Whenever I create a document in Microsoft Word, it complains about a lot of my sentences being in passive voice. But, when I read that sentence aloud, it sounds fine to me. I am not sure if it is just me and will a statement in passive voice sound strange to a native speaker?

So, my question is, is it considered bad form to use passive voice generally? Or in some specific cases like written communications only?

Edit: If it is ok to use passive voice, then why does MS-Word complain?

  • 14
    In good writing, the passive voice should not be used too much. However, never using the passive voice is also bad writing style. The best thing to do with the Microsoft Word grammar corrector is to turn it off. Commented Jun 30, 2011 at 23:02
  • 1
  • 5
    @Peter Shor: The best thing to do with MS grammar corrector is the same as the in-car SatNav. Unless you know for certain you don't need it, don't just turn it off; use it intelligently in tandem with your own critical faculties. Commented Jul 1, 2011 at 0:29
  • 5
    @FumbleFingers: I use a GPS system, and it's generally really good. However, occasionally the GPS system will tell me to make a less than ideal turn, and sometimes I don't have enough time to think about it and make it. If 60% of the GPS's instructions were wrong, I would turn it off. I find this the MS grammar corrector to be of this level of usefulness. Commented Jul 2, 2011 at 12:48
  • 3
    There is a good discussion on this topic, including positive uses of the passive voice, on the writers stackechange: writers.stackexchange.com/questions/742/…
    – Chris
    Commented Dec 19, 2012 at 15:56

7 Answers 7


It's never bad form to use passive form. It's just that in speech, we tend to use a lot of this, but there's nothing wrong with using the passive form in writing, or in speech.

From the Passive Engineer:

Despite the admonitions of grammar checkers, the passive construction has a legitimate function. When you want to emphasize results, use the passive.

Note that it mentions grammar checkers, which I suppose is what you are getting.

Wikipedia states that:

Many language critics and language-usage manuals discourage use of the passive voice....This advice is not usually found in older guides, emerging only in the first half of the twentieth century


In 1926, in the authoritative A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry W. Fowler recommended against transforming active voice forms into passive voice forms, because doing so "sometimes leads to bad grammar, false idiom, or clumsiness

It's really just style, but nothing else to worry about.

  • But then, why does MS-Word complain about it? Shouldn't there be some grammar rules on which it is based on? Edited the question too
    – rest_day
    Commented Jun 30, 2011 at 23:01
  • I believe MS-Word is complaining about it, because it desires some variation. I don't know, it's perfectly alright to use the passive form anytime.
    – Thursagen
    Commented Jun 30, 2011 at 23:02
  • 11
    There is a myth that you should never use the passive voice in good writing, and this is why MS-Word complains. This myth is completely wrong. Look at this handout. You should use the passive voice to emphasize the object of a sentence (discussed in the handout), to make a sentence connect better with the previous or the following sentence (not discussed, but quite important), and maybe to vary the structure of your sentences so they aren't all the same (although this shouldn't happen if you use the passive voice when it's needed). Commented Jun 30, 2011 at 23:13
  • 1
    @rest_day, and how does MS Word complain? If I am not mistaken it tells you to consider changing it to active. The grammar checkers are not perfect, read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_checker and also you can try to get some text from an author whose style you admire and run that text through grammar checker. Should your grammar checker complain you can deduce something about its quality and how to actually use a computer grammar checking.
    – Unreason
    Commented Jul 1, 2011 at 9:35
  • 1
    @PeterShor that handout link is now broken (I know because somebody helpfully pointed out that in response to my answer, which included that same link) The new link is: unc.edu/wcweb/handouts/passivevoice.html Commented Dec 19, 2012 at 15:31

That is quite a big question but the basics of when to use the passive run something like this:

In the following kind of sequence:

E.T. is a film about an alien and a boy. It was directed by Steven Spielberg in 1981. Its most memorable scene is the one where the boy and alien fly on a bicycle.

it sounds odd to say "Steven Spielberg directed it in 1981", because the focus of interest is the film E.T. rather than Spielberg. We might also imagine a sequence like this:

E.T. is a film about an alien and a boy. It was released in 1981. Its most memorable scene is the one where the boy and alien fly on a bicycle.

Here we don't even care who released it, we are only interested in the date.

Contrast this to

Steven Spielberg was born in 1942. As a boy he owned a movie camera. He directed his first movie, Jaws, in 1976. He also acted in "The Blues Brothers" as the Cook County Clerk.

In contrast to the above case, here it sounds odd to say "Jaws was directed by him in 1977" since the focus of the narrative is Spielberg rather than Jaws.

In neither case would changing passive to active or vice-versa create a grammatical mistake, though, this is more a matter of style.

  • Well, would you say that maybe it's more than style? Should the content (focus; the main thing you want to communicate to the reader/hearer) determine which voice to use?
    – Chris
    Commented Sep 9, 2010 at 15:35
  • 3
    @Chris: it isn't a grammar mistake, is my point. As you detected, I'm not sure what word best describes what kind of mistake it is, "style" may not be it.
    – delete
    Commented Sep 9, 2010 at 15:38
  • @Shinto: Right... to use one or the other wouldn't be grammatically wrong, but may hinder the reader's understanding of the content. But if hindering content understanding is the writer's particular style... :-)
    – Chris
    Commented Sep 9, 2010 at 15:50

As other posters have pointed out, there's nothing objectively wrong with the passive voice. It's a useful, grammatically correct feature of the English language.

However some people are prone to overuse the passive voice, which is why many sources of writing advice discourage its use. Unfortunately, this advice somehow transformed from "use the passive use sparingly" to "the passive voice is WRONG!" which is a rather silly extreme.

(But: I once had the eye-opening experience of editing three pages of writing entirely in the passive voice. Reading it was like slogging through molasses, but it took me a while to identify the passive voice as the issue. Overuse of the passive really is bad writing, even if certain English teachers and software programmers go too far in the other direction.)

  • 2
    Very good answer. I think Microsoft Word, and WordPress, and other grammar editors, flag passive voice for the reasons you described. In certain contexts, it is appropriate. In others, it weakens the point of the sentence. Commented Nov 20, 2011 at 17:54

The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill published this very good, Creative Commons licensed write-up on what passive voice is, why it might be discouraged, and when it is "okay" to use it.

Here's the same page on the WayBack Machine, just in case the original breaks again.

  • 2
    Or should I say, "This write-up has been published by the Writing Center..." Commented Sep 9, 2010 at 15:23
  • 1
    I think it got moved to writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice-demo (and turned into an animation(?))
    – sprugman
    Commented Dec 14, 2012 at 19:43
  • I've updated the URL to point to the original document, but I like that link too! Commented Dec 19, 2012 at 15:26
  • You’re right: that is quite a good write-up. Thank you.
    – tchrist
    Commented Dec 19, 2012 at 15:31
  • Seeing as you updated the link twice already—thank you by the way—would it not be a good idea to provide an excerpt from that article? Links rot, die and go missing over the years and who is to say it won't happen again in 2020?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Mar 23, 2016 at 13:51

I agree with Peter. It can serve as a cohesion device for juggling new information (usually contained in the predicate of a sentence) and old information (usually put into the subjecct of a sentence). Passive can also be the expected style in certain genres (science).

In English departments in America, professors teach stupid things like: avoid the verb 'be'... never use the passive voice. I think MS Word has cravenly defaulted to the writers' memories of freshman English classes where they were tasked with writing lively personal essays.

  • In certain disciplines of science, passive voice is used to avoid overusing (or using at all) we or I. This is not the same thing as the passive voice being the expected style; you can often avoid using we and still use the active voice, and you should do so except if the passive voice is preferable for other reasons. You are still likely to end up with writing that uses the passive voice more often than would be ideal. Commented Jul 1, 2011 at 15:58

Most defenses of passive voice focus on (1) thoughtful use of it to emphasize the most important aspect of a particular statement; (2) thoughtful use of it to vary the form of sentences in a piece of writing, to avoid a protracted series of sentences that share the same subject-verb-object order; (3) historical use of passive voice by excellent writers; (4) the recentness and presumed baselessness of criticism that grammar snipes have leveled against it. The first three points are valid and important, I think; the fourth strikes me as being irrelevant at best.

The crucial common element embedded in the first three defenses is the author's conscious and well-conceived decision to use passive voice. In my experience, such intentionality is rare. More often, an author falls into passive voice unwittingly and repeatedly in situations where doing so does nothing to supply a desirable emphasis or to promote structural variety. The sentence,

The investigation was opened on Thursday by the FBI's Washington Field Office, she said.

for example, doesn't have any advantage that I can detect over the active-voice sentence,

The FBI's Washington Field Office opened the investigation on Thursday, she said.

The latter is a bit shorter than the former, and avoids relegating the actor in the sentence (the FBI's Washington Field Office) to a participial phrase; the result (to my ear) sounds crisper and cleaner.

But this is all a matter of taste, I suppose, since the sentence does eventually identify the actor and attribute the action to that actor. The worst fault of passive voice is that all too often it serves to deliver action without an actor. The classic example of this fault is Ronald Reagan's famous pronouncement in the midst of the Iran/Contra scandal:

Mistakes were made.

One could argue that Reagan chose this wording because he wanted to emphasize the politically fraught concession implied by the word "mistakes"; but the formulation also has the convenient characteristic of failing to identify a source of the mistakes: The sentence identifies a result and an action, but no actor (in the non–Ronald Reagan sense of the word).

Though Reagan's formulation surely represents a thoughtful (and tactical) use of passive voice, many instances of actorless sentences do not. Consider this extended exercise in passivity:

When the cost of proposals is born by the business side of the house, frivolous proposals are stopped, proposals are better prioritized, and what is proposed is more likely to have a true ROI to the business, reducing waste and abandoned projects.

The first passive-voice element ("is born") has an identified actor ("the business side of the house"), but the next three ("are stopped," "are prioritized," and "is proposed") do not. A reader slogging through this sentence must either struggle to identify the unnamed actors (the allocation of cost to the business side "stops" frivolous proposals, the receivers of proposals [presumably managers] "prioritize" them, and the makers of proposals [presumably lower-level staffers] "propose" them) or—as is much more likely—skate over the surface of the sentence without really comprehending it. The following reformulation of the sentence is far likelier to make sense to a reader:

Requiring the business side of the house to bear the cost of proposals discourages staffers from submitting frivolous proposals, encourages managers to give priority to the most promising suggestions, and increases the likelihood that proposals will offer a legitimate return on investment, thereby reducing waste and lowering the incidence of abandoned projects.

The revised sentence is significantly longer than the original, but that's a price I'm willing to pay if it yields a sentence that identifies who is doing what, rather than leaving that task to each reader.

Finally, actorless passive voice often crops up in situations where the unnamed actor responsible for the action in a sentence is in fact the author. In these instances, obscuring the author as the source of the action promotes a sense of the objective truth of the assertion. Thus, the wording

The makers of Battery Doctor/Battery Upgrade could not be contacted.

frames a reporter's inability to reach a company while composing his story as the objective impossibility that anyone could have reached them: The company simply "could not be contacted." Again, such strategic use of passive voice may serve an author's purposes; but from a reader's perspective, it clouds and (perhaps) misleads rather than clarifying.

  • 2
    Consider the following sentences. "We have serious questions about this sequence of transactions. An investigation concerning them will be opened on Thursday by the FBI's Washington Field Office." OR "We have serious questions about this sequence of transactions. The FBI's Washington Field Office will open an investigation concerning them on Thursday." Which sounds better? Commented May 7, 2014 at 17:41
  • If I try to imagine what the spokesperson actually said to the assembled reporters concerning an investigation that the FBI's Washington Field Office had recently opened, I find it much more probable that she said "The FBI's Washington Field Office opened the investigation on Thursday" than that she said "The investigation was opened on Thursday by the FBI's Washington Field Office." The active-voice version sounds more natural and (to my ear) better. It also sounds more active, an impression that you might think the FBI would like to associate itself with in this instance.
    – Sven Yargs
    Commented May 12, 2015 at 4:24
  • 1
    It's easy to find bad uses of the passive voice, but it's even easier to find good ones. "Serious dramas starring children are rarely initiated by a studio. They are usually made because a director has a passion for the material." Two elegant sentences; recast them to active voice and you have: "A studio rarely initiates serious dramas starring children. A director usually makes them because he or she has a passion for the material." Clunkers. Commented Sep 27, 2016 at 14:44
  • 1
    You don't have to be all that "thoughtful" to say "I was struck by how conversational she was." or "The old picture had been replaced by one of her most mature and powerful works." or "Ohr Hatorah is surrounded by a high wall, topped in places by barbed wire." (another two-fer!) or "No, Obama wasn't born in Kenya." Commented Sep 27, 2016 at 14:57
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet: I admit to possessing a disqualifying bias on this issue: As an editor, I recognize and acknowledge a writer's natural desire to cloak certain issues—for example, not to go on record as saying "Rogue elements within my administration made mistakes" or "Honest patriots who love America made mistakes" or "I made mistakes." But my abiding sympathy is with readers whose interest lies in pinning the writer down in precisely the way he doesn't want to be. Clearly I wouldn't have lasted long as an editor for Ronald Reagan.
    – Sven Yargs
    Commented Aug 12, 2018 at 21:44

The passive voice is not as culturally acceptable as active in modern English writing. We prefer active sentences because they are more concrete. Passive sentences are not prefered, because we do not know who the subject is, making the whole thing more abstract. There is action, but no actor. It's as if ghosts are moving things rather than real subjects acting on objects. Using passive voice is like shirking responsibility. "The glass was broken." Who broke the glass? "Jake broke the glass." Mystery solved.

  • 8
    Was your use of the passive in "passive sentences are not prefered" deliberate? Commented Feb 28, 2013 at 3:30
  • @PeterShor As was "Was your use ..."
    – Kris
    Commented Feb 28, 2013 at 9:31
  • 2
    @Kris: "was your use" is not passive.
    – siride
    Commented Aug 18, 2013 at 3:57
  • 1
    @DogLover "People don't prefer passive sentences." Well, not all people. Make that "Most Americans don't prefer passive sentences." Well, not just Americans. "Most fluent English speakers in the year 2013." This is a good illustration of why the passive voice is indispensible: sometimes the active voice forces you into unnecessary specificity, committing you to a meaning you don't intend. Even "We don't prefer passive sentences" suggests an unwanted we-vs.-you opposition that the speaker probably doesn't intend—or if the "we" is inclusive, a unanimity that the speaker probably doesn't intend.
    – Ben Kovitz
    Commented May 22, 2017 at 21:55
  • 1
    @BenKovitz Thank you - and very similar to the point I raised in the comments section of the question.
    – Dog Lover
    Commented May 22, 2017 at 22:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.