In trauma-informed leadership, we celebrate boundaries. We encourage them. We model them. Over the last three weeks, I have written extensively about why boundaries are so important as a trauma-informed leader. But what happens when boundaries start showing up in ways that are reactive, isolating, or out of alignment with team goals? What happens when you have team members who are so rigid with their boundaries that it seems impossible to get the job done or for the staff to feel connected with one another?

These are questions I’ve found myself grappling with more and more as I support teams navigating complex environments. In our trauma-informed work, we often talk about how hard it is to set boundaries—especially for people who have experienced chronic stress, burnout, or institutional distrust. But what we don’t talk about as often is what happens after people begin to reclaim their autonomy—when they start setting their own boundaries not from a place of grounded self-connection, but as a way to regain control.

And here's the truth: those boundaries don’t always lead to clarity. Sometimes, they lead to confusion, isolation, or even conflict.

Let’s talk about it.

Why Boundaries Become a Way of Regaining Control

When someone has experienced trauma—whether in life or in the workplace—they’ve often had their autonomy taken from them. Their decisions were overridden. Their needs were ignored. Their safety may have been compromised. As I’ve explored in previous posts, trauma and control are deeply intertwined. When control is lost, boundary-setting can become a survival skill.

But survival boundaries are different from healthy, sustainable boundaries. Here’s the difference:

• Healthy Boundaries:
  • Anchored in self-awareness
  • Aligned with collective goals
  • Communicated transparently
  • Flexible and context-aware
  • Built to create safety AND connection
• Survival Boundaries:
  • Anchored in fear or reactivity
  • Focused on personal protection
  • Withheld or enforced without discussion
  • Rigid and non-negotiable
  • Build to avoid harm or disengage
  • Disrupts connection

In organizations where staff have felt disempowered, dismissed, or burned out, survival boundaries can become a dominant mode of engagement. It often sounds like:

• “I’m not staying past 4:30 no matter what.”
• “That’s not my job, and I’m not taking on anything extra.”
• “I don’t respond to emails on Fridays—full stop.”
• “I need to protect my peace, so I’ve just stopped attending staff meetings.”

And while we absolutely want to respect autonomy and avoid re-traumatizing people—we also need to hold the tension between personal boundaries and collective care.

When Staff Boundaries Start to Conflict with Team Goals

Here’s the challenge: in a team environment, individual boundaries don't exist in a vacuum. One person’s limit often bumps up against another person’s need. When boundaries are set without coordination, we can end up with silos, misunderstandings, and fractured team culture.

Some common scenarios:

• A team member refuses to work outside their strict hours, while others are covering late shifts or weekend tasks—creating feelings of inequity.
• An employee declines to attend team meetings for “mental health” without discussing alternative ways to stay connected, leaving others to carry communication weight.
• A high performer begins saying no to all extra projects without explanation, creating confusion about accountability and uneven workloads.
• Multiple team members set boundaries against working with a specific colleague after conflict—leaving that person isolated and unsupported.

In each of these examples, the intent behind the boundary may be valid. But the impact on the team can be disruptive if not handled with transparency and collaboration.

When Boundary Setting Becomes a Shield

Let’s acknowledge something many trauma-informed leaders have witnessed but few openly name: Sometimes boundaries become a shield to avoid vulnerability, growth, or discomfort.

And that makes sense. For someone with a trauma history, even mildly challenging interactions can feel unsafe. They might need extra space to feel in control, which may look like setting extreme boundaries: withdrawing from collaboration, opting out of projects, or limiting communication to a bare minimum.

The risk here is disconnection. If left unchecked, survival-based boundaries can slowly erode psychological safety across the team—especially if those boundaries are set privately, rigidly, or in a way that feels punitive to others.

Trauma-Informed Truth: All Boundaries Are Not Created Equal

This may feel controversial, but it’s an essential truth: not all boundaries are inherently healthy.

In trauma-informed practice, boundaries are not about shutting down or walling off. They are about co-creating safety. That means they must be:

• Relational: Boundaries don’t mean “I get to do whatever I want.” They mean “Here’s how I can participate while staying grounded in my values and needs.”
• Communicative: Others need to understand your boundaries to honor them. Silent withdrawal is not the same as boundary-setting.
• Repairable: If a boundary harms others or creates division, we need processes for checking in, clarifying, and re-aligning.

Boundaries in trauma-informed leadership are both personal and collective. They are both about protecting the individual and about fostering trust, clarity, and mutual care across the team.

Leading Through the Discomfort: What Leaders Can Do

When staff begin setting boundaries as a way to regain control, it can be challenging for leaders. You want to honor autonomy—but also keep the team functioning. You want to support healing—but also need accountability. It’s a delicate dance.

Here are six trauma-informed strategies leaders can use:

1. Normalize Boundaries as a Team Conversation

Instead of waiting until someone sets a rigid or reactive boundary in isolation, create regular, proactive conversations around boundaries as a shared team value. Begin with a discussion about healthy versus survival boundaries. Then set a team boundary around boundaries – work with your team to make a commitment that they will work on setting healthy boundaries with one another.

In a team meeting, ask: “What boundaries help you feel safe and productive here? How can we communicate and honor these as a team while staying connected to each other and our goals?” 

2. Distinguish Between Boundaries and Avoidance

Sometimes, what’s being called a boundary is actually a way to avoid discomfort, accountability, or connection. Be curious, not confrontational.

“I noticed you’ve stepped back from team check-ins recently. I’d love to hear how you’re feeling about those meetings and whether there’s something we can shift to make them more supportive.”

3. Support Capacity, Not Just Autonomy

If someone is constantly setting boundaries around workload, start asking why. Is the workload unmanageable? Is there a lack of support? Or is burnout driving self-protection?

Trauma-informed leaders look under the surface of behavior. Support doesn’t mean pushing past boundaries—it means getting curious about what they’re trying to protect.

4. Create Shared Agreements Around Boundaries

Boundaries can’t be ad hoc. They work best when they’re part of your team culture, created together.

Examples of shared agreements:

• No work-related texts after 6 p.m.
• Everyone takes lunch breaks without meetings.
• Project roles and expectations are clearly communicated.
• Conflicts are addressed directly, not triangulated.

These agreements reduce the need for defensive boundaries by establishing proactive structure.

5. Offer Coaching Around Healthy Assertiveness

Boundary-setting is a skill—and many people are new at it. Some may over-correct after years of self-abandonment.

Instead of judging, coach them:

“It’s great that you’re prioritizing your needs. How can we help you express that boundary in a way that supports team flow?”

Encourage boundaries that are assertive, not aggressive—rooted in values, not fear.

6. Model Transparent, Flexible Boundaries Yourself

Leadership is modeling. If you expect your team to be flexible, clear, and collaborative with their boundaries, you need to do the same.

• Share your working hours and stick to them.
• Explain your own “no” when relevant (“I’m at capacity this week, so I’ll need to pass on this task.”)
• Apologize when you miss the mark (“I sent an email late—I’ll schedule it next time so it doesn’t interrupt your off time.”)

Every time you model a healthy boundary, you give your team permission to do the same.

A Real-Life Example: The Case of “Jasmine”

Jasmine was a program coordinator in one of the organizations I consulted with. After years of being the “go-to” person, she hit a wall. One day, she announced she was no longer available for calls or emails after 4 p.m., refused to take on any additional duties, and opted out of all staff committees.

Her boundaries were clear—but the sudden rigidity created tension. Colleagues felt abandoned. Her supervisor didn’t know how to respond. Jasmine felt proud but also increasingly isolated.

Instead of challenging her boundaries, we invited her into a values-based conversation. We asked:

• “What’s this boundary protecting for you?”
• “What would support you in feeling safe and seen without needing to pull back completely?”
• “How do you want to stay connected to the team while honoring your capacity?”

Through ongoing dialogue, Jasmine agreed to attend one team meeting per week and co-develop a coverage plan for after-hours needs. Her needs were honored and she remained part of the team.

Final Thoughts: Boundaries Are the Beginning, Not the End

When staff begin to set their own boundaries—especially after years of burnout, disempowerment, or moral distress—it’s a sign of progress. But it’s also a sign that the team needs support integrating these boundaries into a relational, values-driven culture.

Boundaries are not the end goal. They are the starting point for healing, reconnection, and co-regulation.

As leaders, our job is not just to respect boundaries—but to help staff build boundaries that serve both their well-being and the collective mission.

It’s not always easy. But when we do this well, we shift from survival mode into something much more powerful: sustainable leadership grounded in trust.