Choosing the right pronoun in policy statements: why 'he or she' matters for clarity and inclusivity

Pronouns and policy: why one tiny choice matters

If you’ve ever read a company policy and felt a tiny nagging doubt about who’s being addressed, you’re not alone. In professional writing, the way we refer to people isn’t just grammar trivia—it shapes clarity, accountability, and trust. When the topic is a policy, the stakes rise a notch or two: a misread sentence can leave someone unsure about their duties or, worse, about who is responsible for following through. In the context of the PACT writing assessment, the line you choose to use in a policy statement signals formality, precision, and inclusivity at the same time. Let me explain why the sentence “Policy, he or she should” sits at the center of a long-standing convention about clear written communication.

Why “he or she” shows up in formal policy language

Here’s the thing about policy sentences: they set expectations. They tell people what they are supposed to do, when, and by whom. In many workplaces, a policy is meant to be read by a diverse audience—employees across departments, contractors, managers, maybe even visitors. The phrase “he or she” explicitly names the person who must comply, without leaning on gendered assumptions. It creates a direct, singular obligation: the individual is accountable for following the policy.

That explicitness matters because policies are about responsibility, not mere information. When you write “Policy, he or she should,” you’re not tossing in a vague directive; you’re drawing a clear line between the policy itself and the people who must act on it. It’s a small punctuation and pronoun choice, but it telegraphs a formal tone and a precise intent. For many professionals, that is exactly what good policy writing aims to do: clarity first, tone second, inclusivity alongside.

A closer look at the structure

The sentence pattern in question uses a noun (Policy) followed by a comma and then a verb phrase introducing the person who should act. Think of it as a compact, almost surgical construction:

Policy, he or she should

The comma acts like a pause that helps the reader attach the instruction to the individual. It’s a tidy way to present a rule without turning the statement into a full sentence of its own. The result is a crisp directive that fits well in formal documents, memos, or HR-wide notices where a straightforward, accountable voice is desired.

That said, this approach isn’t the only one out there. Modern writing on inclusivity sometimes leans toward “they” as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. Some readers find it smoother or more natural in casual or semi-formal contexts. Yet in certain formal or traditional circles—where policy language has to be unambiguous and legally defensible—the explicit “he or she” remains a rock-solid choice. It signals that you’re addressing a specific individual, not a vague crowd.

Why the other options don’t hit the mark

Let’s go through the alternatives you listed and unpack why they generally don’t work as well in formal policy writing.

• Policy, they should

This one aims for inclusivity, which is admirable. But in a strictly formal policy line, “they” can introduce ambiguity. Does “they” refer to a single person (which individual) or to a group? In policy statements, that ambiguity can create doubt about responsibility. If the goal is to pin down who must act, “they” risks turning accountability into a moving target.

• Policy you should

This shifts the sentence from a policy-directed instruction to a personal directive. It sounds more like a direct customer-facing message or a buddy-to-buddy reminder than a formal rule. In a professional policy document, you typically want the policy to speak in third person, keeping the voice authoritative and impersonal. The “you” form can feel like a reminder for a reader to do something, which is less consistent with policy language.

• Policy, they should reach

Here the phrase turns from obligation into an aim. “Reach” implies a goal or outcome rather than a required action. It mutates the purpose of the policy into something that might be pursued or aspired to, rather than something someone is obliged to do. In other words, it muddies responsibility and can lead to debates about what “reach” actually means in practice.

• The correct choice, “Policy, he or she should”

In this construction, you get a clean, direct statement of obligation tied to an identifiable person. It maintains formality, delivers precision, and avoids the traps of ambiguity or vague outcomes. It’s tight, professional, and perfectly suited for policy contexts where clarity and accountability matter.

How this plays out in real-world writing

In many workplaces, policy documents sit at the intersection of legal clarity and operational practicality. You want employees to understand exactly what’s expected of them, without wading through awkward phrasing or open-ended phrases. Here are a few practical guidelines that echo the same principles behind “Policy, he or she should”:

• Prioritize precision over trendiness. If you’re drafting a policy that staff will follow, choose language that reduces misinterpretation. A straightforward pronoun reference to the person who should act is often more reliable than a sentence that invites debate about who exactly is affected.

• Maintain a consistently formal tone in policy sections. In HR files, security handbooks, compliance notices, and similar documents, a formal register signals that the content is official. In many settings, “he or she” is a familiar, accepted convention that supports that tone.

• Be mindful of audience and context. If you’re writing for a multinational team, consider whether the audience is more comfortable with traditional pronouns or with gender-neutral alternatives. Sometimes you’ll keep the formal route, and sometimes you’ll adapt by department or document type.

• Keep sentences lean. Policy statements don’t need flourish. A tight structure improves readability. Short, direct lines help everyone from new hires to seasoned managers grasp the rule quickly.

A tiny checklist you can use (no fluff, just useful)

• Clarity: Does the sentence point to a specific person who must act?

• Pronoun choice: Is “he or she” used in a way that avoids ambiguity?

• Formailty: Does the tone fit a formal policy document?

• Consistency: Are other policy statements written in the same style?

• Accessibility: Would a reader from any department understand the obligation on first read?

A quick, concrete example to anchor the idea

• Correct (formal policy tone): Policy, he or she should report any incident within 24 hours.

• Less precise (ambiguous): Policy, they should report any incident within 24 hours.

• Flawed for this context (too casual or directive): Policy you should report any incident within 24 hours.

• Misaligned with policy goals (outcome-oriented): Policy they should reach 24 hours.

As you can see, the first option keeps the rule clear and the reader oriented toward compliance. The others either blur who is responsible, shift the focus, or introduce a sense of goal rather than obligation.

A note on tone, inclusivity, and the larger arc of professional writing

Language isn’t a static thing; it evolves with culture and practice. Some teams prefer singular “they” for inclusivity and modernity, while others cling to traditional forms for the sake of precision in legal contexts. Both choices have value, and both can work—so long as your document stays consistent and clear. In the context of the PACT writing environment, you’ll often find that a line like “Policy, he or she should” fits the formal expectations many readers expect in policy statements.

If you’re curious about how language choices ripple through a company, think about how a single sentence can influence behavior. A tight sentence communicates accountability. A looser one can invite multiple interpretations. In a quiet corner of the office, a policy that reads clearly helps people know what to do when the pressure is on—whether it’s a safety protocol, a data-handling rule, or a simple attendance guideline.

A small tangent that connects back to everyday writing

Beyond the policy page, this same principle applies to everyday emails, memos, and internal announcements. The moment you switch from speaking about someone in general terms to naming a concrete responsibility, you gain a level of responsibility in the reader’s mind. For a lot of teams, a policy line like “Policy, he or she should” becomes a benchmark: it’s a benchmark for how you want your communications to feel—credible, direct, and respectful of everyone’s role.

If you’re drafting anything that will live in a shared digital space—an intranet article, a handbook entry, or a compliance notice—consider how it will feel when someone reads it aloud. Does it sound like a person talking to a coworker, or does it sound like a rule etched in stone? The latter can be powerfully reassuring for readers who need to know what is expected of them without wading through vagueness.

Bringing it all together

Policy language is a backbone of clear workplace communication. The sentence shape you choose matters because it frames accountability in a concrete, unmistakable way. In the specific scenario of discussing company policy, “Policy, he or she should” offers a precise, formal path that helps readers quickly understand who must act and what is expected. The other options tend to blur responsibility, shift the tone away from formality, or change the intent of the sentence from obligation to aspiration.

If you’re practicing the craft inside the PACT writing framework or simply polishing your professional prose, aim for clarity first. Let the pronoun choice reinforce who is responsible. Let punctuation guide the reader’s rhythm. And let the overall tone convey that this is a real rule, meant to be followed, in a real workplace.

A final thought to carry forward

Good policy writing isn’t about sounding fancy; it’s about making expectations obvious. When you write with that aim, you reduce mistakes, speed up onboarding, and support a culture where people know what’s required and what’s not. The moment a reader grasps the obligation—clear, direct, and unambiguous—the policy has done its job. And that, in turn, keeps the organization moving smoothly, one clearly stated rule at a time.