What Even Is Normal at Work and Why It Matters for Inclusion

One word appears more often than we realize in meetings, job descriptions, and hallway conversations: “normal.”

We ask what time the team normally starts, comment on someone’s unusual behavior, and write policies regarding normal working hours, dress codes, and behavior.

But what exactly do we mean by normal? And more importantly—who gets to decide what’s normal?

The word may seem harmless or even helpful. It implies stability, expectations, and standards. But in reality, “normal” can be one of the most exclusive words in the workplace. It’s often used to uphold unspoken assumptions that can leave people feeling silenced, misunderstood, or left out. To build more inclusive cultures, we need to rethink what we mean by “normal”—and whether we need the word at all.

The Origins of “Normal”: A Short (and Unsettling) History

The concept of “normal” didn’t always exist. It entered popular use in the 1800s through the field of statistics, where the “normal distribution” or bell curve was used to represent the average of a population. But it wasn’t long before that statistical idea was twisted into a social tool—one used to separate and control.

Physicist and statistician Adolphe Quetelet and eugenicist Francis Galton used the concept of “normal” to define not just what was average, but what was ideal. Anything outside of that was “abnormal,” and therefore suspect. This idea spread into medicine, education, and even morality and intelligence.

In short: normal stopped being descriptive and became prescriptive—a way to dictate who belonged, and who didn’t.

How “Normal” Shows Up at Work

The workplace has long been a place where “normal” is used to gatekeep and enforce conformity. Sometimes, this is subtle, and sometimes, it’s written into policy.

• Dress codes that require a “professional” or “neat” appearance often reflect white, Western, and Eurocentric norms. Enter the CROWN Act, passed in about half the states and in the House, to prohibit race-based hair discrimination in workplaces and schools. This is needed because too many people—especially Black women—were being told their natural hair wasn’t “normal” and were being discriminated against in work and school.
• Gendered expectations around behavior persist. A man who is assertive may be seen as confident. A woman who speaks in the same tone might be labeled “aggressive” or “unprofessional.” Research has shown that women—particularly women of color—face a double bind, where being perceived as too passive or too assertive can both lead to negative consequences.
• Emotional expression is another trap. Leaders—especially women and people of color—are expected to show passion but not too much passion, and to be warm but not too emotional. Anger, frustration, or even excitement can be deemed “not normal” based on who’s expressing it.
• Neurodivergence is often excluded when we hold everyone to an invisible standard of “normal” communication or eye contact. A neurodivergent employee might prefer written communication or find video meetings draining. But if the culture values “normal” interaction styles, that difference becomes a liability.
• Even working hours come with assumptions. “Normal business hours” often assume a 9-to-5 structure that doesn’t align with caregiving responsibilities, different time zones, or people managing chronic conditions. Flexibility shouldn’t be framed as an exception but rather should be part of how we define inclusion.

Why “Normal” Can Be Harmful

When we use the word “normal,” we often mean “what I expect,” “what I’m used to,” or “what the dominant culture values.” But in practice, it becomes a shorthand for:

• Silencing difference
• Policing behavior or appearance
• Reinforcing power imbalances

It can also make employees feel like they have to mask, code-switch, or hide parts of themselves to be accepted. This is harmful not just to individual employees but also to teams. When people don’t feel safe to be fully themselves, innovation, collaboration, and trust all suffer.

What To Say Instead

Being inclusive doesn’t mean abandoning expectations—it means being clear, precise, and conscious of whose norms we’re centering. Here are some alternatives to “normal” that are more specific and respectful:

Being precise avoids judgment—and makes it easier for people to meet expectations.

What Leaders Can Do

Want to lead more inclusively? Start by questioning what you think is normal.

• Audit your language in policies, feedback, and casual conversation. If “normal” pops up, ask yourself what you really mean.
• Replace assumptions with clarity. Define what’s expected, typical, or helpful—without implying one right way.
• Update norms together. Don’t assume everyone shares the same definition of “normal.” Invite input when setting team expectations.
• Intervene when “normal” is weaponized. If someone’s appearance, tone, or communication style is being judged as “not normal,” redirect the conversation to the actual impact or needs at hand.
• Be a model. When you catch yourself saying “normal,” pause and reframe. People notice—and learn from how you lead.

Final Thoughts

At first glance, “normal” seems like a safe word. But in practice, it often excludes more than it includes. It assumes a shared experience that simply doesn’t exist—and it pressures people to conform to someone else’s definition of acceptable.

The good news is that we don’t need “normal.” We need clarity, curiosity, and workplaces that recognize difference not as a problem but as a strength.

Let’s retire the myth of “normal” and build something more human in its place.