Four Core Beliefs that Fuel Trauma-Informed vs Traditional Approaches
- Shenandoah Chefalo
- 4 days ago
- 7 min read
Table of Contents
Trauma-informed practices cannot take root in work environments where beliefs do not support them. Here, we outline what knowledge must be generally accepted for trauma-informed approaches to flourish within organizations.
If organizations are working to implement trauma-informed approaches but find limited success, persistent, opposing belief systems may be the root cause. By inadvertently nurturing beliefs that contradict trauma-informed approaches, organizations may perpetuate an environment that works against their efforts.
Below are four core beliefs that fuel trauma-informed approaches and the contrasting beliefs and actions that negate them.
Trauma-Informed Core Belief #1: Trauma is widespread and has holistic effects.
Trauma is pervasive.
Among adults from all 50 U.S. states and D.C. surveyed between 2011 and 2020, two-thirds reported at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE). Beyond the 10 factors defined by the ACEs study, traumatic events also include combat exposure, being involved in a fire or natural disaster, or experiencing a life-threatening accident. Given that trauma is more accurately defined as the body's response to traumatic events, trauma can occur in response to any experience overwhelming a person's capacity to cope.
Trauma provokes unique, whole-person responses.
Trauma responses affect brain development, emotional regulation, and relationship dynamics. Because our minds and bodies are inextricable, trauma has a physical and psychological impact. Trauma responses manifest differently across cultures, genders, and individuals. Responses to trauma vary widely. Trauma responses include panic, irritability, self-numbing behavior, physical aches and pains, extreme independence, trouble sleeping, disordered eating, extreme people-pleasing, and more.
For more on ACEs, read Everything You Need to Know about Adverse Childhood Experiences.
In contrast, a traditional belief is that trauma is uncommon and responses can be controlled (especially at work).
Without recognition of common trauma responses, traditional behavior modification approaches will be employed to control behavior deemed unusual, compulsive, and unreasonable. These are largely ineffective when used as long-term approaches to change.
Normal responses are invalidated.
Viewing trauma responses as abnormal rather than common, controllable rather than automatic, and pathological rather than adaptive leads to very different responses to behavior. Without recognizing how common trauma is or how varied trauma responses can be, organizations might not expect to see it or may pathologize trauma-related behavior. This often leads to punishment-based, top-down approaches in management efforts.
Punishment-based systems are used to control behavior.
Without understanding trauma, trauma responses may be seen as weaknesses and given consequences, such as poor performance reviews. Instead of understanding and working together toward prosocial work behavior, the situation may be left unrecognized or avoided, hoping it will resolve on its own (it won't). Punishing an employee into compliance is unsustainable as a motivator.
Trauma-Informed Core Belief #2: Safety and trust are foundational to a successful workplace.
Physical, emotional, and psychological safety are non-negotiable.
Safety serves as the cornerstone of trauma-informed environments. Research indicates that employees who feel safe demonstrate increased engagement, creativity, and productivity. Without safety, the nervous system remains on high alert, making learning, connection, and optimal performance impossible.
Trustworthiness emerges through transparency, consistency, and clear boundaries.
Trust develops when organizations commit to open communication, follow through on promises, and encourage boundary-setting. In trauma-informed settings, leaders recognize that trust must be earned and consistently maintained through actions, not merely proclaimed through mission statements. Organizations that value boundaries create clear processes, respect personal limits, and avoid coercive practices that pressure employees beyond their comfort zones.
For more on safety, read Why is Safety Important In a Trauma-Informed Approach?
In contrast, traditional beliefs put efficiency and authority over psychological safety.
If organizations don't believe safety is a workplace priority, they may not be intentional about clear, honest communication. This manifests in various problematic practices that undermine trust and psychological well-being.
Communication lacks transparency.
Withholding information that affects people's sense of safety creates uncertainty. Making sudden changes without explanation or preparation leaves employees feeling destabilized. Organizations that operate on a "need to know" basis foster cultures of uncertainty where employees cannot fully engage because they're constantly bracing for unexpected shifts.
Processes are rushed.
When efficiency is valued above all else, organizations often create pressure to come to quick resolution of complex situations. They may overvalue speed at the expense of emotional safety, expecting immediate results from new practices or interventions. This short-term view of growth fails to recognize that healing and adaptation require appropriate time and space.
Organizations operating from these traditional beliefs often create environments where employees feel they must constantly protect themselves, depleting energy that could otherwise be directed toward innovation and collaboration.
Trauma-Informed Core Belief #3: Strengths-based approaches empower employees and increase productivity.
Individual agency and autonomy are essential for successful workplaces.
When organizations value individual choice and self-determination, they empower employees to take ownership of their work and development. Trauma-informed environments recognize that removing choice often replicates trauma dynamics, while offering appropriate agency helps rebuild a sense of control and efficacy.
A strengths-based perspective creates opportunities for growth and innovation.
When leaders focus on capabilities rather than deficits, they unlock potential that might otherwise remain dormant. Everyone possesses innate resilience, the ability to adapt and recover from adversity. Trauma-informed leaders recognize that employees have already survived significant challenges and developed coping strategies along the way, so why leave employee strengths on the table? Build upon these strengths, and organizations foster environments where people can thrive.
For more paradigm shifts that improve company culture, read THIS.
In contrast, traditional beliefs see identifying and fixing weaknesses as the primary path to improvement.
When organizations expect employees to act dishonestly or perceive them primarily through their deficits, they will likely direct resources toward control rather than empowerment. This deficit-based approach manifests in several counterproductive patterns.
Deficit-based perspectives guide decision-making.
Organizations that focus on weaknesses often label people by their challenges, creating identities like "the difficult employee.” This approach views trauma responses as character flaws or lack of willpower, with an underlying belief that people should "just get over it" or "toughen up" rather than receive appropriate support and accommodation.
Authority and control are rigidly hierarchical.
When strengths go unrecognized, organizations tend to enforce strict hierarchies where power is concentrated at the top. Leaders make unilateral decisions without input from those affected. The underlying belief is that maintaining control is more important than building relationships, a perspective that fundamentally undermines trauma-informed approaches.
Monitoring employees disempowers and innovation plummets.
Organizations that don't recognize inherent strengths implement excessive oversight mechanisms based on distrust, spending valuable resources on monitoring behavior rather than supporting success. They create environments where employees feel constantly scrutinized and judged, leading to decreased risk-taking, innovation, and authentic engagement.
These environments often measure value through time spent rather than outcomes achieved. Compliance is valued higher than creativity and self-protection over excellence.
Trauma-Informed Core Belief #4: Collaboration among diverse perspectives increases innovation.
Trauma-informed organizations recognize that the best solutions emerge when diverse voices contribute to shared goals. A collaborative approach values different perspectives and works to include insights from every corner of the organization.
Shared power enhances authenticity and engagement.
Those with personal experience or frontline responsibility in an organization often possess the deepest understanding of potential workplace problems and solutions. By incorporating diverse perspectives (particularly from those most affected by decisions), organizations develop more effective and sustainable approaches to complex problems. Trauma-informed approaches recognize that rigid power structures often replicate trauma dynamics and inhibit the participation of our full selves.
Diverse teams provide more comprehensive solutions.
Every person's experience of trauma is shaped by their cultural context, identity, and community, which leads to unique perspectives. Organizations practicing cultural humility recognize the limitations of their own framework and actively seek to understand different ways of interpreting the world. This approach leads to more inclusive practices that can effectively serve a wider range of people.
For more, read The Power of Authenticity in Trauma-Informed Approaches.
In contrast, traditional beliefs limit expertise primarily to leadership and formal credentials.
If organizations believe their expertise and value exist largely at the top, they will stockpile influence and responsibility with their leaders, leaving frontline workers disengaged. This hierarchical mindset manifests in several counterproductive patterns.
Concentrating power at the top.
Organizations that centralize expertise tend to believe that decision-making authority should reside primarily with those at the top. They value input mainly from those with formal credentials or authority, creating "expert-driven" cultures where frontline knowledge is underutilized. This can cause decision-making bottlenecks, slowing response time to presenting challenges. These environments frequently disregard insights from those with lived experience of the challenges being addressed, missing valuable perspectives that could enhance outcomes.
Approaches are limited to one-size-fits-all.
Organizations that don't value diverse sources of expertise typically apply identical solutions to everyone regardless of individual needs. They enforce rigid timelines and processes across different contexts, creating policies without considering diverse experiences. The underlying belief is that there is one "right way" to get the job done, a perspective that stifles innovation and pigeonholes the same solution to varying problems. The resulting workplace culture tends to be less adaptable to changing conditions and less capable of serving diverse stakeholders effectively.
Summary and Conclusion: The Path Forward
The contrast between trauma-informed and traditional approaches reveals a fundamental difference in how organizations view human behavior, relationship dynamics, and organizational success. These core beliefs aren't merely philosophical differences; they translate directly into workplace practices that either support or hinder trauma-informed approaches.
Organizations seeking to implement trauma-informed approaches should first examine their underlying belief systems by asking these questions:
How are we acknowledging the prevalence and impact of trauma?
In what ways might we prioritize safety and trust as foundational to success?
Where could we recognize and build upon strengths rather than focus on deficits?
What do we do that shows we value collaboration across diverse perspectives?
Without alignment on these core beliefs, trauma-informed practices will struggle to take root, regardless of training or policy changes.
The journey toward trauma-informed practice isn't about perfection. No organization will perfectly embody these values all the time or in all departments. Adoption of trauma-informed values doesn't require 100% participation to thrive. The goal is progress, not perfection – a gradual shift in both belief systems and the practices they inform.
By recognizing how belief shapes practice, organizations can intentionally work toward creating environments where trauma-informed approaches can take root and flourish. This benefits individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole. In today's complex and challenging world, this approach isn't just compassionate; it's strategic.
Download the Chefalo Consulting Complete Guide to Trauma-Informed Implementation for more key concepts, frameworks, and aspects of our signature model to ensure the long-lasting success of your organization’s trauma-informed care work.