Over the last couple of weeks, we have done a deep dive into the fourth pillar of trauma-informed leadership, autonomy. This week, we’ll talk about how to foster a culture on your team that effectively balances autonomy with clear directives as needed.

Trauma is many things – it’s a horrifying experience, it’s a loss of trust in the safety of the world, it’s an event with profound, long-term consequences. While all of this is true, one of the defining characteristics of trauma is that it's an event in which an individual has their autonomy and control taken away from them in a significant way. Whether this is control of their body, control of their home, control of the environment – it’s a profound shift in our understanding of what we can and can’t control in the world. Control is a big word and one that can be used in several different contexts, so allow me to explain. When I use the word “control”, I’m talking about life threatening situations that threaten your ability to control your own destiny. This might be a shift from an hour, day, month, or year ago when you had control in that exact same situation.  When individuals talk about their own trauma, they may not explicitly say, “lack of control”. Instead, they might say something, “against my will” or “I didn’t know what was going to happen”. However, at its core, the experience of trauma is having your autonomy over a given situation taken away from you.

When someone has experienced trauma, their relationship with control can be quite complicated. I’ve seen individuals who have experienced a lot of traumatic events who often “let life happen” to them. They are voiceless and behave as though they don’t have control over anything, so they don’t seem to possess a sense of personal autonomy and authority. That makes sense, right? If you’ve repeatedly had your power taken away from you, you might generalize about that experience, so now you don’t feel like you ever have control over anything. As a result, these are the people that things happen “to.” If this person is your employee, it might seem like things keep happening “to” them which explains their behavior. If they missed a deadline because of a colleague or external event, they might have a hard time taking ownership or accountability for a situation.

On the other hand, there are individuals who, because they have experienced such a profound loss of control in their lives, now try to control everything in their environment. They constantly object to the priorities of their leaders and institutions demanding their concerns be addressed first, or they want a say in decisions that aren’t appropriate for their position, especially in disciplinary decisions of those they feel are breaking “the rules”.  They often want enforcement of the rules to be rigid and unflexible, even when that harms productivity or the culture.  They become easily frustrated when things don’t change fast enough, or their leader is unable to meet their immediate needs.

Does this sound familiar? Is there anyone on your team who fits either or both descriptions?

Now, it can be a bit tricky to talk about the experience of control in the workplace and with your team members. As we know, there is often a perception that you have more control over a given situation than you do. Do you have control over your staff? Do you have control over executive leadership decisions? When I reflect on the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the things that I really struggled with personally as a leader was that things I might have had control over a month ago, were no longer in my purview. For example, whether staff came into the office, how we did our work in the context of a fast-changing environment, or even who still worked for me! It doesn’t take an event as significant as the COVID-19 pandemic for us to grapple with identifying which situations we have control over and which we don’t as leaders.

Strategies for Balancing Autonomy and Structure as a Trauma-Informed Leader

For these reasons, a trauma-informed leader actively works on identifying ways in which staff can both meet business requirements while also retaining a sense of autonomy and control.  This can work on both the individual level as well as on the team level.  The following are strategies to help create autonomy, voice, and choice in the workplace:

• Administer Engagement Surveys and Truly Integrate their Feedback. In many organizations, engagement surveys can seem like the necessary evil that you must complete to meet some sort of requirement.  I would challenge you to see them genuinely as an opportunity to gather honest feedback from your staff.  This is a great opportunity for them to share what they like, and don’t like about the workplace.  Listen to them and follow-up specifically with the feedback.  It’s not always easy (and might require us to take some deep breaths when we review the comments), but if it’s done with authenticity, it can be a very empowering exercise that not only builds safety and trust, but autonomy as well.  Acknowledge the exact information and feedback that the staff shared on the survey and your response to it.
• Involve Staff in Strategic Planning and Implementation Efforts. When your organization sets out to make its next strategic plan, map out the ways in which staff can be involved and have their voices heard.  This may include having staff members sit on the planning committee with their full voices at the table, gathering feedback through targeted surveys and conducting focus groups to discuss where the organization should go, providing feedback on early drafts of the strategic plan, or actively participating in implementation efforts. Be clear on the areas in which they can provide feedback and the areas in which they need to accept the structure as part of the broader organizational goals (e.g., meeting budget requirements is likely not a choice).
• Identify Ways to Balance the Need for Autonomy and Structure on an Individual Basis. Every team member is different, but it is important to work with each of them individually to find opportunities for autonomy in their work while also creating structure where it is needed.  Is remote work an option (fully or partially)? Can they put their creative stamp on a specific project? In what ways can their individual strengths be part of their job description (even if unofficially)? In what areas is there a choice and in what areas is there a mandate?
• Understand and integrate the Zones of Control, Influence, and Acceptance in your workplace.  One of the key tools I’ve discovered to help support autonomy on teams is the “Zones of Control, Influence, and Acceptance” framework to be quite helpful. In this framework, there are three distinct zones in which we have varying levels of control at work. Here’s a quick breakdown of the three zones:

• Zone of Control: These are the areas that you have complete power over and should be the areas in which you spend most of your time and energy. You do not need permission to do this activity, you can just go ahead and do it. It’s also not dependent on external environmental factors. This will greatly vary depending on your industry and role. Some examples of zones of control might be how you work with your team to start the day, when breaks occur, etc. You and your team might have a lot of things within your direct control, or you might have very little within your specific control.
• Zone of Influence: These are the areas where you can provide direct input, but you do not make the final decision. These are likely areas in which you advocate for staff to our leadership, or for changes within our field. Examples of things within our zones of influence might be pay rates for specific staff, work hours, or work structure (e.g., remote vs. in-person). These are situations in which you do not have the final decision-making authority.
• Zone of Acceptance: These are the areas that you cannot change. You might be able to write letters or state our preferences in open forums, but your influence is indirect at best.

It is my experience that staff members can spend a lot of time trying to directly control things that should be within the zone of acceptance. This can lead to staff spinning their wheels and becoming frustrated because they don’t see change coming as quickly as they would like. For these reasons, it can be helpful to integrate the language regarding the zones of control into your workplace culture. Here are some strategies to do that:

• First, take some time to look at your own zones of control and influence within your job. Take a piece of paper and write “Zones of Control” at the top. Draw a square and divide it into four quadrants. In the upper left quadrant, write “Zone of Control”, in the upper right quadrant, write, “Zone of Influence”, in the lower left quadrant write, “Zone of Acceptance” and in the bottom right quadrant, write “Parking lot.” Take about 15 minutes to brainstorm the activities within your specific job description and identify which zone they fit in. If you’re unsure, put the activity in the “Parking lot” quadrant to come back to later.  Once you have completed this exercise, ask yourself the following questions:

• Were you surprised at where you classified some of the activities? If so, why?
• Is there a theme among the activities that you placed in the “Parking lot”? How can you get a better picture of where they should be classified?
• Are there some activities that cut across different zones?
• How much time do you spend doing activities that you identified in each zone? For example, do you spend most of your time dealing with things that you should probably just accept?

• Now that you’ve taken an inventory of your own role, I’d recommend doing the exact same activity with your team members.

• What are the activities within your team’s zone of control?
• What are the activities within your team’s zone of influence?
• What are the activities within your team’s zone of acceptance?
• What activities are unclear or cut across different zones?
• How much time do you spend doing activities within each zone?

This activity can be very enlightening for team members! It’s a great way to re-focus our efforts on those things we can control versus those things we do not.

Now that you have this language, it’s time to put it to use to help address and support a more positive organizational culture. I often use that language with team members when they come to me regarding a concern. For example, following our annual engagement survey, I would complete an analysis of the comments and concerns that arose, and then drafted a response to staff specifically highlighting the concerns that were raised (often sharing the exact comments, when appropriate). Within each one, I identified which zone it belongs in and then stated an intention (followed by action) to focus on the areas in which we have control and influence, while accepting the things we do not. This change can take some time but, in the end, we all feel better when we focus our efforts and attention on things we can control, versus lamenting over things that we can’t. This can minimize burnout and promote a more positive, pro-active atmosphere for everyone.

While autonomy may look fundamentally different across each person, identifying ways to invite employee voice and choice in the decision-making processes plays a critical role in fostering a positive and trauma-informed organizational culture.