In Defense of Passive Writing

Why Active Isn’t Always Appropriate 

If all writers concur that an active voice is better, why is passive writing still in use? 

Here’re a few quotes that extol the virtues of active writing:

• “[The active voice is the] vigorous voice, unashamed to say whodunit. Passive voice is preferred by the weak, the cowardly, ashamed to name the fink who told them what they are evasively telling you.” — John Bremner, late professor of journalism at the University of Kansas and author of Words on Words

• “The passive voice invariably comes across as pontificating, patronizing, talking down. It sounds insincere, even dishonest, and it makes the reader uncomfortable, not trusting, though usually the reader cannot put her finger on why.” — Henriette Anne Klauser, author of Writing on Both Sides of the Brain

There are many more, but I’ll end with a writer I admire. 

“Verbs are the most important of all your tools. They push the sentence forward and give it momentum. Active verbs push hard; passive verbs tug fitfully.” — William Zinsser, author of ‘On Writing Well’

If this were such a universal truism, it begs the question as to why so much of the business writing is overwhelmingly passive. 

I’ll try to cite instances where passive is superior and better serves the purpose. 

To Avoid Distraction

Consider: "The president was administered the oath of office".

Here, does it really matter who administered the oath?

On many occasions, “what happened” is more useful to discuss than “who did it”. This is particularly true of polarizing topics where each party is already employing ‘final vocabulary’. 

A sentence like, “X did B, because of which we’re in the current mess” may stall any meaningful conversation. Instead, “We are in a mess” is more likely to elicit general approval.

While writing policy documents, we can expect greater buy-in of the core argument if it doesn’t lay blame on anyone. While this may sound expedient, it’s still a better alternative to stalemate. The past is in the past. It’s the future we’re interested in. 

To be Politically Correct

Though free-speech absolutists may disagree, there are instances where politically-correct language is more appropriate. 

In interviews of all kinds, internal and external communications, and public policy documents, an aura of neutrality must be maintained. Whether intentional or otherwise, such works are subject to higher scrutiny and any ambiguity in wording may attract stringent criticism. 

For managers, the choice is obvious. Cringey writing may attract memes, but politically incorrect ones come with huge publicity risks.

This isn’t new. In fact, it’s a staple of political communications. 

To quote George Orwell: 

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

In our time, something similar could be said about business writing too. It’s designed to make bitter pills more palatable to the stakeholders. 

You see it when organizations dub mass layoffs as workforce optimization. You sense it when high profile executives leave a company. You understand the writing on the wall when performance reviews are conducted anew and hints are dropped about your shortcomings. 

You see it, as does ‘The New York Times’ reporting on a mishap at SpaceX: “Casual space watchers were further amused by the company describing the result of the mission on Twitter with cosmic levels of euphemism. SpaceX called it “a rapid unscheduled disassembly” — or, put another way, an explosion.” 

To Avoid Blaming People

During the 2016 US presidential election campaign, Hillary Clinton branded a section of her opponent’s supporters as “basket of deplorables”. To my mind, this backfired spectacularly. 

Around that time, I had a meeting with a colleague from the US. After the meeting, we indulged in some small talk about the elections. While he largely avoided partisan talk, he thought a politician describing those who won’t vote for her as “deplorables” is a new low in the US elections. 

In our polarized times, people have become more comfortable in discrediting the ideology they oppose as virulent. However, tarnishing the people who hold a different view is taking it too far. 

Passive voice lends itself to easier use while following the maxim: criticize opinions, not people.

How To Communicate Your Truth

Given the above reasons, is there a way to communicate your truth at all? 

How do we navigate the politically correct maze and still convey our truth?

This is a work-in-progress for me as well. For over a decade, I wrote extensively on political issues close to my heart. Even today, after years of mental sedimentation, I still find myself agreeing with my earlier writings. 

However, with the benefit of hindsight, I now realize I was preaching to the choir. My writings were tailored to reinforce the opinions of those who broadly agreed with my thinking. It helped such people articulate more clearly what they already considered true. 

Convincing an ideological opponent is fraught with difficulties. 

But swaying the fence-sitters is easier. When you clothe your case in a fairly objective language, it’s possible to pull them to your side. Keeping it impersonal actually helps. It’s by overdoing the rhetoric you can lose such people. By trying to shove your ideas down their throat you are effectively pushing them into your opponent’s camp. 

"If you want to communicate an important idea, you must not preach; instead make your readers or listeners connect the dots and come to the conclusion on their own...make it seem to emerge from their own minds." ~ Robert Greene, The 33 Strategies of War.