BUSM 3024: Human Resource and Industrial Relations Strategy

Assessment Task

Essay Topic:
Strategic human resource management (SHRM) research has long theorised connections between HR practices, human capital, and organisational performance, yet there is still no consensus.

• Leepak and Snell’s theory of differentiated human resource architecture (Luo et al. 2020) contrasts with

• Recent emphases on building inclusive organisations (Eshete & Birbirssa 2024).

Task Requirement:
Using the mandatory sources, compare and contrast these two competing SHRM approaches and evaluate which is best for winning the “war for talent.”

Expectations

• Construct an original response using scholarly evidence.

• Reliance on mandatory articles is essential – essays not using them will fail.

• Demonstrate critical analysis and readiness for postgraduate-level study.

• Familiarise yourself with:

  • Marking criteria

  • WSU academic misconduct rules

Guidance

• This is a Level 3 capstone subject (final essay in the HR degree).

• Optional essay coaching sessions will be available with the subject coordinator to discuss theories, structure, and expectations.

Mandatory Sources (must be used)

1. Luo, B.N., Sun, T., Lin, C., Luo, D., Qin, G. & Pan, J. (2020). The human resource architecture model: A twenty-year review and future research directions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(2), 241-278.

2. Eshete, S. K., & Birbirssa, Z. A. (2024). Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) in Creating Inclusive Workplace: Systematic Review. SAGE Open, 14(4).

3. Kwon, K. & Jang, S. (2022). There is no good war for talent: a critical review of the literature on talent management. Employee Relations, 44(1), 94-120.

4. Hansen, N., Güttel, W. & Swart, J. (2019). HRM in dynamic environments: Exploitative, exploratory, and ambidextrous HR architectures. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 648-679.

5. Marescaux, E., De Winne, S. & Brebels, L. (2021). Putting the pieces together: A review of HR differentiation literature and a multilevel model. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1564-1595.

6. Schmidt, J., Pohler, D. & Willness, C. (2018). Strategic HR system differentiation between jobs: The effects on firm performance and employee outcomes. Human Resource Management, 57, 65-81.

Highly Recommended Sources

• d’Armagnac, S., Al Ariss, A., & N’Cho, J. (2021). Talent management in turbulent times: Selection, negotiation, and exploration strategies for talent management in the aeronautics and space industries. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(13), 2767-2799.

• Delery, J. E., & Roumpi, D. (2017). Strategic human resource management, human capital and competitive advantage: is the field going in circles?Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 1-21.

• Clark, I. (2024). Disguising “Taking Money Out of a Firm”: Disconnection and Detrimental Consequences for Workers. Work, Employment and Society, 38(1), 226-241.

• Marescaux, E., De Winne, S. & Sels, L. (2013). HR practices and affective organisational commitment: (when) does HR differentiation pay off?Human Resource Management Journal, 23(4), 329-345.

Brief summary of assessment requirements

You are asked to write a Level-3 capstone essay that compares and contrasts two competing SHRM approaches and evaluates which is best for “winning the war for talent.” The two approaches are: (a) Leepak & Snell’s differentiated human resource architecture (as reviewed in Luo et al., 2020) and (b) recent emphases on building inclusive organisations (Eshete & Birbirssa, 2024).
Key requirements: use the mandatory sources listed (essays that omit them will fail), construct an original, evidence-based argument, demonstrate critical analysis and postgraduate readiness, and comply with the unit’s marking criteria and WSU academic conduct rules.

Key pointers to cover in the assessment

• Clear explanation of Leepak & Snell’s differentiated HR architecture and its theoretical logic.

• Clear explanation of the inclusive-organisation approach and its theoretical/practical claims.

• A systematic compare & contrast showing points of convergence/divergence (e.g., differentiation vs. inclusion; performance vs. fairness; multilevel effects).

• Evidence synthesis from mandatory sources (Luo et al. 2020; Eshete & Birbirssa 2024; Kwon & Jang 2022; Hansen et al. 2019; Marescaux et al. 2021; Schmidt et al. 2018).

• Explicit evaluation criteria for “winning the war for talent” (attraction, retention, engagement, development, fairness, organisational fit).

• A reasoned judgement about which approach (or hybrid) best addresses the war for talent, justified with scholarly evidence.

• Academic conventions: formal structure (intro → body → conclusion), accurate referencing, original analysis, and adherence to misconduct rules.

How the assessment was approached 

Step 1 – Clarify task & scope
The mentor began by ensuring the student understood the brief: the comparator, the evaluative question (war for talent), and the mandatory readings. The student was advised to read the mandatory articles first to anchor the essay in required scholarship.

Step 2 – Focused reading & note-taking
Guidance: read Luo et al. (2020) and Eshete & Birbirssa (2024) closely to extract core propositions, assumptions, mechanisms, and empirical claims. Create annotated notes that capture definitions, theoretical foundations, and empirical findings. Add targeted notes from the other mandatory sources (Kwon & Jang; Hansen et al.; Marescaux et al.; Schmidt et al.) to broaden the evidence base.

Step 3 – Develop evaluation criteria
Mentor and student co-developed a short list of criteria for “winning the war for talent” (e.g., employer attractiveness, retention potential, career development pathways, equity and inclusion, organisational performance). These criteria became the rubric for the comparative evaluation in the essay.

Step 4 – Outline & structure
The mentor helped the student build a tight outline: Introduction (scope + thesis), Theoretical exposition (two approaches), Comparative analysis (using evaluation criteria), Evidence synthesis (supporting/contradicting findings from mandatory sources), Evaluation and final judgement, Conclusion. This kept the argument focused and ensured each paragraph had a clear purpose.

Step 5 – Comparative analysis drafting
The student drafted sections that: (a) explicated Leepak & Snell’s differentiation logic (who benefits, when it pays off, multilevel effects) and (b) detailed the inclusive-organisation argument (how inclusion supports attraction, fairness, and sustained commitment). The mentor insisted on using direct evidence from the mandatory readings to avoid unsupported claims.

Step 6 – Critical synthesis and judgement
Using the pre-agreed evaluation criteria, the mentor guided the student to weigh strengths and weaknesses: e.g., differentiation can optimize performance for critical roles (Schmidt; Marescaux) but risks inequity and disengagement (Clark; Kwon & Jang), whereas inclusion broadens talent pools and supports legitimacy but may require new HR architectures to deliver role-specific development.

Step 7 – Revision, referencing & academic integrity
Mentor reviewed drafts for argument clarity, logical flow, correct citation style, and potential plagiarism risks. The student revised language, tightened evidence chains, and prepared a reference list following unit expectations.

How the outcome was achieved & learning objectives covered

How the outcome was achieved

• Anchoring the essay in the mandatory sources ensured scholarly legitimacy.

• Using an explicit evaluation rubric made the comparison systematic and defensible.

• Iterative mentor feedback refined evidence usage, argument coherence, and academic presentation.

• Final checks ensured compliance with marking criteria and academic integrity standards.

Learning objectives covered

1. Critical analysis of competing SHRM theories.

2. Synthesis of scholarly evidence across multiple sources.

3. Application of evaluative criteria to a real managerial problem (war for talent).

4. Academic writing & argumentation appropriate for capstone/postgraduate preparation.

5. Research and referencing skills—accurate citation and use of mandatory literature.

6. Ethical awareness—recognising fairness, inclusion, and misconduct risks.

7. Professional judgement—making evidence-based recommendations (or reasoned evaluations).

Get Access to Reference Samples & Custom Solutions

Looking for guidance to structure your assignment effectively? You can download the sample solution available on this page to see how experts approach formatting, referencing, and content development. However, please note that this sample is strictly for reference and learning purposes only. Submitting it as your own work may lead to plagiarism issues and academic misconduct.

If you want to avoid plagiarism risks and secure higher grades, our team of professional academic writers can create a fresh, original, and plagiarism-free solution tailored to your specific requirements. Every assignment we deliver is written from scratch, properly cited, and quality-checked to help you succeed with confidence.

Why Choose a Fresh Assignment Solution?

• 100% plagiarism-free and custom-written

• Structured according to your university guidelines

• Researched and drafted by qualified subject experts

• Delivered on time with complete confidentiality

• Boosts your understanding and academic performance

Make the right choice todayuse the sample for learning, and order a custom solution when you need reliable, original work.

[Download Sample Solution]  [Order Fresh Assignment]