Essay Grade

Traumatology, Vol. 11, No. 3 (September, 2005)
Toward An Understanding of Traumatized Organizations and How to Intervene in Them
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Shana Hormann 1 and Pat Vivian 2
The thesis of this paper is that organizations, just as individuals, can suffer from trauma. The
nature of an organization’s work directly impacts the culture of the organization: organizations
that provide services to traumatized individuals, families and/or communities are susceptible to
becoming traumatized systems. The effects of trauma influence an organization’s identity and
worldview in the same way that an individual is influenced by her/his trauma experience. This
article explores the phenomena of organizational trauma. It describes different types of trauma,
e.g., direct and indirect, sudden and cumulative. Using examples from their practice as
managers and consultants, the authors offer insights into how organizations might become
traumatized systems and present characteristics of those traumatized systems. Recommendations
are proposed for assisting traumatized organizations to recover and for intervening in a
preventive way with organizations at risk for becoming traumatized. This framework of
organizational trauma makes it easier to identify the systemic and inherited aspects of trauma,
improve organizational functioning, and enhance resilience. Ultimately understanding
organizational trauma and helping traumatized systems to heal offer hope for the future.
Key Words: organizational culture; group trauma; compassion fatigue; traumatized systems;
organizational trauma; cumulative trauma
Parallel to individuals’ experiences, organizations can suffer from trauma. Sometimes
this trauma is direct as in the bombing of a women’s health clinic that provides abortions. Often
trauma is indirect, the result of an organization’s continual exposure to trauma through the very
nature of its work. Domestic violence service agencies and emergency response organizations
are examples of organizations susceptible to indirect trauma.
For the past thirty-five years the authors have worked as managers and consultants with
community-based non-profit organizations and government agencies that may be defined as
‘highly mission-driven’. A highly mission-driven organization is one whose mission is
compelling and pervasive; the mission and values define not only the nature of the work but also
the approach to the work and the nature of the internal relationships. For example, in response to
historical and current patterns of blaming the victim, sexual assault centers founded their
advocacy on the core values of treating clients with respect, which included being listened to,
believed, and responded to in a supportive way. These core values also created the expectation
that staff listen to, respond to, and support one another.
1
Shana Hormann, MSW is the Interim Director for the Center for Creative Change and may be contacted through
mail: Antioch University Seattle, 2326 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA 98121, telephone: (206) 268-4714, or e-mail:
shormann@antiochsea.edu
2
Pat Vivian, MA is Visiting Faculty at the Center for Creative Change, Antioch University Seattle and may be
contacted through e-mail: pvivian@antiochsea.edu
159
160
Traumatized Organizations
Based on our understanding of the culture of highly mission-driven organizations and
our experiences with systems we viewed as traumatized, we have developed ways of thinking
about organizational trauma. In this article we explore the phenomena of organizational trauma.
We present our ideas about how organizations might become traumatized systems and identify
characteristics of those systems. We also offer strategies for intervening in both traumatized
organizations and organizations at risk for becoming traumatized.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
From Individual to Organizational Trauma
In the early 1980’s researchers and practitioners began writing about the experiences of
those exposed to others’ trauma. Earliest works focused on families and friends; for example
Figley and others write about secondary victimization (White & Rollins, 1981; Figley, 1982;
Remer & Elliot, 1988). Using such concepts as secondary traumatic stress (Figley, 1983; Stamm,
1999), vicarious traumatization (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995), and compassion fatigue (Figley,
1995), researchers and practitioners expanded their thinking to include first responders and
helping professionals. This expanded work offered explanation for the posttraumatic stress-like
symptoms shown by first responders and other helping professionals. “Regardless of their
theoretical frameworks, all constructs refer to the negative reactions of helping professionals
specific to their work with trauma survivors” (Bell, 2003, p. 514).
These frameworks offer ways to understand these symptoms and suggest how to address
them. Strategies include individual self-care (Stamm, 1999; Violanti & Gehrke, 2004), teambased approaches, (Munroe, Shay, et al., 1995; Figley, 2002) and institutional responses
(Catherall, 1995; Bell, 2003; Violanti & Gehrke, 2004). The individual remains the focus.
We think that the effects of trauma influence an organization’s identity and worldview in
the same way that an individual is influenced by her/his trauma experience. That impact embeds
itself in the organizational culture. Schein (1992) defines culture as a deep level of basic
assumptions and beliefs shared by members of an organization that define in a basic ‘taken for
granted’ fashion an organization’s view of itself and its environment. Diamond (1993) adds that
organizations have unconscious processes that lead to organizational identity as expressed by the
culture.
Culture offers a common language and way of thinking about organizational purpose and
primary work. Culture supports the experience of belonging, understanding, and acceptance,
defining insiders and outsiders: it provides sense of ‘home’ and bounds the organizational
identity. We believe that elements of culture imbue every aspect of organizational life and that
over time these elements become part of the organizational unconscious. Organizational culture
makes sense of its members’ experience, provides answers, and protects against collective and
individual anxiety. Those answers influence the ways in which group members perceive, think,
and feel about the world and the organization’s place in it (Schein, 1992; Diamond, 1993).
This cultural protection – or defense – oftentimes arises from dynamics related to the
nature of the work itself and can strengthen or weaken the effectiveness of highly mission-driven
agencies (Obholzer & Roberts, 1994; Vivian & Hormann, 2002). In response to external and
internal forces, organizations may become redemptive organizations (Couto, 1989) and/or
Hormann & Vivian
161
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
develop reparative cultures (Hirschhorn, 1988). Redemptive organizations seek to change the
wrongs of society through socially useful actions; reparative organizational cultures seek to
integrate contradictory organizational elements to serve valued purposes. The need to make
sense of and affirm organizational work and its place in a society not always supportive, as well
as account for needs of its members, makes organizations vulnerable to traumatization.
Stein (Stein, 2001; Stein, 2004; Stein, 2005), Volkan (Volkan, 1988; Volkan, 2002;
Volkan, 2004), Hudson (Hudson, 1998), and Kahn (Kahn, 2003) directly address the concept of
traumatized systems. Systems can become traumatized through natural disasters or human
behaviors, through single events or over time. Stein describes the impact of the World Trade
Center attack, the Columbine school massacre, and the Oklahoma City bombing on the
American cultural psyche; Volkan describes societies traumatized by ethnic warfare and names
the dynamics of chosen traumas and chosen glories, by which one societal generation hands
trauma down to subsequent generations. Hudson speaks to the large-scale impact of trauma, such
as a minister’s suicide or church arson, on the unconscious institutional processes of
congregations. Kahn details collective trauma in caregiving organizations. Stein explores the
traumatizing impact of organizational downsizing, using images and metaphors that speak to
cultural manifestations of psychological processes such as death anxiety.
Stein offers a compelling definition of organizational trauma.
“Groups, for example workplace organizations, can experience traumas just as
individuals and families can. We speak of September 11, 2001 as a ‘national trauma,’ not just
metaphorically, but literally. The protective emotional membrane was penetrated, violated,
perhaps destroyed. At any level, trauma is an experience for which a person-family-group is
emotionally (not only cognitively) unprepared, an experience that overwhelms ones’ defensive
(self-protective) structure and leaves one feeling totally vulnerable and at least temporarily
helpless” (Personal communication, 9/28/04).
How Organizations May Become Traumatized
We think that organizations – as organizations – can experience trauma directly and
indirectly. Traumatization may be sudden or cumulative, from external or internal events, even
from the deleterious effects of dysfunctional internal dynamics that develop over time.
Some organizations have traumatic beginnings. The experiences of individuals associated
with an organization’s founding may influence the initial thinking about the problem, societal
response, desired changes, and the need for collective action. Organizational values and
strategies may run counter to societal norms: society denies the problem, marginalizes those
served, and denigrates the work. Justification of the need and effort and rationale for a preferred
approach come from these early individual and collective experiences. In their struggle to
survive, organizations create an affirming emotional and cognitive worldview that frequently
contains an ‘against all odds’ feeling. The developing culture often includes a powerful
perception (or real experience) of the external environment as unsupportive, uncaring, and
sometimes dangerous. These early characteristics become part of the organization’s story, and
162
Traumatized Organizations
through ritual and repetition embed themselves in the organization’s culture and continue to
influence the organization’s identity.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
We share a couple of examples that show different ways an organization’s beginning may
be traumatic.
Some external groups and institutions directly threaten organizations. In the early 1980’s
a small sexual assault/domestic violence agency decided to seek state funding for expansion. The
agency met with harsh resistance from prominent administrators in the state social service
systems. The administrators organized efforts against the funding request, including a radio
interview in which they stated that sexual assault services were not needed in that part of the
state. The agency rejected any alliance with social services and turned to the public safety
administration for support. A result of this beginning was an enduring separation between the
mental health service system and services for victims of sexual and domestic violence.
The story of the beginning of a mental health agency for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered individuals, which began in 1969, illustrates the persistent influence of its early
history. Conceived to provide therapy for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT)
individuals when being “out” was not safe and the wider community viewed gays and lesbians as
aberrant, this organization had offices in a secret location with lighter fluid kept close at hand to
burn any records that might endanger clients. For good reasons this agency erected a protective
organizational boundary. Decades later, well into the 1990s, when the LGBT community was
more visible and “out”, this agency still described itself as somewhat hidden and separated from
the wider community. Members acknowledged a combination of agency early history and
continuing desire to protect the community as influential dynamics in the organizational identity.
External injurious events may also traumatize an organization. These events may be
catastrophic as in the example of the bombing of a women’s health clinic that provides abortion
services. The clinic responds to hostile actions in various ways: it becomes more wary and selfprotective. The bulletproof Plexiglas in a clinic’s reception area and the diligent observation by
staff of strange cars parked on the streets are physical manifestations of a vigilant and wary
organizational culture. Or these events may be cumulatively debilitating. Continual harassment
of staff and clients of a clinic eventually traumatizes the organization and makes it more selfprotective. Even actions against one clinic may result in another clinic’s becoming wary and
taking precautions.
Organizations may be traumatized by internal acts. Though these acts may be single
catastrophic occurrences or a series of wounding actions, many times they are a combination of
the two. Examples include embezzlement of funds, sexual abuse by a pastor of congregational
members, a leader’s suicide, workplace abuse, a controversial leader’s termination, and mass
layoffs as part of organizational downsizing.
The case study of a rape crisis center (Hormann & Vivian, 2004) offers one example.
Tension between staff and board members mounted in a series of misunderstandings and hurtful
written communications about racism and lack of respect in the agency. After months of no
resolution the board of directors fired one co-director, who was a woman of color. Within the
Hormann & Vivian
163
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
next several months, five additional staff (of a total of 10) resigned or were fired. Although the
center engaged an external consultant to assist them in dealing with the situation it did not
address the confusion, pain, and rifts within the staff or between staff and board members. Staff
of color who continued working at the agency reported persistent feelings of guilt for not
resigning in solidarity with the fired co-director. Staff who joined the agency long after that
period reported being strongly influenced by emotionally intense stories about the co-director’s
firing that continued to be told.
In a corporate example of internal wounding Stein (1998) uses vivid language to describe
the traumatic impact of organizational downsizing: “Downsizing is not primarily about economic
competition and survival. Its hardened heart is about death…It is about endless cycles of
sacrifice to keep ‘the organization’ alive, cleansed, profitable, and competitive, while consuming,
one way or another, everyone in its midst” (p. 72). He is describing dynamics that are systemic
and enduring, and as Noer’s research shows they affect those actually involved as well as
subsequent generations of workers (Noer, 1993).
Organizations may also be cumulatively traumatized by their primary work. Cumulative
trauma may develop from ongoing, continuous exposure to the pain and suffering of
clients/consumers. As Figley (1995) and Pearlman (1999) have described, trauma workers rely
on their empathy to intervene effectively: that empathy enables emotional concern and comes
with the risk of emotional contagion. That impact falls not just on individuals: rather a contagion
effect results in traumatic stress being spread among co-workers (Braiker, 1986; Herman, 1992).
We think that over time the value of caring and skill of empathy as well as the impact of
emotional contagion become parts of the organizational unconscious. These aspects are
incorporated into an organization’s culture and passed on to subsequent generations of workers
via conscious and unconscious socialization processes that communicate concepts and language
developed earlier in that organization’s life. For example, jargon, organizational shorthand,
develops to explain the experience of stress. Before experiencing stress from their own
experiences, staff learn to pay attention to it and talk about it in the “organizational” way.
Cumulative trauma also might come from the social change efforts of the organization.
The enormity of the efforts demands deep commitment and carries the risk of falling short.
Commitment, the gap between commitment and success, and internalized feelings about those
gaps all become part of the organizational culture. For example, a colleague was part of small
group that offered training and consultation on diversity and anti-oppression. They folded
because the challenge of the work itself so influenced the internal dynamics that the collegial
relationships were destroyed.
Lastly, injurious organizational patterns may emerge from the unconscious life of the
organization. Hidden and powerful, they influence both internal and external relationships. Often
they are missed because they are experienced individually or interpersonally. Our case study of a
rape crisis center provides an example (Hormann & Vivian, 2004). Over its life, the mission and
work of this agency became more and more influenced by an anti-oppression analysis. As staff
deepened their understanding of oppression, they became more sensitized to dynamics such as
racism and classism inside the agency. The very sophistication of the analysis kept the agency in
164
Traumatized Organizations
constant turmoil about those dynamics. Conversations never resulted in healing or significant
understanding; rather they led to a fearful atmosphere that worsened over time and contributed to
the agency’s closure.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
In the same way that all individuals who suffer from trauma do not develop posttraumatic
stress disorder and all first responders and care givers do not suffer from some form of secondary
traumatic stress, we think that not all organizations that experience trauma become traumatized
systems. The reason why some organizations become traumatized systems and others do not is
beyond the scope of this paper. We turn now to characteristics of a traumatized system.
Characteristics of a Traumatized System
Closed Boundaries between Organization and External Environment
To the extent that an organization experiences or perceives its environment to be
unsupportive and hostile, it protects itself. The external environment (they) is vilified while the
organization (we) is idealized. Boundaries become less permeable, and less information and
energy enters; the organizational system closes down. Closed systems tend towards sameness
(Trist, 1969), defensiveness, and resistance to change (Allport, 1960). As the system’s
boundaries close, the organization becomes isolated from the external environment and incapable
of correctly assessing external reality. Its self-image becomes distorted.
Centrality of Insider Relationships
Closed boundaries intensify internal organizational life, and internal relationships take on
greater importance. An “emotional field” (Friedman, 1985) naturally develops from the normal
occurrence of emotional interdependency in an organization. We think that highly missiondriven organizations develop an especially intense emotional atmosphere — from individuals
who care deeply about the work itself, from the organizational culture, and from the nature of the
work itself. Trauma intensifies all of these aspects. Loyalty and caring for each other are
emphasized, and threats to relationships are disturbing: consequently many of these systems
become conflict avoidant. Highly normative systems develop, excluding in subtle and overt ways
those who do not act or think “appropriately”. Relationships may become enmeshed and in
extreme cases incestuous (White, 1986).
Stress and Anxiety Contagion
Emotional contagion (Figley, 1995), stress contagion (Braiker, 1986; Figley, 1995), or
trauma contagion (Herman, 1992) may occur as organizational members are swept up in coworkers’ feelings, anxieties, and stresses. Reliance on internal relationships coupled with a
dependence on empathy to accomplish the work, overload the stress-absorption capacity of the
organization, and the organization, as an entity, never calms down. The internal atmosphere
remains stressful, and stress becomes an organizing framework, a lens through which the work is
experienced. The interplay of atmosphere and organizing framework results in a culture partially
defined by its stress.
Hormann & Vivian
165
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Loss of Hope
Fueled by a lack of organizational efficacy and a view of the world as unchanging, the
organization begins to doubt itself. The collective understanding of what is possible is
compromised. A gap develops between the idealism of desired change and the ability of the
organization to accomplish that change. The result is an organizational culture hypersensitive to
the same dynamics it is trying to change, dynamics such as power, authority, oppression, and
exclusion. As it cannot succeed in changing the external world, it also cannot succeed in
changing itself. Ultimately, the organization is damaged spiritually, losing its ability to make
meaning of its work and to connect itself to wider purposes and movements.
Though we have described each characteristic separately, pragmatically speaking they are
interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Closed boundaries offer little new energy or
perspective to organizational processes. Continuing to view the world as uncaring and
unchanging reinforces protective boundaries. Both promote involvement in internal dysfunction
and distract the organization from its purpose. This in turn exacerbates the feelings of
hopelessness about making any real impact on the external world. In extreme cases the
organization dies.
Intervening in Traumatized Organizations
Now we turn to what can be done to help heal a traumatized organization or help prevent
traumatization in the first place. We address in turn intervening in an organization suffering from
trauma, or having a history of trauma, and intervening in an organization at risk for
traumatization. In any situation it is important that the practitioner who is called upon to help the
organization show care, concern, and love. It is also important that he or she “maintain a nonanxious presence” (Friedman, 1985, p. 39) to avoid being swept up into the anxiety of the
system. Practitioners balance validation—honoring the history and experience—and the need to
change. They model compassion and offer hope while allowing anxiety on the part of others.
They also offer reprieves from the emotional stimulation and provide safety for all involved. For
example, they can limit discussions that recycle the same information or escalate the systemic
anxiety. All of these actions set the stage for a multi-faceted dialogue about the experience.
Intervening in an Organization Suffering from Trauma or Having a History of Trauma:
Containing the anxiety and despair felt by the organization is the first step. The ability of
the practitioner to act as a non-anxious container is critical. The practitioner can offer guidelines
for protecting and stabilizing the organization. These might include calling a truce on harmful
patterns and structuring organization-wide conversation. Conceptualizing and then naming the
traumatic situation comes next. Frequently individuals express the organization’s distress in
traumatic situations, and the organizational processes tend to remain hidden from view (Hudson,
1998; Vivian & Hormann, 2002). Using the concepts of organizational trauma surfaces these
processes and offers a way to talk about them. Using them also helps to normalize the reactions
and patterns and to allow individual and collective recognition that they are not alone, not lost,
and not crazy. These concepts and discussions provide a non-personalized and non-politicized
166
Traumatized Organizations
way to describe the experiences and systemic anxiety. Ultimately the practitioner offers the
opportunity for collective meaning making and healing.
Intervening in an Organization at Risk for Traumatization:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
In an organization at risk for traumatization the concepts of organizational trauma offer a
systemic way to understand organizational culture and the impact of the organization’s work on
that culture. They provide a method for surfacing what may be unconscious aspects of
organizational life. Surfacing these aspects enables members to understand and address those
aspects in a direct and non-blaming way (Obholzer & Roberts, 1994).
Practitioners need to be sensitive to the readiness of the organization to think in these
ways. In our training and consultation we have found organizational leaders and colleagues open
to using these concepts because the concepts help them make sense of their organizational
experiences. Discussions about the organization’s enduring and changing patterns expand the
ways organizational members understand and respond to their experiences. Understanding the
sources of trauma helps organizational members collectively make sense of organizational
history and assess the organization’s risk for traumatization. Do dynamics result from normal
developmental stages in the organization’s life or are they better explained by organizational
trauma? Are tensions and dilemmas related to interpersonal dynamics or organizational cultural
patterns? Is the nature of the work impacting the organizational culture as well as individual staff
members?
Because traumatized systems close down, interventions that promote openness and
healthy external relationships are essential. Encouraging inter-organizational cooperation and
collaboration helps information and energy flow across boundaries. Helping organizations
understand how they fit in a larger system of service delivery or social change efforts acts to
mitigate the over-emphasis on uniqueness and counter organizational isolation.
Since traumatized systems also focus inward, developing internal systems and structures
that deal with tension, conflict, pressure, and stress build capacity for resilience. They are
particularly helpful to reduce stress contagion, the vehicle through which traumatic stress spreads
and persists.
In any intervention leaders need support to acknowledge their role in influencing the
organization and to understand how their own histories and experiences of trauma influence their
work and the organization’s culture. In fact all organizational members need the opportunity to
reflect about the connection of their individual history to organizational culture and work.
Finally we think that spiritual dimensions of organizational life are often ignored or
discounted. Attending to the organization’s spirit helps kindle hope. Organizations, like
individuals, need ways to replenish and sustain themselves and to make meaning of their work
and experiences. The organizational capacity to accept the existence of trauma and act anyway
allows it to succeed.
Hormann & Vivian
167
In this article we have explored organizational trauma: ways an organization might
become traumatized, characteristics of that organizational trauma, and ways to intervene in
traumatized systems. We think that these concepts make it easier to identify the systemic and
inherited aspects of trauma, improve organizational functioning, and enhance resilience.
Ultimately understanding organizational trauma and helping traumatized systems to heal offer
hope for the future.
References
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Allport, G. (1960). Personality and social encounter. Boston, MA: The Beacon Press.
Bell, H. (2003). Strengths and secondary trauma in family violence work. Social Work 48(4),
513-522.
Braiker, H. (1986). The Type E woman. New York, MY: Dodd Mead & Co.
Catherall, D. (1995). Preventing institutional secondary traumatic stress disorder. In C. R. Figley
(Ed.) Compassion fatigue, Florence, KY, Brunner/Mazel (232-247).
Couto, R.A. (1989). Redemptive organizations and the politics of hope. Clinical Sociology
Review 7, 64-79.
Diamond, M. (1993). The unconscious life of organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Figley, C.R. (1982). Traumatization and comfort: Close relationships may be hazardous to your
health. Conference on Families and Close Relationships: Individuals in social interaction,
Texas Tech University-Lubbock.
Figley, C.R. (1983). Catastrophes: An overview of family reactions. In C.R. Figley and H.I.
McCubbin (Eds.) Stress and the Family Volume II: Coping with catastrophe. New York,
NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Figley, C.R. (Ed.) (1995). Compassion Fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress
disorder in those who treat the traumatized. Florence, KY: Brunner/Mazel.
Figley, C.R. (2002). Treating Compassion Fatigue. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Friedman, E. (1985). Generation to generation: Family process in church and synagogue. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The workplace within: Psychodynamics of organizational life.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hormann, S., & Vivian, P. (2004). Seattle Rape Relief: Organizational trauma, agency closure,
and interventions that might have made a difference. Seattle.
168
Traumatized Organizations
Hudson, J. M. (1998). Congregational Trauma: Caring, coping & learning, Alban Institute, Inc.
Kahn, W.A. (2003). The revelation of organizational trauma. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 39(4), 364-380.
Munroe, J., Shay, J., et al. (1995). Preventing compassion fatigue: A team treatment model. C.R.
Figley (Ed.) Compassion fatigue. Florence, KY: Brunner/Mazel (209-231).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Noer, D.M. (1993). Healing the wounds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Obholzer, A., & Roberts, V.Z. (1994). The unconscious at work: Individual and organizational
stress in the human services. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pearlman, L.A. (1999). Self-care for trauma therapists: Ameliorating vicarious traumatization. In
B.H. Stamm Secondary traumatic stress: Self-care issues for clinicians, researchers, and
educators. Baltimore, MD: Sidran Press.
Pearlman, L.A., & Saakvitne, K.W. (1995). Trauma and the therapist: Countertransference and
vicarious traumatization in psychotherapy with incest survivors. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton and Company.
Remer, R. & Elliot, J. (1988). Characteristics of secondary victims of sexual assault.
International Journal of Family Psychiatry 9(4), 373-387.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stamm, B.H. (Ed.) (1999). Secondary traumatic stress: Se