The Exception: When to Use Passive Voice in Technical Documentation

Do you always avoid passive voice in technical writing?

That rule often hurts clarity. Sometimes, the action matters more than the person doing it. This guide shows exactly when to break the rules.

Want to write clearer documentation? Read on.

Key Takeaways

• Strategic Passive Use: Employ passive voice when the system status is more critical than the administrator.
• Reduce Cognitive Load: Split long passive sentences into shorter ones to improve reader comprehension scores.
• Agentless Passive: Omit the actor in error messages when the specific cause is irrelevant.
• Scientific Objectivity: Maintain a neutral tone in reports by prioritizing results over the researcher.
• Hybrid Voice: Combine active commands for users with passive responses for system actions.

What is Passive Voice in Technical Writing?

Passive voice in technical writing occurs when the grammatical subject receives the action instead of performing it. In active voice, the actor is the subject (e.g., “The admin rebooted the server”), whereas in passive voice, the object takes the spotlight (e.g., “The server was rebooted”).

This distinction is crucial for technical communicators. While creative writing prioritizes the “who,” technical documentation often prioritizes the “what”, the system states, error messages, and configurations that affect the user.

Orwellix assists writers by highlighting these passive constructions in blue. This visual cue acts as a “check engine” light, it doesn’t mean something is broken, but it signals you to verify if the passive construction serves a specific purpose or if it should be converted to active voice for clarity.

Why Passive Voice Gets a Bad Reputation

Outside of technical fields, passive voice typically suffers from a poor reputation. Style guides like Strunk & White’s Elements of Style famously advise writers to “use the active voice” for vigorous, direct prose. In general business communication, excessive passive voice can create ambiguity about who is responsible for a task.

• Ambiguity of Responsibility: Phrases like “mistakes were made” hide the actor, which can erode trust in incident reports or policy documents.
• Increased Cognitive Load: Readers often process active voice faster because it follows the natural logic of cause-and-effect.
• Wordiness: Passive constructions generally require auxiliary verbs (is, are, was, were), adding unnecessary bulk to the sentence count.
• Detachment: It creates a formal, impersonal tone that may feel cold or bureaucratic in user-facing support content.

However, these criticisms often lack nuance when applied to technical industries. As noted in the Google Developer Documentation Style Guide, while active voice is the default, passive voice is essential when “the action is more important than the performer.” For technical writers, the goal is not to eliminate passive voice, but to master its strategic application.

When Passive Voice is the Right Choice in Technical Documentation

While the “active voice always” rule provides a simplified framework for beginners, technical documentation demands a more nuanced approach. Clarity, system accuracy, and user orientation often require shifting focus away from the actor. Experienced technical writers recognize four specific scenarios where passive voice is not just acceptable, but superior.

Scenario 1: When the Object is More Important Than the Actor

In technical environments, the status of the system often matters more than the person maintaining it. When the direct object (the receiver of the action) is the main topic, use passive voice to place it at the beginning of the sentence. This technique, known as “front-loading,” ensures users see the most critical information first.

For instance, in a server maintenance guide, the server itself is the protagonist. Writing “The administrator rebooted the server” forces the reader to process the “administrator” (who is irrelevant) before reaching the “server.” A passive construction, “The server was rebooted”, is far more efficient.

• Active (Poor focus): The system generates a report every 24 hours.
• Passive (Better focus): A report is generated every 24 hours. (Focus remains on the report).

Scenario 2: The “Agentless Passive” - When the Actor is Unknown or Irrelevant

Technical writers often encounter situations where the actor is unknown, obvious, or irrelevant. This is the domain of the agentless passive: a sentence structure that omits the “by [someone]” phrase entirely. This is particularly standard in error messages and interface alerts.

According to the Google Developer Documentation Style Guide, passive voice is explicitly permitted when “the performer of the action is unknown or not important.” If a user’s connection drops, they do not need to know which protocol terminated it, they simply need to know, “The connection was terminated.”

• Verbose Active: The automated security algorithm verified your password.
• Concise Passive: Your password was verified.

Scenario 3: Maintaining Objective Tone in Scientific and Technical Reports

In scientific reporting, lab results, and compliance documentation, personal pronouns like “I” or “we” can introduce perceived bias. The objective is to emphasize the methodology and results, not the researchers. Passive voice creates the necessary distance between the observer and the event.

As noted by university writing labs like UNC Chapel Hill’s Writing Center, scientific writing favors passive voice to create an “objective” tone. This suggests the results would be the same regardless of who performed the experiment.

• Subjective (Active): We measured the temperature variations.
• Objective (Passive): The temperature variations were measured.
• When to Use: Methodology sections, incident reports, and white papers requiring a neutral stance.

Scenario 4: Creating User-Friendly Process Descriptions

The most effective user manuals employ a “Call and Response” structure. Use the imperative active voice for user actions and passive voice for system responses. This grammatical distinction helps users instinctively separate their responsibilities from the software’s automated processes.

For example, a mixed-voice workflow clarifies the interaction: “Click the Submit button (Active). Your data is encrypted and stored (Passive).” This pattern comforts the user by confirming that the complex technical work is being handled automatically.

• User Action: Enter your email address. (Active Command)
• System Response: A verification code is sent to your inbox. (Passive Confirmation)
• Result: The user clearly distinguishes input from output.

How to Use Passive Voice Without Sacrificing Readability

1. Keep Sentences Short and Simple

Using passive voice inevitably adds to your word count because it requires auxiliary verbs like was, were, or has been. To prevent your text from becoming dense and difficult to read, you must compensate by keeping your sentence structures simple and concise. A good rule of thumb for technical documentation is to aim for sentences that are 15-20 words maximum.

If you find yourself writing a long, compound sentence in passive voice, try splitting it into two shorter sentences. This technique reduces the cognitive load on the user, allowing them to process the instruction before moving to the next step. As noted by the Center for Plain Language, shorter sentences significantly increase comprehension rates for complex technical material.

• Too Long & Heavy: “The comprehensive system diagnostics report was generated by the automated monitoring software after the error was detected.” (20+ words, hard to parse)
• Optimized & Split: “The error was detected. A diagnostics report was generated automatically.” (Two punchy sentences)
• Orwellix Tip: Pay attention to yellow highlights in the Orwellix editor. If a passive sentence (blue) is also highlighted yellow (long), it requires immediate simplification.

2. Use Simple, Concrete Vocabulary

The Compensation Principle is a critical concept for technical writers: if you increase grammatical complexity by using passive voice, you must decrease vocabulary complexity to maintain balance. Mixing passive voice with multi-syllabic corporate jargon such as facilitated, utilized, or leveraged, creates a “readability disaster” that frustrates users.

Instead, choose simple, concrete verbs and nouns. According to PlainLanguage.gov guidelines, using “everyday words” helps readers understand technical concepts faster. If the structure is complex, the words must be simple.

• Complex (Poor): “The configuration was facilitated through utilization of the administrative interface.”
• Simple (Good): “The system was configured through the admin panel.”
• Vocabulary Rule: Stick to 1-2 syllable words whenever possible alongside passive constructions.

3. Mix Active and Passive Voice Strategically

Technical documentation should never be a monolith of passive voice. The most engaging content employs a strategic mix, typically aiming for a 20-30% passive voice ratio. This balance creates a natural rhythm: use the active voice for direct commands and user actions, and reserve the passive voice for system responses or background processes.

This variety prevents the robotic, monotonous tone often associated with technical manuals. It helps the user distinguish their role (Active: “You do this”) from the system’s role (Passive: “This happens”).

• Active (User): “Click the Save button.” (Command targeting the user)
• Passive (System): “Your changes are saved to the database.” (Result focused on the data)
• Rhythm Check: Read your paragraph aloud. If it sounds repetitive, you likely have too many passive sentences in a row. Break the pattern with an active sentence.

4. Monitor Your Readability Score

Finally, rely on objective data rather than gut feeling. Metrics like the Grade Level provide a standardized way to measure accessibility. For general technical user guides, you should aim for a score between 7 and 8. If your passive voice usage pushes the grade level above 10, your text is likely too dense for a general audience.

Orwellix’s real-time dashboard makes this monitoring easy. By keeping an eye on your aggregate score, you can ensure that your strategic use of passive voice doesn’t inadvertently exclude users with lower literacy levels or those reading in a second language.

• Good Balance: 25% Passive Voice + Grade 8 Readability = Publish.
• Bad Balance: 15% Passive Voice + Grade 12 Readability = Simplify.
• Workflow Tip: Check the Readability Score in the Orwellix sidebar after every major edit. If converting a sentence to passive causes the score to spike, simplify the vocabulary until it recovers.

Conclusion

The debate between active and passive voice in technical documentation isn’t about choosing a winner, it’s about choosing the right one for the job. While the active voice drives user action and accountability, the passive voice remains indispensable for describing system behaviors, maintaining scientific objectivity, and reducing cognitive load during complex automated processes.

Ultimately, technical documentation exists to serve the user, not the constraints of a style guide. When you stop fearing the passive voice and start treating it as a precision instrument, you elevate your writing from simple instruction to intuitive, user-centric communication. The result is documentation that is not only accurate but also effortlessly readable.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Is passive voice always considered bad grammar in writing?

No, passive voice is not a grammatical error, it is a legitimate stylistic tool. In technical writing, it becomes essential when emphasizing the system or process is more important than the person performing it. It only becomes detrimental when used excessively or without a specific purpose, as this can make text vague.

2. How do I know if I am using too much passive voice?

A good benchmark for technical documentation is to keep passive voice density between 15% and 25%. If your usage exceeds 30%, the text may become too formal and detached.

3. Can passive voice actually make instructions clearer?

Yes, specifically in “Call and Response” scenarios. While active voice is best for user commands (e.g., “Click Save”), passive voice works well for system responses (e.g., “The file is saved”). This distinction helps the user instinctively separate their responsibilities from the software’s automated actions.

4. What is the “Compensation Principle” mentioned in the article?

The Compensation Principle states that if you use a complex sentence structure like passive voice, you must use simpler vocabulary to balance it out. By pairing passive constructions with short, 1–2 syllable words, you keep the overall cognitive load low. This ensures your documentation remains accessible even when describing complex system behaviors.

5. Will using passive voice hurt my article’s SEO ranking?

Passive voice itself is not a direct negative ranking factor, but poor readability is. If your passive voice usage is so high that it makes the content difficult to understand, users may leave the page quickly, signaling low engagement to search engines. As long as you maintain a good readability score (around Grade 8), strategic passive voice will not harm your SEO.