I recently finished Rupert Graves’ twin novels about the Roman Empire during the 1st century I, Claudius and Claudius the God. The story is told from the perspective of Claudius who is mostly dismissed by his family as a babbling idiot (due to a stutter), but eventually becomes Emperor. He is very committed to the Republic and its ideals of shared power, but ultimately finds it nearly impossible to rule without becoming despotic. In modern parlance, we might say that Rome was suffering from “democratic backsliding” as power consolidated under an all-powerful Emperor. Rome still had

  • a Senate
  • magistrates
  • elections
  • laws
  • constitional traditions and protections

Yet the real power increasingly resided in the emperor and his inner circle, a group of manipulative, back-stabbing (although poisoning seems to be their weapon of choice) schemers. The institutions exist, including the formal structures of power, but they are eroded due to the unchecked power of the emperor. Instead of the law and institutions being the center, these things were:

  • imperial personalities
  • court intrigue
  • loyalty to individuals
  • family networks

Instead of asking “What should the law be?” people instead focused on “Whose side are you on?,” trying hard to pick the right winner and curry favor to gain power. If they chose poorly, they might end up banished or dead, or at least out of power. Roman leaders often used pseudo-nostalgia to bolster their own claims to power and to rally the populace behind them, even when they had no actual intention of making things better for others. They spoke about the earlier days of Rome when things were more virtuous, more disciplined, and more honorable.

According to Graves’ novels, Rome didn’t lose its Republican ideals because of changes in structure or laws but instead due to a shifting of norms. Enough people gradually stopped acting as though Republican constraints mattered. When leaders and citizens quit letting the “norms” constrain them, they slid into despotism.

The tension between formal rules and informal norms is one of the most important dynamics in any community or organization, political group, nation, or religion. We tend to think of things that are written down as binding or more important because they can be referred to and understood across people: laws, policies, theology, constitutions, and rules, but the informal norms are actually more important at preserving the community:

  • Norms > laws
  • Culture > policies
  • Practice > theology
  • Traditions > constitutions or creeds
  • Expectations > rules

Religions usually have a distinction between official doctrine and actual practice. Consider the following examples:

  • The building may say “Visitors welcome,” but everyone inside knows that some visitors are more welcome than others.
  • Church leaders may teach forgiveness and repentance, allowing for ordinary members to be judged or criticized, but not allowing for any critique of leaders.
  • A leader may preach that we seek after truth, but in reality, dissent is socially punished by marginalization in the community.
  • We can say our leaders are not considered infallible, but disallow any criticism harsher than a minor tiny mistake.

These types of things occur across all religions. They also occur in business.

“The customer is always right,” but come on, let’s get real. No they aren’t.

“My door is always open” a leader might say, but in reality, if you pester them too much or say what they don’t want to hear, you might find your career stalled or worse.

A company can claim that “safety is #1,” but through what is rewarded, they may show that productivity is more important than avoiding accidents.

To find the norms (that may contradict the “laws”) look at:

  • who gets promoted
  • who gets praised
  • who gets ignored
  • who gets forgiven
  • who survives mistakes
  • who got rewards

Norms are much more important than stated policies. This is particularly true during a crisis, when the stated policies are tested. The true norms will prevail. Consider this scenario:

  • A church teaches compassion.
  • A controversial member goes public about something harmful.

Does compassion prevail? Or does reputation management? Rules tell you what the organization wants you to think it values. Norms tell you what it actually values.

As I thought about this, I couldn’t help but think of Boyd Packer’s talk about the Unwritten Order of Things (1966). He was not criticizing the unwritten norms in the church, but rather he argued that they were necessary to make the church function smoothly. He gave a few examples:

  • Not bypassing local leaders to write to General Authorities.
  • Revelation operating within assigned stewardship.
  • Members should accept callings as assigned by authority rather than self-selecting or self-releasing.
  • Bishops should control funerals and mission farewells, not allow the families to control them.
  • Presiding officers should sit on the stand to be recognized and preside over the meeting.

An irony of this talk is that it actually calls attention to the difference between written policies and the norms that exist in the church which begs the question whether the norm is valid and must be upheld, or whether it should be questioned.

  • Have you seen the difference between a stated value and the actual value in the Church, your place of work or in government?
  • Do you think Packer’s talk made more people question by calling into account something that was unstated?
  • What norms have you seen change during your lifetime? What caused that shift?
  • Have you seen a norm change in response to a written policy? Have you seen the reverse happen?

Discuss.