Advice Line | Bob Lewis | InfoWorld | An active discussion about passive voice | December 12, 2006 08:10 AM

MORE ENTRIES

An active discussion about passive voice

December 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)

An active discussion about passive voice

Dear Bob ...

I understand the point you are making with the rule about avoiding the passive voice in business writing (in "Sounding smarter," Keep the Joint Running, 11/27/2006). I also believe it is a powerful tool for consultants in the correct circumstances. The key is assessing the goal of the communication.

Consultants often have to get work done through a client's resources.
That means the consultant's success is measured by the ability to get client resources to produce what is needed. The stick of the project's Executive Sponsor is always available but is a last resort. The carrot is getting the client resource to want to do what is needed. The passive voice can be used maintain the client resources desire to work with the consultant when things go wrong.

The passive voice's power is identifying a problem without assigning blame. This allows the problem to be addressed without having to deal with blame game issues. That often allows for the resolution of a problem faster.

Take an example of a software project where software must be installed by a client administrator. The installation is completed incorrectly because the administrator didn't follow the installation instructions. The consultant discovers the problem, but only the client administrator has the access rights to correct the problem.

The consultant could write or say to the client administrator, "You set the permissions wrong so the software can't access all the files it needs. You need to reset the permissions." That is the active voice all the way but could cause the administrator to focus on defending the installation rather than fixing the problem.

The alternative is to write or say to the client administrator, "The file permissions have become set so the software can't access all the files it needs. Please reset the permissions and let me know when you're finished so I can retest." In this case, the passive voice states the problem without addressing who caused the problem. The action needed is stated in the active voice to emphasize who does the remediation.

Either scenario may be correct depending on the situation. If the relationship is good or there is a need to address the cause of the problem so it doesn't happen again, use the active voice all the way. If the relationship or political environment is such that addressing who caused the issue will take time away from addressing the issue and knowing the responsible party provides no value, use the passive voice to state the problem and the active voice to state the resolution.

The key is to decide what the sentence is to accomplish and how the likely emotional reaction will affect that goal. Don't rule out the passive voice when it is useful. Use it when you don't want to assign ownership. If ownership is needed to accomplish the goal, use the active voice.

- Passive Aggressive

Dear Passive ...

While no rule is absolute, I don't see your example as a valid instance. If your goal is to avoid assigning blame, the solution is to pay no attention at all to how the mess was created. Just say (or write), "To get the software to work, just reset the permissions - that should take care of the symptoms we're seeing. Please let me know when you're done so I can re-test."

I also have an unsolicited suggestion: Stop calling the men and women who are responsible for doing your clients' important work "resources." While it's certainly better than calling them "liabilities" it's still a dehumanizing term.

If you're looking for an alternative, I generally use either "staff" or "employees."

- Bob

Posted by Bob Lewis on December 12, 2006 08:10 AM

RATE THIS ARTICLE:

COMMENTS

Bob,

A hearty "AMEN!" to your admonition about the inappropriate use of the word, "resource". I refuse to call our Personal Department "HR", as I do not consider myself a "resource", but a person.

What's even worse, my church recently adopted (for the first time) bylaws that designate the Personnel Team as the stinking "Human Resources Team". A Christian outfit, that truly ought to recognize that people were created in God's image and are not mere "resources". gag.

Press on - your newsletters are nearly always right on target. Many thanks and Merry Christmas from the swamp known as Houston.

Posted by: Stuart L. Brogden at December 13, 2006 12:21 PM

Agreed, identify what's needed, period.

Hmmm, I also generically use resources to mean People, Equipment, Time, etc... possibly too generically. But I blame the term HR for taking me there ;) I'll take note of the dehumanizing connotation...

Posted by: mark at December 13, 2006 12:26 PM

Bob,

You are so correct. Getting up in the morning to go be a wage slave at some faceless, soulless enterprise was so much more enjoyable when I was an "employee" or "associate" rather than just another "resource" (much like the doormat or the toilet bowl cleaner).

Posted by: L.T. at December 13, 2006 01:48 PM

I can certainly see this guy's point. Especially as an outsider assigning blame can get you in big trouble, and certainly this is a way to avoid this.

On one job this was a key to the job. I ended up with a position where I was a network trouble shooter. In this position I had the advantage that I was told to not tell the higher ups about where the problems were located as long as they were fixed. We can get into the long term issues here, but yeah I know .... The thing was that because of the network design it was very difficult to track down the problems with just technical tools. It took working with the people involved to find the problems, and the fact that nobody would know that they goofed was a big plus to these people and got the assistance needed to make this work. There is much to be said for assisting the users in fixing the problems they make in such a way as they don't have to admit to having failed.

Posted by: Ray Stevens at December 14, 2006 06:18 AM

In business communication, the active voice is better. It causes less confusion. That being said, most people gravitate to the passive voice in their writing. That being said, in my network management career, I applauded anything that was understandable. Gramamtically correct memos and emails were given a standing ovation.

Throughout my career as a network manager, the awful writing I was forced to read from staff and fellow managers (including an English Major) was almost painful. I think some emphasis on the English language, including grammar, would serve many in the IT field. I never found any specific group being worse than any other: programmers were as bad or as good as system admins, and so on. Most people do try and make an effort, if only because they know that clear (active) writing is understandable. Good writing is a tool that can help them in their careers. (Which is a point you made, I believe?)

I did have a very amusing spat about the English language with an old boss: he returned one of my memos, with corrections. I sent it back to him, with my corrections to his corrections. My response didn't go down too well...

Carolyn Ann

Posted by: Carolyn Ann at December 14, 2006 07:40 PM

The use of the odious term "resource" is one of my pet peeves. Toilet paper is a resource; you use it and throw it away. People are more valuable than that. Resources are the sort of things that depreciate. Even if you don't say these things outright, the connotation exists, and it makes a distinct difference in the way people approach their work.

I have no idea how the term "HR" became so prevalent in the industry... how such a horrible mistake could have been adopted so widely. If I had my way, "HR" would be abolished in favor of the far more preferable "Personnel".

Posted by: David Leigh at December 17, 2006 06:41 AM

Three books. Three ways to change the world, your life, or at least Bob Lewis' bank account.

Leading IT: The Toughest Job in the World distills the world of IT leadership into eight learnable skills and gives you concrete, practical techniques for each one of them.

Bare Bones Project Management: What you can't not do makes project management manageable, even for first-time project managers with no formal training in the discipline.

ManagementSpeak: What managers say/What they mean … well, it won't help your career, and won't make you a better manager. Mostly, it will make you chuckle, guffaw, and maybe even chortle. Make friends - it's the perfect gift for anyone who has ever suffered through one of those meetings.

Order your copies today!

Technology White Papers

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert