Beyond individual resilience: Organizational determinants of mental health outcomes for forensic scientists

The mental health conversation in forensic science often centers on individual resilience, self-care, and peer support. This individualized framing risks implying that poor employee outcomes (e.g., burnout, absenteeism, withdrawal, and leaving the field) are a matter of personal capacity, rather than shaped by the systems in which forensic scientists work. Organizational behavior research suggests that organizational structures, policies, leadership behaviors, and climates systematically influence whether employees can cope, access support, and stay. In forensic science, where exposure to traumatic material is inherent, it is essential we do not let organizations abdicate responsibility for determinants of mental health outcomes that they have the ability to influence. Instead, we should deliberately design organizational conditions that buffer harm and promote sustainable careers. When we frame poor mental health and employee outcomes primarily as issues of personal resilience, we risk absolving organizations of their responsibility to their employees. The implicit message is that those who cannot withstand the demands of the work simply do not belong in forensic science. Such an approach mirrors problematic trends in other high-stakes professions where organizations encourage employees to cope more effectively rather than grapple with the structural and organizational contributors to burnout. Organizational failures, such as a lack of supervisor support, perceptions of unfairness, or absence of belonging, can independently predict turnover, disengagement, and mental health decline across an array of professions.1, 2 Organizational Support Theory3 posits that employees' perceptions of how much their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being influence their job satisfaction, commitment, and willingness to stay. Strong perceived organizational support can buffer against the effects of trauma by signaling that the organization will provide resources, flexibility, and protection when needed. Conversely, employees who perceive that their organization is indifferent to their well-being may experience intensified burnout and disengagement, regardless of personal resilience levels.4 Organizational Justice Theory focuses on fairness in decision-making (procedural justice), the distribution of resources (distributive justice), and interpersonal treatment (interactional justice). Perceptions of justice are informed by workload distribution, opportunities for advancement, leadership responses to requests for accommodation or support, and organizational reactions to reported issues or crises. Positive perceptions of justice are linked to psychological safety, a willingness to voice concerns, and reduced withdrawal behaviors.5, 6 Importantly, justice perceptions can be directly impacted through leadership practices suggesting that organizations can deliberately structure and implement procedures to improve employee outcomes. Feelings of belonging (i.e. being accepted, valued, and included) to the work group and to the organization as a whole are critical for positive employee outcomes. Psychological safety, defined as the belief that one can speak up without fear of retaliation,7 is similarly vital. Employees who believe they can admit errors, seek assistance, or disclose distress without stigma are more likely to access available resources, reducing long-term harm.8 Belonging and psychological safety are products of organizational climate and leadership behaviors, not individual coping styles.9 The conversation on vicarious trauma in forensic science is timely and necessary. Yet to focus on trauma as the cause of poor employee outcomes is to risk misdiagnosing or incompletely diagnosing the issue. Negative employee outcomes, including burnout, withdrawal, absenteeism, and turnover, are observed across sectors when organizations fail to provide support, justice, belonging, and psychological safety. These issues are not unique to forensic science; therefore, they cannot be solely explained by the nature of forensic work. Forensic organizations have the opportunity and the responsibility to create environments where employees can thrive despite exposure to traumatic experiences. By expanding the discussion to include organizational factors that contribute to employee welfare, we avoid perpetuating the narrative that success or failure in forensic science depends solely on individual grit and acknowledge the crucial role organizations play in shaping employee outcomes. The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.