Risk Factor 2: Normalization of Deviance

Let’s continue our look at the seven invisible risk factors of top performer collateral damage.

Risk Factor 2: Normalization of deviance turns unacceptable behaviors into acceptable behaviors.

When it comes to top performer collateral damage, nothing is more of a ticking time bomb than normalization of deviance. But, I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me back up and tell you a story.

In 1986 the world watched in horror as the space shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after lift-off killing all seven astronauts on board. An extensive investigation revealed the explosion was caused by defective O-rings, the risk of which was well known by NASA leaders prior to the Challenger catastrophe.

Why did the NASA leadership launch the space shuttle when they knew there was the very real risk of O-ring failure?

Once again, an autopsy revealed the sad truth.

In the book, The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA, sociologist Diane Vaughan dug into what led to the Challenger disaster and why the well-documented risks of O-ring failure had been ignored by NASA management.

Dr. Vaughan’s findings were startling.

What had originally been considered an unacceptable event – in this case, O-ring failure – had occurred so often over prior launches that it had become an expected event and, finally, an accepted event. O-ring failure during launch had gone from being an unacceptable event to an acceptable event. Vaughan called this phenomenon normalization of deviance.

Simply put, normalization of deviance is present when events that were initially considered to be unacceptable occur so often that – over time – they come to be expected and then accepted as normal. An event or behavior that is originally considered unacceptable now becomes accepted as normal.

Normalization of deviance runs rampant within today’s work world and provides a fertile ground for top performer collateral damage.

Don’t believe me?

Let me give you just one example of how normalization of deviance shows up in our work lives.

Twenty years ago, the 8-hour work day and the 40-hour workweek were considered to be ‘normal’. Today, technology, 24/7 global marketplaces and competitive pressures have all blurred the boundaries of work. A ‘normal’ workday now often stretches into evenings and weekends.

Consider this. A 2006 Korn/Ferry International survey of more than 1000 executives revealed that four out of five executives say they are constantly connected to work through laptops or handheld communication devices.

Being constantly connected to work would have been considered unacceptable in the past, but has now become so common that it is expected and accepted as normal. In fact, it’s recognized as one of the major changes that occurred in the past decade.

Just let this sink in for a minute. Normalization of deviance has made 24/7 work an accepted part of today’s workplace. Work interrupts our vacations, family dinners and sleep. And… we accept this as normal!

So… how does normalization of deviance increase the risk of top performer collateral damage?”

In two ways.

First, normalization of deviance desensitizes us to behaviors that cause collateral damage.

Behaviors that would normally stick out like a sore thumb fade from view as they become so commonplace that they are considered ‘normal’. Let me show you how this works.

The first time a top performer creates collateral damage it may stand out as an odd or bizarre event because it is unexpected and unaccepted. Conversations around the water cooler may sound a little like this…

“Wow! Did you see how George bulldozed over Jack in that meeting? It was brutal the way he shut down the discussion… but you can’t argue with the great results he got.”

Over time, as George continues to bulldoze over his colleagues, people around him are no longer surprised. They come to expect George to create the collateral damage along with his spectacular results.

Bulldozing through people – and the collateral damage it creates – is accepted as normal behavior for George. It disappears as a risk factor until the tsunami hits.

But, wait. There’s more.

Junior associates all over the organization now consider bulldozing to be an acceptable – even desirable – behavior. The resulting collateral damage doesn’t even register a blip on their internal Richter scales. Yikes!

The seeds of top performer collateral damage are now scattering throughout the organization like dandelion fluffs. Before you know it, you’ll have teams full of battling bulldozers.

As bad as this is, it’s not the only way normalization of deviance increases the odds of a collateral damage catastrophe. Keep reading.

The second way normalization of deviance encourages and disguises top performer collateral damage involves… drum roll, please…supervisor bias.

Let’s be honest.

We have a tendency to encourage and reward behaviors that are similar to our own behaviors and that includes our own flavor of collateral damage.

Skeptical? Ponder this.

When you are surrounded by people who sound just like you, you don’t notice their accent. They sound ‘normal’ to you. Your ears are biased to hear accents like your own accent as ‘normal’.

The same thing happens with collateral damage.

If your top performers are creating the same kind of collateral damage that you create, it’s highly unlikely you will see it. To you, the collateral damage creating behavior appears ‘normal’.

Want to see how this works? Let’s use our old friend, George the Bulldozer, and his direct report, Phyllis.

As we just saw, George takes great pride in his ability to bulldoze dissenting opinions. In fact, George is convinced bulldozing is THE way to cut through the crap and get things done. Under his tutelage, Phyllis is perfecting the art of plowing through people, too. Phyllis is a baby bulldozer.

So… what are the chances that George is going to catch the collateral damage Phyllis is creating when she plows through people?

Slim, nill and none.

George has a bulldozer ‘accent’. He has a bias in favor of bulldozing. Consequently, George sees Phyllis’ bulldozing behavior as “normal”.

The odds of Phyllis creating collateral damage are high and George doesn’t even notice.

Supervisor bias is as common as cubicles and coffee.

What this all boils down to is this. You rarely see a top performer’s collateral damage if you are also creating the same type of collateral damage. It takes a train wreck to get your attention.

What type of collateral damage are you accepting as normal?