readability of employee handbooks

Readability of Employee Handbooks

By KEITH DAVIS AND JAMES 0. HOPKINS, University of Texas

T w o years ago the personnel director of a manufacturing plant prepared an employee handbook. The handbook’s last page was a blank form which the reader was supposed to tear out and mail to him indicating that the handbook had been read. Two years and 4,200 copies later he had received only one completed form! It came from a blind employee whose reader had read the whole handbook to him. Had the other employees reached the last page? No one knows. This incident is just one of many recent experiences which indicate that the employee handbook is not getting its message across. No employee handbook is worth its cost unless its message is read and understood.

One primary reason that handbooks are not read and understood is that they are not “readable.” A recent study at the University of Texas indicates that 91.6 per cent of employee handbooks are too difficult for their readers. This large per- centage of handbooks rated tougher than “standard” difficulty on the Flesch reading ease scale (1). The handbooks did somewhat better on the ‘‘human interest” scale, but not enough to off set their “gobble-de-gook” reading difficulty.

Keieith Davis i s Associate Professor of Hanagement at the University of Texas. He received his Master’s Degree in business administration at the University of Texas and has done advanced work at Ohio State University. He has also taught at Ohio State Uni- versity and been associated m’th Howard Hughes Industries, Houston, Texas. He was with the Army Air Forces from 19,j2-1946, serving primarily as a personnel director of the civilian complement at an air base. He has written articles for personnet and business journals.

James 0. Hopkins i s now Assistant Professor of Management at Tulane University. A t the time this article was written he was a research associate in the College of Busi- ness Administration at the University of Texas, where he received his M.B.A. He has been in industry and was a Naval Reserve Oflcer during the war.

317

318 KEITH DAVIS AND JAMES 0. HOPKINS

USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK If one examines the uses and objectives of the employee

handbook as a personnel technique, it is apparent why a handbook must be readable to be effective.

1. In the first place, the handbook is not directed toward a captive audience. It can hardly force itself upon its readers. They may or may not choose to read it. Even if they have started to read it, they may choose to lay it aside unless it stimulates their interest and reads easily. Therefore it must have such forcefulness that the reader cannot resist it.

2. The handbook is also directed toward a reading level which it cannot change. That is, if readers can read only sixth- grade-level writing, it is useless to write to them at the college level. The handbook problem may be compared with that of a radio communication problem. Effective radio communication depends upon similarity of frequency and other technical details in both the transmitter and the receiver. If the receiver’s “frequency” cannot be immediately altered (as is the case with the handbook reader), then all adjustments must be made in the transmitter if communication is to take effect.

3. The handbook is often the first company publication a new employee receives. As a simple matter of timing, it needs to get its message across quickly to help the worker understand necessary information. It also needs to be readable enough to set a friendly, cooperative tone with the worker, because it is part of his first impression of the company. To the new employee, an impersonal handbook means an impersonal company. A handbook which he cannot understand means a company which he will not be encouraged to understand. 4. With many companies the handbook is a major publica-

tion. It needs to be readable because it is important and is for aEE employees. Perhaps not much is lost when a trivial note goes unread, but the handbook is neither trivial in cost nor purpose with most companies which use it. It is also a popular technique. A recent nationwide survey found that 71 per cent

READABILITY OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS 319

of 325 companies in the United States use employee handbooks (2).

5. Finally, the various handbook objectives seek to give understanding and mold attitudes, which can be accomplished only with readable writing. Management leaders have estab- lished the following handbook objectives: (1) to create interest and give an interesting picture of the company, (2) to set a cooperative tone of relationship between the worker and the company, and (3) to give thorough and concise information regarding policies, rules, benefits, and privileges. METHODS OF IMPROVING HANDBOOKS

Employers who did recognize that the handbook was not getting understood sought to improve it in worthwhile ways. They created better layout. They added cartoons and photo- graphs. They made better use of color. All these mechanical improvements were needed. Other employers tried to improve handbook content and rearrange the subject matter. They described employee “benefits” first and placed ‘‘responsibili- ties” further back in the handbook. They even adopted per- sonalized distribution me t hods.

Each handbook improvement helped. But there was still evidence that the handbook did not get its message across, Color, illustrations, and proper distribution were not ends in themselves. The handbook needed to be “whole” in the sense that all its technical factors needed to be of adequate quality so that it would be read with interest and understanding. One factor seemingly overlooked was readability, which is simply that quality which makes writing interesting, clear, and under- standable. THE HANDBOOK READABILITY SURVEY

To investigate handbook readability the authors assembled a national sample of 71 employee handbooks. They then ana- lyzed each handbook according to the Flesch formulas for reading ease and human interest. The sample was not statistically


Very Easy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Easy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairly Easy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standard. ................... Fairly Difficult.. . . . . . . . . . . . . Difficult. .................... Very Difficult.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

representative of all industry, but it included handbooks from retail stores; metal, petroleum, and food processors; automotive, electrical, chemical, and other manufacturers; banks; in- surance companies ; public utilities ; universities ; and govern- mental units. Companies were located throughout the United States. They ranged in size from approximately 100 employees to over 100,000 employees.

Individual handbook samples consisted of every third para- graph throughout each handbook. The average number of para- graphs taken from each handbook was over fifty; so the sample should be representative of the entire handbook. Diagrams,

90-100 0 80-89 0 70-79 2 60-69 4 50-59 24 30-49 36 0-29 5

TABLE 1 Distribution of Flesch Reading Ease Grades for 71 Employee Handbooks

BEADING EASE NLTMBER gFgNy& ESTlMATED PER CENT 1 &- I POTENTIAL 1 zgEE Grade I Score BOOKS READERS

93 91 88 83 54 33 4 . 5

91 88 83 54 33 4.5

Less than 4.5

process charts, and technical footnotes were omitted from the sample, because they might unduly influence the reading ease score determined by the Flesch formula.

READING EASE OF HANDBOOKS The Flesch reading ease formula combines a measure of

(1) the number of words per sentence and (2) the number of syllables per 100 words, to arrive at a score which is divided into seven adjective grades ranging from “very easy’’ to “very difficult.” Flesch has estimated the per cent of adults in the United States who could probably read writing in each reading ease grade (see Table 1). Since readers prefer to read one grade below what they can read, the percent of readers for the next


lower reading grade indicates those who prefer to read each grade of handbook. And the effective handbook definitely depends on voluntary readership !

Table 1 shows that only 6 of the 71 handbooks rated “standard” or easier. Expressed in terms of probable readers, only 6 of the handbooks could be read with understanding by more than 54 per cent of the potential readers! Thirty-six handbooks (about half the sample) could be read by only 33 per cent of the employees, but only 4.5 per cent of them would prefer to read at this level. Five of the handbooks were written in language suitable for college graduates and comparable to scientific jargon. The national average of the handbooks was 47, which is graded “diffic~lt.~’ In other words, it is hard to find an easy-reading handbook! Yet the handbook has a communication function to perform which depends on reading ease.

It may be that the reading level of workers in companies having handbooks is slightly above that for the national adult population as a whole, but it surely is not high enough to offset the reading difficulty of most handbooks.

Here is an example of poor readability selected from a handbook in the sample:

If your recognized continuous service as of January 1 is more than one but less than two years, the number of calen- dar days vacation for which you are eligible is seven, plus the number of days as determined from the above tabulation for the period of service in excess of one but less than two years of such service [59 words].

This type of writing may be satisfactory for the lawyer who writes the rules, but it is no good for the machine worker who must read them. The next sentence in this same handbook has 25 words. The next has 40 words. Then the reader gets a break with a 7-word sentence. After the short sentence, there is another long sentence (51 words) :

If your employment is terminated because of lay-off for lack of work, civil leave of absence, retirement, or resigna- tion with two weeks advance notice, and if you have quali-


Grade

Dramatic. .......................... Very Interesting.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interesting ......................... Mildly Interesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dull. ...............................

fied for your current year’s vacation but have not yet taken it, you Will be paid a sum equal to your vaction pay. This (‘very difficult” example is not typical, but there are

others even worse. Certainly it was not necessary to use long, involved sentences and complex words such as “tabulation” and “terminated.”

Here is another example from a handbook that rated “difficult” and “dull”:

Since most employees believe in the prudence of main- taining reserves, the company has set up a voluntary payroll deduction plan that enables employees to make regular purchases of United States Saving Bonds.

Score

60-100 40-59 20-39 10-19 0-9

TABLE 2 Distribution of Flesch Human Interest Grades for 71 Employee Handbooks

~~

NO. 08 HANDBOOKS

0 9 41 14 7

Surely this must have been written by a specialist. To the average worker “prudence” is more likely to be a girl’s name than a way of deciding to save money! The sentence might be revised to read like this:

Many people think it’s wise to save. You may use our payroll purchase plan to buy U. S. Savings Bonds each pay day in any amount you like.

HUMAN INTEREST IN HANDBOOK WRITING The handbooks did better when rated by the human in-

terest score. Forty-one handbooks rated “interesting,” which is the middle grade of five interest grades (Table 2). The national average was 27, which is within the lower levels of the “interesting” grade. Some handbooks were quite dull. Seven

READABILITY O F EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS 323

PEADING EASE 1 NO. OF 1 EMPLOYEPS EUPLOYEB GPOUP

Score 1 Grade

of them rated “dull,” which is equivalent to the interest style of a scientific publication.

The Flesch human interest score is derived from the per cent of personal words and personal sentences appearing in the sample. Since handbooks are written to the employee about the company and the employee’s work, they have a wonderful opportunity to stimulate human interest. Certainly all handbooks could rate as high as “interesting,” but 21 of the sample did not. For maximum effectiveness handbooks sbuM rate “very interesting”; yet 62 of the sample were less interesting than that.

KMUN INTEXEST

Score 1 Gnde

TABLE 3 Fleseh Reading Ease and Human Interest Scores of Selected Employee Handbooks,

According to Type of Employer

Retail Stores.. . . . . . . . . . . . Metal Processors.. . . . . . . . Food Processors.. ........

11 57 Fairly Dif. 33 Interesting 3 54 Fairly Dif. 27 Interesting 4 51 Fairly Dif. 35 Interesting

National Average.. . . . .I 71 I 47 I Difficult I 27 1 Interesting

Electrical Mfg.. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 I Difficult 1 1 Interesting Petroleum Processors.. ... Difficult Mildly Int.

RELATION OF READABILITY TO EMPLOYER TYPE It is interesting to note that different types of employers

tended to group together a t certain levels of reading ease and human interest. For example, 11 retail store handbooks aver- aged above the national average in both reading ease and human interest (Table 3). In fact, all the retail handbooks had individual scores above the national average for reading ease. Eight of them were also above average in human interest.

Petroleum processors were the worst offenders, having very low reading ease and human interest scores. Their reading ease scored 33, which was 14 below the national average of 47. They supplied 3 of the 5 “very difficult” reading ease grades


in the national sample. One petroleum refiner had a handbook average sentence length of 33 words. A sentence of 33 words is as long as this sentence you are reading-is as long as this sentence you are reading-is as long as this sentence you are reading. And some sentences were much longer. Thirty-three words was average. Petroleum processors were even worse concerning human interest! They supplied 5 of the 7 “dull” rat- ings.

Electrical manufacturers, along with automotive and chemical manufacturers, scored somewhat below the national aver- ages for both reading ease and human interest. On the other hand, three metal processors (an equally complicated industry) scored high (54) in reading ease but average (27) in human interest.

Most other employer groups, including one group of 16 classed as miscellaneous, scored near the average in reading ease and human interest.

RELATION OF READABILITY TO COMPANY SIZE Figures were not available concerning the number of em-

ployees in each company, but 45 employers were placed into four size groups on the basis of total asset values a t the end of 1948, as listed in Standard and Poor’s Trade and Securities service. The larger companies generally had the poorer reading ease scores, but the differences in score were significant only for the “very large’’ group (see Table 4). This group also rated significantly lowest on the human interest scale. Except for the poor readability of “very large” company’s handbooks, size seemed to influence readability much less than type of industry.

Certain reasons may be proposed to explain the influence of company size on readability :

1. In the larger company the handbook writer may be far removed from the worker level in the chain of command; therefore, he may not be sensitive to the reading level and vocabulary of operative employees.


33

45

47

50

50

2. Since the writer is far removed from the worker, he may tend to write in an abstract style, rather than in a personal, human interest style. Workers may be abstractions to him, rather than individual people. They may be payroll numbers, rather than living flesh and emotion.

3. The larger company may have more complicated organ- ization structure and policy, which makes the company more difficult to interpret to the worker.

Difficult

Difficult

Difficult

Fairly Difficult

Fairly Difficult

TABLE 4 Flesch Reading Ease and Human Interest Scores of 71 Employee Handbooks Classified

SIZE GROUP (in terms of assets)

Very Large

Large (over $l,OOO,OOO,OOO). .

($100,OoO,OOO to $999,999,999) . . . . . . . . . ,

($20,000,000 to $99,999,999) . . . . . . . . . . ,

Medium

Small

Size Unknown (below $20,000,000). . .

(estimated mostly under $l00,OOO,OOO). . .

__ NO. OE

EY- LOYER

8

23

7

7

26

b y Company Size

READING EASE

Score Grade

HUMAN INTERZST - k0I -

15

26

22

28

29 -

Grade

Mildly Interesting

Interesting

Interesting

Interesting

Interesting

4. The larger company may be more likely to employ college graduates and use them as staff writers. The college man is not trained in the concept of readable writing, and he tends to write to other college men, rather than to the machinist and the janitor.

SUMMARY In summary, employee handbook writing is generally quite

low in reading ease and human interest. Most handbooks are written in a style preferred by only 4.5 per cent of the adult population. Handbook editors have not given adequate atten-


tion to the reading levels and interests of their readers. They have tended to emphasize mechanical improvements, such as color and layout, instead of language improvements. Here is a weak link in our employee communication chain. There is a big job to be done by handbook writers before the handbooks themselves can do the job we have set out for them.

There are two points of caution: 1. The Flesch scale attempts to measure only reading ease

and human interest in the written language. It does not measure color, layout, illustrations, sentence structure, and count- less other items necessary to a balanced handbook. All of these need adequate emphasis if one is to have a “whole” handbook.

2. Writing pitched toward a very low reading ease score may insult the reader. He does not want a children’s first- grade primer. He merely wants readable writing.

REFERENCES 1. FLESCH, R. The Art of Readable Writing. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. 2. Scorn, W. D., CLOTHIER, R. C., AND SPRIEGEL, W. R. Personnel Management.

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949, p. 580.

readability of employee handbooks

Documents