Willing to Repair - Part 1: the empty apology

How do we support a repair process when someone whose behavior caused harm is surprised and apologetic (over and over again)?

This situation came up recently in a conversation I had with some leaders who have been thoughtfully shifting their membership organization's approach to repair-based responses for interpersonal conflicts and disciplinary issues for over a year. They had worked through internal interpersonal conflicts in the past and had not found the standard investigation, judgment, and punishment model useful for creating the type of organization they wanted, so they built a repair-oriented process to support the growth of a strong, values-aligned, organizational community.

These leaders told me about a member of their organization who engaged in behavior that was categorically not ok, but who was also a pretty good member of the community and generally well-regarded overall. The behavior was directed at and harmed one person specifically, and many other community members witnessed the incident.

The leaders were challenged because they wanted to provide equal care to everyone involved while moving toward repair, and they weren’t sure what repair should look like in this situation, especially when the person who was harmed was hesitant to engage in the repair process (other organization members who were present for the behavior were not so hesitant). Meanwhile, the person whose behavior was not ok responded with surprise and regret when it was brought to their attention.

My first thought after hearing the story from the leaders was that the idea of providing “equal care” was problematic - both conceptually and as a standard. Conceptually, providing “equal care” is oppressive. People need different amounts of care and different types of care depending on the situation - applying the concept of equality to care means that someone (or everyone) involved will not get the care they specifically need.

As a standard, “equal care” puts the leaders in a position of defining what is equal in a situation that contains multiple unique, nuanced, emotional (aka human) people. How would someone describe “equal” treatment of two very different people who had very different roles and responses to a situation?

Treating everyone involved with care aligns with the leaders’ organizational values. In place of thinking of that care as “equal” for the folks involved, I encouraged them to think of it as “fair,” or “consistent,” or “compassionate,” or “equitable.” Different people need different things, and it is ok to treat people with care and for that care to look different for different people – all while acknowledging that some behavior is not ok.

I was also curious about how this situation came to their attention. If the person who was harmed was reluctant to bring it forward, why were they taking action?

It turns out that, after the incident, another person came out of the woodwork and said the person involved had similarly harmed them in the past, and the instigator responded with surprise and regret at that time, too. This revelation had inspired yet another person to come forward with a similar story from a year or two prior. This last person only wanted to be involved in the process if the person in question would be punished (in this case, kicked out of the organization).

Suddenly, a pattern of behavior emerged! The leaders had a member of their organization who engaged in similar not-ok behavior at least three times and, when called out, responded with words of surprise, shame, and regret.

At the same time, there were (at least) three people who had been harmed by the individual, with varying desires ranging from not being involved in any process to only wanting the individual punished. The leaders wanted to take action but weren't sure how to proceed with the repair.

For now, we’ll focus on the person whose behavior wasn't ok.

After a thoughtful conversation with the leaders involved, we narrowed in on a few points:

• There was a person with a pattern of not-ok behavior in the organization - and a lot of people saw/knew about it.

• The leaders didn’t know if the person involved would be able to judge what behavior was ok or not ok.

• They didn’t trust that the person would change their behavior, although it hadn’t been directly addressed previously.

From those points, their path forward became clearer. How to support the person involved with acknowledging the need for repair with the entire organization, how to support that person with making better decisions in the future, and how to rebuild trust with that person among the leaders and everyone else in the organization.

The leaders were adamant about approaching the organization member involved with both kindness and firmness. Their goal was clarified as rebuilding trust and confidence in behavior change without punishment (although they were also firm in their feeling that if the behavior didn’t change, this was not the organization for the individual involved).

With those specific outcomes in mind, we could discuss what the repair would look like. They discussed an apology, but, having heard that before, who would the apology be to (the entire organization), what behavior change would be necessary to back up the apology and rebuild trust, and what support the person involved might need (from the entire organization) to change their behavior.

The leaders generated ideas for all these things. They prepared to have a conversation with the person involved to gather their input on how to engage in repair and trust rebuilding, and why it mattered to everyone involved and their organization.

I wished them luck, and off they went to make the world a better place.

_______________________

(Keep an eye out for Part 2, focused on what to do when folks who were harmed don’t want to participate in repair, or only want to participate if someone will be punished.)