I never liked the traditional wording of policy acknowledgement statements. They typically read something like this: Employees must read, understand, and sign this policy.
While the underlying concept may have some merit, the practice is problematic on a number of levels. As IG professionals—working in an area that already suffers from shaky credibility in many organizations—we should be especially sensitive to the issues it raises.
1. Overly Intrusive
The requirement for an acknowledgment on every single policy is unnecessarily intrusive.
One can see that clearly by putting the shoe on the other foot. Seriously, how much would you like it if every time a new law or by-law was passed, the government sent you a copy and you were required to send back a signed statement that you had read and understood it. No doubt, you’d very quickly grow to resent that process. We all understand that we are subject to laws and by-laws whether or not a copy of the text has been directly provided to us individually.
The step is just as redundant in an employment context, where the requirement to follow organizational policies falls under the terms of the employment contract.
In reality, then, the purpose of an acknowledgement statement is really not to create a mini-contract, but rather merely to prove that the content of the document was communicated. But we have other ways of accomplishing that goal without demanding a signature.
2. Ineffective
Its effectiveness level is poor. As you know, too often people sign those statements without reading the document carefully or understanding it fully. An Information Management policy is doubly cursed: it’s a policy and it’s about IM, which is nobody’s favourite topic. That document will get about as much attention as the Terms and Conditions pop-up window that intervenes between the installation of a new app on your phone and being able to begin to use its functions.
On a literal interpretation, if you read the text but don't understand something, you are technically in breach of policy. Moreover, it’s even irrelevant whether what you understand is exactly what was intended by the writer: so long as you think you understand the content, you’re in a position to sign the document. That makes the risk of miscommunication significant.
You might want to shrug that risk off as the employee's right to take. That may be, but if so, what's the real point of the exercise? If our goal is to get engagement, then any unnecessary formality is a potential obstacle.
3. Disrespectful
This is my focus in all my policy work: is the language respectful to the reader? Nobody appreciates being spoken to as if they were a child who can’t be trusted to take responsibility. We’re dealing with adults in all cases.
The traditional wording--Employees must read, understand, and sign this policy--is clearly demeaning. The Parent–Child dynamic is in full play, and the undertones are the following:
1. Your job is to obey.
2. If you screw up, you can’t claim ignorance about the rule.
That subtext is not helpful when we’re trying to improve compliance around information policies. More useful subtext would acknowledge that people are capable of learning and taking responsibility for their own actions.
Too often, in practice, the acknowledgement statement is used in place of providing proper training on the topic. It's a way of shifting responsibility for knowledge acquisition away from the organization and onto the individual. That’s a lost learning opportunity.
A better statement
A more useful statement would be a commitment from the employee that where something was unclear, they would take steps to seek clarification.
If you insist on using an acknowledgement statement in your policy instruments, may I recommend drafting one that also communicates trust and professional respect from the writer toward the reader. The following is an example:
“I acknowledge and agree to carry out my responsibilities under this policy.”
By rethinking the language we use in our policy acknowledgments, we can foster an environment of mutual respect, which, in turn, improves compliance and organizational culture. You might even find that people react to the nicer wording by actually reading the document, to figure out exactly what they're committing to.
About the Author
Drawing on over 40 years’ experience as a practising lawyer, business consultant, and federal government policy writer, Lewis Eisen is a leading global authority on the use of respectful language in policy drafting. He shows people how to shift their policy writing culture from confrontational to cooperative, and his approach has been adopted at organizations around the world. The 4th edition of his Amazon international bestseller Rules: Powerful Policy Wording to Maximize Engagement was released in June 2024, and he recently won the ARMA’s Britt Literary Award for 2025.
While the underlying concept may have some merit, the practice is problematic on a number of levels. As IG professionals—working in an area that already suffers from shaky credibility in many organizations—we should be especially sensitive to the issues it raises.
1. Overly Intrusive
The requirement for an acknowledgment on every single policy is unnecessarily intrusive.
One can see that clearly by putting the shoe on the other foot. Seriously, how much would you like it if every time a new law or by-law was passed, the government sent you a copy and you were required to send back a signed statement that you had read and understood it. No doubt, you’d very quickly grow to resent that process. We all understand that we are subject to laws and by-laws whether or not a copy of the text has been directly provided to us individually.
The step is just as redundant in an employment context, where the requirement to follow organizational policies falls under the terms of the employment contract.
In reality, then, the purpose of an acknowledgement statement is really not to create a mini-contract, but rather merely to prove that the content of the document was communicated. But we have other ways of accomplishing that goal without demanding a signature.
2. Ineffective
Its effectiveness level is poor. As you know, too often people sign those statements without reading the document carefully or understanding it fully. An Information Management policy is doubly cursed: it’s a policy and it’s about IM, which is nobody’s favourite topic. That document will get about as much attention as the Terms and Conditions pop-up window that intervenes between the installation of a new app on your phone and being able to begin to use its functions.
On a literal interpretation, if you read the text but don't understand something, you are technically in breach of policy. Moreover, it’s even irrelevant whether what you understand is exactly what was intended by the writer: so long as you think you understand the content, you’re in a position to sign the document. That makes the risk of miscommunication significant.
You might want to shrug that risk off as the employee's right to take. That may be, but if so, what's the real point of the exercise? If our goal is to get engagement, then any unnecessary formality is a potential obstacle.
3. Disrespectful
This is my focus in all my policy work: is the language respectful to the reader? Nobody appreciates being spoken to as if they were a child who can’t be trusted to take responsibility. We’re dealing with adults in all cases.
The traditional wording--Employees must read, understand, and sign this policy--is clearly demeaning. The Parent–Child dynamic is in full play, and the undertones are the following:
1. Your job is to obey.
2. If you screw up, you can’t claim ignorance about the rule.
That subtext is not helpful when we’re trying to improve compliance around information policies. More useful subtext would acknowledge that people are capable of learning and taking responsibility for their own actions.
Too often, in practice, the acknowledgement statement is used in place of providing proper training on the topic. It's a way of shifting responsibility for knowledge acquisition away from the organization and onto the individual. That’s a lost learning opportunity.
A better statement
A more useful statement would be a commitment from the employee that where something was unclear, they would take steps to seek clarification.
If you insist on using an acknowledgement statement in your policy instruments, may I recommend drafting one that also communicates trust and professional respect from the writer toward the reader. The following is an example:
“I acknowledge and agree to carry out my responsibilities under this policy.”
By rethinking the language we use in our policy acknowledgments, we can foster an environment of mutual respect, which, in turn, improves compliance and organizational culture. You might even find that people react to the nicer wording by actually reading the document, to figure out exactly what they're committing to.
About the Author
Drawing on over 40 years’ experience as a practising lawyer, business consultant, and federal government policy writer, Lewis Eisen is a leading global authority on the use of respectful language in policy drafting. He shows people how to shift their policy writing culture from confrontational to cooperative, and his approach has been adopted at organizations around the world. The 4th edition of his Amazon international bestseller Rules: Powerful Policy Wording to Maximize Engagement was released in June 2024, and he recently won the ARMA’s Britt Literary Award for 2025.
RSS Feed