The term
‘normalisation of deviance’ was first coined by Diane Vaughan following the
Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986 (yes, it was that long ago-seems like
yesterday). It refers to the gradual acceptance of flaws in procedures and
operations, so that tolerance of less than optimal, or even acceptable practice
becomes the norm. In the case of
disasters, for which the normalisation of deviance refers, danger signals are
ignored, greater margins of error are accepted, and performance checks are not
made. It is the development of a dysfunctional culture. The result is disaster.
Normalisation
of deviance is similar to the more well-known psychological phenomenon of
desensitization. When we become desensitized to something our feelings about it
become less acute, we become less afraid perhaps, less amazed, less concerned.
This occurs due to repeated exposure to an event, which results in familiarity.
It becomes more normal.
The idea of
normalisation of deviance can be applied to organizational operations as well
as safety. I want to choose the example of employee engagement here, since engagement
has been demonstrated to be critical in determining organization success,
effectiveness and efficiency. The cost
to organisations of having disengaged employees is truly staggering.
Employee
engagement is effected very strongly by leadership, usually of the
transformational rather than transactional kind. That is, management through
people where there is an emphasis on: excellent relationships between leaders
and employees; the development of people; involvement in decision-making;
sharing of information; excellent communication; clarity of expectations;
employee control over flow and pace of their jobs; intrinsic reward;
collaboration; trust; and a clear vision, for example.
Low levels of
engagement are, however, the norm, according to a series of surveys of a large
number of organisations across the globe conducted by the Gallup organization,
and others. This means that most organisations are not managing their human
resources well. This results in lowered productivity, efficiency and
effectiveness.
What is important
is the extent to which poor performance, poor leadership, poor followship and a
dispiriting lack of engagement can become the norm in organisations. I’m sure
most of you can tell stories about airlines, retail organisations, service
providers, hospitals, and schools, for example, where there is a culture of
mediocrity: where you, the customer, is treated shabbily. It is due to the
normalisation of deviance.
Organisational
culture is the responsibility of leaders. It is up to leaders to normalize
engagement rather than a culture where unacceptable standards are the norm,
deviant. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that culture change is
possible, largely by adopting transformational and situational leadership
approaches. At the same time the organization needs to look outwards rather
than inward, to be agile, responsible and flexible in what is now a constantly
changing environment.
Success is
embedded in a normalisation of excellence and it is leadership that drives it.
