‘Poverty rates are rising,’ ‘democracy is under threat’, ‘women are still being paid less than men’’: we in the nonprofit world love to use the passive voice. Perhaps it’s because we think it sounds more academic, and so more authoritative, perhaps it’s because we don’t want to offend anyone by pointing fingers. Whatever the reason, we need to stop.

As messaging expert Anat Shenker-Osorio points out, unless we use the active voice in talking about problems –- naming an actor or actors and the actions (choices or decisions) that they have taken to contribute to the problem -- we make it difficult for people to understand how to fix it. If the present problem simply exists, outside of human agency, how can humans fix it?

So instead of activating our audiences to help us solve problems, we contribute to apathy and cynicism. And when we name disparities or inequities without also naming who or what is responsible, audiences will fall back on their pre-existing assumptions – and often blame the very people most impacted.

Once you have identified an actor or actors, it’s easier for you to activate your audience to take action 

The actor/s responsible might be quite specific - a particular decision-maker or group of decision-makers, or it could be more general: ‘the wealthy few’, ‘a few corrupt politicians’, ‘big corporations’. It’s good to be as specific as you can, but if you are really reluctant to rock the boat, it could even be more general than that: ‘we as a society have decided the convenience of plastic is more important than a clean and healthy environment…’

The important thing is to show the current situation is the result of particular choices and actions – and that different choices and different actions can lead to change.

Once you have identified an actor or actors, it’s easier for you to activate your audience to take action -- to explain who you need to pressure, or whose power you need to challenge, in order to achieve your goal.

Photo by Volodymyr Hryshchenko on Unsplash