Yes. I have been in situations on multiple film/TV sets where a mistake by anyone involved could mean that I or someone else would not go home that day. If a leader had told me to stop viewing the danger as a threat and see it as an opportunity, I would have stopped listening. The threat was real. Recognizing it accurately was part of doing the job well.
In stunt work, the useful conversation is about the people, equipment, rehearsal, communication, and authority required to manage that danger. Those resources are what make a real threat manageable.
When Reframing Helps
In Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model, stress develops when we perceive a threat and doubt that we have the resources required to deal with it.
Reframing addresses the first part of that appraisal. It asks whether we are seeing the threat accurately.
Imagine an employee who expects senior leaders to challenge her proposal. She concludes, “They have already decided against it.” Her manager might ask what evidence supports that conclusion and whether the executives could simply need more information before making a decision.
The proposal may still be rejected. Reframing opens another reasonable possibility instead of treating rejection as a foregone conclusion.
Good reframing expands the picture while leaving the facts intact. It becomes a problem when leaders use it to replace an uncomfortable reality with a more reassuring story.
When Reality Is the Problem
Consider an HR team approaching open enrollment with two vacant positions and a benefits platform that continues to fail. An employee tells the director, “With the staff and system we have, we cannot meet the deadline and maintain accuracy.”
The director responds, “Let’s approach this with a more positive mindset. This is an opportunity to show what the team can accomplish.”
That sounds encouraging. It also leaves the staffing shortage, technical failures, deadline, and accuracy risk exactly where they were.
The employee now has two problems. The first is a legitimate lack of resources. The second is the message that accurately describing the problem reflects the wrong attitude.
If this happens repeatedly, employees learn that leaders want reassurance more than information. They may stop raising concerns, work around failing systems, or remain silent until the consequences become much harder to manage.
Two Ways to Reduce Stress
The transactional model gives leaders two places to intervene.
When an employee’s appraisal appears incomplete or inaccurate, leaders can help examine the perceived threat. What evidence supports the conclusion? What other explanations fit the facts? Which assumptions are being treated as certainties?
When the threat is real, leaders can strengthen the resources available to deal with it. Depending on the situation, that may mean adding staff, changing the deadline, repairing a process, clarifying authority, providing information, improving preparation, or reducing the demand.
Sometimes both responses are appropriate. The open-enrollment team may need temporary support and a revised timeline. Team members may also be overlooking help from the benefits provider or work that can be postponed until enrollment is complete. A legitimate threat and additional possibilities can coexist.
The order matters. People become more willing to reconsider their interpretation when they know the facts have been taken seriously.
A Better HR Conversation
Taking an employee’s concern seriously does not require HR to accept every conclusion immediately. It requires enough investigation to determine whether the threat has been misread, the resources are inadequate, or both.
Useful questions include:
- What specifically do you believe may happen?
- What information led you to that conclusion?
- Which resources do you believe are missing?
- What would make this situation manageable?
- Which conditions can the organization change?
In the open-enrollment example, the director could say, “Show me where you expect the process to break down. What support would protect accuracy? If we cannot add everything you need, which deadline or requirement should we reconsider?”
That response gathers useful information, acknowledges the risk, and moves the conversation toward decisions the organization can make.
Reframing still has a role. Once the actual conditions have been examined, leaders can help employees distinguish facts from predictions and recognize options they may have missed. Reframing should open possibilities. It should never become a way to close an uncomfortable conversation.
Even when leaders correctly assess the threat and the available resources, another mistake remains possible. They may see tension, rapid breathing, restlessness, or increased energy and assume they know what the employee is experiencing.
What if the employee who looks stressed isn’t stressed?
I help leaders and high-performing individuals eliminate pressure, reduce stress, prevent burnout, sustain motivation, and build cultures where teams perform at their best when it matters most. Mention this LinkedIn series when you schedule a free 60-minute session to discuss your organization’s challenges and how we could work together.
