How trauma coping strategies get stigmatized as performance issues
Cesar observes that Brandon is too relaxed and submissive, and tells him he needs to be assertive in order to control his dog. Brandon wants to change, but struggles to become the “calm confident” pack leader Kobe needs.
The turning point comes when Brandon finally understands why he’s struggling. In his words:
“I had the realization that the relaxed demeanour I had is as a result of years of feeling that, as a Black man, I had to make everyone feel safe around me … I have to be the calm one … Then everyone else is calm, chill, relaxed and they’re not threatened by my presence.”
The invisibility of non-obvious trauma
It’s fair to say that Brandon’s “model minority” calm behaviour was his way of coping with the trauma of racism. (If you’re unsure how racism is traumatic, please see the Resources on my website.)
As a Black man, he was never free from systemic racism; he could only protect himself against it. It’s not his fault that what worked well for him with people worked against him with dogs.
Brandon’s situation is analogous to what many employees experience at work. Non-obvious impacts from covert trauma (like racism) can be invisible even to the trauma survivor. Behaviours and beliefs designed for self-protection are how they bore the unbearable. These coping methods become ingrained survival instincts beyond conscious thinking.
“These “deficiencies” get stigmatized as ‘performance issues’ that hold people back from career opportunities.”
Unfortunately, what worked well in self-defence can become self-defeating later. In my 20-plus years as an HR and people leader, I’ve seen employees be judged for not conforming to Western corporate norms, such as assertiveness, self-confidence and “executive presence.”
These judgments are steeped in implicit bias and subjective ideals of “good” and “bad.” Quietness becomes passivity, introversion becomes timidity, reserve becomes coldness. At the other end of the scale, speaking up becomes aggression, disagreeing becomes insubordination and self-advocacy becomes entitlement. These “deficiencies” get stigmatized as “performance issues” that hold people back from career opportunities.
It’s not that employees should never change, or that trauma justifies unacceptable behaviours. Quite the opposite. Trauma-informed, equity-based thinking allows for both/and instead of either/or.
When we realize that employees’ actions reveal more about their social conditioning and lived experience than their job performance or competency, our coaching approaches can expand and be more trauma-informed. Let’s explore three ways to do that.
Read more from our CareerWise series on Trauma and Career Development:
- Supporting staff retention with trauma-informed supervision
- Resources exploring trauma and career motivation
- Community care: A systems perspective to addressing workplace trauma
Case study: Coaching Lucy
This is a real message (edited for illustrative purposes) sent by an internal HR manager, asking for help with the following situation:
“Do you have any tips on coaching a manager to support an employee [“Lucy”] who is passive in their communication style? Lucy’s manager says she needs very clear direction to deliver on the work (but shouldn’t based on her total years of experience). Lucy’s introversion and reserved approach translates to not asking many questions, so we are trying to encourage that along with taking initiative and bringing a level of critical thinking to her work.”
How would you respond? What questions do you have for HR and Lucy’s manager?
Even without knowing all the details of this situation, we can still take a trauma-informed approach.
1. Separate observation from evaluation
“The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence.”― Jiddu Krishnamurti
Before coaching Lucy on her performance, it’s important to know what factually happened, not how it was interpreted. We do this by asking the manager to describe only what they observed Lucy doing, without adding evaluative interpretations.
From the description, we don’t know why Lucy’s manager deems her style to be “passive” and “reserved.” What did Lucy actually do? A facts-only description might be, “During the team meeting, Lucy didn’t ask any questions or offer ideas. Afterward, she went to her manager and requested step-by-step instructions for what to do next.”
As we saw from Brandon’s case, the reason Lucy didn’t ask questions during the meeting could have nothing to do with being passive or reserved. Lucy might be an outgoing person who got burned in previous jobs for speaking too much. Or perhaps she was culturally conditioned to suppress any “unladylike” behaviours (e.g. talking loudly or questioning her elders) that would ostracize her as a “bad girl.”
As trauma-informed coaches, we don’t look for trauma in every situation or assume every behaviour is caused by trauma. Being trauma-informed is about understanding how trauma, if it exists, can impact a person in many ways – including how they present at work.
If an employee does have a trauma history, we don’t pathologize or victimize them. Trauma does not negate competence or skill, and jobs still have standards to be met. Whatever is behind Lucy’s actions, it doesn’t mean we can’t ask her to change.
The question becomes, what do we ask her to change? Rather than focusing on personality traits, we identify the outcomes we want her to achieve and the actionable changes under her control.
2. Change the outcome, not the person
“The problem is not the problem; coping is the problem.” ― John Banmen
When the problem is framed as “Lucy’s too introverted” or “Lucy’s too passive,” the logical solution is to make Lucy be extroverted and assertive. But even if that was possible and acceptable to Lucy, would that really lead to the desired outcome?
From the facts-only example description, it’s likely that the manager wants Lucy to do her work without asking for step-by-step instructions. What could Lucy change to achieve this outcome?
Perhaps what Lucy actually needs help with is breaking free from internalized beliefs that keep her from asking questions in front of a group. The origin of these beliefs could range from cultural norms and social biases to trauma and workplace toxicity.
Note that we’re not asking Lucy to eliminate her “self-limiting beliefs” or “be more self-confident.” No one is born believing “I’m not worthy”; they grow to believe it when they’re limited and shamed by others (e.g. a perfectionistic parent, demanding teacher or disapproving boss).
Shame, blame and worthlessness are the top three impacts of trauma. Traumatized people tend to undervalue their own accomplishments and have difficulty self-advocating at work.
Which brings us to our third trauma-informed approach:
3. Counter stigmatization with normalization. Counter shame with compassion
“What seems nonadaptive and self-harming in the present was, at some point in our lives, an adaptation to help us endure what we then had to go through … Such understanding helps delete toxic self-judgment on the past.” ― Dr. Gabor Maté, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts
Adaptive behaviours or coping strategies are hard to change because they’re instinctive. In Brandon’s case, he wanted to control his dog, but he couldn’t stop being passive even when his son got hurt.
In Lucy’s case, maybe she’s ashamed of asking her manager for help but can’t stop herself because it’s how she’s always dealt with certain challenges.
As trauma-informed coaches, we counter Lucy’s shame and stigma by helping her see her behaviour as normal and not defective. For example, if Lucy tells us her previous employer berated her for asking questions in meetings, we can compassionately respond with, “Of course you’d hesitate before asking questions in meetings again. That makes perfect sense.”
Even if there’s no traumatic event from her past (or Lucy doesn’t want to tell us about it), we can still use this approach. After all, coping behaviours don’t just stem from trauma, and everyone struggles with negative feelings and self-perceptions. By gently exploring Lucy’s thoughts and feelings behind her actions, she can identify other ways to cope that are less harmful to her job – or better yet, reduce the need to cope at all.
How will you apply this?
Now that you’ve learned more about trauma and coping strategies, what advice would you give Lucy’s HR manager?
In case you were wondering, some real-life recommendations HR received were to:
- direct Lucy to EAP (Employee Assistance Program) coaching;
- hold regular one-on-one meetings with Lucy; and
- put Lucy on a performance improvement plan.
What would you change or add to these suggestions?
Most importantly, how will you change your coaching to be more observational, outcome focused and destigmatizing?
