We have hired a high honcho, for big bucks, to advise us on our strategic initiatives. So, of course we must use his advice, since we are paying him so much (there must be a word for that!)

He has defined strategic objectives as the "desired end results." That means that our objectives that were worded as, for example, "conduct a study" now all must be worded as "a study is conducted" in order to be stated as end results. Now, to me they both say the same thing, and we are kidding ourselves. Plus, I have always learned to use the active voice, if at all possible (though I remember that isn't as important for you Brits). Therefore, I liked the previous wording better. Do those 2 ways of wording the objectives mean the same to you....or are they in fact subtly different?

The default installation of Microsoft Word annoys me, because insists on putting green wavy lines under instances of the passive voice. It seems to think that the passive should be avoided whenever possible -- an idiotic stricture. I turn that particular option off whenever I encounter it.

I don't see why you have to reword sentences to use the passive, however. What difference does it make if you use the active or passive? Anyway, how can "a study is conducted" be an end result? Surely the end result is the result of the study, not the study itself? It sounds like bureaucracy gone mad; the paperwork has become the purpose of the job, not the means of carrying it out.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,

Two comments:

So, of course we must use his advice, since we are paying him so much (there must be a word for that!)

Silly? Since, you yourself did not hire this guy, perhaps you should just ignore him and he might go away.

Regarding the passive voice: I wonder why nearly two-thirds of the languages in the world have passive constructions if they are to be deprecated? I think this knee-jerk editorial rule started because somebody noticed that when using the passive voice (in English), the agent (actual subject) can be optionally deleted, and that this might cause problems. Silly silliness.

Silly? Since, you yourself did not hire this guy, perhaps you should just ignore him and he might go away.
Ah, but you see, my boss and the board of directors hired him. Therefore, they must be able to rationalize the obscene amount of money they have spent on him. So, we are stuck having to do what he says, even if we don't agree. As arnie says, it's bureaucracy gone mad!

You know, I agree with you both that dismissing the passive voice is silliness! I hadn't thought of it that way before, but you are right. If the languages include it, we should be able to use it! Surely for reporting of research findings in medical and nursing journals it is used all the time anyway. However, whenever I have written book chapters, the editor sends me back a lot of red marks, changing passive voices to action.

Now, I will have to figure out how to turn off those green wavy lines!

Now, I will have to figure out how to turn off those green wavy lines!

Hit tools ==> options ==> spelling & grammar, and change the grammar-check setting at the bottom.

I have spoken of this previously - although whether publicly or as a pt I can't now recall.

The passive and the active voices both have merits and both have disadvantages. It is the way in which each is used - how appropriate the use is - that indicates whether the use of either is acceptable.

In UK English the passive voice is commonly used as a device to distance the writer from the action under discussion. This is often useful when it is important to ensure that no offence is given to the recipient (note the careful use here of the passive).

So, if I were wanting to refuse a request from you, I could say, "I'm sorry, I can't do this". There is then no doubt that it is I who can't do it. However, were I to say, "I'm sorry, it is not possible for this to be done" then the refusal is not attributable to any person or situation.

Whether this sort of linguistic manipulation is a good or bad thing from the point of view of persuasion I leave it to others to judge; that language can be thus be manipulated is I suggest, acceptable at a purely linguistic level.

By the way, Kalleh, for the same amount that you are presently paying your consultant, I could come along and CHANGE ALL THE OUTCOMES BACK TO THE ACTIVE. Indeed, for just a little more I could get them all changed into QCA-speak (that's the UK Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) and then NOBODY would be able to understand them at all (although nobody would admit it).

For the original references on this process see here: http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

quote:

---

the passive voice is commonly used as a device to distance the writer from the action under discussion.

---

I remember that at school we were always taught to use the passive voice when writing reports of experiments, etc. We had to put something like "The compound was weighed, heated over a bunsen burner for five minutes, then weighed again." If we'd put "We weighed the compound, heated it over a bunsen burner for five minutes, then weighed it again." we would have lost marks.

Indeed, for just a little more I could get them all changed into QCA-speak (that's the UK Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) and then NOBODY would be able to understand them at all (although nobody would admit it).
I know exactly what you mean, Richard, and that is how I feel with this Balanced Scorecard approach. Nobody really knows, but everyone pretends he does, so it seems to work. Very strange.

Arnie, yes, research reports are often written in the passive voice. You aren't supposed to use the first person, and I suppose that is why. However, that is changing now, and one might see, "We used a quasi-experimental design," instead of "a quasi-experimental design was used."

Actually the "balance scorecard" is no great shakes over here. We have some consultants that use it but it's almost stating the obvious, to my mind.

Here's my ten-second lesson on the BC approach:

Don't just measure your organisation's success in financial terms, or indeed using any other single measure. Use several different measures and see how you score on each one. If you are about equal, your scorecard is balanced; if not, then do something about it.

$100,000, please.

So far as the passive voice is concerned I suggest that, whereas the two suggestions cited above have similar meanings, there are times when the meanings could be significantly different. In test question writing the passive voice is essential when testing principles. For example, a question could read:

"What action would you take if a member of staff were to arrive late for work?"

To which a perfectly correct answer might be: "Sack him on the spot" - because that's what YOU would do.

But the passive voice question could be:

"What action would be taken if a member of staff were to arrive late for work?"

And the answer there should concentrate on the lateness procedures that are in place in the environment which is being tested.

I realized another reason to use the passive voice when I read the opening of a newspaper article today. The paper said, Joseph Iadone, who was called "the most naturally gifted musician I've ever heard" by the noted German-American composer Paul Hindemith, died on March 23.

This passive-voice construction put two main points (boldfaced) close together, highlighting their equivalence. In the active voice, they would be separated, making this sentence wouldh be harder to follow, something like this: Joseph Iadone, whom the noted German-American composer Paul Hindemith called "the most naturally gifted musician I've ever heard," died on March 23. With that phrasing, your first thought might even be that Hindemith, not Iadone, had died.