An Interview with “Dr. B.” - Part Two

Part Two

Michael T., May 2026

Q: Your work often highlights trauma-responsive elements. How does Restorative Way help people navigate traumatic stress while still holding space for accountability and reintegration? 

So there are really two questions you’re asking. First, how does RWay help people navigate traumatic stress? I’ll answer that in a moment but it’s mainly through education, training and case management using a specific technique called S.H.I.F.T. 

The second question is how do you hold people accountable and simultaneously bring them back into or further into a ‘community?’ I mean, why would we want to attempt to reintegrate someone who has done something that has harmed us or others? Isn’t it safer and wiser to reject or remove them?  

The restorative interpretation of what accountability means is different from our conventional thinking that accountability is satisfied when a person is punished or excluded for what they’ve done. That’s the view of accountability from a conventional or historical retributive or ‘rule based’ force and control perspective. The logic is “if you do something to hurt me, I’m going to make sure you get ostracized.” 

Q: Tossed out of the Garden of Eden. It’s Biblical.  

Well, certainly the philosophy of retribution is embedded in the Old Testament. But it goes much further back which we don’t need to go into here. 

From a restorative perspective - because the goal is transformation of people and relationships, accountability means two things: responsibility for repairing the harm caused and “the ability to account” for why it happened. Our goal is to account for any number of underlying reasons and issues that actually compelled someone to commit a harmful act, and then do what we can to ensure those underlying issues are resolved, corrected or healed so that it doesn’t happen again.

It’s a much, much deeper pursuit of accountability.

And both repairing any harm and addressing these underlying reasons and issues are reintegrative in this context. It’s as if the community, team or group is saying “We recognize your imperfectness and by giving you the chance to repair and heal, we’re teaching you about our community and our collective responsibility for its health and wellbeing which, by the way, includes you.”  

There is so much more I could say about this, but that’s what the book and the courses are for. I go into depth about underlying reasons, conditions, and issues that become expressed in antisocial behavior and destructive conflict. 

What I find remarkable about the restorative approach is that the ability to account and empathy go hand in hand in producing repair, but also the possibility of reintegration. What I mean is that if I’m able to understand and feel empathy for your challenges and traumas, I’m much more willing - and capable, of contributing to address those challenges and traumas. 

Look, when accountability and empathy converge, hearts and minds align. The heart gives us our moral inspiration and imperative. Our heart asks us “who are we?” The mind gives us imagination and creativity for actualizing those heart-centric aspirations in the construction of a reparative plan of action. 

The other thing I’ll say is that empathy, our ability to understand and feel another person’s pain, compels us to be compassionate. Compassion compels us to want the best for that person and that thought, in itself, can create the possibility for reintegration. I’ve always thought of empathy as a human technology for building and maintaining relationships. Without it, where would we find the motivation to care and take action on that care? In my humble opinion, it’s compassion that forges community.

Q: Forgiveness and redemption?

Interesting observation. I think it’s interesting that you’re steering our conversation into a discussion about spiritual, or religious values and principles. This forces us to ask certain questions. Does redemption require forgiveness? Or is redemption a possibility for all of us who are imperfect to begin with? I have stories about this, but we can save that for a later conversation.

I’ll just say that by giving a person the opportunity to repair, we give them the opportunity for them to feel some redemption. Isn’t that something we would all want for ourselves or our children? 

I do want to add that we may think this correlation of ‘accountability = punishment’ only applies in a criminal justice setting or conduct discipline practices but, in fact, it’s a way of thinking that we express in our evaluation and judgement of others. It doesn’t have to be criminal, it can also be how we judge and condemn others simply for being different from us or disagreeing with us about an issue that is important to us. 

Q: Like politics.

Exactly. Inciting fear is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book to gain political power. If I convince you that “those people are out to get us, you’re in danger, and I’m the only one who can protect you,” then I’ve got your vote. I’ve got power. That threat narrative continues when a leader says “if you don’t agree with me, I’ll persecute you.”

Q: And if you protest, we’ll brand you as anti-American and deserving of violence.

Exactly. At its most destructive level, we punish people for looking different from us, thinking or believing differently from us. 

I shouldn’t have to say it but diversity is not only a fact of life, but a necessary ingredient of any ecosystem whether it’s biological or social. Diversity is what feeds a healthy ecosystem and, at least I think, a healthy democracy.

But power addicted politicians frame diversity as a threat and this allows them to inflict pain and suffering on people - especially people who are vulnerable and powerless. 

And let’s face it, that threat, when it’s ‘recommunicated and distributed’ globally in the media, makes money. You get more clicks from doom scrolling than messages of hope and love. Though we don’t have the time to dig deeper here, there’s a neurological “reptilian” reason why we’re so addicted to hate-based social media. 

Q: I’d like to shift  back into your work. You've received national and international recognition for advancing trauma-responsive restorative practices. Looking into the future, what excites you most about the potential for Restorative Way to influence larger systems—whether education, justice, or organizational culture?

Well, like I said earlier, any contribution I’m making on any level is a reflection of people, mentors and leaders who have come before me. I’m just trying to follow the path that they’ve created. So any recognition or acclaim comes through me but lands with them. 

In the last 10-15 years there has been revolutionary research into the neuroscience of trauma. This gave birth to the movement to be “trauma-informed.” My contribution has been in the area of “trauma-responsive communication.”

If we want to make a difference, it’s not enough to be trauma-informed. We have to develop communication skills and practices to be trauma-responsive in the moment when trauma presents itself. 

As for influencing ‘larger systems,’ I like the grassroots “trickle up” theory or the “ripple out” effect of restorative communication. The restoration of relationships happens one conversation at-a-time. But once people experience that conversation and learn how to do it, it spreads. We start to have that same structured conversation in other areas of our lives. We start to approach conflict from a relationship health point of view. We also start to question some of the larger ‘macro level’ of toxic rhetoric on an institutional level. 

I’ve found that when people do experience that conversation, they want it embedded in their families, workplaces, organizations, schools, etc. This dynamic of adoption always happens. A teacher or a supervisor at work attends a training and a light clicks on and they become an advocate.

That advocacy leads to leadership and the institutionalization of restorative communication practices. Why is that? What motivates people to adopt and practice these ways of working together? I think it’s because it reminds us of what we’re capable of in terms of expressing our humanity. It’s inspirational. Everyday restoration. 

Restoration - if we take it to heart, also compels us to start “looking through the restorative lens” at other, larger, systemic and institutional injustices. It’s the old phrase, “once we see, we can’t look away.” 

Q: What are some of the biggest misconceptions or resistances you've encountered when introducing these ideas, and how do you typically respond?

In general, the biggest ‘blanket’ misconception is that responding to harmful behavior restoratively is touchy-feeling, too soft, lets people off the hook, and doesn’t change behavior. Buried within these assumptions is a conviction that wrongdoing demands retribution and punishment to satisfy the person who was harmed and protect the rest. It’s understandable that we would think this way given that the ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy has been institutionalized over thousands of years. It’s been inscribed, or as I mentioned, hardwired into our brains. 

There are several ways I respond to this objection. Maybe this is where I’ve been called “provocative.” First, I try to explain that it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to sit across from someone we’ve harmed, admit to what we’ve done, listen to them tell us how they were harmed and how the community or others were harmed, be asked to explain why we did what we did, and then repair the harm we’ve caused. 

Q: In other words, be confronted and have no defense. 

Yes. That’s not to say we won’t become defensive and try to justify our thinking and behavior because we’re human. But even when that happens, others in that conversation will confront our defensiveness. In truth, this is not an easy process. We are presented with the actual harm we caused, spoken by the people who we harmed, and asked to account for ourselves. 

The other misconception I try to work with is when it comes to implementing these types of conversations on a systemic level within workplaces, families, schools, etc. 

Q: What you refer to as ‘programming.’

Yes. When people see the value in this approach and have experienced this conversation as a participant or learned how to facilitate it through training, the question is always “how can we ensure these types of conversation happen consistently when there is conflict?” “Programming” is how you do that. But here’s the second misconception. The term “programming” scares people. When I say “programming” I’m not talking about an administratively heavy program. I’m talking about a small rotating facilitation team who are trained to facilitate these discussions, and schedule and coordinate the meetings. 

Q: “Guerilla restoration”.

You did your research! You dug into my archives. But  yeah, that’s it. 

Q: Doesn’t that give the people on the team extraordinary power? To be the chosen ones to resolve conflicts?

Great question. That’s why membership on the team needs to rotate. This accomplishes a few things. First, it keeps the team from becoming a fixture or developing any sedentary authority or power. With rotation, the focus is always on improving facilitation skills. Rotation keeps the team honest. Second, rotation fosters an overall distribution of facilitation skills in the workplace or community. The more people that facilitate, the more consistent these practices happen. It really is a great way to embed restorative communication into an organization. Look, from a communication perspective, “culture” is a verb. It’s always in a constant state of becoming. Whatever culture exists it is because of how people communicate with each other on a daily basis. 

Q: What about families?

Imagine what it would be like if each family member was given the opportunity and responsibility to facilitate family meetings. 

Q: On a personal note, how has this work shaped your own relationships or worldview over the years? Has there been a moment where you had to apply your own principles in a challenging personal situation?

The principles of restorative communication such as putting the health of the relationship first, mutual respect, understanding, accountability, taking responsibility, having empathy and making repairs are all principles that I believe in. But because I’m human, I can fall short of demonstrating them in my own interactions or relationships. I can get my buttons pushed and speak and react in ways that are far from restorative just like anyone else. But those principles and the restorative process are always there to hold myself accountable, make repairs and try to do better, and reorient me toward my commitment to others.

Q: Progress not perfection.

That’s exactly right. If I’ve acted in ways that are ‘out of right relationship,’ I at least know I can take actions to get back in alignment. Most often that requires getting some support from someone who can walk me through the restorative process with some objectivity. With that objectivity I can make amends and make changes. 

I think the most valuable insight I’ve been given that deepened my understanding of what restoration requires is in the area of trauma. To understand that destructive behavior and interaction is often rooted in unresolved trauma gives us the ability to be more objective about that behavior and have more empathy and compassion for both those that have been harmed and those that have harmed. If we can separate a person’s behavior from their inherent value as a human being, we have a better chance of actually helping that person to get some help and heal. 

So to answer your question, understanding trauma and the neuroscience of trauma has profoundly shaped my understanding of restorative processes and communication. 

Q: This understanding led to your development of the SHIFT trauma-responsive communication technique. 

That’s right. On a personal level, understanding how our brain and nervous system attempts to process or cope with an overwhelming experience of threat or abuse or just plain exhaustion has helped me understand how specific types of communication can intervene in an overwhelming experience. That’s what the SHIFT technique does.  

Q: What about worldview? How has your work influenced how you look at the world?

That’s tough to explain concisely. I’ll just say that restoration as both a concept and a practice has taught me that if we can see existence itself as a manifestation of relationships, and we realize that the meaning of life, our reason for being, is to learn how to be in relationships, then we begin to also realize two truths. 

First, that we are unavoidably interconnected and interdependent, not only with each other, but with the environment; the natural world. This means that as our relationships with each other go, we go and so goes the environment and our future. 

Second, with that realization comes a choice. We can either take personal and collective responsibility for those relationships, or we can ignore that responsibility and continue to be ‘out of right relationship’ with ourselves, each other, and our planet. 

Lastly, let’s be honest. There’s a real lack of restorative conversations happening; people don’t believe that other people have the capacity for  honesty, integrity, goodness, good morals, etc. This is a process that can restore our faith in our fellow human beings. We can begin to see the goodness in people. Restoration gives us the lens to see that.

Q: Thanks for spending time with me, Dr. B. For people who want to go deeper, you offer certificate courses through restorativeway.com, your podcast episodes, and of course the book. What's the best first step someone inspired by this conversation should take?

Thank you for asking me to share all this with you. You've asked some incredibly meaningful questions. I think it really depends on people’s learning styles; what medium works best? Some people are visual learners. For them, the videos in the online courses might be best. For those who process information through stories and explanations, reading the book might be best. That’s the way I process information best; through reading with a highlighter in my hands. I can read something several times before I begin to understand. For those who like to listen to podcasts, those might be more helpful. 

But the quickest way to get started is to go to the website. On the homepage you’ll see a button that says “Tell us about your challenge.” That will give you the opportunity to tell us what you need and for us to respond quickly and directly to help you. 

Q: Any final thoughts you'd like to leave us with about the power of one conversation to change everything?

Any positive change always starts with our commitment. Are we willing to be a catalyst? The second step is the first conversation about what needs to change. What is that conversation? And once we are clear about what needs to change, we can start the process of collaboration and determine the action which makes that change happen. What is that conversation? 

I have a question for you. How has this conversation been for you? 

Q: To be honest? It felt hopeful, even restorative. 

That’s the whole point, Michael.