“The work isn’t up to the standard.”

But what precisely is the “standard”? For most professional outputs, there are layers.

Requirements

Requirements are the base and the easiest layer to understand—even when they don’t make sense.

These are the parameters you need to follow to keep from getting your work kicked back immediately. Think page limits and format constraints for a grant application or manuscript submission. Requirements will (or at least should) be clearly documented—written down and posted somewhere the relevant parties can find them.

Requirements are sometimes tedious and seemingly pointless, but you follow them anyway because they’re required. Occasionally I’ll see an academic (typically a senior man) say he pays no mind to journal requirements and submits the document formatted to his liking. Maybe that’s true, and he gets away with it. Ultimately my opinion is: Ignore requirements at your own peril.

Implicit Rules

Me nem nesa. It is known.

Implicit “rules” are the guidelines that nearly everyone seems to follow even though there’s probably no or little documentation. Some will feel like intuition or common sense to many, like using a formal tone in reports. They’re in part embedded in education and training. Other elements you learn on the job. And sometimes you can just google it.

These standards and norms are the widely(?) accepted/acknowledged expectations for how things look and feel. Some of this varies with the product. You’re not going to expect the same level of refinement from meeting minutes or a quick email to a peer as you do from a grant proposal or a report to executive leadership. Expectations will also vary by field, sector, and even organization.

The problem with implicit rules, of course, is that they’re implicit. They’re not written down, and any one person’s knowledge and understanding of them are going to depend on their own path, experience, and past and present. Yet many people don’t realize the difference between “this is how it’s done” and “this is how it’s done here.” Failure to adhere to such norms can secure one labels such as “sloppy” or “unprofessional”. Unknown hidden norms can also hold people back in their careers, for example, apparently taking too much or too little credit for their contribution to a project

Norms are part of professional culture. They can be useful, by establishing typical approaches to communication or interaction that can help us get to the same place faster. But I think often we underestimate how universal the implicit rules are and sometimes overindex on adherence to them for no good reason.

Preference

Is it wrong, or is it just not “mine”?

This is, for me at least, the most challenging. We each have our own way of doing things. And when you’ve been at it for a while, you can begin to internalize your way as “the” way. Your preference can become the standard that you expect from others, and every other way is “wrong.” Or if not wrong, less good.

Of course your way is what you’re used to. You might have reasonable justifications for some elements—this is how we make clear that we’re meeting requirements, that expedites review by the project lead. But sometimes your way is simply what you like, and it might not even be the best way for your audience, colleagues, or clients. But if you view your way as the standard, then you may miss out on other ways of approaching and potentially improving the work.

Managing the layers of “the standard”

The problem with “the standard” mirrors other issues in the workplace (and the world). The standard is rarely enforced equally, and it’s disproportionately used against those in groups that have been historically marginalized in the workplace. What we can do about “the standard” depends on how much power we have and the risks we’re able/willing to take.

Here’s my general strategy:

Requirements: Follow them.

There may be occasions to advocate for an exception or change, usually through very specific channels or mechanisms. Federal funders, for example, solicit feedback on proposed changes and policy implementation. If you have a group (e.g., a professional society or center) to work with, all the better.

Implicit rules: Learn them. Understand them.

If you’re a manager or established contributor, communicate them. Take the guesswork out as you can. Offer the rationale. Ask yourself, “How important is it?” In digging into the what and why, you might find that there’s a better way to do it and that you have the authority or influence to change it.

Preference: Examine your inclination to change it.

Maybe you have a preference that makes it easier for you to pull information. Maybe you need to make many voices sound as one, and you’re the one who gets to decide what that sound will be.

But if the work is clear, complete, and accurate, if it’s appropriately suited to its audience, maybe it’s time to let go of how you would do it and leave space for others to develop their voice and style.