7CO02 People Management and Development Strategies for Performance

7CO02 People Management and Development Strategies for Performance looks closely at how organisations can get the best from their people, not just for productivity, but for long-term success. It’s not just about ticking HR boxes or delivering training. It’s more about asking; are we really using our people’s potential well? This unit encourages reflection on strategic alignment, workforce development, and the complexities of performance management. It doesn’t offer quick fixes. Instead, it challenges us to rethink what high performance means, perhaps not just metrics, but motivation, engagement, and capability across the board. Sometimes, the answers aren’t obvious, and that’s part of the point.

Assessment questions: 7CO02 People Management and Development Strategies for Performance

Question 1 (AC 1.1): In recent times people management specialists have sought to distance themselves from administrative activity, re-positioning our function as one focused on strategic activity which ‘adds value’. To what extent do you agree with the view that this is a mistake? Justify your answer and include an explanation of the major objectives of people management practice in contemporary organisations.

In recent years, many people management professionals, ourselves included, at times, have leaned into the idea of repositioning the field as something more ‘strategic’. There’s been a push to move away from administrative work, the paperwork and processes, towards becoming value-adding advisors. It’s an appealing shift. Strategic involvement sounds important, influential. But is it entirely the right move? We’re not so sure.

While the intention is understandable, HR wanting a seat at the top table, shaping decisions rather than simply implementing them, there’s a risk here of creating a false hierarchy. Strategic activity is valuable, yes, but so too is operational consistency. When we distance ourselves too much from the everyday nuts and bolts of HR, we risk overlooking the practical needs that hold an organisation together. Someone still needs to manage onboarding, resolve workplace grievances, track attendance fairly. Ignoring these tasks, or worse, devaluing them, can cause real disruption.

In our view, it’s not that focusing on strategic goals is a mistake exactly, but perhaps the way it’s been framed is. It doesn’t have to be either/or. There’s genuine value in blending both. A strategic HR plan that’s disconnected from the lived, operational experience of employees? It might sound impressive, but often fails to land.

People management practice, at its core, should support both the organisation’s long-term direction and the day-to-day wellbeing of its people. The major objectives today, developing talent, building inclusive workplaces, ensuring fair practices, enhancing employee engagement, require a grounded understanding of what’s actually happening on the ground. Strategy can’t exist in a vacuum.

Of course, there’s practice. In larger organisations, some roles may genuinely be more strategic, others more operational. But the tension arises when strategy is seen as inherently superior. It’s not. The two rely on each other more than some would like to admit.

So, is it a mistake to reframe HR as strategic? Not necessarily. But it becomes one if we lose sight of the administrative functions that keep people supported and processes fair. Maybe the better goal isn’t to abandon the administrative, but to support it, show how even the so-called routine tasks contribute to culture, productivity, and trust.

After all, what’s strategy worth, if the basics fall apart?

Question 2 (AC 1.2): Evaluate your own organisation’s capacity to align people management practices with its overall business strategy. In what ways do people management practices directly support the achievement of organisational objectives? Recommend one change which might help achieve better vertical integration. Justify your answer.

Evaluating how well our organisation aligns people management with the broader business strategy is never easy task. There are clear structures in place, performance reviews, workforce planning, even learning and development pathways, but whether they really connect with the strategic goals? That’s something we keep revisiting. In theory, yes, there’s a good level of alignment. In practice, it sometimes feels a bit fragmented.

We know our overall business strategy is built around growth, innovation, and customer responsiveness. Our people management efforts support this in parts. For example, recruitment is fairly proactive, we target candidates not just for skills but for adaptability and values alignment, which suits our need for an agile workforce. Internal mobility is encouraged too, and that helps retain talent while meeting evolving business needs. These practices do contribute to our goals, just not always in a directly visible way. Sometimes the link between HR initiatives and strategic outcomes isn’t clear to everyone involved.

Engagement surveys, for instance, give us useful feedback. But follow-through? It can be inconsistent. We’ve invested in management training to improve team leadership, but the uptake varies across departments. So while people practices do support the strategy, the strength of that support often depends on how seriously individual leaders apply them. That’s a bit of a disconnect, really.

One change that might improve vertical integration would be to implement a more transparent system of cascading objectives, starting from the top and aligning team and individual goals with the broader strategy. It’s something we’ve discussed in meetings, but it’s never quite taken off. Done well, it might tighten the link between daily tasks and strategic outcomes. Everyone, from senior managers to junior staff, should be able to see how their work connects to where the organisation is heading. That kind of clarity can boost motivation, and perhaps more importantly, make performance conversations more meaningful.

Of course, it’s not a perfect solution. There’s always the risk that it turns into another box-ticking exercise. But if we can avoid that, perhaps by letting teams shape how their objectives connect upwards, it could make a real difference. Strategic alignment shouldn’t feel like a top-down directive; it needs to feel owned. Maybe that’s where we’re falling short: we set goals for people, not with them. That shift might be subtle, but potentially transformative.

Question 3 (AC 1.3): You are asked to make a presentation to the senior management team in your organisation which examines ‘resource-based approaches to the development of people management strategy’. Explain the underpinning theory and provide one recommendation about how it might help improve your organisation’s long-term success. What key points would you make? Justify your answer.

If I were to present to senior management on resource-based approaches to developing people management strategy, I’d probably begin by grounding the room in a simple thought: not every competitive advantage is external. Sometimes, it’s the internal capabilities, our people, their skills, and how we organise, that quietly set us apart. This is essentially what the Resource-Based View (RBV) theory argues. It shifts focus from chasing market trends to investing in what we already have, our internal strengths, especially human capital.

The theory itself rests on a fairly straightforward idea. If a resource is valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and well-organised within the business (what’s often referred to as VRIO), it can become a long-term advantage. Now, think about that through a people management lens. The way we recruit, retain, and develop talent, if done intentionally, could tick all four boxes.

But here’s the thing. It’s not just about hiring the best or offering training for the sake of it. It’s more about whether we’re building unique capabilities that actually align with our strategic goals. For example, do we have leadership development pathways that reflect our future direction? Are we embedding organisational knowledge in a way that can’t just walk out the door? Sometimes we forget that when people leave, they often take more than their title, they take context, culture, and informal processes that are hard to replace.

If I had to offer just one recommendation, it would be this: invest in building and retaining organisational knowledge through structured internal mentoring. Not a generic mentoring programme, but something grounded in the realities of our roles and teams. Pairing emerging talent with experienced staff can, over time, preserve know-how that otherwise fades. And this doesn’t need to be grand or expensive, just consistent.

I’d argue this kind of approach, grounded in RBV, could improve long-term success by making our human capital less dependent on the external market and more shaped around our unique way of working.

That said, it’s not without tension. It assumes people stay. It leans heavily on culture. And not everything rare is valuable. Still, as a long-term direction? It feels more sustainable than constantly reacting to external pressures.

Question 4 (AC 1.4): Critically evaluate evidence to demonstrate that the introduction of ‘high performance work practices’ in the field of people management will lead to sustained organisational success across all industrial sectors. Justify your answer with reference to leading published studies.

There’s an appealing logic behind the idea that high performance work practices, HPWPs, as they’re often abbreviated, should lead to organisational success. After all, who wouldn’t expect better hiring decisions, more training, or stronger employee involvement to improve performance? But when we step back and look at how these practices actually play out across different industries, the picture becomes more complicated.

Several influential studies do support a strong connection. For instance, Pfeffer’s work (1998) suggests that organisations adopting HPWPs, such as selective hiring, decentralised decision-making, and incentive-based compensation, tend to outperform those that don’t. Similarly, Huselid (1995) found a positive link between such practices and both productivity and profitability. These studies are often cited to support the case that better people management equals better business results. On the surface, it sounds conclusive.

Yet, in practice, results aren’t always as uniform. Not all sectors respond in the same way, and not all organisations have the same internal capacity or culture to implement these practices effectively. For instance, in manufacturing settings, where processes can be tightly standardised, HPWPs might yield clearer, more measurable results. But in sectors like social care or hospitality, where work is emotionally demanding or customer-facing, the outcomes can be harder to pin down. What works in a tech firm in Manchester might struggle to stick in a public hospital in Poland.

There’s also the issue of context. A study by Boxall and Macky (2009) warns against assuming a universal benefit. They argue that HPWPs must be adapted to fit specific organisational environments and employee needs. And that makes sense, implementing team autonomy in a rigid, hierarchical organisation can actually create tension rather than boost engagement.

Plus, there’s a lingering question: what exactly counts as “high performance”? Definitions vary across the literature. Some see it as employee satisfaction, others point to financial performance, and some look at long-term adaptability. The measures aren’t always aligned. So we’re left with a bit of ambiguity. Yes, HPWPs can drive sustained success, but not automatically, and certainly not everywhere.

In the end, while the evidence leans in favour of HPWPs having a positive impact, the outcome hinges heavily on how they’re introduced, the setting they’re used in, and whether leadership is genuinely committed to making them work. So, can they guarantee sustained success across all sectors? No. But can they help, when thoughtfully applied? Absolutely.

Question 5 (AC 2.1): Assess to what extent established approaches to succession planning are elitist in character and inappropriate for use by organisations committed to equality, diversity and inclusion. How can they be reformed to make them more inclusive? Justify your answer.

Succession planning has traditionally been viewed as a pragmatic way for organisations to prepare for the future. The idea, in theory, is quite sound, identify key roles, develop internal talent, and ensure continuity. But when we look closely at how it’s actually implemented in many workplaces, especially large and long-established ones, the process often reveals an uncomfortable truth: it tends to favour a narrow set of people. There’s an elitist thread woven into it. Not necessarily on purpose, but it’s there.

In many established approaches, succession planning leans heavily on identifying “high potential” employees, often using criteria that reflect the values, behaviours, or career paths of those already in senior roles. That’s where bias quietly creeps in. The result? Leadership pipelines dominated by people who look, sound, or think like the existing leadership. Whether it’s education, background, communication style, or even availability for informal mentoring, these become unofficial filters. And that’s a problem if your organisation claims to be committed to equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Because saying you’re inclusive while rewarding conformity… well, that doesn’t quite sit right.

Of course, it’s not all deliberate. Sometimes it’s just inertia, processes inherited from an earlier era, rarely challenged. But without reform, the risk is that talented individuals from underrepresented groups are overlooked. They might not match the “leadership mould”, but that doesn’t mean they’re not leadership material. Perhaps they simply haven’t been given the same opportunities, or been seen through the same lens.

So, how do we make succession planning more inclusive? We think part of the answer lies in redefining what potential actually means. Move beyond surface-level traits or existing moulds. Broaden assessment tools. Use anonymised performance data where possible. And shift the focus from ‘who fits’ to ‘who brings something new’. Also, this is crucial, introduce transparency. People need to know what the path to progression looks like. Otherwise, it remains a mystery open only to the few already on the inside.

It won’t be perfect. Inclusion work rarely is. Some people may resist, and some assumptions will be hard to unpick. But if the goal is to reflect the richness of the workforce in its future leadership, succession planning needs to open up. It should feel like a conversation that anyone, regardless of where they started, might be invited into. Not just a private room with a locked door.

Question 6 (AC 2.2): With reference to your organisation’s record in the field of employee retention, evaluate current developments in employee retention. Put forward two distinct recommendations for measures that might reduce levels of unwanted employee turnover in your organisation. Justify your choice.

Employee retention has always been a challenge in most sectors, and to some extent, we think it’s never going to be a problem with a simple fix. At our organisation, we’ve made steady efforts, some more successful than others, to hold on to our best people. We’ve run engagement surveys, revised pay structures, even trialled flexible working models. Some worked for a while, others didn’t quite land. But the reality is, retention isn’t static. What mattered to employees five years ago feels different now. Priorities shift. Work-life balance, career growth, even organisational values, they all come into sharper focus at different times.

In recent years, we’ve noticed more of our mid-level professionals moving on. It’s not always about dissatisfaction. Some go for better titles, others just want a change of scenery. It’s understandable. But it’s still a cost, financially, yes, but also in terms of lost knowledge and disrupted teams. And that slow churn, that constant readjusting, it does take a toll. So we’ve been asking, how do we respond to this climate, without simply reacting?

Two recommendations stand out for us.

First, we believe it’s time to properly invest in internal mobility. Not just job shadowing or vague promotion promises, but clear, structured pathways that allow people to shift roles horizontally or grow vertically. Too often, talented people leave because they can’t see the next step where they are. If we’re honest, we’ve lost a few that way, smart, capable individuals who simply felt stuck. A proper mobility strategy could address that. It won’t stop all departures, but it might reduce the ones we regret most.

Second, we think mentoring needs more attention. Not as a side project, but integrated into how we onboard, develop, and retain staff. People don’t just want to work, they want to feel seen, guided, and part of something. We’ve seen glimpses of how mentoring boosts morale and commitment, but we’ve never formalised it. Perhaps it’s time we do.

Of course, no two exits are alike, and no retention strategy fits everyone. That’s the hard part. People are unpredictable, and their needs, our needs, keep evolving. But with a mix of flexibility, opportunity, and genuine human connection, we might just hold onto more of the people who keep this place moving. Or at least, give them a better reason to stay a little longer.

Question 7 (AC 2.3): Evaluate the development of asynchronous e-learning considering whether this will dominate the practice of delivering training in organisational settings in the future making classroom-based approaches rare. Justify your answer with reference to published research.

The development of asynchronous e-learning has certainly changed how organisations deliver training. It’s flexible, cost-effective, and scalable, three qualities that naturally appeal to businesses looking to streamline employee development. With a growing emphasis on remote work and digital tools, many are beginning to question whether asynchronous learning might one day replace traditional, in-person training altogether.

But perhaps it’s not quite that straightforward.

Let’s start with the obvious strengths. Asynchronous e-learning allows learners to go at their own pace. No need to attend a scheduled session or wait for others to catch up. Modules can be paused, revisited, even skipped where permitted. This autonomy can improve learner engagement, particularly for self-motivated individuals. According to a 2021 study by Singh and Thurman, asynchronous learning models are effective for knowledge retention, especially when learners have control over the pace and content sequence.

From an organisational perspective, it’s also less disruptive. Training doesn’t mean halting daily operations or pulling teams out for a full day. Once developed, the content remains reusable and accessible, reducing costs in the long run.

However, it’s not without its drawbacks. While asynchronous learning might tick all the boxes for efficiency, it doesn’t quite replicate the possibilities of face-to-face interaction. In complex subjects or when soft skills are involved, that real-time feedback, spontaneous discussion, or peer engagement can make all the difference. Research by Hrastinski (2019) found that synchronous elements, even when minimal, play a key role in creating a sense of community and shared learning, something many learners value, whether they realise it or not.

We’ve seen this ourselves. In some teams, employees appreciated the flexibility of recorded modules, while others found them isolating. Some even admitted they didn’t complete them without scheduled prompts or group discussions. So while the content was there, the learning didn’t always happen.

So, will asynchronous e-learning dominate? Possibly. Will it make classroom-based approaches rare? That’s harder to say. Perhaps not entirely. Instead, we might see more of a blended approach becoming the norm, where asynchronous modules handle the theory, and classroom sessions are reserved for practical application, debate, or team-based tasks.

Organisations aren’t just chasing efficiency. They want results. And while asynchronous e-learning has a strong case, it’s unlikely to become a complete replacement. At least, not yet. Not for every context. And maybe that’s a good thing.

Question 8 (AC 2.4): Evaluate the view of the critics of ‘promoting employee engagement’ who see it simply as another in a long line of people management practices which intensify work, benefit employers more than employees and generally lead to stress and burn-out over a period of time. Justify your answer.

There’s a growing chorus of critics who argue that promoting employee engagement isn’t quite the win-win strategy it’s often made out to be. On the surface, it sounds positive, create meaningful work, involve people more, and everyone wins. But when you dig deeper, especially from the critics’ perspective, things get a bit murkier.

The main concern is that engagement has become a tool to extract more effort, often without proportional reward. Some would say it’s just a clever way of asking employees to give more of themselves, to care more, try harder, stay later, without necessarily adjusting pay, hours, or workload. And over time, this can turn quite toxic. You end up with individuals who feel like they must always be “on”, constantly performing, constantly producing. That’s exhausting. We’ve seen it ourselves in places where enthusiasm slowly turns to quiet resentment.

So yes, there’s some truth here. Employee engagement initiatives can, intentionally or not, lead to work intensification. And that benefits employers more than employees, at least in a narrow, short-term sense. But that’s not the whole story.

Not all engagement strategies are exploitative. Some genuinely aim to create more humane, balanced workplaces. Where there’s trust, open communication, and proper support, engagement can actually reduce stress, by making people feel heard, included, and respected. It’s not perfect, obviously. And it depends hugely on how it’s done.

We’ve seen organisations where engagement efforts are sincere. Staff are given more say, but they’re also given the tools and time they need. There’s clarity on expectations. And when people speak up, someone actually listens. In those cases, the stress isn’t necessarily greater, it’s different, maybe, but not worse.

That said, the critics aren’t wrong to be cautious. The problem isn’t with engagement itself, but with how it’s been interpreted or rolled out in some workplaces. When it becomes a performance metric rather than a people-focused process, it tends to miss the point entirely.

So in the end, it’s complicated. Engagement can be enriching or exploitative. Possibly both at once. And maybe that’s the most human truth of all, it depends. On leadership, culture, even timing. Critics offer an important reminder; good intentions aren’t enough. How engagement is designed and delivered is what really makes the difference.