For people teams
Once when things are fine and nobody is really looking. And once when something has gone wrong, slowly, by somebody who is upset and taking every word literally. The second reading is the one it has to survive.
These pull against each other and no other function has to hold both at once. Legal writing is precise and cold, and that is fine, because a contract is not trying to be kind. A friendly note is warm and vague, and that is fine too, because nothing turns on it.
A redundancy letter has to be completely unambiguous about dates, entitlements and process — and also has to be read by somebody who has just lost their job. Both, in the same three paragraphs.
The usual failure is picking one. Documents that choose precision read as a company protecting itself. Documents that choose warmth leave the reader unsure what has actually been decided, which is crueller than bluntness — they will read it four more times looking for the answer.
The passive voice, used to avoid saying who decided
"It has been determined that your role is at risk." Somebody determined it. The reader knows somebody determined it, and hiding them makes the document feel like something being done to them by nobody in particular.
Softeners on facts
"Your last day will likely be around the end of March." Either it is the 31st or the decision has not been made. A hedge on a date is not kindness, it is another week of not knowing.
Warmth in the wrong paragraph
Sympathy before the news reads as a set-up and the reader skims past it looking for the point. Say what has happened, then say you are sorry about it. That order is kinder even though it feels blunter to write.
Policy written for the lawyer
A policy nobody can read is a policy nobody follows, and "it was in the handbook" is a weak position when the handbook is unreadable. Simple mode on a policy draft is one of the highest-value things on this page.
This is the one worth building into your process. Before a difficult letter goes out, ask the agent to read it as the recipient — and be specific about their state of mind, because that is what changes the answer.
“Read this as somebody who has just been told their role is at risk and who believes they have been treated unfairly. What would they fix on? What is ambiguous enough to be read the worst way?”
You cannot get that from a colleague, because your colleagues already know what you meant. The value is in having a reader who does not.
Most HR writing is not a difficult letter. It is the job description that has been copied from the last one four times, the policy update nobody will read, the offer letter that needs to sound like a place worth joining.
Simple on a policy draft, Casual on an internal announcement that came out too corporate, Shorten on a job description that has accumulated nine bullet points of responsibilities nobody checks. None of it is dramatic and all of it is the bulk of the week.
Anything with legal consequence — contracts, settlement terms, disciplinary findings — should be checked by somebody qualified, and a rewrite is not a review. Tightening the prose of a document does not tell you whether the document is correct.
Also worth remembering that what you paste in is text about a real person. The trust and security page sets out what happens to it, which is a fair question for a function that handles more personal data than any other.