A business instruction can sound polished and still leave its reader unsure who should act. “The request must be reviewed before Friday” describes an obligation, but it does not assign the review. Active and passive voice affect where that responsibility appears. The useful question is not whether every sentence follows a grammar preference. It is whether each sentence gives readers the information they need to continue.
Use active voice as your starting point for actions, decisions, and handoffs. Keep passive voice when the result or affected item matters more than the person responsible, provided the missing actor does not create a practical gap. The examples below describe hypothetical workflows, not requirements for a particular organization.
Recognize the difference without policing every verb
In an active sentence, the grammatical subject performs the action: “The supervisor approves the request.” In a passive sentence, the subject receives the action: “The request is approved by the supervisor.” Both identify the supervisor. The passive version changes the emphasis and takes more words, but it does not automatically become unclear.
The more troublesome version is “The request is approved.” It may describe a completed status, a routine process, or an instruction with an unnamed owner. Context must resolve that difference. Do not assume every sentence containing “is” or “was” is passive, either. “The request is incomplete” describes a condition; replacing it mechanically would not improve the instruction.
The Government Commercial Agency’s language guidance recommends active wording for clarity and brevity while allowing passive wording when the actor is unknown. Treat that as a useful default, not a reason to rewrite every status message.
Name the actor when responsibility changes the next step
Imagine an employee preparing an expense request. Before: “Receipts must be attached, and the submission must be reviewed before payment.” This sentence conceals two potentially different responsibilities. An employee might interpret it as an instruction to arrange an independent review, while a manager might assume the finance team handles everything.
After: “Attach the receipts to your expense request. Your line manager reviews the request before the finance team schedules payment.” The revised wording separates the employee’s action from the manager’s review and the finance team’s work. It also avoids suggesting that attaching receipts guarantees immediate payment.
Do not invent an owner just to produce an active sentence. If the process documentation does not identify who reviews a request, ask the process owner. A grammatical edit can expose an operational question; it cannot authorize the answer. Keep that unresolved assignment visible in the working draft until someone responsible confirms it.
Use direct commands for the reader’s own actions
When a procedure addresses one audience, direct commands usually make the actor obvious without repeating a role name. “Enter the delivery address” is active even though it does not state “you.” The implied subject is the reader. This makes commands useful for form instructions, setup steps, and routine administrative tasks.
Before: “The reference number should be entered in the subject line.” After: “Enter the reference number in the email subject line.” The second version makes the immediate action easier to locate. If including the number is optional, however, changing the voice must not silently make it compulsory. Write “You can include the reference number” when that accurately reflects the process.
Likewise, preserve conditions when shortening a sentence. “If the supplier has changed its address, update the supplier record” should not become “Update the supplier record” simply because the shorter command looks cleaner. Voice, obligation, and conditions are separate editorial decisions. Improve one without accidentally changing the others.
Separate what people do from what systems do
Passive wording often blurs the boundary between a user action and an automated response. Before: “The form is submitted, a confirmation is generated, and the record is archived.” Does the reader need to perform all three actions? Does the application archive the record immediately, or only after someone approves it?
For a hypothetical system that performs those actions automatically, write: “Select Submit. The application displays a confirmation number and archives the submitted record.” This version identifies the trigger and the response. It also tells the reader what visible evidence to expect. Only describe automation that the actual system supports.
If archiving requires a separate employee, say so: “Select Submit. The application displays a confirmation number. The records coordinator archives the approved record.” These versions are not interchangeable stylistic alternatives. They describe different workflows. Confirm the sequence before deciding which wording belongs in the published instruction.
Keep passive voice when the item deserves attention
Not every sentence needs to name an actor. In a confirmation message, “Your booking has been cancelled” can put the outcome exactly where readers expect it. Adding an administrator’s name may contribute nothing to the next decision. In contrast, an instruction saying “Bookings must be cancelled” still needs enough context to establish responsibility.
Google’s developer documentation guidance on active voice allows passive constructions when they emphasize an object, reduce emphasis on an actor, or omit responsibility that readers do not need to know. The practical test is whether readers still understand the message and their next action.
Consider a hypothetical notice: “The meeting room was closed after a ceiling leak. Use Room B for today’s interviews.” The closure is relevant; the identity of the person who locked the door is not. The passive first sentence communicates the situation, and the active second sentence gives the reader a clear response.
Be tactful without hiding the recovery action
Passive voice can help a message focus on a problem rather than blame. “Two attachments were omitted” may be more appropriate than “You forgot two attachments,” especially when the cause is uncertain. But a neutral description alone does not explain how to resolve the problem.
Before: “Required attachments were not provided, so the request cannot be processed.” After: “The request is missing the delivery note and signed acceptance form. Upload both documents to the request record so the review team can continue its review.” The revised message identifies the missing items and the recovery action without accusing anyone.
This example also shows why active voice is not the only solution. “The request is missing” describes a state rather than a passive construction. The improvement comes from useful information, not from eliminating a forbidden pattern. Be direct about the next action while remaining careful about what you know.
Choose voice around the reader’s decision
Read an instruction as someone encountering the task for the first time. Where the reader must act, favor a direct command. Where another role takes over, name that role. Where a system responds, identify the system and its observable response. Where the sentence merely reports a relevant condition or outcome, passive wording may work perfectly well.
Keep role names stable as you revise. Switching between “reviewer,” “approver,” and “manager” can undo the clarity gained by naming an actor. Our guide to consistent terms in instructions addresses that related wording problem.
The goal is not a document with zero passive sentences. It is a document in which people can distinguish their own work from someone else’s work, understand what happens automatically, and recognize when an outcome requires no further action. Choose the voice that supports those decisions, then verify that the revised sentence still describes the real process.
Photo: Markus Spiske / Unsplash. Illustrative stock photograph.