Document every deviation from standards — repeated silent…
Treat any deviation from established standards as a potential normalization-of-deviance signal requiring documented evaluation rather than silent acceptance, because repeated deviations without consequence train the system to accept the deviation as normal.
When This Fires
- When you notice yourself or your team silently accepting a deviation from an established standard
- During reviews when comparing actual behavior to documented standards
- When "we always do it this way" no longer matches the documented process
- After any incident where investigation reveals that standards had been gradually relaxed
Common Failure Mode
Silently reclassifying deviations as "not really deviations": "Well, the standard says weekly reviews, but bi-weekly is close enough." This is normalization in action. The standard didn't change; your tolerance did. Each reclassification is a step on the path from standard to suggestion to aspiration to forgotten.
The Protocol
(1) When a deviation from any established standard occurs, document it: what standard, what was the deviation, when did it happen? (2) Evaluate: was the deviation justified? If yes (the standard is outdated, the context was genuinely exceptional) → formally update the standard. The new standard is now the baseline. (3) If not justified → correct: restore the standard behavior. Treat this as a system health check, not a moral failing. (4) Track deviation frequency per standard. If a standard is frequently deviated from, it either needs updating (it's unrealistic) or reinforcement (it's being eroded). (5) Never allow silent acceptance. The choice is binary: formally update the standard (legitimate change) or restore compliance (deviation correction). "Silently accept" is not an option because it's the mechanism that produces normalization.