. In many organisations, people won’t move unless they feel a real need to. There has to be some kind of shared discomfort, something that makes the current situation feel unsustainable. But in practice, we’ve seen this done poorly. Some leaders manufacture panic instead of building genuine awareness, and that backfires. It can breed fear instead of motivation.

Another strength is the emphasis on building a guiding coalition. Having a strong team of visible supporters does seem to help, especially when they’re not all from the top. We’ve seen examples in healthcare settings where senior nurses, not just executives, were brought into the planning of electronic health record rollouts, and that gave the process more credibility. People listened. Change felt closer to the ground.

Where the model struggles, in my view, is the linearity. Real change doesn’t always move in a neat sequence. People don’t just “buy in” after the vision is communicated. They might appear convinced, then resist later. It’s messier than Kotter’s steps suggest. And not every organisation has the luxury of time to build wins and embed change slowly. Sometimes you’re halfway through building momentum when leadership shifts, or funding vanishes. What then?

From a contemporary people management perspective, the model’s slightly top-down tone feels dated. It often assumes managers drive the change, and others follow. But today, people want agency. They expect dialogue, not just direction. That’s something we’ve noticed more in post-pandemic workplaces, employees want to co-create solutions, not just be told what’s happening.

So, while Kotter’s model offers a helpful scaffold, especially in planning stages, we think it needs adapting to suit today’s more collaborative and less hierarchical work cultures. It’s useful—just not sufficient on its own.

Question 10 (AC 3.2): Resistance to change is inevitable but can be reduced. Examine to what extent the mantra ‘people support what they help to create’ should underpin the approach taken by managers when restructuring an organisation. Justify your answer with reference to examples or to your own experience and observations.

Resistance to change, in almost every organisation, is something managers come up against. It’s not always loud or dramatic, sometimes it’s just a quiet reluctance. Other times, it’s more active. People drag their feet, question decisions, or simply don’t engage. And while some level of resistance may be expected, there are ways to soften it. One of the more commonly cited ideas is the phrase: people support what they help to create. It sounds simple enough, perhaps even a bit idealistic. But there’s something in it that’s hard to ignore.

When people are invited into the process, whether through consultation, feedback sessions, or even informal check-ins, they tend to become more invested. It’s not just about being asked for input; it’s about feeling that the input matters. We’ve seen it ourselves, in places where staff were given a real say in how changes were rolled out, shift patterns, team structures, even how meetings were run. The result wasn’t perfect unity, but the tension reduced noticeably. That matters.

Take for example a retail chain that restructured its customer service teams. In one location, the manager rolled out changes top-down, no discussion. Staff morale dropped, absenteeism rose. In another, the manager began with a team discussion, outlined the goals, asked for suggestions. The final changes were still challenging, but the staff felt part of the outcome. Their suggestions weren’t all used, but they saw them taken seriously. That counts.

Of course, involvement doesn’t solve everything. Not everyone wants to participate, and sometimes decisions have to be made quickly, urgency doesn’t always allow time for open consultation. There’s also a risk of creating an illusion of choice when the outcome is already fixed. That can backfire. People sense when they’re being placated rather than heard.

Still, even in cases where full collaboration isn’t practical, some effort to involve people early can go a long way. It’s about trust, really. And trust, once damaged, takes time to rebuild.

So yes, the idea that people support what they help to create shouldn’t be treated like a universal solution, but as a guiding principle, it’s powerful. In most cases, it’s worth making the effort. Even if the process isn’t perfectly democratic, the attempt to include can often be enough to reduce friction, and make change feel a little less like something being done to people.

Question 11 (AC 3.3): Evaluate the current trend for organisations to move from a five-day to a four-day working week without reducing their employees’ pay. Justify your answer with reference to published research and your own thinking in respect of your organisation.

There’s been growing momentum lately around the idea of shifting from a traditional five-day working week to a four-day one, while still paying employees the same. Some call it progressive. Others, perhaps more cautiously, see it as a bit of a gamble. Either way, it’s a trend that’s no longer just hypothetical. We’ve seen trials across the UK and elsewhere with organisations reporting increased productivity, reduced burnout, and even improved staff retention. But of course, it’s not quite as simple as chopping off a day and hoping everything else stays the same.

Research from the 4 Day Week Campaign, particularly the 2022 pilot in the UK, showed that most companies involved found the transition beneficial. Not only did many maintain output levels—they sometimes exceeded them. Employees felt more focused, took fewer sick days, and generally reported better mental health. These outcomes do sound promising, especially when employee wellbeing is under increasing scrutiny. But that said, there were caveats.

Not all industries are set up to accommodate such a shift. Retail, healthcare, customer service, sectors that depend on availability, may struggle more to adapt without major operational overhauls. And while compressed hours (four longer days) are one approach, they can have a different kind of toll. That balance between work intensity and time off is delicate.

From our perspective, we’ve considered it internally, casually at first, then more seriously. There’s definitely appeal. A shorter week could support work-life balance, possibly attract new talent too. But the fear is whether client needs might fall through the cracks, especially during high-demand periods. It’s not so much resistance as uncertainty. Would a four-day week actually work for us, or would it quietly erode the quality of service?

We think a cautious trial might be worthwhile. Perhaps start with selected teams. Let them test the waters. That way we’re not committing the entire organisation to a structural change without evidence it works in our specific context. Because no matter how good the data, organisations vary. What fits one company beautifully might feel awkward or forced in another.

So, while we support the idea in principle, we’d say implementation needs to be flexible. Maybe not one-size-fits-all. And maybe not permanent, at least not right away. But yes, the potential is there, especially if handled thoughtfully.

Question 12 (AC 3.4): Assess the contribution of people management professionals in helping their organisations to become more creative and innovative. Justifying your answer with examples, assess the roles played both by organisational culture and human resource management practices in promoting innovation and creativity.

When we talk about creativity and innovation in the workplace, it’s tempting to picture a team of designers huddled in a trendy office, brainstorming groundbreaking ideas. But behind that energy, somewhere in the background, people management professionals are quietly laying the groundwork. Their contribution isn’t always flashy, but it’s often what allows those ideas to even happen.

To begin with, HR doesn’t just hire people, they shape teams. The way they recruit, onboard, and develop employees directly affects how ideas flow. For example, if a company only hires people who think the same way, innovation suffers. But when HR actively looks for diverse perspectives, not just in background, but in ways of thinking, that’s when creativity starts to breathe.

Organisational culture plays its part too. In a culture where mistakes are punished harshly, people tend to play it safe. But when HR helps create a more forgiving, open atmosphere, where trying something new, even if it fails, is seen as valuable, employees are more likely to speak up or try new things. It’s not a guarantee, of course. Culture doesn’t change overnight. But it can shift, bit by bit, often through small but intentional HR practices like informal recognition, mentoring, or more flexible policies.

One example that comes to mind is how some tech companies use “innovation hours” or “hack days,” and HR plays a key role in embedding these into company routines. It’s not just a nice perk; it signals that management values experimentation.

But it’s not without contradictions. Sometimes HR can unintentionally stifle creativity, too much structure, too many checklists, or rigid performance metrics can discourage risk-taking. It’s a balancing act. They must manage policies and compliance without boxing people in.

Also, there’s the uncomfortable truth that not every manager encourages creative thinking, even when HR tries to promote it. So people management professionals often have to nudge from behind, coaching leaders, tweaking incentives, and sometimes just listening, adjusting culture slowly through repeated action.

In short, HR can’t create innovation alone, but they do set the conditions for it. They influence who gets hired, how safe people feel to contribute, and what behaviours get rewarded. Without that foundation, even the best ideas may never surface. It’s a quiet role, perhaps, but one with a surprisingly deep impact.

Question 13 (AC 4.1): You are asked to advise a public sector organisation of your choice that is keen to develop formal ‘values-based recruitment’ (VBR) practices. Explain to managers what the purpose of VBR is and its major potential advantages and disadvantages. Propose one measure that could be swiftly introduced to make the organisation’s recruitment practices more values based. Justify your answer.

If you’re considering introducing values-based recruitment (VBR) into your public sector organisation, say, for instance, a county health department, it’s worth beginning with a simple idea such as recruitment isn’t just about filling a vacancy. It’s about finding someone who fits, not just on paper, but in the broader sense. Someone who aligns with what your organisation actually stands for. That’s the core of VBR.

The purpose of VBR is to ensure that candidates aren’t only assessed for their skills and experience, but also for how well their personal values align with the mission, principles, or working culture of your organisation. It’s not about hiring clones or like-minded thinkers; rather, it’s about hiring people whose approach to work feels coherent with what the organisation is trying to do. For a health department, that might mean looking beyond clinical qualifications and asking whether someone genuinely values public service, empathy, or equity.

There are obvious advantages. When values match, people tend to be more engaged. Retention improves. Team dynamics often benefit, too, less friction, more shared purpose. You might also notice a shift in public trust, especially if frontline staff embody the organisation’s stated values consistently. But of course, there are drawbacks.

Values aren’t always easy to define, let alone measure. Interviews can turn into performances. Candidates may just tell you what they think you want to hear. And if the process becomes too rigid, you risk unintentionally excluding people with valuable perspectives who simply express themselves differently. It’s a balancing act.

One quick, low-cost measure we’d suggest? Introduce structured scenario-based interview questions that explicitly probe values, realistic dilemmas, not hypothetical fluff. For example: “Describe a time when you had to choose between following a policy and doing what you believed was right for a client. What did you do?” It’s not perfect, no question. Some people might rehearse answers. But over time, with consistent use and thoughtful follow-up probing, patterns emerge. You begin to see how candidates think and what matters to them.

This doesn’t overhaul your whole system overnight. But it moves recruitment away from ticking boxes and towards meaningful conversations. And for a public body that relies so heavily on trust and social responsibility, that shift, however small, can matter more than we sometimes admit.

Question 14 (AC 4.2): Explain what the term ‘psychological resilience’ means in practical terms. Evaluate your own organisation’s activities in the promotion of better resilience and set out any one new measure you would like to see adopted that will help your people become more psychologically resilient. Justify your answer.

Psychological resilience, in the simplest terms, is a person’s ability to keep going when things don’t go to plan. It’s not about being unaffected or never feeling pressure, it’s more about how people respond to setbacks or strain, and how they recover from them. In practical terms, that might mean staying calm during a difficult team conflict, bouncing back after a failed project, or simply coping with persistent work stress without shutting down emotionally. It’s that inner stretch, we think, that allows someone to face disruption, feel the impact, and then gradually find their balance again.

At our organisation, we’ve taken some meaningful steps to promote better resilience, though perhaps not always in a structured or deliberate way. There are regular check-ins between line managers and team members, and we’ve encouraged flexibility in work hours where possible. People are generally open about taking mental health days if they need them, which is something we quietly appreciate, it suggests that we’re building a culture where that’s not frowned upon. There’s also a modest EAP (Employee Assistance Programme), although, honestly, I’m not sure how many people actually use it. Sometimes the resources feel like they exist more in policy than in daily reality.

Still, one thing we’re missing, at least from where I stand, is something more proactive, something that doesn’t just wait for people to hit a breaking point. What I’d like to see introduced is a structured resilience training programme. Nothing overwhelming or preachy, just a space where staff can learn small, practical techniques to manage stress better. This could be something as basic as a monthly drop-in workshop that focuses on mindset strategies, or guided sessions around managing uncertainty.

Why this, in particular? Because while ad hoc support helps, resilience is partly a skill that can be built. And sometimes people don’t realise they’re struggling until the pressure has already mounted. A small, regular opportunity to reflect and reset, together, might offer that subtle nudge before things spiral. We probably underestimate how many of us are just barely holding things together, quietly. So, a programme like this wouldn’t fix everything, and it won’t suit everyone, but perhaps it opens the door a little wider, and sometimes that’s all someone needs.

Question 15 (AC 4.3): A colleague asks you to recommend how your organisation could make its activities more ‘green’ (i.e. environmentally sustainable). Critically evaluate underpinning theory and practice in this area and make recommendations for your organisation.

We’ve all heard the push towards going green. It’s everywhere, recycling bins, paperless offices, LED lights, the occasional tree planting day. But when a colleague asked me what our organisation could do to be more environmentally sustainable, I found myself hesitating. Not because we don’t care, we do, but because sustainability, in practice, isn’t always straightforward. There’s a theory–practice gap. And sometimes, the things that sound green might not actually make much of a difference. Or worse, they become a box-ticking exercise.

Theoretically, there are several well-known frameworks. The Triple Bottom Line model, people, planet, profit, is one of the most quoted. The idea is appealing: we balance financial viability with environmental care and social impact. But in reality, organisations often prioritise the “profit” part, understandably, and the “planet” part gets… diluted. Then there’s the circular economy principle, which aims to eliminate waste altogether. Again, sounds fantastic, but can feel almost unreachable when applied in a mid-sized office without supply chains to redesign or manufacturing waste to recover.

Still, not everything has to be radical to be meaningful. One area we might reconsider is energy consumption. We’ve switched to LED lighting, yes, but our heating and cooling systems? Still older, probably inefficient. And our meeting culture, lots of in-person sessions that involve travel, feels a bit outdated now that we’ve proven remote meetings can work just as well. Probably better, in some cases.

Paper use is another low-hanging fruit. We talk about being paperless, but printers still hum daily. Maybe it’s less about banning printing and more about shifting the mindset. Training staff on digital tools more confidently. Or nudging departments to set internal targets, not imposed top-down but discussed collectively.

There’s also the idea of green procurement, choosing suppliers based not just on price but on their environmental credentials. This one gets tricky. We’ve had suppliers who claim to be sustainable, but when you look deeper, their credentials are thin. So perhaps we need a clearer internal guideline on what “green” means for us. Not perfect, but consistent.

In the end, I don’t think we’ll find one big fix. But a series of small, deliberate shifts, done honestly, not for optics, could take us somewhere better. Maybe not entirely green yet, but greener. And that, for now, feels like a reasonable place to start.

Question 16 (AC 4.4): Critically discuss the view that organisations can never be considered as true equal opportunity employers unless they have in place formal measures to tackle the prevalence of unconscious bias among managers and employees. What kinds of measures would you expect to see in place in an organisation that was serious about reducing unconscious bias? Justify your answer with reference to published research.

It’s a well-meaning idea, that any organisation can be truly equal in its employment practices. But in reality, that’s rarely the case. Even those with good intentions can fall short. Unconscious bias is subtle, persistent and, in many ways, deeply human. So, yes, the argument holds weight: organisations can’t fully claim to offer equal opportunity without addressing the often invisible assumptions people carry with them. It’s not just about ticking boxes or having a “diversity” tab on the website. There needs to be more substance.

Unconscious bias tends to operate beneath the surface, influencing decisions without people even realising. A manager might genuinely believe they’re being fair while consistently favouring candidates who remind them of themselves, or of someone they’re comfortable with. That’s where formal measures become essential. You can’t rely on self-awareness alone. Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2018) supports this, noting that informal processes and subjective judgements are especially vulnerable to bias, often reinforcing inequality rather than challenging it.

But what does it actually look like when an organisation takes this seriously?

Well, you’d expect structured recruitment processes, for a start. That means consistent interview panels, anonymised CVs where possible, and standardised scoring criteria, not vague “gut feelings.” Regular training is another key component. Not the box-ticking kind, but sessions grounded in real-life scenarios, allowing employees to examine their own assumptions. Some firms go further, introducing “bias interrupters,” deliberate pauses in decision-making workflows to check for skewed thinking.

Data transparency matters too. If leadership teams are all male, or overwhelmingly from similar backgrounds, that should raise questions. It’s not necessarily about quotas, but patterns. Monitoring hiring, promotion and retention data by demographic helps reveal where bias might be creeping in. And then, crucially, doing something about it.

Of course, there’s a risk of over-engineering. Some argue that focusing too much on bias can create tension or even resistance. It’s not always definitive. People don’t want to feel like they’re being accused. So the tone matters, it has to be about reflection, not blame.

In the end, unconscious bias doesn’t disappear just because we write policies about it. But ignoring it isn’t an option either. If an organisation truly wants to offer equal opportunity, it needs to confront what’s uncomfortable. That takes effort, and some humility.