Harm can happen even in the most consciously designed spaces, including mine. Where people bring their whole selves into a group and work at the edges, that possibility is always there.

I wanted to write up how I deal with harm, specifically - so you know what to expect should it be caused in one of my spaces. And before that: a slight distinction between conflict and harm.
Conflict is when difference shows up - and I tend the space so that it can exist without turning into injury. Difference turns into injury when one person's experience, perspective or dignity is being diminished, dismissed or invalidated. When they are made feel like less than, dehumanised - especially by someone with more power.

Here are some principles for working with harm:

Impact is more important than intention, and accountability more than comfort.

Harm is often dismissed with the disguise of good intentions. But good intentions are not enough and when harm is caused, I take the impact seriously. I centre the person/people impacted.

Clarification first.

Understand what was said, done and meant. Make sure everyone involved has the same information before attempting to process. And that the different perspectives are heard. Then it's time for reflection, and especially if something is very heated, a short pause may be needed.

Repair in relationship.

I aim for the repair to happen directly in the relationship where the harm happened - if there is a willingness for it. I will aim to stabilise group, emotionally, and tangibly. It may require putting in place new relational agreements, sometimes boundaries and sometimes a change to the program structure. I will always examine whether harm was enabled or amplified by the structure of the space itself.

Address the relational ripples.

It's important to understand that harm in a part of the group can ripple throughout the group, so it's important to repair - if possible and that doesn't cause further harm - with the group who was present when harm occurred. If there is sensitive information involved, I will always ask consent before deciding on any particular intervention.

Get specialised external support.

If the situation is too tangled or charged to hold from inside the space, I bring in someone from outside, a systems coach or a conflict mediator who can hold the process without collapsing into it.

As the facilitator, my first responsibility is to the integrity of the space. And the way I handle harm varies depending on where I stand in relation to the situation. And - with this said, relational repair is not a linear process, harm is not always a clean cut and the process of repair is rarely simple. Sometimes things stay messy for a while - without a clear closure.

This is true wherever harm comes from, including from me.

When a participant causes harm

When I see harm or it is being named by someone else, I pause. I name what I am seeing with the help of the group - clearly, without rushing to a verdict. Naming is a form of protection and can prevent harm from continuing or escalating.

I prioritise stabilising the person most impacted while ensuring all voices are heard in ways that do not reproduce further harm. Their pacing leads. I do not ask them to perform forgiveness or composure for the comfort of the group.

I work with what the situation and the person impacted is asking of me, and of us. Some harm is too intense to be processed with the whole group and in that case, we reroute.

If I am unable to hold the space for repair, I will bring in another impartial coach who can. If the harmful behaviour continues and any participant's wellbeing or safety is at stake, I will end the participation for the person causing harm. I do this with care, and also without apology for protecting the space.

When a co-leader causes harm

While I cannot repair the harm for a co-leader, as a facilitator, I am responsible for it. Harm from a facilitator or co-leader lands differently than harm between participants. It can shake the ground everyone is standing on due to the difference in power.

What I hold is the space around it, and my relationship with both parties and the integrity of the space where it happened. I stay close to whomever was harmed. I do not make them wait while we as facilitators work something out between ourselves. And - we aim to keep the group informed on what is happening for the sake of transparency - and because that, too can be felt in the relational field, named or not.

I turn toward my co-leader as a peer. I name what I saw, and hold them to account. When the two of us cannot meet it cleanly between ourselves, I reach for outside support rather than let it fester. I carry my share of restoring trust. If the co-leader will not acknowledge the harm caused, that carries its own information. In this case, the integrity of the space comes first and the collaboration ends.

When I cause harm

I can cause harm too, and because I hold power in this space, my harm can shake the ground for the whole group more than most. When harm I have caused is brought to me, these are the steps I take.

I pause before I respond, and I listen to the experience of the person impacted. I want all the information and the different perspectives before I move. I aim to understand the impact: what I did, how it landed, what it cost, often entangled in a history I cannot see. I may need time to reflect on the patterns, assumptions and blind spots that brought me here. I treat it as learning.

Then I get curious about the gap between intent and impact, and I work actively with the power I hold rather than around it.

I turn toward the person harmed. I name what I heard them say, my behaviour, and the impact it had. I apologise without explaining. I ask what they need and let them point the way, practising ongoing consent and following up over time. Sometimes that means stepping back, or letting the relationship end.

I name what I am changing, however small and slow, and I stay accountable to it.

I bring the situation into my own coaching, to my anti-racism teacher and my systems coaching supervisor. Holding harm well asks me to be held too.

I return to this as practice, knowing harm can happen again in ways I cannot yet anticipate, and that the quality of my response is part of who I am becoming.

This is my commitment to the integrity of the space, and to making sure harm finds no fertile ground here.