Myth 4: Passive verbs boost my authority
By Allen Palmer
This is the fourth of a series of articles exploring widely held misconceptions that diminish many workplace writers’ efficiency and effectiveness.
People generally know to avoid passive verbs, but there is a lingering view that, when you really need to show the reader who’s boss, they somehow bestow majestic powers. With the greatest of respect, bunkum. While they are a useful tool in limited cases, passives diminish readability, reduce clarity and typically inflame tense communications.
Many still revere the passive verb
Political leaders can have short, chaotic, even criminal terms in government, but once booted out, their rusted-on supporters can still hold them in awe and pray for their return. Passive verbs are a bit like that. Both rounded on and revered, they’re the bad boys of grammar.
At least half our workshop attendees know that passives are a thing, and, if someone says you’re using a lot of these things, that this is not a good thing.
Many come along specifically to overcome their passive addiction. Patches haven’t worked, but perhaps Plain English Foundation will.
Organisations know we’re in the grip of a passive epidemic, and they’re trying their best to help.
If there is a style guide out there that doesn’t tell you to wean yourselves off passives and embrace the active, I can’t recall seeing it.
And, yet, some will maintain that, when the time is right, when the circumstances demand it, when the mood takes you, you should dust off your passives and let the reader have it.
There is even official endorsement for the use of these reserve powers.
I’ve seen a style guide for a very large organisation that, in the section promoting active verbs, says you can use passives ‘when you want to sound more authoritative’.
Most of us would like to sound more authoritative most of the time, so this might explain the epidemic.
But do passive verbs really hold these special powers?
It makes you sound not authoritative but authoritarian
There’s a point in our workshops where we read out a passage written in the traditional, formal style. It will include passive verbs, but we won’t have taught people how to recognise them yet, so most won’t be aware of their presence.
We simply ask participants to say how they’d describe an organisation that writes like this, and it’s never flattering. They will say it makes them sound:
- bureaucratic
- cold
- aloof
- unfeeling
- inhuman
- robotic
I can honestly say that in more than 500 workshops, I’ve not once had anyone describe the writing as ‘authoritative’.
Authoritarian? Possibly. But commanding of our respect? Never.
They will typically throw fuel on the fire
This misconception about the impact of passive verbs has been causing problems.
When do people feel the need to pump up their sense of authority? Generally, in situations of conflict, right?
Someone complains to their insurer that they haven’t paid out on their claim for hail damage.
How does the insurer respond?
‘The facts have been considered, the decision has been made, the case has been closed.’
You’re already not happy, and then they rain down on you with a barrage of passives.
Is this where the term ‘passive aggressive’ came from? No, but it could have, right?
When you’re communicating in a situation of conflict, you specifically want to avoid all those unfavourable impressions that passive verbs evoke.
You want to appear:
- human
- caring
- attentive
- transparent
And that means active voice.
Active voice improves readability and clarity
Other than making the reader feel like you’re a pompous, unfeeling robot, passive verbs will also be making their lives generally more difficult.
I’ve written previously on why readers prefer active voice, but in summary, it’s because:
- English speakers expect it
- they’ve not just been expecting it, but relying on it since the Vikings
- only Yoda has a weirder word order than passive.
There is also the issue of clarity.
The minutes read, ‘The framework will be amended’.
Who’s amending the framework?
I thought you were. No, I thought you were.
Stop!
Alex will amend the framework. Active voice to the rescue. It allows clarity.
More on Alex shortly.
Passive voice is a good choice in some cases
Are you getting the impression we don’t want you to use the passive?
If so, that would not be the worst thing you could take from the article.
But it would be neither accurate nor fair, so let’s restore some belated balance to this discussion.
Good writers will generally use active voice, but they will use passive voice selectively in certain situations.
Let’s imagine that Alex, of framework-amending fame above, has hit some turbulence. She’s missed the deadline, and that means the launch can’t go ahead as planned.
Consider these 2 versions for a company-wide email to break the news. Which would you go with?
A. Active voice:
Since Alex hasn’t finished the framework, we’ll have to delay the launch.
B. Passive voice:
Since the framework has not been completed, we’ll have to delay the launch.
If you chose a.) active voice, I’d suggest that might be unwise – if you ever want Alex to talk to you again.
I’m all for clarity, transparency and accountability, but generally, where possible, I’ll do my very best not to throw a colleague under a heavily laden bus.
So, on this occasion, I’ll allow myself a rare passive – like a square of dark chocolate on a Thursday night.
But more generally, let’s have no more of this ‘passives make me sound more authoritative’ palaver.
Because if you go passive, it’s very likely the reader will turn aggressive.
For more advice about weaning yourself off using the passive voice, see some of our favourite free style guides:
Or contact us about our ISO-aligned workshops where we transform your writing at work into writing that works.
