While restorative processes often happen in group settings, individual work is just as crucial. People need space to explore their emotions, make sense of what has happened, and build the capacity to engage in repair. Sometimes, this happens through preparation for a restorative facilitation; other times, it involves deeper personal reflection on patterns that extend beyond the immediate situation.

More recently, I’ve begun training in the Conversational Model, a psychodynamic interpersonal therapy approach. This is a shift toward more formal psychotherapy, but in reality, it’s a natural extension of the work I’ve already been doing—helping people process harm, understand themselves, and move forward in ways that align with their values.

I now frequently facilitate across borders, connecting with people from different states, countries, and continents.

Sometimes, online facilitation is simply necessary—whether due to illness, accessibility needs, costs (financial or environmental), or urgent conversations that can't wait for travel. Whatever the reason, I've learned that online spaces, when approached with care and creativity, can foster powerful and transformative conversations.

It may not always be visible, but people from all walks of life are increasingly turning away from adversarial responses, and towards restorative pathways for responding to the harm and conflict in their lives. One of the most remarkable aspects of restorative work is its boundless versatility. Over the past year, we’ve been privileged to support people from an astounding range of industries, professions, and communities. It’s a testament to how universal the need for connection and repair truly is.

Why do we spend so much time trying to prove who’s in the right and who’s in the wrong? And why does our work finish once the investigation has determined an outcome - when the processes have oftentimes caused even more harm than the conflict in the first place?

What’s the alternative? 

In many ways, mediation and restorative practice are in fact similar. And lots of mediators will use some elements or even a completely restorative approach within their work. The main similarity is that these two approaches may look structurally similar in practice.

But we think there’s a key difference that’s important for clients to understand.

Being harm-centric allows us to see the harm as separate from the individuals. No one likes to feel like a victim, nor to be labeled as one. Restorative practices teach us to separate the person from the behaviour. We all know we are more than the worst thing we’ve ever done - or experienced - so why are we insisting that people adopt the role of victim in order to get their voice prioritised in an already uncomfortable process?

In a typical workplace, when conflict arises, focus is placed on policy, processes, and definitions. The shift in perspective to restorative practices lies in being able to place the individuals at the heart of the conflict by making sure their voices are heard and their needs and perspectives are taken into account.  

Employees deserve better.