3 Takeaways from New Trauma-Informed Leadership Research
Updated: 11 hours ago
New data from McKinsey Quarterly gives trauma-informed advocates a performance case, not just a values case, to bring into funder and policy conversations.
By Jeremy Fierstien, Executive Director of the Campaign for Trauma-Informed Policy and Practice
We’ve spent years at CTIPP making the case that trauma-informed practice belongs in boardrooms and budget hearings as much as in clinics and classrooms. In April, McKinsey Quarterly made part of that case for us.
In How Leaders Can Help Their Organizations Metabolize Strain, Johanne Lavoie, Ramesh Srinivasan, Michelle Lyons, and Yocheved Rabhan call trauma-informed leadership “a core discipline of operational effectiveness.” I’ve rarely seen a business publication say it that plainly.
What the Research Found
The article draws on a McKinsey Health Institute survey of 30,000 employees in 30 countries. A third said they’d experienced a traumatic event that affected their lives. That group reported lower adaptability, learning, and engagement at work. The finding I’d hand to every advocate points the other direction. Employees who feel supported, safe, and adaptable at work report engagement and innovation at six times the rate of those who don’t.
Separately, McKinsey’s State of Organizations 2026 found that organizations with more reflective leaders are nearly twice as likely to report adapting quickly to change. They're careful to call these correlations, and when you cite them, you should too. A six-times gap makes the point without stretching it.
Three Takeaways for Trauma-Informed Practitioners
Self: Regulate before you respond. The article follows a CEO who kept cutting debate short whenever tension rose. He learned to catch his own signals first: tight chest, shallow breathing, faster speech, the pull to step in. Then he’d breathe and ask what the team was actually trying to solve for. I’d rather run at a hard conversation than around it, but running at it doesn’t mean rushing it. Whether you’re walking into a tense hearing or a coalition meeting, the discipline is the same: notice the urgency, breathe, and decide what you’re there to solve.
Relationships: Help people feel met. A former U.S. Navy rear admiral quoted in the article said it best: “When people feel met, they think better. When they feel managed, they shut down.” McKinsey describes well-meant moves that backfire, like rushing to reassure someone or steering a frustrated colleague back to solutions. Advocacy runs on people staying in the room, so this one hits close to home for our work.
Systems: Build places to set the strain down. McKinsey calls them “nesting grounds,” which clinicians will recognize as holding environments. They’re structured conversations or routines where people process what’s happening without being corrected or rushed toward a fix. One hospital executive, drawing on her nursing training, started a monthly “funeral meeting” during a restructuring. Teams named what was ending and what they’d carry forward. Leaders saw less conflict and faster re-engagement after each change.
How to Use This in Advocacy Work
In funder conversations, bring the six-times engagement and innovation finding when trauma-informed practice gets filed under values alone.
With legislators, point out that McKinsey cites SAMHSA’s trauma-informed guidance. A federal framework is now showing up in mainstream business thinking.
Inside your own coalition, try a version of the funeral meeting the next time a program ends or funding shifts. Name what’s ending before planning what’s next.
McKinsey says directly that this approach isn’t about diagnosing or treating trauma. It shows that safety, regulation, and relationships sit at the center of how organizations perform.
Plato wrote that what is honored in a country will be cultivated there. Seeing this work honored in McKinsey Quarterly tells me it’s taking root in places our movement hasn’t always reached.
Comments