An Interview with “Dr. B.” - Part One

Part One

Michael T., April 2026

Q: Your students and clients call you Dr. B. Okay if I do that?

Sure. It’s easier to remember. “Bledsoe” isn’t a very common name. 

 Q: I have to ask because I Googled you. Are you the same Will Bledsoe that was an actor?

Yes.  

Q: Why did you quit acting? From the search it appears you were enjoying some success?

I had other responsibilities. You could say I got cast in a more meaningful role. 

Q: Great segue. Speaking of roles, you've been described as a "restorative provocateur and pioneer." What initially ‘provoked’ you into this work over 20 years ago? How did the Restorative Way come to be founded? 

Well, first, I'm not a provocateur as much as I am an advocate. I'm an advocate for this way of coming together to resolve conflict. If there is anything that is “provocative” about the restorative approach to justice and/or misconduct it is that it forces us to consider our own sensibilities and thinking about “justice.” Proponents of punitive responses to human misconduct can get provoked, even angry. So maybe it’s more accurate to say that restoration is provocative. 

And I’m certainly no “pioneer.” Any contributions I may have made are a direct result of the foundational work that early visionaries and thought leaders in this approach accomplished. In the United States, Howard Zehr, Hon. Robert Yazzie, James Zion, Marianne Nielsen, Mark Umbreit, Beverly Title, Kate Pranis come to mind. There's a legion of others I could list. Scholars in New Zealand and Australia also come to mind. What I’ve tried to contribute to is a deeper understanding of how the restorative approach, its methods, can apply in areas of conflict outside of the criminal justice system such as family conflict, workplace conflict, schools, public policy and even environmental restorative justice. 

It's also important to acknowledge that the restorative approach to conflict and destructive behavior has philosophical and practical origins in the worldviews and peacemaking traditions of Indigenous peoples, cultures and communities. Some scholars, who I agree with, argue that the restorative approach to justice and conflict existed before western justice retributive “eye for an eye” approaches, methods and systems. Some call restoration our “original human justice instinct.”

Some Indigenous scholars like Philmer Bluehouse and Robert Yazzie explain to us that in Indian terms, justice is a ceremony. Scholars of Navajo Peacemaking continue to inspire and motivate me. 

And look, the restorative approach makes sense. When the survival of the tribe or small clan depended on the contribution of every member, then harmonious relationships between members was a necessity. When someone did something that harmed another member, they also harmed the community. Repairing that harm and healing or addressing the underlying thinking and reasons for why the person did what they did was not only common sense, but critical to survival. And coming together to address what happened and heal relationships was/is considered sacred.  

I would argue that this necessity remains for our families, schools, businesses, organizations, and communities. Maybe now more than ever considering the current caustic tenor of political rhetoric and public discourse. 

What I’ve also tried to do is understand the restorative process from a communication perspective. My background is in communication. I’m always looking at how types of communication and interaction facilitate an experience of “restoration” whether that experience is personal or social. 

That experience can be framed or interpreted using terms from psychology, neuropsychology and especially trauma science, social psychology, culture, history, philosophy and even spirituality. One thing I’ve come to appreciate is that restoration is an “all-embodied” experience and can be interpreted as such. 

Q: What do you mean by “all-embodied?” 

Well, when someone does something harmful to us we have a visceral ‘embodied’ reaction. It can activate our feelings and emotional programs, our nervous system, our psychology, our thinking and beliefs. It can activate unresolved traumas and potentially impact our outlook on life. 

The promise of restoration, in other words what it can accomplish as a process, is the revelation of each of these areas that have been activated and/or negatively impacted. By exposing and giving voice to each of these areas of harm, we can then also identify what we need to repair and recover and return to civility and balance. 

Q: This sounds very holistic, or healing.

Healing can mean many different things but I think both of those terms are fair descriptions of a restorative process. My point is that restoration can be a whole-bodied experience - not only on a personal level, but a community or social body level. When I work with families, businesses or schools I emphasize the "communal body" concept. People understand it. 

Q: What initially drew you into this work over 20 years ago, and how did Restorative Way come to be founded? 

The first time I participated in a restorative justice process 25 years ago it struck me that this was a type of justice that I had been longing for on a personal level for 40+ years. People coming together in a circle to collaboratively address a traumatic event, such as a crime, really resonated with me. This was a type of justice that didn’t require retaliation, retribution or punishment. It was a performance of accountability without punishment in pursuit of a deeper peace.

Q: So, it was a nonviolent response to violence within the context of a criminal violation?   

Very much so. I also immediately saw its potential value in a multitude of conflict circumstances and contexts far beyond the criminal justice system such as families, workplaces, schools, the environment, etc.  In my opinion, this was and is a different and more authentic type of accountability. In that first circle the person who committed the offense was held accountable not through punishment but through repair. They were held responsible for repairing the damage they caused to the survivor and ‘the community,’ but also themselves.  

What struck me the most about this process was the exposure of the underlying reasons and issues for why the person who committed the crime did what they did. Once those issues were revealed and acknowledged, two things happened. First, the person who was harmed realized that what happened to them, what the offender did was directly related to the offender’s own mental health, upbringing, and culture. What the offender did wasn’t excused but the behavior was explained. That realization helped the survivor to psychologically and emotionally detach from the incident. They understood that what happened to them was a reflection of the offender’s mental state. That clarity can be liberating for survivors. 

Second, those underlying issues and reasons were directly addressed in the creation of what’s called a “reparative plan of action.” That plan, or agreement, stipulated the actions the offender needed to take to address those issues. In this case, it was both individual and family therapy and substance abuse recovery. So, repair wasn’t only about repairing the harm that they caused the survivor, it was also about repairing the historical harms that the offender experienced. I realized the potential for transformation that the restorative process provided. 

Q: Why ‘Restorative Way’? What inspired you to create it? 

A couple of years after that first circle when I moved into facilitating restorative conversations and was given the opportunity to expand a restorative justice program for the University of Colorado in Boulder, I started Restorative Way to do two things. First, to focus more directly on how communication facilitates restoration. Restoration is an action. How we communicate in the restorative process determines both the depth and effectiveness of that action.

There are ways of communicating that are fundamentally “restorative” in terms of human relationships.

My work involves identifying how communication makes the restoration of relationships happen through interaction.

Second, RWay was established to provide a platform for education and training in skills and practices, and programming to implement and support those skills and practices on a systemic level. This includes developing conflict responsive policies and practices for families, workplaces, schools, businesses, organizations and communities. 

I grew up in a family and culture where conflict was so often highly emotional and destructive. People tore each other apart. In the schools I attended, bullying and win/lose enforcement of conduct was not only rampant but celebrated. So, I’m pretty clear that the Restorative Way is a counter to that. 

The restorative conversation provides accountability without the need for judgement, retaliation and retribution. But I’ll be the first to admit that though I try, I still fall short of never succumbing to the retributive impulse. I think if we’re honest with ourselves, whether we act on it or not, we’re all capable of that impulse. It seems to me that in general, we’ve been conditioned, or “hardwired” to equate justice with retribution - especially when we feel so violated or dismissed. And part of that has to do with how our primal brains are wired for protection. But that’s a whole other discussion.   

Q: Your book tells the story of eight people who came together out of frustration and, over three months, developed a restorative worldview and communication practices. Can you walk us through what that process looked like and what surprised you most about how it unfolded?

The eight people in the book are representative of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people from diverse backgrounds who I’ve had the privilege of working with, training, consulting and guiding in their desire to pursue restorative approaches to conflict and misconduct in their respective communities. 

The online discussions illustrated in the book provide the reader with an intimate understanding of how we can all develop the skills of restorative communication, but discover something on a much deeper level which is what it means to be human. Our discussions and their development of restorative communication skills helped them reclaim their own sense of dignity. It helped them take ownership of their values. It also helped me.    

So in as much as the book and the discussions helped my students develop skills, it also reaffirmed shared values and a commitment to caring for other people and making a difference in their lives. The book details those conversations but also provides the reader with a clear picture of how they can participate in the same conversations I continue to facilitate with clients through Restorative Way. And look, if you read the book you’ll see just how deeply personal the restorative process can be. 

Q: You emphasize "Restorative Way Communication©" as a heart-centric methodology to restore accountability, empathy, dignity, civility, and mutual respect. What are the key differences between this approach and more traditional conflict resolution or punitive models?

In my experience, there are two key differences. First, traditional conflict resolution methods are primarily focused on the resolution or settling of an issue causing the conflict and perhaps not as focused on the wellbeing of the individuals and the health of the relationship. The restorative approach focuses on building or rebuilding the relationship to the greatest extent possible as a major consideration and component of resolution. This is especially important when a conflict has become destructive. I mean, what if in the process of resolving a conflict we can also achieve some level of reconciliation on an emotional and moral level as well? This is especially useful in those relationships that have to continue like in a family or a workplace. 

The logic of the restorative approach is that if people feel like they’re being heard and their experience and needs are being valued, they are better prepared to collaborate on achieving an agreement. It’s been referred to as a humanistic approach to conflict resolution. It takes into account people’s feelings, their individual needs for things like respect, understanding, empathy and accountability and incorporates those elements into the resolution or reconciliation process. 

Second, punitive or ‘directive’ models are mainly reactive and focused on a power-over, top-down force and control approach. The focus is on a “quick outcome” and “resolution” is often outsourced to a third party, often an authority or an expert. The restorative approach recognizes that the process of working through conflict is in itself as valuable as any outcome. 

The fact of restoration is that those directly involved or impacted by a conflict or violation are the ones most capable of determining a positive outcome. The restorative conversation invites participation rather than outsourcing resolution to experts.  

One thing I try to emphasize with the restorative conversation method is that “restoration can happen while we’re trying to decide what an outcome called ‘restoration’ will be." In communication terms, this means that restorative communication is performative communication. It “reflexively enacts what it’s trying to achieve.” 

In terms of relationship rebuilding, there is profound value in how we talk about something that has happened, what the impact was, what we need moving forward, and what we agree to abide by. 

Q: One of your popular videos outlines the 7 Principles of Restorative Communication. Could you share one or two of those principles that you find most transformative in everyday life, and give a quick example of how someone might apply them in a heated family argument or workplace disagreement?

Well, first, all of the principles work in tandem and compliment each other. Taken together, they work as a system for how we can communicate with each other and about each other on a day-to-day basis if we want to foster a humanistic culture and a social climate of emotional and psychological safety, respect, civility, and consideration.

Like any principle, the 7 Principles are a statement of what constitutes the ethical, moral, or fair treatment of others. As communication principles, they lay out the ethical, moral, or fair treatment of others in the act of communicating. 

Imagine what would happen if these 7 Principles would guide our political discourse and rhetoric?

Because they work in tandem, I would dissuade anyone from choosing one particular principle as being more important than any other. It’s not a scale. However, if there is one principle that the other 6 principles are based on, it is the principle of relationship. That principle establishes that our number one reason for being human is to learn how to be in relationship with each other - especially when we disagree or experience conflict. 

One of the most powerful ways of actually using the 7 Principles is in the creation of a respect agreement based on the 7 principles that families, teams, schools, workplaces, etc. can use to help them determine how they want to treat each other - and then refer to that agreement when something has happened that negatively impacted relationships. If we adhere to these principles, especially in conflict, we’ll stand a better chance of keeping the interaction civil and relationship focused. If some of these principles are not followed, we can simply refer back to the principles and our agreement and ask ‘where did we stray?’

Q: The Restorative Way has been implemented in such diverse settings—K-12 schools, universities, hospitals, the justice system, family businesses, and workplaces. What's one success story (perhaps anonymized) that stands out to you as particularly powerful in demonstrating how these practices can heal trauma or mend broken relationships?

That’s a tough question because in every context or “site” I get to work with there is always the presence of ‘the human condition.’ Humans are imperfect beings. There are always broken relationships, feelings of injustice, negativity, desperation and the reality of trauma on various levels that compel destructive behavior and interaction. 

There is something remarkable that happens once people start actually using the skills and practices. They begin to see each other’s challenges and see themselves in those challenges. In my experience, when this happens, people want to help each other. They see each other's humanity. This is often referred to as a “drop from the head to the heart. 

What I would call “success” is based on two questions. First, do people actually use the skills and practices? Because if they do, it means they see the value in them, have experienced some level of transformation, and I’ve done my job as a trainer or consultant to equip them. Second, have they experienced a positive shift in how they relate to each other? Are they able to address disruption and destructive conflict in a way that reaffirms human dignity?  

Q: In a time when many people feel overwhelmed by toxic conflict, bullying, contempt, and division (in society at large), how can individuals start becoming "catalysts for change" in their own spheres using Restorative Way principles? Are there simple, low-stakes practices people can try right away?

I’m glad you asked that. I’ll try to keep it simple. First, we have to tell the truth about the damage that our current climate of public communication is causing. Especially in political discourse. That truth-telling is, in itself, the first step in being a catalyst for change. 

Q: That’s the first step of your S.H.A.R.E process.

Yes. That first step is to “speak your truth about what’s happening or has happened.” The caustic and hateful rhetoric coming out of politics, broadcast 24/7, and flooding social media is making us sick. Those ways of communicating filter down into our communities, workplaces, schools, families, and our personal relationships. Words have meaning. When words become weapons, they infect our minds and destroy our psychology, spirit and outlook on life. So the first step is to say to ourselves, “this is what’s happening and this is the damage that it’s causing.” We have to name it. We have to “name the monster” of toxic discourse.

Second, we have to take a personal inventory of our own attitudes and communication habits. We ask ourselves several questions. 

1. Am I a mindful listener? Am I patient? Do I give the other person the space/time they need to express their experience, challenges, perspectives and opinions? Or, do I listen only as long as it takes for me to formulate how I’m going to respond? In other words, do I listen only to evaluate? Or do I listen to understand?
2. What’s my style of conflict? What is my initial reaction/response when I’m engaged in a conflict? How do I typically respond when either someone disagrees with me, or I disagree with them? Do I get emotionally activated? Do I try to win? Do I surrender and withdraw? Do I seek compromise? And where does that style come from? What conflict styles were modeled for us in our families? 
3. How do I express my feelings? Do I blame others for how I feel? Or do I take ownership for my feelings and express them constructively? Do I swallow them? 
4. How do I ask for what I need? Do I take the time to really understand what I need? How do I respond/react when someone tells me what they need? 

All of these very basic questions can reveal our own challenges. More importantly, they can show us where we can improve. 

Third, if we read the 7 Principles, we can ask ourselves, “Is this how I want people to treat each other instead? Is this how I want to be treated? Is this how I want to treat others?" Because if it is, it will motivate us to see exactly where we can put those communication principles into practice in “all of our affairs.” 

Q: The Golden Rule of “Do Unto Others.” 

Yes.  

Q: So it’s a commandment?

No, it’s not a commandment and it’s more than just an ideal. It’s a blueprint for our communication behavior. It’s a possibility or a suggestion. It’s a vision. 

Fourth, we have to ask ourselves if we’re willing to develop the skills and practices to actually make those principles a working part of our treatment of others - especially in how we communicate about them or with them. One foundational skill and practice is the S.H.A.R.E. structured conversation method which I’ve written about extensively and built an online course in how to actually do it. People can learn it quickly and start using it immediately. 

[click here for Part Two]