Willing to Repair Part 2: When They Demand Punishment

When folks are on the path of building systems of repair to replace traditional investigate-and-punish models, they occasionally encounter people who say they will only engage in the process if the outcome is to punish (remove/expel/sanction/etc.) the person who initiated the harmful behavior.

At that point, there appear to be two unsatisfying options: no repair because a harmed person will not engage, or no repair because the only acceptable outcome of a participant is punishment. Neither option aligns with how the organization wants to operate, and neither advances the organization's systemic efforts to build stronger interpersonal relationships.

This situation recently arose within an organization I was serving. The person who was harmed and the person who initiated the harmful behavior were both members of an organization that had replaced its previous punitive grievance process with a repair-based system designed to make it easier for organizational leaders to foster a thriving, sustainable organizational community.

In this case, the harmful behavior was not in doubt and was witnessed by many members of the organization. When the harmed individual was approached by the folks within the organization responsible for supporting the repair process, they said they’d participate only if the person who caused the harm was completely removed from the organization.

The organizational leaders were tying themselves in knots trying to honor the conditional choice to participate made by the person who was harmed, the dignity and repair-building capacity of the person who caused the harm, and their firm belief that the values-aligned path forward for their organization was based on using systems of repair instead of systems of punishment.

The short story is that conditional participation in repair isn’t actually participation. Not everyone wants to engage in a repair process; be prepared for that to happen. You can also define what participation means, how it can look, and if it is required within your organization. (Side note: if participation isn’t required in some form, you will likely end up circumventing the process of repair if folks can report harmful behavior, then step back and wait for “someone” to “do something” about it.) Participation does NOT exclusively mean sitting down face-to-face with a person to have a difficult conversation about harmful behavior and its impact.

If your organizational values and goals require that people participate in repair in some way, then having conditions or a required outcome before participation begins is not an option.

In the situation I described above, the harmful behavior was observed by many people within the organization, so the leadership team felt they could represent the organization's values in a repair process with the person who engaged in it, with or without the participation of the person who was harmed. They were preparing to engage in repair between an individual and the organization's broader community.

They also needed to circle back and have a curious conversation with the person who was harmed to better understand their perspective and uncover what was underlying their statement about conditional participation in the process. The story of why that person held that approach would provide deep insight into their harmed community member and opportunities for empathy, as they were bringing to light unknown power dynamics, history, or nuances they were missing.

In this case, these leaders also needed to remind the person who was harmed that they had agreed to participate in repair as a condition for being a member of the organization and to discuss what would make it possible for them to participate (fully) in the repair process. Their exploration with this person went deeper into the specific supports this person would need at this time to participate in repair in this particular situation, and conversations about what “repair” could look like in the end. The leaders approached the situation with the goal of building a stronger community by building stronger relationships - clarifying expectations within relationships and setting boundaries is part of the process.

This situation highlighted the need for new mental models of repair by the person who was harmed and new roles for leaders within the organization. These leaders had been investigators and adjudicators in the past, but now needed to be educators and bridge builders for the process to work. It’s ok to proceed with care and some caution. Moving away from the known system, even when we know it’s not really working, can feel like jumping into the void.

Relying on organizational values and a values-aligned repair process is not always easy or straightforward, but these leaders found them to be key guides for building a thriving organization.