5HRO1 ADPM Assignment Writing Guide

5HRO1 ADPM Assignment Writing Guide

The 5HRO1 Assignment, part of the CIPD Level 5 Associate Diploma in People Management (ADPM), focuses on Employment Relationship Management. It asks you to apply what you’ve learned, HR theories, yes, but also the practical stuff, to real workplace situations. Conflict resolution, employee voice, employment law… all of it matters. Writing it well isn’t just about ticking boxes. It takes thought, structure, and a bit of critical reflection. 5HRO1 ADPM Assignment Writing Guide  won’t do the work for you, of course, but it should make things a little clearer. If you’re stuck somewhere, early stage or final polish, we think it’ll help you get on track.

AC 1.1: Differentiate between employee involvement and employee participation and how they build relationships. (approximately 400 words)

It’s easy to assume employee involvement and participation are the same thing, they do overlap, admittedly, but there’s a difference that matters, especially when shaping people practices. Involvement is more about the employee’s influence over decisions. Think of it as giving someone a voice early in the process. Participation, on the other hand, is typically more structured, employees taking part in an activity or decision that’s already underway.

So while involvement might mean inviting someone to help shape a new policy from scratch, participation could mean joining a committee that reviews policies already drafted. Both create space for contribution, yes, but the level and timing of input can be quite different. It’s not always clean-cut though. Sometimes what starts as participation grows into deeper involvement, or the other way around.

How Employee Involvement Builds Stronger Relationships

Take the example of involving employees in the early stages of a workplace redesign. Say, a hospital planning to restructure its shift system. Instead of handing down a fixed rota, management could invite nurses to a planning session. They’d gather input on what’s working, what isn’t, and where compromises can be made.

This kind of involvement, where people feel like their daily experiences matter, often leads to more than just a practical outcome. It builds trust. Staff don’t feel decisions are happening to them, but with them. The relationships between staff and management tend to soften in a positive way, becoming less transactional and more collaborative. People talk more. And listen better. We’ve seen this happen, even in environments that were once tense or resistant.

How Employee Participation Can Strengthen Team Dynamics

Participation can be equally powerful, though maybe in a different way. Picture a monthly cross-departmental review meeting where employees present ideas on improving internal communication. One marketing team member shares a suggestion, and someone from operations expands on it, before long, they’re co-leading a project to simplify updates across teams.

Here, the act of participating, not just being invited but actively showing up and engaging, creates new working relationships that wouldn’t form otherwise. Shared experiences, even small ones like co-presenting an idea, can change the tone between colleagues. The team feels more aligned. Even if not every idea is taken up, the process builds mutual respect, and often, momentum.

It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, and outcomes can vary. But generally, the more people are brought into the process, whether through involvement or participation, the more likely they are to feel connected, both to their work and the people around them.

AC 1.2: Compare forms of union and non-union employee representation. (approximately 400 words)

In the UK, employee representation takes various forms, some formal, some less so, but all with a common aim, To ensure staff have a voice. Whether it’s through a trade union or a staff council, the goal remains the same, supporting employees when decisions about their work are being made. That said, the way each body operates and the level of influence it holds can vary quite a bit.

Trade Unions: Formal, Structured Advocacy

Trade unions, like Unite the Union or GMB, are perhaps the most recognisable form of employee representation. They’re formal, long-established, and operate nationally. Their core function is to negotiate employment terms, pay, working hours, conditions, on behalf of their members. They’re especially active in sectors like manufacturing, transport, and healthcare.

Members usually pay a subscription fee, and in return, they receive both individual support and collective bargaining power. This means that, if an employer is planning redundancies or restructuring, for example, the union gets involved early, often bringing legal expertise and historical knowledge of workplace policy.

Staff Councils: Internal, Collaborative Dialogue

In contrast, non-union bodies such as staff councils or employee forums are typically internal to the organisation. They’re not as formal and don’t always have the same legal powers as unions. But they still serve an important purpose, providing a channel for employee feedback, consultation, and participation in decision-making.

They’re more collaborative in nature, often built on mutual trust between management and employees. Some might argue they lack bite compared to unions, but in organisations where relationships are strong, they can be just as effective, sometimes even more flexible, since they operate with fewer external constraints.

Similar, Yet Distinct

Both structures aim to represent employees and protect their interests, and both can influence workplace decisions, albeit in different ways. A key similarity is that each offers a form of collective voice. Both aim to create safer, fairer, more transparent working environments.

However, the differences are just as clear. Trade unions usually exist outside the organisation and offer more formal negotiation power. Staff councils, on the other hand, are internal and rely more on cooperation than confrontation.

For a new people practice team, recognising these distinctions is vital. You may find yourself working with either, or both. The challenge is knowing when to encourage formal negotiation and when informal dialogue might achieve better results. There’s no perfect formula. It depends on the workplace, the culture, and the people involved.

AC 1.3: Evaluate the relationship between employee voice and organisational performance. (approximately 400 words)

The Link Between Employee Voice and Organisational Performance

The connection between employee voice and organisational performance is something most leaders acknowledge, at least in theory. But how it actually plays out in practice, well, that’s where it gets more complicated. At its best, a strong employee voice allows people across the business to speak up, offer suggestions, raise concerns, even question decisions, and when handled well, that input can make a real difference. It helps management see what’s working and, crucially, what isn’t. We think this openness not only helps employees feel more involved, but it often leads to smarter decisions overall.

Take the John Lewis Partnership, for example. Its co-ownership model gives staff a direct say in company matters. That kind of involvement can’t be faked, it’s embedded in the structure, and over the years, it’s helped create a deeper sense of accountability and motivation. And it shows. Many of their outcomes, operational and financial, are influenced by those shared voices.

There are measurable benefits too. Where staff feel heard, retention improves. NHS engagement surveys show clear links between high staff involvement and better patient care. Tesco’s approach to feedback, looping customer-facing employees into service design, has also helped fine-tune their operations. And companies like Rolls-Royce report improved engineering outcomes when employees are part of the problem-solving process from the start.

Still, it’s not all smooth sailing. Opening the floor to employee opinion, especially on a wide scale, can introduce delays. Decision-making slows when every voice needs to be acknowledged. And let’s be honest, there are times when staff and management want different things. That friction, while not inherently bad, can strain relationships. Occasionally, employees use their voice to push back against change. And not all of that resistance is constructive.

But overall? We’d argue the positives far outweigh the drawbacks, provided there’s a thoughtful balance. When leaders listen, but still lead; when employees are encouraged to speak, but understand strategic constraints, it works. The key isn’t just having a mechanism for feedback, but a culture that respects it.

Organisations like Unilever UK and BT Group have built that balance into their DNA. They’ve shown that engaging employees doesn’t just create harmony, it drives performance. So, while it’s never entirely straightforward, giving people a voice is, most of the time, worth the effort. Even if it’s occasionally messy.

AC 1.4: Explain the concept of better working lives and how this can be designed. (approximately 300 words)

When we talk about “better working lives,” it’s tempting to assume we’re only referring to work-life balance. But that’s just one piece of a much bigger picture. According to the CIPD’s People Profession Framework, creating better working lives means reshaping how people experience their jobs, how meaningful, fair, and sustainable their day-to-day work feels.

The new People Practice team, for instance, is expected to act as a driving force here. It’s not just about tweaking policies; it’s about reshaping mindsets, ensuring that the workplace truly supports people, not just in productivity, but in purpose and dignity.

Pay, Benefits, and a Fair Deal

Let’s be honest, how someone feels about their job is often linked to how they’re paid. Fair and transparent pay, alongside decent benefits, isn’t a luxury. It’s a core component of engagement. Take the John Lewis Partnership: profit-sharing gives employees a real sense of being valued. They’re not just workers; they’re partners. That simple shift changes how people relate to the work and the business itself. And it works. We’ve seen it boost morale in ways that no team-building workshop ever could.

Health, Safety, and Everyday Respect
Then there’s safety, physical, emotional, psychological. This is often where HR teams make the biggest impact, sometimes without much fanfare. Unilever UK’s well-being programmes come to mind. They’re not just “perks,” they signal respect. When people feel safe and supported, they’re more likely to stay, contribute ideas, and even go the extra mile. That’s not always easy to measure, but it’s very real.

In truth, there’s no fixed formula. Different settings, different people. But if we keep asking, what does a better day at work actually look like?, we’re already moving in the right direction.

AC 2.1: Distinguish between organisational conflict and misbehaviour. (approximately 400 words)

Workplace conflict and misbehaviour aren’t always loud or dramatic, but their effects can ripple through teams and entire organisations. At times, the line between the two can feel blurry, especially when you’re new to people practice. But understanding their differences helps in shaping fair, effective responses that support both employees and the business.

Organisational Conflict vs Misbehaviour

Organisational conflict typically refers to structured, collective disagreement, think of rail workers striking over unsafe hours or unfair pay. These actions are usually legal and sometimes protected under employment law (ACAS and CIPD highlight the importance of recognising collective bargaining rights). Employees might go on strike, refuse overtime, or adopt “work-to-rule” tactics, performing only the minimum required tasks. These aren’t random outbursts, they’re deliberate, often coordinated, and aim to negotiate change.

Misbehaviour, on the other hand, tends to be individual and, in most cases, unauthorised. A staff member who regularly takes unscheduled absences or fakes expenses isn’t voicing a collective concern, they’re acting out of self-interest, and usually without transparency. Walking out mid-shift or deleting crucial files might not seem strategic, but they still disrupt workflow and damage trust.

To simplify:

For employers, both types can lower productivity and harm reputation. Misbehaviour, particularly, can feel like a betrayal. For employees, unresolved tensions create stress, confusion, or disengagement. We’ve seen teams that once collaborated smoothly become divided by unresolved issues, or managers respond too harshly to protest without understanding the context.

As a people team, your role is to help the organisation distinguish intent and respond accordingly. Encourage open communication. Make policies clear, on both acceptable protest and disciplinary action. Perhaps most importantly, take a proactive stance, for instance, train leaders to spot early signs of discontent, and resolve them before they escalate.

Not every disagreement is misbehaviour, and not every outburst is a threat. Sometimes, conflict is a signal, one worth listening to.

AC 2.2: Assess emerging trends in the types of conflict and industrial sanctions. (approximately 400 words)

Emerging Trends in UK Trade Unions and Industrial Action

The nature of trade union activity in the UK is shifting. It’s not exactly a revolution, but the way unions operate, and the way workers respond to pressure points, isn’t quite what it used to be. We’ve seen more industrial action in recent years, perhaps driven by frustration, perhaps because there’s a renewed sense of solidarity among workers. Hard to say definitively. Strikes have become more frequent, from NHS staff to rail operators, and while they can bring operations to a standstill, they also force conversations that weren’t happening otherwise.

Of course, there’s always a trade-off. Lost working days cost money, on both sides. Some employers take a hit in reputation or productivity; employees lose wages, sometimes even momentum. But there’s also strength in collective action. When strikes succeed, the gains can be meaningful, better pay, better conditions, a seat at the table.

Another shift we’ve noticed is the rise of digital platforms in union activity. Online petitions, social media campaigns, tools that didn’t have much weight twenty years ago, are now shaping narratives and sometimes, genuinely influencing policy. They open the door to wider participation, especially for those who might not belong to a formal union.

That said, digital activism has its limitations. It can feel a little unanchored. Lacks the structure, the formal negotiating muscle of traditional unions. And with the internet, there’s always that slight risk, misinformation, misinterpretation, things moving too fast to control.

We suppose it comes down to this, Trade unions aren’t going away, but the way they operate is shifting. Whether that’s good or not… maybe both. Like most things, it depends on where you stand, and what you’re hoping to change.

AC 2.3: Distinguish between third-party conciliation, mediation and arbitration. (approximately 400 words)

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the Workplace

Sometimes, workplace disputes don’t need to end up in courtrooms or formal tribunals. In fact, we think they’re often better resolved without getting to that point. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers a set of tools, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, that help both employers and employees address issues constructively, and ideally, without damaging working relationships beyond repair. It’s not a perfect fix for every situation, no, but it’s a route worth considering more often than not.

ACAS, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, has long championed these approaches. Their guidance provides a structure for dealing with conflicts before they escalate, or sometimes, just before they explode. And while ADR isn’t always the simplest route, it tends to be quicker, more flexible, and often less emotionally draining than legal proceedings.

Take conciliation, for instance. It’s voluntary, and the conciliator doesn’t decide anything for you. They just help keep the conversation going, ideally, in a more productive direction. It’s most commonly used in things like unfair dismissal cases. We’ve seen employers resolve tricky dismissals this way, reaching a settlement just before tribunal paperwork even gets filed.

Mediation, though slightly different, can be just as valuable. It’s more informal but still structured. A mediator steps in, not to take sides, but to open up channels of communication. Think of two colleagues with ongoing friction that’s started dragging the whole team down. Mediation helps them talk, understand one another a little better, and hopefully find a way forward. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Other times… well, people are people.

Then there’s arbitration. It’s the most formal of the three. The arbitrator hears both sides and then gives a decision. That’s it, it’s binding. It’s often used in disputes involving pay or working conditions between unions and employers. There’s less room for dialogue here, but it can be useful when both sides want closure.

Choosing the right method isn’t always obvious. What starts as a personality clash might spiral into something larger. Or, a seemingly straightforward pay issue could reveal deeper tensions. ADR isn’t one-size-fits-all, but when used well, it does make workplaces that bit more manageable.

No method guarantees peace, but they do offer a chance to repair things, without lawyers breathing down everyone’s neck. And maybe that’s enough, at least to start with.

AC 3.1: Explain the principles of legislation relating to unfair dismissal in respect of capability and misconduct issues. (approximately 400 words)

Understanding Unfair Dismissal Under the UK Employment Rights Act 1996

Unfair dismissal, it’s a term that can feel a bit loaded. And rightly so. For employers, it brings legal risk and reputational damage. For employees, it can be unsettling, often deeply personal. The UK Employment Rights Act 1996 attempts to provide structure in this area, laying out what’s considered fair and what crosses the line.

At its simplest, an unfair dismissal happens when an employee is let go without a valid reason or without a fair procedure being followed. That’s the legal framing. But in practice, it’s rarely that clean-cut. Managers and HR professionals are often juggling internal pressures, operational needs, and human complexities. Still, procedures need to be in place. Not just on paper, but genuinely followed, with fairness, transparency, and consistency at the core.

Take capability, for instance. Under the Act, capability refers to someone’s ability, or perhaps inability, to do their job due to skill, health, or aptitude. But that doesn’t mean a dip in performance automatically justifies dismissal. Evidence matters. So does patience. Did the employer offer training? Was the person supported? If the issue was health-related, were reasonable adjustments considered under the Equality Act 2010? If not, the dismissal could easily be judged unfair.

Misconduct can be another grey area. Gross misconduct, things like theft or harassment, is more straightforward and can justify immediate dismissal. But even then, a fair process must be followed. For ordinary misconduct, say, persistent lateness or missing minor deadlines, it’s less black and white. Formal warnings, documentation, and support are all expected steps before reaching for dismissal.

And there’s something else. Consistency. If one employee is sacked for repeated lateness while another with the same track record is only warned, that’s not just poor management, it opens the door to legal challenge. We’ve seen cases where this kind of inconsistency completely undermined the employer’s position, even when the original issue seemed justified.

The truth is, dismissals, fair or not, are rarely easy. But cutting corners on process, rushing decisions, or being selective in how rules are applied? That’s where trouble often begins. A bit of structure, a lot of consistency, and some room for humanity, that tends to go a long way in getting it right.

AC 3.2: Analyse key causes of employee grievances. (approximately 400 words)

Understanding Employee Grievances

Grievances at work aren’t always dramatic, but they can quietly build over time. Sometimes it’s a simple misunderstanding, a feeling that something isn’t quite fair, or perhaps, something more serious. As People Professionals, we have a responsibility to notice the signs, to listen, and to act before things spiral. Because let’s be honest, once a team begins to lose trust in how grievances are handled, it’s difficult to repair that damage.

Grievances stem from many places. Poor management tends to be a leading cause. We’ve seen cases where inconsistent leadership or a lack of communication slowly chips away at morale. When one employee feels overlooked while another seems to receive special treatment, even unintentionally, frustration brews. And while it might seem minor at first, it can lead to larger conflicts or disengagement.

Workload and working conditions matter just as much. Long hours, tight deadlines, and little support? That’s a recipe for burnout. And it’s not always about the hours themselves, it’s about whether employees feel seen, supported, and appreciated. Some may cope for a while, but others won’t speak up until they’re already halfway out the door.

Then there’s bullying and harassment, which sadly still persists in many environments. If an employee is being belittled or discriminated against and nothing is done, it can feel like a betrayal. Reporting such behaviour takes courage. If they’re ignored, or worse, retaliated against, it sends a clear message: your voice doesn’t matter here.

The ripple effect of unresolved grievances is hard to ignore. Team spirit drops, performance falters, and good people leave. You might start seeing small things, missed deadlines, silence in meetings, even passive resistance. It’s not always loud, but it’s there.

So what can we do? Start with clarity. Every organisation needs a clear grievance procedure, simple, accessible, and well-communicated. Managers must be trained, not just in policy, but in empathy and fairness. We’ve found that open feedback loops, even informal ones, can surface problems before they escalate. And most importantly, create a space where people feel respected—regardless of rank, background, or personality.

Not every grievance is preventable, of course. But the way we respond says everything about our culture. We may not always get it right the first time, but we can commit to doing better. That, in itself, builds trust.

AC 3.3: Advise on the importance of handling grievances effectively. (approximately 400 words)

Effective Grievance Handling in the Workplace

Grievances in the workplace aren’t always loud or obvious. Sometimes, they surface in passing comments, quiet withdrawal, or just a shift in someone’s attitude. And while not every concern needs a formal response, we think it’s fair to say that handling grievances properly, whether informal or official, matters more than most people realise.

It’s about trust. When employees feel genuinely listened to, even when their issue isn’t fully resolved the way they hoped, there’s still that sense of being respected. We’ve seen it time and again—teams become more engaged, more loyal, and actually more productive when they know their voices won’t be brushed aside. Of course, if those voices go unheard, the opposite happens. People disengage. Productivity drops. And sometimes, resentment quietly builds into something much harder to fix.

A structured process helps, especially when it’s not just a paper exercise. It sets expectations, clarifies roles, and reduces confusion. But what really makes it work is the tone, how empathetic, fair, and consistent managers are when applying it. We’re not saying every complaint has a tidy resolution. Some don’t. But the way they’re handled? That makes all the difference.

Handled poorly, grievances can spiral. Conflict escalates, relationships strain, and before long, the work culture suffers. Toxicity creeps in, and it’s hard to roll back. Worse still, there’s a real risk of legal or financial consequences if complaints touch on things like discrimination or harassment. It’s not just bad for morale, it can hit the bottom line, too.

We also have to think about reputation. Word travels fast, internally and externally. When staff feel supported, they’ll say so. But if they feel silenced or ignored, that spreads too. And in today’s world, where reviews and workplace culture are out there for anyone to see, that reputation matters more than ever.

So, what helps? A clear, accessible policy. Managers who are trained not just in process, but in listening. Prompt responses, even when a full answer takes time. And perhaps most importantly, a culture where raising a concern isn’t seen as complaining, it’s seen as caring about the work.

Grievance handling may never be perfect. But done thoughtfully, it can actually strengthen an organisation, creating a space where people feel safe, respected, and genuinely part of something that values them.