What is Normal in Safety Management?

Discussions about animal welfare, big data, artificial intelligence, and assisted suicide show how our understanding of normality changes over time. Normality evolves, shaped by various actors and institutions through feedback loops, changes in emphasis, and at different paces. While normality can stabilize society by reinforcing shared expectations, it also sparks conflict due to its tendency to homogenize, sometimes at the expense of diversity.

– German Ethics Council

?

The Evolution of "Normal"

What is “normal”? It’s a question we can ask about all kinds of subjects. For instance, what is regarded as "normal" health reflects the expectations of a certain time and context. Advances in genetic testing and predictive medicine continually reshape societal expectations. Debates around health and illness remind us that "normal" is not purely descriptive; it carries value judgements, and has societal, ethical, and personal implications. Movements like neurodiversity further challenge traditional medical views, reframing conditions like ADHD as natural variations within the spectrum of human experience rather than disorders.

?

Norbert Elias and the Civilization Process

Sociologist Norbert Elias studied the civilization process (Elias, 1997), which explains how societal norms evolve to promote more restrained and civilized behavior. Elias’ research showed how social standards dramatically changed from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. Practices once considered normal—such as blowing one’s nose with fingers at the dinner table or urinating in public while conversing—became unacceptable. This transformation extended to other areas, including eating, sleeping, and even expressions of violence. Elias argued that as societies became more interconnected, individuals had to exercise greater self-control, taking others' feelings and norms into account. The gradual development of self-regulation and social consideration now forms the backbone of what we recognize as "normal" behavior.

?

What is “Normal” in Safety Management?

"Normal" in safety management, much like in other contexts, depends on the specific conditions in which it is considered. It can refer to what is familiar—a social structure that tends to go unquestioned, providing a sense of continuity and predictability. For instance, the safety barriers used in scaffolding today are vastly different from those considered normal in the 1950s and 1960s. In safety management, “normal” is often an empirically determined statistical average, heavily influenced by how indicators are developed and data gathered within a given social context. While safety norms are often shaped by societal conventions, they also evolve over time, responding to broader cultural, medical, and technological changes.

In many cases, "normal" doesn’t just describe behavior; it prescribes it. A legal or functional standard dictates the accepted norms of behavior or practice. In this sense, "normal" carries moral or legal weight, guiding actions that are expected or required within society. As such, normality becomes a benchmark for judgment, reinforcing social rules and expectations.

?

Differing Safety Perceptions - A Video on LinkedIn

A clear example of differing safety perceptions is highlighted in a LinkedIn video showing workers in South Asia sand casting a ship propeller. The video garnered mixed reactions, particularly from professionals in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) countries. While the craftsmanship was admired, many viewers quickly pointed out the absence of personal protective equipment and other safety precautions. Some noted systemic issues, such as the high cost of safety gear and the lack of employer provisions. This example illustrates the importance of contextualizing practices, particularly in a globalized industry. Questions like “Why don’t they park their vehicles backward?” or “Why don’t they hold the handrail?” must be understood within specific social, cultural, and economic contexts; they reveal how normality is different across regions and times.

?

Normality in Complex Systems

In safety management, normality isn’t just about the presence of safety barriers, but about whether these barriers are fit for purpose in complex systems. Critical evaluation is needed, rather than merely ticking regulatory boxes. This assessment must extend to top management’s strategies, including decisions about workload pace, equipment maintenance, and the outsourcing of hazardous tasks. As Jean-Christophe Le Coze points out, safety in complex systems requires a multi-level approach, where strategy, culture, technology, and the working environment dynamically interact (Le Coze, 2021). These elements can’t be isolated, as their combined and unpredictable influences determine what becomes “normal” in terms of safety. By adopting a multi-level approach, organizations can address the systemic factors which influence safety outcomes.

?

The Normalization of Deviance

Diane Vaughan researched the process that proceeded the Challenger disaster (Vaughan, 1996). She uses the term normalization of deviance to describe how unsafe practices gradually become accepted as normal when they don’t result in immediate failure. Early warning signs are often ignored or misinterpreted, increasing the tolerance for deviation, which can eventually lead to catastrophic consequences. This phenomenon is particularly dangerous in industries like aviation, healthcare, or manufacturing, where small deviations can have serious implications. What starts as an exception can eventually become the rule, introducing systemic risks. Organizations must remain vigilant, and continually reassess what is considered acceptable or normal to prevent this normalization of deviance.

Deviations from prescribed procedures can become normalized. As unanticipated situations arise, workers may deviate to solve immediate issues. This creates a gap between work-as-imagined and work-as-done. Small adaptations and shortcuts, taken for efficiency or to reduce workload, can in due time lead to a drift into danger. Practical drift is inherent to complex systems and organizations need active interventions, from safety-conscious staff to rigorous oversight, to counteract the slow shift toward dangerous operations (Rasmussen, 1997). Though some deviations may be necessary responses to flawed procedures or unforeseen challenges, the normalization of deviance can be catastrophic, as seen in the Challenger Launch Decision (Vaughan, 1996).

?

Breaking the Silence on Safety

An element of the normalization of deviance is structural secrecy. A spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1993) exacerbates it, as unspoken agreements within management allow unsafe practices to persist. This silence can stem from fear of retribution, organizational inertia, or a lack of transparency. When employees and managers are discouraged from voicing safety concerns, these issues become buried, further entrenching unsafe practices. To break this silence, leadership must set the tone for transparency and open dialogue, where workers feel empowered to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Only through this openness can organizations avoid the normalization of deviance.

?

The Fluid Power of Normalization

There are many "normals" across different societies and industries, and this diversity must be acknowledged. But not all claims to normality should be accepted without critical reflection. When normality conflicts with fundamental ethical values—such as human dignity, self-determination, or justice—these norms have to be questioned to avoid perpetuating harm, particularly to marginalized groups (Deutscher Ethikrat, 2024). For example, in healthcare, the over-medicalization of conditions like ADHD or the growing emphasis on genetic testing raises important questions about how far society should go in defining "normal." Similarly, in safety management, laws and policies shape standards of normality, but excessive pluralism or a lack of oversight can undermine these norms. As new technologies and societal expectations evolve, normality itself becomes fluid, requiring constant reassessment to ensure alignment with ethical standards and fairness.

?

Conclusion - Normality as a Process

In the end, normality is not a fixed state but a process—one that evolves continuously in response to societal, medical, and cultural influences. In safety management, this fluidity requires organizations to remain vigilant, continually reassessing what is considered acceptable or safe. The ethics of normality demand reflection on how these standards are shaped, ensuring they respect human dignity, prevent harm, and promote fairness. By supporting openness and critically evaluating existing practices, organizations can navigate the complexities of normality while prioritizing the well-being of all stakeholders.

?

References:

-?????? Deutscher Ethikrat (2024), Normalit?t als Prozess – Impulspapier, Berlin: Deutscher Ethikrat.

-?????? Elias, N. (1997 [1939]), über den Prozess der Zivilisation – Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen, Amsterdam: Norbert Elias Stichting / Suhrkamp Verlag.

-?????? Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993), The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion – Our Social Skin, second edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

-?????? Rasmussen, J. (1997), Risk Management in a Dynamic Society: A Modelling Problem, in: Safety Science, Vol. 27, Issues 2–3, November–December 1997, pp.183-213.

-?????? Vaughan, D. (1996), The Challenger Launch Decision - Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

?

Illustrations:

-?????? City Surveys, “Scaffolding in the 1950s and 1960s” [YouTube video], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImgQPJqdk

-?????? Wikipedia and NASA, two photos combined as found on https://priceonomics.com/the-space-shuttle-challenger-explosion-and-the-o/

?

?

?

?