You should have a good reason to use passive voice in writing

Conventional wisdom about writing: "Do not use the passive voice."

The passive voice, simply expressed: "B" was caused by "A."

The active voice: "A" caused "B."

The passive voice deadens communication.

Imagine someone frightened of writing who — required to describe a church picnic — produces one of the most dreadful sentences of all time: "Refreshments were served, and a good time was had by all."

Doesn't sound like a very good time; you can't see anyone having fun.

Far better to write: "In the potato sack race, 10-year-old Johnny Peterson left Pastor Lundquist in the dust. Maggie Jones wowed the crowd with the 37th version of her blue-ribbon blueberry pie."

"Me and my buddy broke into this trailer and started stealin' stuff. A car pulled up, and a guy came in, and we tied him up, taped his mouth, threw him in a corner and went back to stealin'. Then a gal came in, and we tied her up, taped her mouth and threw her in a corner.

"When there was nothin' left to steal, we dragged them two into the next room, where they were shot."

He described everything in the active voice until he reached "where they were shot." He was an illiterate man from rural South Carolina, who surely had never heard of the passive voice. But something in the collective unconscious steered him to the passive voice — his escape from responsibility for the shooting.

Too much business writing opts for the passive voice and hides the identity of accountable actors.

In a workshop I conducted for corporate communicators, some participants asked if it is ever all right to use the passive voice.

If, for example, you believe that victims of the Holocaust deserve more emphasis than their killers, you would write, "Millions were murdered by the Nazis."