The idea of "rules" is so basic and fundamental to our way of life that we often don't stop to examine how rules function and serve us. When embedding a trauma-informed framework in an organization, we often suggest pivoting away from the existing paradigm of rules/punishment and toward a healing-centered paradigm of expectations/accountability.
In many organizations, rules are established to maintain order, guide behavior, and ensure consistency. However, there is an often-overlooked aspect of rules: they are inherently tied to the concept of punishment. When a rule is broken, the consequence is typically some form of punishment, whether it’s a reprimand, a fine, or even dismissal. This punitive approach can be seen as inherently violent, as it enforces compliance through fear rather than understanding or mutual agreement.
The Quiet Violence that Underlines Most Rules
Rules are often rigid and absolute, leaving little room for nuance or context. They are designed to be followed without question, and when they are not, the response is typically punitive. This creates an environment where fear of punishment becomes the primary motivator for behavior rather than a genuine understanding of the underlying principles or values the rules are meant to uphold.
Rules are also deeply connected to power and control. They often send the message, "Do what I say, or else."
And punishment, by its very nature, is a form of violence—it inflicts harm, whether emotional, psychological, or even physical, in response to a perceived transgression. This can create a culture of fear and compliance, where individuals follow the rules not because they understand or agree with them but because they are afraid of the consequences of breaking them.
The Shift from Rules to Norms
Rather than relying on rules and the threat of punishment, organizations can benefit from adopting norms—shared values and expectations that guide behavior in a more flexible and understanding manner. Norms are not enforced through fear, but through a collective agreement on what is important and why.
Rather than being created by one person or small group of people with power (like rules), norms are created and solidified by the entire group, creating room for voice and choice.
Norms allow for a more compassionate and inclusive approach to behavior. They recognize that people are not perfect and that there will be times when norms are not met. Instead of responding with punishment, the focus shifts to understanding why the norm was not upheld and how the situation can be addressed in a way that supports growth and learning.
Norms and Accountability: A New Approach
When norms are in place, accountability becomes a conversation rather than a punishment. Accountability in this context is about recognizing when behavior does not align with shared values and working together to address the issue. It’s about asking powerful questions like, "What happened?" and "How can we support you in aligning with our shared values?" rather than "What rule did you break?" and "How will you be punished?"
This approach fosters a culture of trust and mutual respect. It acknowledges that everyone is capable of making mistakes and that those mistakes can be valuable opportunities for growth and learning. Rather than creating fear and resentment, this approach to accountability builds stronger, more resilient teams.
When using this approach, when a norm is broken, it also begs us to ask more powerful questions, such as "How does this norm serve us?" and "What is the consequence of this norm being broken?" By seeking to understand how our actions impact the group as a whole, we create a space for empathy and compassion to grow.
The Norm and the Exception
In every organization, there will be norms and exceptions to those norms. It’s important to recognize that exceptions are not necessarily a failure, but rather a reflection of the complexity of human behavior and the situations we encounter. By embracing norms rather than rigid rules, organizations can better navigate these exceptions with empathy and understanding.
When exceptions occur, it’s an opportunity to revisit the norm and ask whether it still serves the organization and its members. Sometimes, exceptions reveal gaps or flaws in the norm itself, prompting a discussion about whether the norm needs to be adjusted or reinterpreted. This continuous dialogue ensures that norms remain relevant and supportive of the organization’s values and goals.
Understanding Consequences vs. Punishment
A common question that arises when discussing the shift from rules to norms is, "Does that mean there aren’t any consequences?" The answer is that there are still consequences, but they are handled in a trauma-informed way. The key difference lies in how those consequences are framed and executed.
What's the Difference Between a Punishment and a Consequence?
Punishment is typically about inflicting harm or discomfort as a response to a perceived wrongdoing. It’s often driven by a desire to deter the behavior through fear or suffering. For example, traditional punishment might involve suspending an employee for misconduct, with little regard for the underlying issues or potential for growth.
In contrast, consequences in a trauma-informed approach are designed to be logical, related to the behavior, and focused on restoration and growth. The goal is not to inflict suffering but to address the issue in a way that makes sense and encourages positive change.
I often tell clients that while we don't seek to punish staff (or clients, students, residents, etc.), we still hold people accountable in a trauma-informed way. When we prioritize accountability, doing the necessary repair work (such as apologizing or holding a SELF Meeting) becomes an organizational norm, embedded into the consequences of certain behaviors or events.
Examples of Trauma-Informed Consequences:
Being trauma-informed doesn't mean that we let people do whatever they want, regardless of the harm they may cause to themselves and others. For example, I work with judges who still need to make decisions regarding sentencing for people who have done things that require consequences. Being a trauma-informed court doesn't mean there are no more sentences.
Here are some examples of trauma-informed consequences and what makes them trauma-informed:
Driving Under the Influence: If someone drinks and drives, the consequence might be the loss of their driving privileges. This consequence is directly related to the behavior and serves to protect both the individual and the community. It’s a logical outcome that makes sense in the context of the behavior. In addition to this, we might also encourage the individual to have some hard conversations about their drinking habits with their support system. Focusing on the fact that the person at the center of the situation needs support is how we stay grounded in trauma-informed approaches.
Inappropriate Comment in a Meeting: If an employee says something out of line during a meeting, the consequence could be a difficult but necessary conversation about the incident. The focus would be on understanding the impact of the comment, taking responsibility, and working together to determine what repair work needs to be done. This approach fosters accountability and provides an opportunity for growth rather than simply punishing the individual.
Of course, the way that we hold members of our communities accountable will vary from community to community. Each group of people is made up of individuals with unique backgrounds, experiences, and trauma histories. So, the norms, values, and consequences of that group must be adjusted for the specific people who make up the community.
The Role of Accountability
In a trauma-informed framework, accountability is key. It’s about owning up to actions, understanding their impact, and being part of the solution. Consequences are an essential part of this process, but they are delivered with empathy and a focus on learning and improvement. This not only addresses the behavior but also helps individuals and teams grow stronger and more resilient.
By distinguishing between punishment and consequences, we can create an environment where people are held accountable in a way that promotes healing and progress rather than fear and resentment. This approach aligns with the broader goals of trauma-informed practices—building trust, fostering safety, and supporting the well-being of everyone involved.
Final Thoughts: Moving Forward & Cultivating a Norms-Based Culture
Shifting from rules to norms requires a fundamental change in how we view behavior and accountability. It requires organizations to move away from a punitive mindset and toward a culture of empathy, understanding, and growth. This shift is not always easy, but it is essential for creating a trauma-informed environment where individuals feel safe, valued, and empowered to bring their whole selves to work.
By rethinking how we approach behavior and consequences, we can create workplace cultures that are not only more humane but also more effective in achieving their goals.
To learn more about embedding trauma-informed approaches into your organization, be sure to check out our Trauma-Informed Masterclass and other events!
Comments