We have a bad habit of slapping the words “standard” and “standardize” onto everything. It is a linguistic shortcut used to make arbitrary rules sound official, objective, and unquestionable.
To be fair to the dictionary, standardizing procedures is crucial in the right context. Knowing exactly how to safely wire a house, calibrate heavy machinery, or execute an emergency protocol is how we get functional manufacturing and actual physical safety.
But when we attempt to “standardize” complex human actions, interpersonal behavior, or creative work, the concept completely falls apart. We end up treating people like machinery, forcing uniformity onto things that desperately require nuance.
Here is a breakdown of how the business world misuses the concept of standardization, and how we can fix our vocabulary to build healthier, more authentic workplaces.
The Five Misuses of “Standardization”
1. Scripting Human Emotion When leadership says, “We need to standardize our customer service,” what they are actually doing is scripting human behavior. A standard implies exact uniformity—like a screw fitting a specific thread. Forcing every employee to act the exact same way or recite the same lines creates a robotic, inauthentic experience. You cannot standardize empathy.
2. Best Practices Disguised as “Industry Standards” An actual industry standard is something agreed upon by an official, governing body (think USB-C for charging or ISO 9001 for quality management). Most of the time, when a consultant or manager claims a software workflow is the “industry standard,” they just mean it is a popular trend or a best practice currently favored by a few major companies.
3. Weaponizing Toxic Cultural Norms “It’s industry standard to work 60 hours a week in this field.” This is not a standard; it is a cultural expectation. Labeling it a “standard” is a manipulative tactic used to make a subjective, unhealthy habit sound like an unchangeable law of physics.
4. Crushing Creative Processes Innovation and creativity are inherently non-standard. You can certainly create a framework for a project or a routine for when brainstorming meetings happen. However, attempting to standardize the actual action of thinking guarantees predictable, mediocre results.
5. Hiding Subjective Quality Metrics When a reviewer says, “This design doesn’t meet our internal standards,” they usually mean it simply doesn’t meet their personal preferences. Unless there is a literal, objective checklist of formatting rules, calling it a “standard” is just a way to shut down debate by disguising a subjective opinion as an objective fact.
Upgrading Our Vocabulary
When people use the word “standard” incorrectly, they are usually trying to describe structure. We can provide that structure without demanding robotic uniformity by choosing words that actually fit the situation.
| Context | Instead of “Standard”, Try: | Definition & Best Use |
|---|---|---|
| Culture & Behavior | Norms | The shared, unspoken rules of a group. |
| Expectations | What is reasonably required or anticipated from someone. | |
| Principles | Core values that guide decision-making. | |
| Workflows & Methods | Guidelines | Recommended instructions that leave room for judgment. |
| Frameworks | A basic structure that supports a process but allows flexibility. | |
| Playbooks | A collection of tactics or strategies for specific scenarios. | |
| Quality & Goals | Benchmarks | A point of reference used to compare performance or quality. |
| Criteria | Specific requirements used to evaluate something. | |
| Baselines | A minimum starting point used for comparisons. |
Language shapes reality. When we stop trying to standardize human beings, we leave room for the nuance, creativity, and authenticity that actually drive a business forward.
