7LD01 Organisational Design and Development Student Assessment Brief

7LD01 Organisational Design and Development Student Assessment Brief

The 7LD01 Organisational Design and Development Student Assessment Brief doesn’t just sit quietly on a module outline, it prompts you to think harder, maybe even second-guess what you thought you knew about how organisations are shaped and reshaped over time. It’s not just about design frameworks or developmental models, although yes, those appear too. It’s more of a way in, a means of connecting classroom theory with the messy, often contradictory reality of organisational life.

We’ve seen students initially approach it with hesitation, unsure of how to translate experience into assessment language. But somewhere in that uncertainty, the best work often begins. This brief opens up opportunities, not neatly, not always comfortably, for learning that sticks. You’ll engage with structures, people, culture, change. And you’ll probably find your thinking shifts somewhere along the way, even if slightly. If anything, it’s a nudge to take what you’ve seen at work and look again with just a bit more curiosity.

Assessment questions

You receive the following message from your organisation’s Head of People Management: ‘There is an increasing need for us to review our organisational design and development practices to ensure that the organisation is operating effectively to achieve its desired levels of performance.

I am aware of your interest in this area, so would value your contribution to this project. Can you respond to the following questions and join me to discuss these points with the board at their next meeting?’ For the purpose of this assessment, you need to apply your answers to either your own organisation or one with which you are familiar. It is essential that your reading of the published literature is used to inform your responses to all questions.

Organisational Design and Development: Evaluating Contextual Variables

Question 1 (AC 1.4): In addition to the external drivers for change, it is important that we consider the organisational specific factors that are likely to impact our organisational design and development. Evaluate three of the key contextual variables, such as the organisation’s existing structure, culture, sector etc outlining how these can impact the organisation’s design and development.

We’ve all felt that moment where something just doesn’t quite fit, not because it’s broken, but because the environment around it has shifted. That’s often how organisational design feels when it’s not keeping pace with internal realities. While many conversations focus on outside pressures like market trends or legislation, there’s another layer that’s just as significant. Our internal context, the bones, habits, and identity of the organisation itself, plays a defining role in shaping what works and what doesn’t.

Let’s look at three key internal elements that can influence how an organisation approaches its design and development. I’ll draw loosely on my experience with a mid-sized healthcare company, though these ideas could apply just as well in other sectors.

Existing Organisational Structure

The shape of an organisation, who reports to whom, how many layers there are, where decisions are made, doesn’t just affect workflow. It affects pace, autonomy, accountability, even morale. In our case, the structure had grown organically over years. It wasn’t necessarily faulty, but it had become a bit… patchy. New teams were slotted in where they fit rather than where they should be, and this led to duplicated efforts and confusion around roles.

Revisiting structure isn’t about starting over, often, it’s more like pruning. You remove what no longer supports the system and strengthen what does. That said, there’s always resistance. People grow attached to reporting lines. That’s human. Restructuring means gently unpicking those threads and re-weaving them in a way that works better for now, not necessarily forever.

Organisational Culture

Culture is harder to pin down. It’s not written down anywhere, not formally, but you know it when you feel it. In our organisation, there’s a strong lean towards caution. People like predictability. They’re loyal, but wary of disruption. That atmosphere means any developmental changes need to be paced thoughtfully. Too fast, and you risk alienation. Too slow, and nothing shifts.

Culture can either slow down or support design change, depending on how you engage with it. You can’t really force culture into a new shape. But you can model different behaviours, open up space for different types of conversation, and, over time, the culture may begin to shift. Maybe not exactly how you plan, and that’s part of the challenge.

Sector-Specific Expectations

Every sector carries its own expectations. In healthcare, for example, compliance and safety take centre stage. That influences how teams are set up and what kind of decision-making structures are acceptable. You can’t flatten hierarchies too much if critical sign-offs are required by law. At the same time, responsiveness is essential. We sometimes get caught between control and agility, needing both but not always achieving either. Development, then, becomes a balancing act. Not one with perfect outcomes, but one that keeps returning to the same question: does this setup still make sense for the work we’re doing?

No structure, culture, or setup stays fixed. They’re always under quiet pressure, from people, from needs, from time itself. Our job, perhaps, is to keep noticing where the friction lies. And not rush to fix it perfectly, but to respond with thought, caution, and the willingness to reshape what we’ve built.

Key Factors to Consider When Planning for a New Organisational Design

Question 2 (AC 2.3): I’ve read about the importance of ‘a change ready culture’ when changing an organisation’s design. If the organisation were to adopt a different organisational design, discuss the key factors that would need to be considered when planning to implement this.

Changing the way an organisation is structured isn’t just about drawing new reporting lines or switching up departments. There’s a deeper cultural layer to it, how ready people are to accept, adapt, and work within those changes. That’s where the idea of a “change ready” culture tends to come up. It’s not a switch you flip. It’s more like a climate you build over time. But if we’re thinking about redesigning the structure, what really needs to be in place before that process even begins?

Leadership stability and clarity

Before any changes are introduced, there’s the matter of leadership. People look to those at the top (and middle) to make sense of uncertainty. If the leadership team isn’t clear about the purpose behind the design change, or they seem unsure themselves, that lack of confidence filters down fast. In our organisation, we once saw a restructure launched before senior managers had agreed on what the outcomes were meant to be. It caused a mess. Not because the design was flawed on paper, but because the communication around it wasn’t grounded.

Communication as a living process

Most people don’t resist change because they hate new ideas. It’s usually because they haven’t been given time, or reason, to understand them. So communication matters, but not in a one-off announcement sort of way. It’s more about creating space for people to process what’s happening, ask awkward questions, and raise what doesn’t sit right. In organisations I’ve worked with, early involvement, having people test ideas, give feedback, even criticise, is usually more effective than top-down messaging that assumes buy-in.

Psychological safety and trust

This one’s less visible but incredibly important. People need to feel that their roles and contributions matter, even when change is on the table. If staff feel like their jobs are on the line or they’re being reorganised out of relevance, it creates fear. And fear, let’s be honest, kills productivity. One of our team leaders put it simply: “People will back the change if they trust you’re not setting them up to fail.” That stuck with me.

Resources, or the lack of them

It’s easy to say we’re ready for change, but if people aren’t given time to step back from their usual work to support that change, whether that’s training, planning, or transitioning into new roles—then it’s likely to stall. We sometimes underestimate how resource-hungry design changes are, not just financially but emotionally too. Staff might need weeks, sometimes months, to adapt to a new way of working.

Readiness isn’t uniform

Something else we’ve noticed is that people don’t adjust at the same pace. Some will jump in, some will wait it out, and a few will dig their heels in. You have to account for that variation, even if it’s inconvenient. Assuming everyone is on board just because no one has objected loudly is risky.

To sum it up, though even that feels a bit premature, organisational design changes are more than structural shifts. They’re cultural events. And how we approach them should reflect that.

Evaluating Organisational Development Frameworks

Question 3 (AC 3.2): Evaluate two organisational development frameworks, recommending which would be appropriate for the organisation. Justify your recommendation.

When thinking about how an organisation grows, adjusts, or even just functions better, the term organisational development tends to pop up quickly. But it’s not as straightforward as picking a model and applying it like a recipe. There are frameworks to help, of course, but they carry their own assumptions and baggage. Some fit. Others feel a bit forced. It really depends on the culture, the leadership, and sometimes even the mood of the team, if we’re honest.

Let’s begin with Lewin’s Change Management Model, one of the oldest, and for that reason, some might dismiss it as outdated. But that’s not quite fair. There’s something reassuring about its simplicity: three clear stages, unfreeze, change, refreeze. In a practical setting, we’ve seen this play out when leadership wants to shift a long-standing reporting structure. There’s resistance at first, naturally.

People need time to process that the old ways won’t return. Then there’s the change itself, new roles, redefined teams, perhaps some tensions. Finally, things settle. Or, at least, they begin to. The model’s value, if we can call it that, lies in helping people anticipate the rhythm of change. It doesn’t promise smooth sailing, but it prepares the ground, which matters more than some would admit.

Now contrast that with The Burke-Litwin Model of Organisational Performance and Change. More complex, yes. Structured across 12 key variables. It attempts to link internal and external factors to performance, and to show how deep change touches everything, mission clarity, leadership, structure, individual motivation, and so on.

It’s certainly detailed. And if the organisation has already mapped out clear values and strategic aims, the model can be applied to identify where misalignment might sit. But, here’s the hesitation, it can feel a bit much. In smaller settings, or in those where data is thin, it becomes an academic exercise more than a practical tool.

So which one fits better? For the organisation I’m referring to, let’s say it’s a mid-sized healthcare provider, the first model is, quite frankly, more usable. Staff at all levels are already stretched. There’s little appetite for complex diagnostics. What’s needed is something graspable, something that doesn’t intimidate. And Lewin’s model, imperfect as it might be, gives teams a shared language. That alone can make a difference.

This isn’t to dismiss the Burke-Litwin framework. It’s more ambitious, perhaps? But ambition can sometimes stall progress, especially if it overwhelms the people it’s meant to support.

We don’t need a perfect map. We just need one that helps us take the next step without everyone getting lost in the process. That’s why, for now, a simpler, human-centred model like Lewin’s feels more fitting, even if it doesn’t answer every question.

Encouraging Employee Engagement in Organisational Design or Development Changes

Question 4 (AC 4.3): The success of any changes made to the organisation design or development will be reliant on the buy-in from its employees. Examine two distinct strategies to encourage the engagement of employees to any future changes made to the organisational design or development.

When any organisation goes through a structural or developmental shift, the people inside it, employees at all levels, can feel uncertain or even resistant. That part’s not surprising. What’s less obvious, sometimes, is how to approach those feelings realistically. We can put all the plans on paper, draft new reporting lines, introduce new team configurations, but unless the people doing the work actually engage with the changes, not much moves forward.

So how do we gain that engagement, particularly in a way that feels grounded and believable to employees? Let’s break that down a little, starting with two approaches that can, if managed with care, encourage people to come along with us, rather than feeling pushed.

1. Involving Employees Early and Meaningfully

We often say people support what they help create. That feels true more often than not. So, inviting employees into the process early, before decisions are locked in, can shift how they view the changes. This doesn’t mean every detail is up for debate, of course. But allowing space for feedback, for questions, even for challenge, makes the process less mysterious. It opens a door to dialogue.

Sometimes, that dialogue is messy. People might raise concerns that hadn’t been considered. They might resist an idea not out of stubbornness but because they see a flaw. And sometimes they just need time to sit with it before it makes sense. But even that pause, that silence, can be a kind of engagement. We shouldn’t rush to fill it.

In my own experience, working with a mid-sized health organisation, when a department restructure was proposed, we started by running small discussion sessions. Not briefings. Actual sessions where staff could speak openly. What came out wasn’t always what we expected. A few ideas were scrapped, and better ones came in. More importantly, those who joined the conversations seemed far more willing to support the end result, even if it wasn’t perfect. There was a sense they’d been heard.

2. Communicating Honestly, Even When It’s Uncomfortable

Another strategy is a bit harder to frame neatly: just telling the truth. Not over-selling the benefits. Not promising too much. That doesn’t mean being negative, it just means acknowledging reality. If there’s disruption coming, say so. If roles might shift or workloads might spike temporarily, it’s better to be clear.

There’s a tendency, I think, in organisational settings, to package change as something always positive. That can backfire. People aren’t naïve. If they sense something’s being glossed over, their trust in the process can drop quickly.

In one case I recall, a leadership team shared a video message where they spoke candidly about what the next six months might feel like, some good, some hard. Staff response? Surprisingly positive. Not because they liked what was coming, but because someone had treated them like adults.

Of course, neither of these strategies guarantees harmony. Engagement isn’t a box to tick. It’s more like a thread, you can pull it taut, but you have to be careful not to snap it. Still, if we can build enough trust and space into the process, employees are more likely to walk with us, not away from us. That, in itself, is something worth working towards.

FAQs on 7LD01 Organisational Design and Development Student Assessment Brief

1. What does the 7LD01 assessment actually involve?
It’s usually a written submission, often asking you to reflect on organisational structures and development in a real context, maybe your workplace, maybe one you’ve studied. Expect a mix of analysis and applied thinking.

2. Is it based purely on theory?
Not quite. While theory supports your discussion, the brief leans toward applying concepts to real scenarios. It’s not enough to repeat textbook ideas, you’ll need to show how they look in practice.

3. Can I use my own work experience?
Yes, and in many cases, you’re encouraged to. Drawing from your own environment brings authenticity and depth to your arguments, just be cautious with confidentiality.

4. What if I don’t have much organisational experience?
You can still build a strong submission. Use case studies, published examples, or scenarios you’re familiar with. The key is to demonstrate thoughtful engagement, not just surface-level commentary.

5. How do I approach structuring my response?
There’s no single formula, but it helps to start with a focus—perhaps an issue or change within a specific organisation, and build around that. Keep it grounded. Real people, real systems, real tensions. That’s usually where good analysis starts.