INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

The Relationship between Trauma-Informed Leadership and Resistance

to Organizational Changes in Vietnam’s Higher Education Sector in the

Aftermath of Covid-19

Quyen Thi Ngoc Nguyen

Institute of Studies of International Education and Economics, Vietnam

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000782

Received: 07 November 2025; Accepted: 14 November 2025; Published: 24 November 2025

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep structural and psychological challenges in higher education,

demanding leadership approaches that balance empathy with institutional resilience. This study explores how

trauma-informed leadership mitigates resistance to change in Vietnam’s post-pandemic universities. Using

qualitative data from three institutions, it examines how principles of safety, trust, empowerment, and cultural

sensitivity shaped adaptation processes. Findings show that trauma-informed leadership reduced resistance by

fostering psychological safety, transparent communication, and shared ownership of change. Leaders localized

trauma-informed practices to align with Vietnamese collectivist and hierarchical values, reframing empathy

and care as collective responsibilities. Despite resource limitations, these approaches strengthened engagement

and resilience across university communities. The study extends the global literature by demonstrating trauma-

informed leadership’s adaptability beyond Western contexts, highlighting its reliance on contextual sensitivity,

emotional intelligence, and consistent communication to transform crisis recovery into sustainable

organizational learning.

Keywords: Trauma-informed leadership, organizational change, psychological safety, higher education.

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly disrupted higher education worldwide, forcing universities to shift

rapidly to online and hybrid learning while grappling with severe financial, operational, and psychological

challenges. The crisis exposed long-standing disparities in digital infrastructure, faculty preparedness, and

student access to technology (Atmojo & Nugroho, 2020; Bryson & Andres, 2020; Jung & Shin, 2021). Beyond

pedagogical issues, universities suffered from declining enrollments and revenue losses, leading to staff

reductions and uncertainty about institutional sustainability (Şener et al., 2020; Shafique et al., 2022).

Simultaneously, anxiety, burnout, and depression increased among students and faculty members, revealing the

urgent need for leadership approaches that prioritize empathy and well-being (Bui et al., 2022; Nguyen &

Pham, 2023).

In Vietnam, the pandemic had equally far-reaching consequences. Universities faced technological and

infrastructural limitations, uneven digital access among students, and declining financial stability, particularly

in smaller private institutions (Huynh et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2024). The disruption of international

cooperation and mobility programs coincided with a growing visibility of mental health issues in Vietnamese

higher education (Tran & Moskovsky, 2024). These challenges have underscored the need for leadership

models that go beyond efficiency and control to foster resilience, compassion, and psychological safety within

academic communities.

Trauma-informed leadership has emerged as a promising response to such crises. Grounded in trauma-

informed care principles, it emphasizes safety, trust, collaboration, empowerment, and cultural sensitivity in

organizational contexts (Huang et al., 2014; Henshaw, 2022). In higher education, trauma-informed leadership

helps create supportive environments where individuals can recover from collective trauma, promoting both

well-being and institutional resilience (Barros-Lane et al., 2021). Yet, the concept remains underexplored in

Page 9560

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Vietnam’s higher education system, where hierarchical and collectivist cultural norms may both support and

constrain its implementation (Nguyen & Tran, 2018; Pham, 2018).

The pandemic has also intensified resistance to organizational change in Vietnamese universities. As

institutions undertake digital transformation, financial restructuring, and curriculum redesign, faculty and staff

coping with emotional exhaustion often resist new initiatives (Phan & Pham, 2023). Conventional leadership

models that prioritize compliance and efficiency may inadvertently heighten this resistance by neglecting the

emotional recovery of academic communities. Understanding how trauma-informed leadership can mitigate

resistance and promote acceptance of change is therefore crucial for post-pandemic recovery.

Despite growing global attention, theoretical and empirical gaps persist regarding the applicability of trauma-

informed leadership in non-Western higher education contexts. Most frameworks have been developed in

Western contexts highlighting individual autonomy and open mental health dialogue, in contrast to the

collectivist and hierarchical culture of Vietnam (Venet, 2023). Research examining the relationship between

trauma-informed leadership and organizational change in Vietnamese universities remains scarce, particularly

regarding how such practices affect psychological safety, trust, and resistance to change among faculty and

staff.

To address these gaps, this study investigates the relationship between trauma-informed leadership and

resistance to organizational change in Vietnam’s higher education sector following the COVID-19 pandemic. It

explores how trauma-informed principles are manifested in university leadership and how these practices

influence organizational resistance to change. By doing so, the research contributes to a deeper understanding

of culturally grounded crisis leadership in Vietnamese higher education, offering insights into how

compassionate, trauma-aware leadership can foster institutional resilience, psychological safety, and

sustainable transformation in the post-pandemic era.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education: Global and Vietnamese Perspectives

The COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented disruption across global higher education, forcing institutions

to close campuses, shift to remote and hybrid learning, and confront major operational, financial, and

psychosocial challenges (Barros-Lane et al., 2021). The abrupt transition exposed persistent inequalities in

digital access, faculty readiness, and institutional resilience, while declines in international student enrollments

undermined universities’ financial stability (Filho et al., 2021). These pressures coincided with widespread

stress, anxiety, and burnout among students and faculty, revealing the urgency of leadership models that

address both structural and emotional dimensions of crisis management (Bui et al., 2022). Flexible and

compassionate leadership that integrates empathy, psychological safety, and transparent communication has

been shown to enhance institutional adaptability and trust (Kotter, 1996).

In Vietnam, the pandemic’s effects mirrored global trends but were amplified by domestic constraints. The

shift to online learning exposed sharp digital divides between urban and rural students, many of whom lacked

stable internet access or digital devices (Nguyen et al., 2020). Financial pressures intensified as government

funding declined and tuition-dependent institutions, particularly private universities, faced enrollment losses

(Tran, 2021). Furthermore, discussions about mental health and emotional well-being remained limited due to

lingering social stigma (Nguyen & Pham, 2023). These challenges highlighted the importance of leadership

approaches that integrate emotional awareness, empathy, and flexibility alongside managerial efficiency,

aligning closely with the principles of trauma-informed leadership.

Organizational Change and Leadership in Higher Education

Organizational change theory provides a foundation for understanding how universities adapt to crises and

transformation. Lewin’s Change Model conceptualizes organizational change as a three-stage process of

unfreezing, changing, and refreezing, emphasizing readiness and stabilization (Hussain et al., 2016). Similarly,

Kotter’s (1996) Eight-Step Process identifies the creation of urgency, coalition-building, and consolidation of

Page 9561

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

new practices as essential for sustainable transformation. These models, however, largely focus on procedural

and behavioral aspects of change, often overlooking the emotional and psychological dimensions that

influence individuals’ responses to transformation.

In the context of higher education, leaders must manage not only structural change but also the anxiety,

fatigue, and uncertainty that accompany crisis-driven transitions. Trauma-informed leadership complements

traditional change frameworks by integrating emotional intelligence and psychological safety into the change

process (Bloom, 2010). It helps reduce resistance by fostering trust, transparency, and empathy, thereby

addressing both institutional and personal needs. Hiatt’s (2006) ADKAR model, which highlights awareness,

desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement, aligns well with trauma-informed practices by focusing on the

human experience of change. Integrating these perspectives offers a more holistic understanding of leadership

during post-crisis recovery in higher education.

Trauma-Informed Leadership: Principles and Cultural Adaptation in Vietnam

Trauma-informed leadership is grounded in the recognition that crises and traumatic events can significantly

shape individuals’ emotions, behaviors, and social interactions. Originating from trauma-informed care in

mental health, this framework has been adapted to organizational contexts to promote environments

characterized by safety, trust, empathy, collaboration, and empowerment(Huang et al., 2014). In higher

education, trauma-informed leadership involves fostering conditions that enable psychological recovery and

resilience, which are crucial for students and staff in the post-pandemic landscape.

The key principles of trauma-informed leadership include: safety (ensuring emotional and psychological

security within institutional environments); trust and transparency (building confidence through open,

consistent communication); peer support and collaboration (encouraging collective problem-solving and

mutual aid among members); empowerment, voice, and choice (involving individuals in decision-making to

strengthen ownership and reduce feelings of helplessness); cultural and gender sensitivity (recognizing the

impact of socio-cultural factors on how trauma is experienced and addressed) (Herman, 2016).Applied to

higher education, these principles translate into leadership practices that balance institutional demands with

care for human well-being. By emphasizing empathy, relational trust, and empowerment, trauma-informed

leaders can mitigate emotional exhaustion, foster resilience, and reduce resistance to change.

However, the Vietnamese cultural and institutional context presents both opportunities and constraints for

implementing trauma-informed leadership. Vietnamese higher education operates within a collectivist and

authority-oriented culture, where respect for hierarchy and social harmony are deeply ingrained (Nguyen &

Pham, 2023). These norms align with certain aspects of trauma-informed leadership, including collaboration

and peer support, but may constrain elements such as empowerment and open dialogue about trauma or mental

health (Tran, 2021). The stigma surrounding mental health remains a barrier to fostering transparent

discussions about emotional well-being.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study adopted a qualitative research design to explore the role of trauma-informed leadership in managing

organizational change within Vietnam’s higher education sector in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The qualitative approach was chosen to capture the depth, complexity, and emotional nuances of leadership

practices during post-crisis recovery. It allows for a contextualized understanding of how leaders and staff

experience and interpret trauma-informed leadership, emphasizing meaning-making and lived experience

(Creswell & Poth, 2018).

A qualitative design is particularly suitable for investigating trauma-related phenomena because it provides

flexibility and sensitivity in addressing participants’ emotional responses. Through in-depth interviews and

case studies, the study sought to uncover how trauma-informed principles of empathy, psychological safety,

and transparency shaped leadership decisions and influenced organizational resilience. This approach

Page 9562

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

facilitates an interpretive understanding of leadership behaviors in relation to both institutional transformation

and individual well-being (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Flick, 2018).

Sampling

The study involved leaders, faculty members, and administrative staff from three Vietnamese universities

representing both public and private institutions. This purposive sampling strategy was designed to ensure

diversity across institutional types, positions, and experiences. The inclusion of multiple perspectives captures

how trauma-informed leadership practices are enacted and perceived at different organizational levels (Miles,

2014).

A total of 20 participants were selected, comprising 10 university leaders (e.g., rectors, deans, department

heads) and 10 employees (faculty and administrative staff). The selection criteria included: 1) Active

involvement in decision-making or institutional responses during and after the pandemic; 2) Direct experience

with organizational changes influenced by leadership decisions; 3) Willingness to discuss personal and

professional experiences in a post-pandemic context.

This composition enabled an examination of leadership from both strategic and operational viewpoints.

Diversity in gender, age, and professional background provided a broad understanding of how trauma-

informed practices were perceived and applied within Vietnam’s hierarchical higher education structures.

Data Collection

Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and institutional case studies, conducted between

March and July 2025. This triangulated approach ensured both breadth and depth in the data.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all 20 participants. This format offered flexibility to explore

participants’ experiences while maintaining consistency across key themes such as empathy, communication,

psychological safety, and resistance to change (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018). Each interview lasted 60 - 90

minutes and was recorded and transcribed verbatim with participants’ consent.

In addition to interviews, three institutional case studies were developed to examine specific examples of

trauma-informed leadership in action. These case studies allowed for detailed exploration of contextual

dynamics, leadership strategies, and outcomes within each university. The cases captured variations in

institutional size, resources, and culture, providing insight into how leaders balanced operational change with

emotional recovery.

Data collection proceeded in three phases:

 Phase 1: Initial interviews with leaders to explore leadership strategies and perceptions of trauma-

informed principles.

 Phase 2: Follow-up interviews with staff to capture their experiences and reflections on these leadership

practices.

 Phase 3: Development of institutional case studies integrating data from documents, interviews, and field

notes to illustrate real-world examples of trauma-informed leadership in post-pandemic recovery.

This multi-phase design enabled the study to examine leadership from multiple perspectives and contextualize

findings within broader institutional realities.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework. This

method was selected for its suitability in identifying, organizing, and interpreting patterns of meaning in

qualitative data. The process involved: familiarization, coding, theme development, reviewing and refining

themesi, nterpretation. This iterative process ensured that findings were grounded in participants’ experiences

while connected to established theoretical perspectives.

Page 9563

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

University 1: Building Safety, Trust, and Empowerment

At University 1, leadership practices evolved sequentially from establishing psychological and technical safety

to empowering faculty autonomy and embedding collective resilience in institutional culture.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic heightened leaders’ awareness of safety as the foundation of effective

change. Technical safety was prioritized through immediate collaboration with IT units to ensure uninterrupted

access to learning management systems and video-conferencing tools.As one staff member explained, “I

worked closely with IT services to ensure that all faculty had access to necessary tools like learning

management systems and video conferencing platforms”. Clear operational protocols minimized confusion and

maintained student progress.

Alongside technical stability, leaders actively nurtured psychological safety. Faculty were granted mental-

health days “without needing to explain their reasons”, and informal check-ins created non-judgmental spaces

for sharing concerns. By demonstrating empathy and acknowledging personal strain, these practices embodied

trauma-informed responses appropriate for crisis contexts.Trustworthiness further anchored this phase.

Transparency and consistency became deliberate tools to manage anxiety and uncertainty. A dean reported, “I

consistently shared all major decisions with my team, explaining the rationale behind them and seeking their

input whenever possible”. Such communication cultivated confidence and reduced resistance by clarifying

institutional intentions.

Once safety and trust were secured, leaders concentrated on generating desire by fostering motivation and

emotional readiness to engage with institutional changes.Peer support networks were the primary mechanism:

informal faculty circles enabled colleagues to exchange experiences and co-create adaptive strategies. A senior

administrator recalled, “We used informal networks to help each other adapt to the sudden changes in teaching

methods”. These circles transformed isolation into solidarity, stimulating shared commitment rather than

compliance.

Cultural sensitivity amplified engagement. Recognizing Vietnam’s collectivist orientation and respect for

hierarchy, leaders reframed trauma-informed concepts like empathy and openness within culturally familiar

values of harmony and group responsibility. As one leader reflected, “We focused on group harmony and

avoided framing issues as individual problems, ensuring everyone felt included and supported”. This

localization legitimized trauma-informed strategies, transforming them into culturally resonant forms of care.

The knowledge phase emphasized capacity building and structural enablement. Leadership organized targeted

training sessions to strengthen digital pedagogy and ensure equitable access to technological resources. As one

staff member noted, “We introduced training sessions tailored to faculty needs to build confidence in new

systems”.By addressing both technical gaps and the emotional side of competence, this investment helped

reduce anxiety related to technological change, with empowerment serving as the foundation for knowledge

acquisition. Faculty were encouraged to experiment with new methods without fear of sanction. A senior

administrator highlighted the role of empowerment in fostering innovation that,“I empowered faculty to try

innovative approaches, reassuring them that mistakes were part of the learning process”. This approach shifted

the institutional narrative from control to trust, enhancing intrinsic motivation and learning agility.

The ability stage reflected the translation of new knowledge into practical and sustainable behaviors.University

1 established multiple channels for voice, including feedback surveys and group discussions that informed

real-time adjustments. As one staff member observed, “Feedback platforms allowed stakeholders to voice

concerns and co-create solutions, ensuring everyone felt heard”. This two-way communication transformed

decision-making from hierarchical to participatory, increasing ownership and alignment.Choice was expressed

through policy flexibility. Leaders implemented asynchronous learning options and adaptive deadlines,

acknowledging disparities in home environments and connectivity. Emphasizing inclusivity as a form of

structural empathy, a dean explained, “We ensured that everyone could engage at their own pace,

Page 9564

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

accommodating varying schedules and connectivity issues”. Flexibility in this context reflected structural

empathy, translating trauma-informed awareness into equitable practice rather than signaling leniency.

Reinforcement centered on consolidating progress and embedding trauma-informed values into institutional

routines.Leaders emphasized recognition and celebration of collective effort: “Acknowledging the faculty’s

achievements in hosting successful online workshops helped sustain morale”. Such acknowledgment

reinforced psychological safety and validated adaptation efforts.Cultural alignment remained integral. By

emphasizing “community-based solutions and group resilience rather than individual responsibility”,

leadership ensured that trauma-informed leadership practices resonated with Vietnamese cultural norms. This

collective framing transformed trauma-informed responses from temporary crisis management into enduring

organizational ethos.

Collectively, these mechanisms demonstrate how University 1 leadership transformed crisis management into a

structured learning process that balanced empathy with efficiency. Safety and transparency built readiness;

peer collaboration and cultural resonance fostered motivation; empowerment and flexibility enabled behavioral

change; and recognition ensured institutional learning and morale.

Summary, trauma-informed leadership operated not as an isolated set of compassionate gestures but as a

strategically sequenced system of change in University 1. Leaders blended technical competence with

emotional intelligence, aligning the human side of adaptation with structural reforms.This integration of

trauma-informed leadership and ADKAR established psychological safety as the precondition, empowerment

as the pathway, and cultural harmony as the glue binding the institution’s resilience. The case illustrates how

context-responsive leadership can transform pandemic disruption into a sustainable culture of trust,

adaptability, and collective efficacy.

University 2: Cultivating Collective Resilience amid Scarcity

At University 2 - a smaller than University 1, leadership prioritized low-cost, high-touch interventions (weekly

forums, mentorships, flexible assessments) to offset limited infrastructure and training. The result was a pattern

of collective containment (reducing anxiety, stabilizing routines) that enabled gradual but sustained change.

Leaders began by strengthening technical and psychological safety even in the face of severe resource

constraints. As one counselor put it, “I worked with little to no resources, often relying on my personal

network to connect people with external support”. Weekly group discussions became “a safe space for staff to

share their struggles and feel supported”.

Trustworthiness was cultivated through predictable, transparent routines. Weekly all-hands provided a

structured venue for airing concerns “without fear of judgment”, while frequent updates “reassured students

and helped them navigate the uncertainties of online learning”.According to internal monitoring, these

practices engaged more than 50 stakeholders per session, and 68% of surveyed students reported reduced

anxiety when regular updates were maintained. Awareness, therefore, rested on consistency and candor,

reflecting a trauma-informed response that normalized uncertainty and minimized rumor-driven resistance.

With safety stabilized, leaders worked to build desire, fostering motivation to participate in change.Peer

support functioned as the primary lever: informal faculty mentorships and collaborative problem-solving

networks “encouraged [colleagues] to support one another”, while senior students “guided their juniors to

overcome challenges in online learning”.As reflected in institutional records, the implementation of these

practices coincided with a 15% reduction in dropout rates during the study period.Cultural sensitivity

amplified buy-in.

Leadership explicitly respected hierarchical norms while reframing support around collective well-being and

harmony: “We adapted leadership practices to respect cultural norms while encouraging openness”. This

localization reduced stigma around help-seeking and reinterpreted empathy not as exception-making but as a

collective duty, thus aligning trauma-informedleadership with prevailing values.

Page 9565

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

The knowledge stage revealed major structural limitations within University 2, particularly regarding faculty

training and student connectivity. Many participants acknowledged that faculty had no formal preparation for

online teaching, while students often struggled with unstable internet access. To address these issues, the

university implemented micro-trainings, peer demonstrations, and curated toolkits instead of large, resource-

intensive programs.Despite these constraints, faculty members showed considerable adaptability.

Approximately 70% reported experimenting with new teaching methods, encouraged by strong signals of

empowerment from leadership. One instructor shared, “We were told to experiment without fear of failure”,

highlighting how supportive leadership fostered confidence and innovation in a resource-limited

environment.Here, empowerment functioned as permission architecture: leaders lowered perceived risk,

converting modest skill gains into practical innovation. This mattered in a low-resource context where formal

capacity-building lagged; psychological permission substituted for expensive infrastructure.

Ability was built by institutionalizing voice and choice. Weekly forums and feedback channels captured input

from approximately 80% of the student body, enabling co-creation of solutions (e.g., schedule adjustments,

assessment redesigns). Choice materialized in flexible assessments and extended deadlines, which directly

addressed differential access and caregiving burdens; around 60% of students who struggled with personal or

technical barriers reported benefiting from these adjustments.By presenting these accommodations as fairness

mechanisms instead of leniency, leadership adopted a trauma-informed approach that upheld academic

integrity and reduced inequities emerging from crisis-related disruptions.

To sustain momentum, leaders placed strong emphasis on recognition and collective resilience. They

celebrated small victories to maintain a sense of progress and motivation among faculty and staff. One leader

explained, “Celebrating small victories helped sustain a sense of progress”. At the same time, leadership

reinforced a collectivist framing of recovery, prioritizing shared responsibility and mutual support. As another

participant reflected, “We focused on building community and group resilience rather than solely individual

responsibility”. Survey snapshots indicated a 25% increase in faculty satisfaction over the study window,

consistent with qualitative reports of improved morale. In short, reinforcement at University 2 relied less on

formal policy codification and more on ritualized appreciation and shared ownership of constraints and

solutions.

Compared with institutions with stronger infrastructure, University 2 illustrates a “high-touch, low-resource”

pathway to trauma-informed change: 1)Predictability and relational containment (weekly routines, open

forums) rather than technology alone; 2) Peer mentorship and culturally resonant narratives of harmony and

mutual care; 3) Empowerment cues that made experimentation psychologically safe despite training gaps; 4)

Voice/choice structures that converted stakeholder input into flexible, standards-aligned practices.These

mechanisms collectively reduced resistance by transforming anxiety and scarcity into structured collaboration

rather than suppressing dissent.

Two vulnerabilities remained salient. First, fragile resourcing (personal networks, ad-hoc toolkits) risks

practice drift once key individuals rotate. Second, although the collectivist framing has helped reduce stigma

around mental health, it may still discourage some groups from seeking help. Addressing these limits likely

requires light-weight institutionalization (e.g., minimal written protocols, peer-led micro-trainings, simple

onboarding guides) that preserve flexibility while reducing dependence on champions.

Summary, University 2 demonstrates that in low-resource environments, trauma-informed leadership can lower

resistance to change by moving from predictability to solidarity, permission, flexibility, and recognition. The

case shows how culturally attuned, relationship-centric practices can substitute for missing infrastructure,

converting scarcity into collective efficacy and sustaining change beyond the initial shock of crisis.

University 3: Embedding Cultural Harmony in Adaptive Leadership

At University 3 - a large, research-oriented institution, leaders confronted the dual challenge of sustaining

academic excellence and addressing the psychosocial strain of a diverse community that included both

domestic and international stakeholders. This leadership approach demonstrated a mature form of trauma-

Page 9566

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

informed governance: combining empathy with innovation, balancing hierarchical norms with distributed

autonomy, and using cultural resonance to embed institutional resilience.

Awareness began with efforts to ensure both emotional and procedural safety. Leaders deliberately

foregrounded care and presence. One vice-president explained,“I made myself available for one-on-one

conversations with staff and students who needed someone to listen”. These micro-interactions humanized

authority and signaled that well-being was a legitimate organizational concern.At the same time, small

symbolic gestures reinforced inclusivity and calm. A staff member described, “I’d start meetings with casual

chats to lighten the mood or ask colleagues how they were feeling before diving into work”. These gestures

helped lower collective stress and set a relational tone for subsequent discussions.

Technical safety complemented psychological safety. Leaders ensured reliable access to communication

platforms and maintained visible accessibility online. Regular virtual town-halls, introduced by the senior

advisor to the board of trustees, provided transparent updates on institutional measures and policy shifts. As the

advisor noted, “These sessions reassured the community and strengthened their trust in us”. Together, these

practices converted awareness of crisis into a shared sense of stability and preparedness.

After establishing a stable base, leaders turned their attention to fostering collective willingness and motivation

to engage constructively with change. Leaders emphasized peer support as an activating mechanism.

Mentorship programs paired senior and junior faculty as well as senior and first-year students, enabling

consistent check-ins that addressed both technical and emotional needs. A vice-president recalled,“We

introduced a mentorship program where senior faculty and students could check in with junior colleagues and

peers”. These horizontal networks fostered solidarity, reduced isolation, and encouraged mutual accountability.

Cultural sensitivity deepened motivation by anchoring initiatives within shared social values. Leaders

explicitly invoked collectivism and harmony as cultural resources. The senior advisor explained,“Trauma-

informed approaches in Vietnam must integrate values like collectivism and harmony, which can be leveraged

to create culturally resonant support systems”. By aligning empathy with cultural norms, leaders transformed

trauma-informed ideas, commonly viewed as Western or individualistic, into expressions of collective care and

shared responsibility. Consequently, faculty and staff viewed participation not as compliance but as

contribution to a communal recovery effort.

In the knowledge stage, University 3 addressed the infrastructural and cognitive dimensions of adaptation.

Leaders first confronted digital fatigue and infrastructure gaps, a recurring theme. A communications officer

admitted,“Social media became one of the main ways we stayed connected, but it was overwhelming to handle

everyone’s frustrations online”. The administration responded by investing in selective training sessions,

digital toolkits, and departmental champions to mediate information flow, focusing on usability rather than the

expansion of technology.

Empowerment formed the intellectual and psychological backbone of this phase. Deans encouraged academic

freedom in course design and assessment. One leader explained, “I encouraged faculty to experiment with

hybrid teaching methods and gave them the flexibility to design their courses”. This permission to innovate

fostered self-efficacy, helping faculty reinterpret the uncertainty of the pandemic as an opportunity for

pedagogical growth rather than mere crisis management. The combination of structural provision and

psychological empowerment thus enabled a rapid collective learning cycle.

Ability emerged when the principles of safety, empowerment, and empathy were operationalized in day-to-day

practice. Leadership took a proactive stance toward early signs of disengagement and burnout. A vice-president

recalled,“I reached out privately to faculty who seemed disengaged and learned they were experiencing

burnout. Addressing these issues directly helped them regain confidence”. Personalized follow-ups

transformed well-being from an abstract policy to an enacted care practice, reinforcing belonging and trust.

Flexibility was the second mechanism driving ability. Administrative teams adjusted workloads, expectations,

and timelines to accommodate diverse personal circumstances. A staff member said,“I adjusted expectations

and reassured colleagues that we were all adapting together”. This approach illustrated the principle of choice

Page 9567

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

in trauma-informed leadership by balancing individual autonomy with collective responsibility. Through

iterative dialogue, ability was collectively constructed, not individually imposed.

The reinforcement phase transformed short-term coping into long-term resilience. Leadership intentionally

celebrated incremental successes, maintaining morale despite ongoing uncertainty. The senior advisor

reflected,“Acknowledging the efforts of faculty and staff helped maintain a sense of progress, even during the

most challenging times”.Recognition rituals, including public shout-outs in meetings and internal newsletters,

normalized appreciation as an institutional practice rather than an ad-hoc gesture.

Culturally grounded initiatives further consolidated these gains. The dean of technology emphasized, “We

prioritized community-based solutions rather than individual interventions, which resonated deeply with our

stakeholders”. Group workshops, peer-learning events, and collaborative reflection sessions strengthened the

sense of interdependence. In effect, reinforcement at University 3 did not merely sustain previous gains but

institutionalized collective resilience as a cultural norm.

Through this progression, University 3 evolved from reactive adaptation to intentional learning organization.

Safety and transparency created the trust base for experimentation; mentorship and cultural harmony mobilized

collective desire; empowerment and structural support converted knowledge into capacity; voice and choice

ensured individualized responsiveness; and recognition practices secured long-term sustainability.

By bridging emotional care and operational innovation, the institution managed to protect performance while

deepening social cohesion. The case of University 3 illustrates how trauma-informed leadership, when paired

with the ADKAR logic of sequential readiness, can re-define crisis response as a process of cultural

regeneration rather than mere continuity.

CONCLUSION

This study examined how trauma-informed leadership reduces resistance to organizational change in Vietnam’s

higher education during the post-pandemic period. Drawing on qualitative data from three universities, the

research identified shared principles and context-specific adaptations that shaped leadership practices in times

of crisis.

Findings indicate that trauma-informed leadership effectively mitigated resistance while fostering engagement,

resilience, and trust across institutional communities. Psychological safety, trust-building, empowerment, and

cultural sensitivity emerged as key mechanisms supporting adaptive change. Cultural sensitivity played a

pivotal role in shaping the application of trauma-informed leadership. By aligning trauma-informed principles

with Vietnamese values of harmony, respect for hierarchy, and collective well-being, leaders localized

Western-derived frameworks to fit the sociocultural realities of their institutions. This cultural alignment

enhanced legitimacy and strengthened community cohesion.Despite these strengths, challenges persisted in

resource-limited environments, where insufficient infrastructure and uneven support occasionally constrained

the reach of trauma-informed practices. Addressing these limitations requires equitable resource distribution,

sustained professional development, and stronger institutional commitment to inclusive leadership cultures.

Overall, this study extends the global literature by demonstrating that trauma-informed leadership is both

adaptable and effective beyond Western contexts. Its success relies on contextual sensitivity, emotional

intelligence, and consistent communication, which collectively transform post-crisis recovery into lasting

organizational learning. In Vietnam’s higher education, trauma-informed leadership offers a pathway toward

resilient, compassionate, and culturally grounded institutional transformation.

REFERENCES

1. Atmojo, A. E. P., & Nugroho, A. (2020). EFL classes must go online! Teaching activities and challenges

during

COVID-19

pandemic

in

Indonesia.

Register

Journal,

13(1),

49-76.

https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v13i1.49-76.

Page 9568

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

2. Barros-Lane, L., Smith, D. S., McCarty, D., Perez, S., & Sirrianni, L. (2021). Assessing a trauma-

informed approach to the COVID-19 pandemic in higher education: A mixed methods study. Journal of

Social Work Education, 57(sup1), S66-S81.https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1939825.

3. Bloom, S. L. (2010). Organizational stress and trauma-informed services. In B. L. Levin & M. A. Becker

(Eds), A Public Health Perspective of Women’s Mental Health (pp. 295-311). Springer Nature.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1526-9_15.

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

5. Brinkmann,

S.,

&

Kvale,

S.

(2018).

Doing

interviews.SAGE

Publications.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716665.

6. Bryson, J. R., & Andres, L. (2020). Covid-19 and rapid adoption and improvisation of online teaching:

Curating resources for extensive versus intensive online learning experiences. Journal of Geography in

Higher Education, 44(4), 608-623. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1807478.

7. Bui, Q. T. T., Bui, T. D. C., & Nguyen, Q. N. (2022). Factors contributing to English as a foreign

language learners’ academic burnout: An investigation through the lens of cultural historical activity

theory. Frontiers in Education, 7, 339.https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.911910.

8. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches. SAGE Publications.

9. Filho, L. W., Wall, T., Rayman-Bacchus, L., Mifsud, M., Pritchard, D. J., Lovren, V. O., Farinha, C.,

Petrovic, D. S., & Balogun, A.-L. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 and social isolation on academic staff

and students at universities: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1213.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11040-z.

10. Flick, U. (2018). Designing Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.

11. Henshaw, L. A. (2022). Building trauma-informed approaches in higher education. Behavioral Sciences,

12(10), 368. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12100368.

12. Herman, R. D. (2016). Executive leadership. In D.O. Renz & R.D. Herman (Eds), The Jossey‐Bass

handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management(pp. 167-187). Wiley.

13. Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community. Prosci

Learning Center Publications.

14. Huang, L., Flatow, R., Tenly, B., Afayee, S., Smith, K., Clark, T., & Blake, M. (2014). SAMHSA’s

Concept of Trauma and Guidance for A Trauma-informed Approach. Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration - US Department of Health and Human Services.

15. Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods

Sourcebook.SAGE Publications.

16. Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (2018). Kurt Lewin’s change

model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change.

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 123-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002.

17. Huynh, D. V., Truong, T. T. K., Duong, L. H., Nguyen, N. T., Dao, G. V. H., & Dao, C. N. (2021). The

COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on tourism business in a developing city: Insight from Vietnam.

Economies, 9(4), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9040172.

18. Jung, J.-H., & Shin, J.-I. (2021). Assessment of university students on online remote learning during

COVID-19 pandemic in Korea: An empirical study. Sustainability, 13(19), 10821.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910821.

19. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leadership Change. Harvard Business School Press.

20. Nguyen, H. T., Bui, N. A., Ngo, N. T., & Luong, T. Q. (2024). Surviving and thriving: Voices from

teachers in remote and disadvantaged regions of Vietnam. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1-

16.https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2336246.

21. Nguyen, N., & Tran, L. T. (2018). Looking inward or outward? Vietnam higher education at the

superhighway of globalization: Culture, values and changes. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 11(1), 28-

45.https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2017.1332457.

22. Nguyen, Q. L. H. T. T., Nguyen, D. V., Chu, N. N. M., & Tran, V. H. (2020). Application of total quality

management in developing quality assessment model: The case of Vietnamese higher education. The

Journal

of

Asian

Finance,

Economics

and

Business,

7(11),

1049-

1057.https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.1049.

Page 9569

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

23. Nguyen, Q. N., & Pham, L. N. (2023). Trauma-informed and inclusive assessment of productive skills in

online emergency ELT classes: A netnography study of an English language training center. In E.

Meletiadou (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Fostering Social Justice Through Intercultural and

Multilingual Communication (pp. 297-318). IGI Global.

24. Pham, H. T. (2018). Assuring quality in higher education in a Confucian collectivist culture: The

Vietnamese experience. Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 2(4), 10-

19.https://doi.org/10.26689/jcer.v2i4.

25. Phan, A. N. Q., & Pham, L. T. T. (2023). Online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: Vietnamese

language teachers’ emotions, regulation strategies and institutional policy and management. Policy

Futures in Education, 21(4), 405-422.https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103231178644.

26. Şener, B., Ertem, İ. S., & Meç, A. (2020). Online teaching experiences of ELT instructors. Journal of

Educational Technology and Online Learning, 3(3), 340-362.https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.770418.

27. Shafique, S., Bhatti, N., & Saleem, F. (2022). ELT teachers’ perceptions for challenges and advantages of

virtual teaching: A comparison between the outset of Covid19 & post-Covid19. Journal of Xi’an Shiyou

University, 65(9), 55-70.https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SMK6J.

28. Tran, L. H., & Moskovsky, C. (2024). Who stays, who leaves, and why? English language teacher

attrition

at

Vietnamese

universities.

Cogent

Education,

11(1),

2384240.https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2384240.

29. Tran, Q. H. (2021). Organisational culture, leadership behaviour and job satisfaction in the Vietnam

context. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(1), 136-154.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-

10-2019-1919.

30. Venet, A. S. (2023). Equity-Centered Trauma-Informed Education. Routledge.

Page 9570

ww w .rsisinternational.org