5co01 Assignment Example

This 5CO01 assignment example provides a complete, high-pass standard response to the CIPD 5CO01 unit — Organisational Performance and Culture in Practice. It addresses all 12 assessment criteria (AC 1.1 through AC 3.3) using the Calmere House case study from the current assessment brief (CIPD_5CO01_25_01), with Harvard-style inline referencing throughout.

The CIPD 5CO01 unit is a mandatory core module in the Level 5 Associate Diploma in People Management and Organisational Learning and Development. It examines how organisational structure connects with strategy, how culture and employee wellbeing influence performance, and how people practices support business objectives. This is typically the first unit students encounter and sets the academic standard for the rest of the diploma.

What the Assessor Is Looking For

To achieve a high pass in 5CO01, CIPD assessors expect:

• Wide and confident knowledge demonstrated across all assessment criteria
• Strong examples that illustrate points — ideally drawn from the case study and real-world practice
• Considerable evidence of wider reading — you must cite academic sources, CIPD factsheets, and relevant frameworks
• Excellent Harvard in-text referencing — inline citations with a complete reference list
• Clear, coherent structure that responds directly to the assessment question
• Understanding of key assessment verbs: “evaluate” requires weighing pros and cons; “analyse” requires breaking down components; “assess” requires making judgements; “discuss” requires exploring multiple perspectives; “explain” requires making concepts clear

The current brief uses the Calmere House case study, which explores a residential care home transitioning from a flat, owner-managed structure under Kirsten to a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure under the Chaffinch Group. The 12 questions require you to analyse this transition through the lens of organisational theory, change management, culture, and people practice.

AC 1.1 — Evaluate the Extent to Which Organisational Structures Were Appropriate

Flat Non-Hierarchical Structure under Kirsten’s Ownership

Under Kirsten’s ownership, Calmere House operated with a flat, non-hierarchical structure where all 42 employees reported directly to the owner. This aligns with what Burns and Stalker (1961) describe as an organic organisational structure — characterised by flexible roles, decentralised decision-making, lateral communication, and adaptability to changing conditions.

This structure was highly appropriate for a small, single-site care home for several reasons. First, communication was rapid and unfiltered, enabling care staff to raise concerns about residents directly with the owner — critically important in a care environment where responsiveness affects resident welfare (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2024). Second, the absence of bureaucratic layers fostered a sense of community and shared purpose, supporting the person-centred care ethos fundamental to high-quality residential care. Staff experienced greater autonomy and felt valued, as their contributions were visible to Kirsten directly. Research from the CIPD (2024a) confirms that autonomy and voice are key drivers of employee engagement, which is reflected in the high retention rates Calmere House enjoyed under Kirsten.

However, the flat structure had inherent limitations. As regulatory demands from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) increased, the absence of formal management layers may have created role ambiguity and accountability gaps. Kirsten became a single point of failure — managing operational, clinical, and administrative functions alone. Mintzberg (1980) warns that simple structures with one strategic apex are vulnerable to the loss of that individual, which is precisely what occurred when Kirsten sold the business. Additionally, flat structures can struggle with consistency, as informal approaches mean practices may vary between shifts (Mullins and Christy, 2023).

Hierarchical Bureaucratic Structure under Chaffinch Group

Following the acquisition, Chaffinch Group introduced a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure — Kath reports to an area manager, who reports to a general manager, who reports to an operations director. This reflects Weber’s bureaucratic model designed for consistency, accountability, and standardisation across multiple sites (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2024).

This structure offers advantages for a multi-site care group: it ensures regulatory compliance through standardised policies, provides clear accountability through defined reporting lines, and enables economies of scale (Mullins and Christy, 2023). For the care sector, where CQC requires demonstrable governance structures, a degree of hierarchy is arguably necessary.

However, the hierarchical structure is poorly suited to Calmere House in its current implementation. The case study reveals that decisions are made centrally with no consultation, policies are communicated by email with no opportunity for discussion, and Kath’s autocratic style (“I know what Chaffinch wants”) reflects what Burns and Stalker (1961) would term a mechanistic structure — rigid, top-down, and poorly adapted to the relational nature of care work. The introduction of multiple management layers has severed the direct relationship between leadership and frontline staff that was central to Calmere House’s success. Employees have lost voice, autonomy, and engagement — precisely the factors the CIPD (2024a) identifies as critical to retention and performance.

In evaluation, the flat structure was optimal for the scale and ethos of Calmere House under Kirsten, while the bureaucratic structure addresses legitimate governance needs but has been implemented without consideration for the cultural and relational foundations that made the care home successful.