A practical study guide to turning analysed survey evidence into relevant, justified and measurable learning and development recommendations.
AC 2.3 moves from analysing Camellia’s pulse-survey results to making evidence-based learning and development recommendations. The recommendations should arise from the patterns identified in AC 2.1 and AC 2.2 rather than from generic assumptions about what employees might need.
A strong recommendation explains what action is proposed, which evidence supports it, why it is appropriate and how the organisation could determine whether it has improved the identified issue.
An evidence-based recommendation has a visible chain of reasoning between the finding and the proposed action. If a survey result identifies a comparatively weak area, the recommendation should address that area or help investigate it further.
This is different from simply naming a popular intervention. Training, coaching, mentoring or e-learning are not automatically appropriate because they are familiar L&D activities. The evidence should first indicate a capability or development need that the intervention could reasonably address.
A common mistake is to decide on an intervention first and then search for data that appears to justify it. A stronger process starts by examining the calculated means and percentage distributions and identifying the most important findings.
Consider which statements have relatively weak results, whether negative responses are concentrated in particular areas, and whether the percentage distribution reveals something that the mean alone does not show. These findings establish the evidence base for the recommendation.
Not every people problem is caused by a lack of knowledge or skill. A low survey score may reflect workload, poor systems, unclear responsibilities, reward, management behaviour or another organisational issue.
Before recommending learning and development, ask whether improved knowledge, skills or capability could plausibly influence the finding. If the evidence does not establish the cause, further diagnosis may be more appropriate than assuming training is the answer.
A useful recommendation can be built through four connected questions:
This creates a transparent link between analysis and action and prevents recommendations from becoming a disconnected list of L&D ideas.
Different development needs require different approaches. Formal training may be useful where consistent knowledge or a defined skill must be developed across a group. Coaching can be appropriate where individuals need personalised support to improve performance or apply learning. Mentoring may support longer-term professional development and knowledge sharing.
Other options can include workshops, peer learning, job shadowing, guided practice, digital learning or blended approaches. The format should follow the need, audience and organisational context rather than being selected solely for convenience.
Imagine an unrelated practice survey in which employees give comparatively weak responses to a statement about confidence in conducting difficult performance conversations. If other evidence supports a genuine capability gap, an appropriate recommendation might involve practical manager development using short workshops, realistic scenarios and follow-up coaching.
The reasoning is stronger than simply saying ‘provide management training’ because the intervention is connected to a defined capability, includes an opportunity to practise the skill and can later be evaluated.
This example is illustrative only and is not a recommendation for Camellia’s actual survey results.
A recommendation should identify who needs the development. An organisation-wide programme may waste resources if the evidence relates mainly to a particular group. Conversely, an intervention aimed at a very narrow audience may have limited effect if the issue is widespread.
Where the survey data does not allow subgroup analysis, avoid inventing differences between teams or employee groups. Base the scope on what the available evidence can support.
An intervention can be educationally sound but difficult to implement. Consider time, cost, access, delivery capability, operational disruption and whether employees will have opportunities to apply the learning.
Feasibility does not mean always selecting the cheapest option. The question is whether the proposed approach is proportionate to the need and realistic within the organisational context.
Attending a learning activity does not guarantee that behaviour or performance will change. Employees need opportunities and support to apply what they have learned.
For example, a workshop may be reinforced through manager follow-up, practice, job aids, peer discussion or coaching. Considering transfer makes the recommendation more credible because it recognises that learning must move from the development activity into day-to-day work.
Each recommendation should include a sensible way of checking whether it has achieved its purpose. Evaluation can consider participation and learner reaction, changes in knowledge or skill, application in the workplace and relevant organisational outcomes.
The measure should relate to the original problem. Completion rates alone show that people attended; they do not demonstrate that capability or workplace outcomes improved.
Where a recommendation responds directly to a pulse-survey finding, repeating relevant survey measures after an appropriate period can provide useful comparative evidence. A change in mean score or percentage distribution may indicate that employee perceptions have shifted.
However, a later improvement should not automatically be attributed entirely to the L&D intervention. Other organisational changes may have occurred at the same time. Combining survey evidence with other measures can provide a more credible evaluation.
If the criterion requires multiple recommendations, each should have a clear rationale rather than presenting three versions of essentially the same intervention. Ideally, the recommendations should address distinct evidence-based needs or different dimensions of a clearly identified development issue.
For each recommendation, maintain the same logical chain: evidence → identified need → intervention → rationale → evaluation.
Not every survey finding requires immediate action. Priority can be influenced by the severity of the result, the number of employees potentially affected, strategic importance, risk and the organisation’s ability to influence the issue.
Prioritisation helps prevent the People Team from treating every low result as equally urgent. It also makes recommendations more useful for decision-makers who must allocate limited resources.
For Camellia, begin with the actual calculations and charts produced from the pulse-survey data. Identify the findings that provide the strongest basis for learning and development action and consider what capability need, if any, they indicate.
Then select interventions that are appropriate to those findings and explain why. The recommendation should remain traceable to the evidence rather than relying on invented facts about employees or the organisation.
Where the data indicates a concern but does not establish its cause, acknowledge that limitation and consider whether further investigation should precede a substantial development intervention.
A weak recommendation might say: ‘Camellia should provide more training.’ It does not explain the need, audience, intervention or expected effect.
A stronger recommendation identifies a survey-supported issue, specifies the capability to be developed, proposes an appropriate learning method, explains why the method fits the need and identifies a meaningful way to evaluate improvement.
The strength comes from the reasoning connecting the evidence to the action, not from making the recommendation sound more elaborate.
Useful areas for further research include learning needs analysis, learning transfer, coaching, mentoring, workplace learning, blended learning, evaluation of learning and development, and evidence-based people practice.
Research is most useful when it helps explain why a particular intervention fits a particular need and how its effectiveness can be evaluated. Avoid collecting generic descriptions of L&D methods without connecting them to the evidence and intended outcome.
This resource explains how to move from survey evidence to defensible learning and development recommendations. It does not identify the recommendations that should be submitted for Camellia. Use your own AC 2.1 calculations and AC 2.2 interpretation to determine the findings, then develop and justify your own recommendations in line with CIPD and Study Centre requirements.
Return to the 5CO02 resource directory to explore all assessment criterion study guides.
Specialist support for CIPD Level 3, Level 5 and Level 7 learners, with guidance from HR professionals.
