Normalization of Deviance

Origin of the Concept

The term and concept normalization of deviance came to prominence as an explanatory mechanism in sociologist Diane Vaughan's meticulous analysis of the Challenger space shuttle disaster of 1986 (see case study). Contrary to the public account that drew on individual misconduct and technical (O-ring) failure as main causes of the accident, Vaughan argued that the fateful launch decision was not to be seen in isolation. Instead, it was to be understood as the culmination of a long-term process by which the safety standards at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had been undermined by a repeated normalization of O-ring performance anomalies.

In contrast to approaches that seek causes for organizational failures in the misconduct of individuals (operator errors), normalization of deviance directs attention to the culturally conditioned frames of reference that shape and constrain how individuals make decisions in organizations. Individual action in organizations is always situated within a context that is defined by the organization's culture—its structures, processes, and rules. Normalization of deviance suggests that the organizational context can promote worldviews that prevent organizational members from acknowledging deviations from a standard or norm as signals of potential danger.

Normalization of Deviation

The normalization of deviance suggests that decisions are heavily influenced by the organizations in which they are made. To better understand how organizations affect decision making and can thereby precipitate disastrous outcomes in high-risk environments, it is important to recognize that assessments of risk are not objectively given. Instead, they are constructed in negotiated attribution processes by which members of an organization develop collectively held expectations about the consequences of actions. According to Vaughan, three interrelated social forces mediate this process. They are the workgroup culture, the organization's culture of production, and structural secrecy. Together, these forces can precipitate a normalization of deviance.