[In this post I consider how three well-known taxonomies of learning objectives can be applied to improve our approach to HR policy creation and communication.]

As HR professionals, we’ve all faced the daunting task of writing and implementing company policies. We understand the importance of clear, concise guidelines that govern our workplaces, but we also grapple with policy bloat: the perception that we have to include every detail for fear of leaving out something important. Consequently, we often end up producing increasingly extensive and complex documents that can baffle even the most diligent reader. So, how do we ensure that our policies are understood, rather than merely skimmed or skipped?

Borrowing concepts from learning design, we can revitalise our approach to policy creation and communication. By implementing Separation, Layered, and Interactive Approaches, we can enhance understanding, improve compliance, and reduce policy bloat.

The Separation Approach

Separation involves delineating policies by user groups – think general employees, line managers, and HR professionals. With each group having different needs and learning outcomes, we create policies tailored to them. This approach mirrors Bloom's Taxonomy, where learning objectives are categorized into six levels from simple recall to complex application and analysis (Bloom et al., 1956).

The Layered Approach

In contrast, the Layered Approach presents basic information first, followed by additional layers of detail. The policy starts with a broad overview, and as the reader navigates further, they can access more comprehensive information. This aligns with the Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) Taxonomy, which defines learning outcomes from surface to deep understanding (Biggs & Collis, 1982).

The Interactive Approach

Lastly, the Interactive Approach involves creating dynamic policies, with links, multimedia elements, and interactive content. This approach reflects Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning, which emphasises the importance of creating meaningful learning experiences (Fink, 2013). For Fink, learning involves more than just acquiring foundational knowledge and the ability to apply it. It involves integration, understanding oneself and others (the human dimension), developing a deep care about the subject matter (caring), and learning how to learn.

Creating "Significant Learning Experiences:

Let's look at these three approaches through the lens of Fink's taxonomy of significant learning experiences. In the Separation Approach, we create learning materials for different groups focusing on different aspects of learning. For example, policies for the general employee population could focus on foundational knowledge and the human dimension (understanding oneself and others), while additional documents for managers and HR professionals could delve into application, integration, and learning how to learn.

In the Layered Approach, each layer could correspond to a type of learning from Fink's taxonomy. The foundational layer provides basic knowledge, with additional layers covering application, integration, the human dimension, and even caring (changes in feeling, interest, or values). Though Fink would say that we should be able to move between these layers, not in a linear or hierarchical way, but in a way that simultaneously relates to all facets of the significant learning experience.

The Interactive Approach, with its dynamic and engaging content, could touch on all aspects of Fink's taxonomy. Interactive elements could be designed to engage multiple facets of learning, such as application exercises or reflection prompts for the human dimension and caring.

These innovative approaches allow us to craft policies that are more than just compliance documents and technical manuals. They can promote learning, understanding, and behaviour change, that reflect carefully designed and measurable learning objectives. 

So, as we redesign our policies, let's consider not just what needs to be included, or can’t be left out, but how we can create significant learning experiences for all our policy users. Are you ready to embrace these new approaches?

References

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: cognitive domain. David McKay Company.

Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.

Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.

ACW - In collaboration with OpenAI's ChatGPT

This piece was co-created to bring you the best of human & AI insights.