Our Playbooks Weren’t Built for This Moment

26 January 2026

Ellen Griley:

How a trauma-informed approach offers a way forward for internal communicators in sustained crises

Children attending class virtually because schools are closed. Employees questioning whether it’s safer to work from home. Teams mobilizing emergency response plans for workplace disruptions.

Pandemic flashbacks? No. It’s the first month of 2026.

The horrifying reality unfolding in Minneapolis is impossible to ignore. For internal communicators in the United States, this isn’t an abstract policy or political debate. It’s an immediate question of how to support employees who may be directly threatened and/or colleagues processing vicarious trauma and broader anxiety about the direction of the country.

At the same time, trust between employers and employees is fragile. Return-to-office mandates, DEI rollbacks, and rolling layoffs have created skepticism about whether organizations will show up for employees in moments of crisis.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t anything that can be done. Companies can demonstrate commitment even when — especially when — trust is “asymmetric and brittle.” 

But it does mean that companies need to be incredibly intentional in their approaches.

What we’re navigating

I’ve been thinking about all of this from a trauma-informed perspective. Faith G. Harper, PhD, LPC-S, ACS, ACN defines trauma as “an event that happens outside our understanding of how the world is supposed to work.”

As a trauma-informed leader, I find this framing useful because it accounts for both Big-T Trauma and little-t trauma, both of which can result in a traumatic response. As Harper explains, a traumatic response is what happens when our ability to cope with what happened crumbles and affects other parts of life.

In the U.S., companies have been carrying on business as usual — sales kickoffs, product announcements, media wins — while employees are witnessing death, violence, and distress inflicted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on every screen.

The risk of collective trauma, vicarious trauma, and re-traumatization for huge swaths of people is at an all-time high. And so are traumatic responses — see Brené Brown’s “People Are Not OK.” 

It is no longer conscionable for organizations to ignore this reality. Communications and leadership teams must be prepared to adjust their strategies to reflect reality, beginning with minimizing harm.

A trauma-informed framework

My framework for trauma-informed communications offers six guiding principles: Safety, Trustworthiness, Context, Choice, Collaboration, and Empowerment. These principles are adapted from foundational frameworks established by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and translated into practical applications for internal communications.

Safety: Pause non-essential ad hoc communications, as well as any overtly performative engagement or spirit activities (it’s not too early to begin evaluating the tone of your employee appreciation day communications). Otherwise, maintain your regular cadence for weekly or monthly newsletters and all-hands meetings. Consistent communications create safety, but protect against false urgency wherever possible.

Review all communications for language and imagery that could activate threat responses. Beyond obviously violent terms like “pull the trigger” or “kill the project” eliminate military metaphors (“rallying the troops,” “in the trenches,” “boots on the ground”) or forced optimism that dismisses real fear. If you’re communicating about mental health, avoid stock photos of people in distress, crying, or looking anxious — you don’t need to visualize the trauma. When in doubt, text-only is often the safest choice.

Lastly, a note for CHROs, CCOs, and CMOs: This is a time when people may feel safer at home, period. Push your fellow leaders to allow flexible work schedules for any employee who needs them, no questions asked. Employees should be protected from performance repercussions related to these accommodations.

Trustworthiness: If your workplace is in any way at risk of interactions with ICE, explain how the company intends to act. Be clear about what actions you’ll take for legal reasons and your commitment to employees and customers.

Communicate what you know, even if you’re still working through your plan, and also when and how you will continue to provide updates, whether through leader cascade, centralized hub, etc. It can be as simple as this: “We don’t have all the answers yet, and we’re actively working on X, Y, Z. We’ll update you by [specific date or time frame].” Uncertainty can coexist with commitment.

One more thing on trustworthiness: Some companies may be calculating that silence itself is a strategy to avoid becoming a target. This risks abandoning employees. Strategic silence in service of institutional preservation increases employee harm because it signals: “You’re on your own.”

Context: Does your company contract with the federal government? Do you have offices where there have been ICE actions? Do you have employees on H-1B or other visas? Does the community where your business operates have significant immigrant populations? All of this may need to be addressed in your communications strategy, especially if you plan on communicating explicitly about this topic (see “One CEO’s approach” below).

It’s also critical to acknowledge that these conditions don’t affect all employees equally. Current events are affecting employees differently. Some may be directly impacted — worried about their own safety, their family members, or their communities. Others may be experiencing this as a broader anxiety about the direction of the country. Both are valid, and communications must ensure resources meet people where they are.

 

Choice: Give people agency over how they engage during this time. If you can explicitly give people choice in how to engage with non-critical company communications (opt-in, opt-out), do so. Provide the same information in multiple formats — written summaries, video, live sessions with asynchronous recordings — so people can choose how they receive information. Provide recaps or summaries for any communications or events that require a significant time commitment. If you don’t already require closed captioning for videos, ensure you do now.

 

Create multiple pathways to access support (HR, employee assistance programs, external resources, peer networks, anonymous options) so employees aren’t forced through a single gatekeeper.

Collaboration: Two-way voice is paramount at this point. If you have listening mechanisms, acknowledge what you are hearing. If you have employee resource groups (ERGs), ensure they have dedicated budget and time for community care activities, not just “business impact” deliverables.

ERGs can help create space for employees to process difficult events and can advise leadership, but they need actual resources to do this work. Bring in external facilitators or guest speakers on mental health or mindfulness — topics that support employee wellbeing but may be outside your internal expertise.

Empowerment: Provide clear information about employee assistance programs (EAPs), legal resources, mental health support — and be explicit about confidentiality protections and any limitations (e.g., if EAP providers are required to report certain information). Connect employees to resources beyond company offerings as well: community organizations, legal aid societies, mutual aid networks. This is especially important if company resources are limited or if employees may not trust that internal resources are truly confidential.

If your company has done strong values work, this can be an opportunity to help employees who may feel powerless to take action. Increase company matching and offer volunteering days off for folks to help give back to their communities. Facilitate peer support networks where employees can access community care.

One CEO’s approach

If your CEO is evaluating whether to speak up, I recommend Robert Pasin’s message to Radio Flyer employees as an example to build from. He named the reality without softening it, acknowledged differentiated impact, provided ways to access support, and connected to values without requiring agreement on politics. 

The Page Society offers a useful framework for when companies should speak out publicly on social issues: Does this serve a purpose? Is it aligned with our strategy? Can we respond equitably? For most companies right now, the answer isn’t external statements — it’s internal communication that acknowledges lived experience and provides support, exactly as Pasin modeled. The Page framework supports that.

A note for communicators

Exploratory research I conducted with 24 internal communications practitioners found that 87.5% reported overlapping crises have impacted their personal wellbeing moderately to extremely. The biggest stressors: Maintaining trust during uncertainty, stretching personal capacity to meet communication demands, and doing it all without proper resources or support. Only 8% feel adequately supported by their organizations.

Trauma-informed communication requires that communicators themselves have support. You cannot pour from an empty cup, and your own nervous system regulation matters in this work.

The Global Center for Journalism and Trauma has expansive advice that can be readily applied to communicators who may be closely following the news at this time.

This is triage, not trust-building

We’re not in a moment for rebuilding trust. We’re in triage. The framework above won’t fix what’s broken within organizations, but it can minimize additional harm while you work to support employees navigating an unprecedented moment.

ICE actions have created urgent needs, but this approach applies to any sustained crisis your organization faces. I’m proposing that organizations finally account for the reality that employees are humans navigating a time like no other, and that communication designed for activated nervous systems is more effective than communication that ignores how stress actually works.

Trauma-informed communication can’t solve everything, but it can help us be intentional enough to reach people where they actually are.

+++

Ellen Griley is the founder of Equilibrious Communications, a trauma-informed communications consultancy. She holds master’s degrees in Communication and Leadership Studies from Gonzaga University and Trauma-Informed Leadership from Dominican University.