What do we mean by “trauma” and being “trauma-informed” in the workplace?
I’ve been thinking a lot about trauma lately, both in the context of my own life experiences, that of loved ones, as well as the trauma we see day-to-day in the workplace as well as in the world.
It feels like it’s everywhere, and the truth is, it is something that has been core to our work for a long time.
I mean, look at how many times trauma is mentioned in our blog posts.
Not that I am an expert on trauma (we have LaVoya for that - that being one of the reasons ve was a very intentional hire).
I am feeling and learning my way through.
And what I’m realizing is that we very much don’t generally have a shared understanding or language around trauma, collectively.
And that the very word trauma, or the phrase “trauma-informed” means very different things to very different people.
It doesn’t mean we all have to believe the same things about trauma, but it does help if we are talking about the same thing.
First let’s get a couple of things established
Trauma is commonly perceived as something that happens in isolated incidents, with a focus on "big T trauma" (eg violence, disasters). There's less attention to "little t trauma" or chronic stressors that are often systemic.
At CCI, when we talk about trauma, we’re talking about both “big T” and “little t” trauma.
Being “trauma-informed” doesn’t mean you have to be informed of people’s trauma. No one should be forced to disclose trauma.
Being trauma-informed means accounting for the fact that people are to varying degrees traumatized as well as reducing the possibility of causing further trauma, even if inadvertently.
DEI work can be traumatizing. This should not be the intention or the goal of course, and in fact, it’s systems of oppression that are traumatizing. And so yes, talking about them can be retraumatizing, both for the ways we realize we are harmed and the ways we realize we are complicit. Not talking about them doesn’t take away the trauma. Talking about them, if done thoughtfully, provides the opportunity for healing.
Your DEI work needs to be trauma-informed in order to be effective. In some ways, the work of DEI IS to be trauma-informed in order to dismantle systems of oppression. There’s no skipping over this part.
Here are some of our past blog posts that are very foundational to my understanding of trauma
Creating a trauma-informed personal safety plan
This post explores how to develop a personal safety plan through a trauma-informed lens, offering practical strategies to navigate activating situations and maintain emotional wellbeing.
Infusing trauma and equity awareness into decision making and planning
Learn about four pillars for integrating trauma and equity awareness into organizational decisions in order to foster inclusivity, promote healing, and ensure that planning processes consider the diverse needs of all stakeholders, creating more effective outcomes.
When trauma and power intersect
This post highlights the responsibility of people in positions of power to address their own trauma, given that their power within systems makes the potential impact of their trauma on others more likely.
Four principles for trauma-informed communication
Discover how the four pillars for integrating trauma and equity awareness can be used to create more compassionate, trauma-informed communication practices that prioritize trust, understanding, and emotional safety and, again, lead to more effective outcomes for everyone.
Expanding the conversation on trauma
In my more recent reflections, some nuances regarding trauma have been coming up for me that are very much related to my own experiences with trauma but that I find are often not talked about. For instance:
I have found trauma to be subjective.
I mean, all experiences are subjective, and trauma is no different. Two people may experience the same event and come away with very different levels of trauma for a variety of reasons, including contextual power and privilege, identity, trauma history, genetics, biology, mental and physical state, level of self-awareness, skills for responding to trauma etc. It’s not just the event itself but the impact that defines trauma.
The "most traumatized" person isn’t necessarily the one who has experienced the most traumatic events.
I see trauma to be about how an experience affects someone’s nervous system and emotional state, which means that even “normal” events can feel traumatic for someone due to past experiences, the state of their nervous system and mental health etc. Events that in the past might not have been traumatic, might now be experienced as more traumatic, and vice versa.
Privilege does not necessarily mitigate the experience of trauma… or the resulting behavior.
While privilege may provide access to better resources and support for healing, it can also reduce accountability for harmful behavior stemming from dysregulation. Those with more privilege often have greater safety to express dysregulation without facing social or professional consequences, so ironically can be less likely to make use of the resources for healing that they have access to (think about white male tantrums and expressions of anger and violence, or white women tears, compared to the stereotype of the “angry Black woman” or even the “strong Black woman”).
It might be helpful to think of trauma as the experience or impact on someone, and emotional dysregulation as what is often the resulting behavior.
Some people process trauma more effectively than others and are not as outwardly dysregulated. Some people might be outwardly dysregulated even without having experienced a high level of trauma.
Remember: regulating your emotions is not the same as stuffing them!
It doesn’t mean not having them. In fact, on the contrary, it means having and processing your emotions in a safe way so they don’t come out sideways and harm yourself or others. It’s also important to remember that it’s not always safe to have and process emotions, which is why it’s important to create those spaces where it is.
Experiencing trauma doesn’t automatically make you trauma-informed.
In being around and suffering from the impacts of people who are traumatized, you may develop “trauma-informed strategies” but some of them may be maladaptive. Learning, practicing and getting feedback is the most effective approach.
How CCI’s understanding of trauma differs from the “typical” view
1. Definition: impact as well as event
Typical view: Trauma is often defined as something that happens TO someone, with an emphasis on the event itself and its severity. There is an expectation that levels of trauma experienced will correlate to “how traumatic” an event is. It is seen as something universally identifiable.
Our view: Trauma is defined not only by the event but by its impact on the individual, which varies based on factors like history, biology, and social context. While it can be frustrating when people who have experienced “less trauma” appear to be “more traumatized” (sometimes called fragility or defensiveness) this is in fact a reality that is helpful to factor in.
2. Depth: systemic as well as episodic
Typical view: Trauma is seen as episodic, often linked to singular, identifiable occurrences such as accidents or violence. Chronic or systemic stressors are less frequently acknowledged as sources of trauma.
Our view: Trauma is often cumulative, shaped by recurring patterns of harm, inequity, and oppression, including both acute incidents and the ongoing effects of societal systems and structures.
3. Accountability: collective as well as individual
Typical view: Dysregulated behaviors stemming from trauma (e.g., heightened anger or avoidance) are often perceived as personal flaws or failures to cope.
Our view: Dysregulation is often the result of trauma, highlighting how the nervous system responds to a perceived lack of safety. We recognize that some people process trauma more effectively due to resources, support, or even, for more marginalized folks, as a survival strategy, while others may externalize it through dysregulated behaviors. Importantly, privilege often determines whether someone is allowed space for their dysregulation or held accountable for its harmful effects. For example, dysregulated people of color often find it hard to maintain a job and therefore housing, whereas equally dysregulated white folks get elevated to the highest levels of power. There is a collective as well as individual responsibility for addressing trauma.
4. Privilege: a variable as well as a shield
Typical view: Privilege is often assumed to provide insulation from trauma, due to reduced exposure as well as access to resources.
Our view: Privilege can reduce some risks but does not eliminate trauma. Instead, it often creates disparities in accountability and access to healing. Those with privilege may be less likely to recognize or address their trauma, and end up perpetuating harm. Others may not be traumatized so much as dysregulated because they have never had to practice self-regulation.
5. Approach: proactive as well as reactive
Typical view: Trauma is treated reactively, often as an individual problem requiring therapeutic intervention or coping strategies after harm has occurred.
Our view: Trauma requires proactive systems-level intervention. We advocate for creating environments that preemptively reduce harm and foster equity, trust, and collective repair and healing.
What does it mean to be trauma-informed in the workplace?
Again, being trauma-informed in the workplace does not mean you have to be informed of people’s trauma, not does it mean you have to become a trauma expert or crisis interventionist. It does not mean you have to get involved in people’s trauma. It does not mean you have to heal their trauma.
Being trauma-informed in the workplace does mean designing for the fact that people are traumatized, as well as pro-actively mitigating further trauma where possible.
This can be done by going back to the four principles mentioned in earlier blog posts, from Equity-Centered Trauma-Informed Education by Alex Shevrin Venet, that is, embedding practices that prioritize predictability, flexibility, empowerment, and connection to create a safe, equitable, and inclusive environment:
Predictability: Establishing clear expectations, consistent communication, and transparent decision-making processes helps reduce fear and uncertainty. When staff know what to expect, they can feel more secure and focused, minimizing the impact of potential triggers.
Flexibility: Recognizing that everyone processes and responds to situations differently, flexibility allows for different needs to be met. Generally, this means providing for options rather than trying to create a “one size fits all” solution.
Empowerment: Empowering staff means creating opportunities for autonomy, choice, and agency in their work. By fostering environments where individuals feel valued and heard, where they can identify and articulate needs and receive a response, organizations can help provide a degree of choice that trauma often disrupts.
Connection: Trauma often isolates people, so fostering a sense of belonging and connection is critical. This involves cultivating a workplace culture that prioritizes needs, builds trust, and encourages authentic relationships between colleagues and leaders.
In other words, taking a trauma-informed approach creates a better environment for everyone, no matter where they land on the trauma spectrum. It’s also better for us collectively. Trauma isn’t just an individual condition but a shared reality that requires community responsibility, shared language, and intentional frameworks to address effectively.
With the realities we are facing in the US and globally, this is going to be as critical as it has ever been.
Banner photo by Mords Saligumba on Unsplash
Self-coaching for DEI Advocates and Leaders
Join us for a free weekly email series and check-in on co-creating real and lasting shifts towards diversity, equity, inclusion and antiracism at your company or organization.