A Better Sign-off Statement

I never liked the traditional wording of policy acknowledgement statements. They typically sound something like

“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.

1. Overly Intrusive

The requirement for this 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 single 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 already know that we are subject to all laws and by-laws, whether or not a copy of the text has been directly provided to us individually. The step is legally redundant in a government employment context, since we are already bound to follow organizational policies under the terms of the employment contract. A pseudo-contractual procedure to reinforce that point is overkill.

For most organizations, then, the purpose of a signed acknowledgement statement is really not to create a mini-contract, but rather merely to prove that the content of the document was communicated. There are other ways of accomplishing that goal without demanding a signature.

2. Ineffective

Its effectiveness level is poor. Too often, people sign the policy without reading it carefully or without understanding it fully. The document gets 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.

You might want to shrug that problem off as the employee's right to take that risk. That may be, but if so, what's the real point of the exercise?

On a literal interpretation, if you read the text but don't understand something, you are technically in breach of policy. Moreover, it’s apparently 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.

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 more useful statement would be a commitment from the employee that where something was unclear, they would take steps to seek clarification.

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 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 policy compliance. More useful subtext would convey the notion that we respect that people are capable of taking responsibility for their own actions. 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 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.