Most writers are told to always use active voice, but that advice is only half true. Active and passive constructions do different jobs, and a good editor reaches for whichever one makes the sentence clearer, not whichever one sounds more confident.
How to tell them apart
In an active sentence, the subject performs the action: The editor cut the paragraph. In a passive sentence, the subject receives the action: The paragraph was cut by the editor. The passive version isn't wrong, but it adds words and delays the point. Watch for the telltale pattern of "to be" plus a past participle — was written, is being reviewed, has been approved — and you'll spot passive constructions everywhere once you start looking.
When active voice wins
Active voice is almost always stronger for instructions, narratives, and anything where the reader needs to know who did what. Compare Mistakes were made with I misjudged the deadline. The second sentence names an actor and takes responsibility; the first hides behind grammar. If your writing feels vague or evasive, passive voice is often the culprit.
When passive voice earns its place
Passive voice is genuinely useful when the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or deliberately de-emphasised. Scientific writing leans on it for this reason: The samples were heated to 80°C matters more than who turned the dial. It also helps when you want to keep the focus on the thing being acted on rather than the actor — The bridge was completed in 1932 reads better than naming the construction firm if the firm isn't the point of your sentence.
- Use active voice for instructions, arguments, and anything driven by a clear actor.
- Use passive voice when the actor is unknown, obvious, or beside the point.
- Search your draft for "was/were plus verb" and rewrite any sentence where naming the actor adds clarity.
The real skill isn't banning passive voice — it's noticing when you've reached for it out of habit rather than choice, and rewriting those sentences so the responsible party is back in view.
