What are the warning signs of vicarious trauma and how can HR professionals recognise them and respond?
For a significant portion of the workforce, witnessing, hearing or reading about traumatic situations, is just part of their job description and day-to-day experience. If exposure to trauma is left unchecked and is not an integral consideration in workplace planning, this silent hazard can be harmful to not only an employee’s wellbeing but entire professions and industries.
Traditionally, a risk reserved for industries such as emergency services, social work and mental health practitioners, vicarious trauma (also known as secondary post-traumatic stress), doesn’t just occur from direct exposure to traumatic events. It can result indirectly from the negative cumulative effect of working with survivors of trauma, or people in a chronic state of despair, or working with content that makes excessive emotional demands.
Recent droughts, floods and the pandemic have combined in a perfect storm of traumatic events causing death and destruction to livelihoods. They have brought into sharper focus the indirect trauma experienced by employees who have had to deal with very distressed people and situations, some for the very first time, says Rachel Clements, co-founder and director of psychological services, Centre for Corporate Health (CFCH).
Read more: Bullying in NZ workplaces: How bad is it?
“Bank workers, for example, whose jobs were previously not considered risk averse from a psychological point of view, found themselves suddenly hearing from customers with distressing stories about deaths of livestock and ruined businesses,” says Clements.
Journalists reporting on highly stressful events and lawyers, whose caseloads include harrowing accounts of child sexual abuse, are among those professions at risk and which are highlighted in a new whitepaper released by the CFCH.
One such case, earlier this year, Kozarov v Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions bought a significant ruling from the high court. It pins down an employer’s duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid excessive stress and trauma that may cause ‘serious harm’ to the ‘mental integrity’ of its employees including known risks for vicarious trauma that arise from the nature of the work being undertaken by the employees.
Workplace-related psychological distress costs Australia up to $17.4 billion per year. Current estimates indicate that at least $292,770 is spent per mental health related workers’ compensation case. Of the causes for poor psychosocial outcomes at Australian workplaces, exposure to trauma is among the leading causes of work-related mental ill health.
But what are the warning signs of vicarious trauma and how can HR professionals recognise them and respond? Clements says employees who have high empathy are most at risk and might not realise they are suffering from trauma. Women tend to make up the majority of sufferers.
“Their belief system and the way they look at the world starts to shift, their mood changes, they may start to disengage from work and become easily upset. They may not be thinking clearly and are more error prone,” says Clements. Drinking or other activities that help to avoid thinking about the trauma is another indicator.
The stigma attached to revealing poor mental health and the stoical behaviour typical among professionals in legal services and the finance industry in particular, means that trauma often remains hidden.
However, there are signs that psychological trauma and response to it is moving higher up the workplace agenda. Safe Work Australia recently introduced a range of amendments to WHS laws, one of which is to define more clearly what constitutes psychological risk in the workplace and what are the processes to manage it.
Clements advises HR leaders to tackle psychological trauma at an organisational, team and individual level.
Read more: Should HR provide part-time benefits for part-time employees?
“Look at people’s roles in the business. Ask whether work can be designed to minimise risk. Some of our clients have put tracking systems in place. For example, in a call centre, if someone has had five distressing cases in a week, managers can be alert to and proactive about the employee’s wellbeing.”
During recruitment, a business should be looking at whether the person fits the stress load of the job. “Someone may put their hand up to take on a role that involves trauma but what is their capacity for coping? Give them real-world examples and discover how they respond.”
At a team level, research shows that supportive leaders or peer support contribute enormously to psychological wellbeing. CFCH training shows leaders how to use language to tease out discussions, such as, ‘Are there any cases that have played on your mind?’ and make it safe for people to talk openly about their experiences.
And at an individual level, do employees have the skills needed to protect themselves against the risk of trauma? “People don’t always put their hands up for EAP, as avoidance is one of the signs of vicarious trauma. But a proactive wellbeing check every three months can overcome that,” says Clements.
There should also be clear policies and procedures in place that are specific about psychological risk. Some companies are reluctant to name it as they feel it opens a can of worms, but embedding and promoting a culture of psychological safety may soon become a legal requirement.
Currently, all eyes are on Victoria in partnership with the CPSU as the state trials a Vicarious Trauma Prevention and Awareness Toolkit for the use of government departments. Introducing a code of practice into legislation may well be on the cards in Victoria with a similar move in NSW not far behind.
