Restorative Circle is a restorative justice practice that fosters dialogue, empathy, and accountability in addressing conflicts and harm. Rooted in indigenous and traditional wisdom, it offers an alternative approach to conflict resolution and community-building.
Restorative Circle holds significant value for various reasons:
Healing: It focuses on healing the harm caused by conflicts and restoring relationships among individuals or within communities.
Accountability: Restorative Circle encourages individuals to take responsibility for their actions and make amends.
Community Building: It contributes to building stronger and more connected communities by promoting understanding and empathy.
Conflict Resolution: Restorative Circle provides a structured process for resolving conflicts peacefully and collaboratively.
Empowerment: It empowers individuals to actively participate in the resolution process and have a voice in shaping outcomes.
Principles of Restorative Circle
Restorative Circle is guided by several key principles:
Inclusivity: All parties affected by a conflict or harm are invited to participate in the Circle, ensuring everyone’s perspective is heard.
Equality: Participants are treated as equals, and everyone has an equal opportunity to speak and be heard.
Empathy: Restorative Circle fosters empathy and understanding among participants, promoting a deeper connection.
Accountability: Individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and collaborate on repairing harm.
Healing: The process aims to heal both individuals and relationships affected by conflicts or harm.
Key Elements of Restorative Circle
To understand Restorative Circle fully, it’s essential to consider its key elements:
Gathering: A Restorative Circle begins with a gathering of participants, including those directly involved in the conflict and community members.
Facilitator: A trained facilitator guides the Circle, ensuring a respectful and structured process.
Talking Piece: Participants use a talking piece to take turns speaking, promoting active listening and respect.
Structured Dialogue: The Circle follows a structured dialogue process that allows participants to express their feelings, needs, and perspectives.
Agreement on Actions: The Circle concludes with participants collaboratively agreeing on actions to repair harm and prevent future conflicts.
The Restorative Circle Process
The Restorative Circle process typically involves the following steps:
Opening Circle: The Circle begins with an opening ceremony, during which participants gather, introduce themselves, and set the tone for respectful dialogue.
Sharing Perspectives: Participants take turns using the talking piece to share their perspectives, feelings, and experiences related to the conflict or harm.
Questions and Clarifications: Participants may ask questions or seek clarifications from one another to better understand each other’s viewpoints.
Empathy and Understanding: The Circle process encourages empathy and understanding as participants listen actively and without judgment.
Identifying Harm and Needs: Participants collaboratively identify the harm caused by the conflict and the needs of all involved parties.
Generating Solutions: The Circle explores potential actions and solutions to address the harm and prevent future conflicts.
Agreement: Participants reach a consensus on specific actions and commitments to repair the harm and promote healing.
Closing Circle: The Circle concludes with a closing ceremony, during which participants express gratitude and reflect on their experience.
Real-World Applications of Restorative Circle
Restorative Circle is applied in various real-world scenarios:
Schools: Restorative Circle is used in educational settings to address conflicts among students, promote understanding, and create a safe learning environment.
Criminal Justice: In the criminal justice system, Restorative Circle is employed to facilitate dialogue between offenders and victims, promoting accountability and healing.
Community Conflicts: Restorative Circle can address conflicts within communities, such as neighbor disputes or conflicts among community members.
Workplaces: Organizations use Restorative Circle to resolve workplace conflicts, build stronger teams, and promote a positive work environment.
Families: Restorative Circle can be applied within families to address conflicts, promote understanding, and strengthen familial relationships.
Challenges and Considerations
Implementing Restorative Circle comes with its challenges and considerations:
Voluntary Participation: The process relies on voluntary participation, and individuals may choose not to engage in the Circle.
Cultural Sensitivity: Sensitivity to cultural differences is essential, as the Circle process may need to be adapted to different cultural contexts.
Conflict Complexity: Restorative Circle may not be suitable for highly complex legal or financial disputes where settlement is the primary goal.
Facilitator Skill: Effective Restorative Circle facilitation requires training and experience in managing emotional and challenging discussions.
Outcome Uncertainty: The outcome of a Restorative Circle can be unpredictable, as it depends on participants’ willingness to engage and transform.
Conclusion
Restorative Circle offers a unique and powerful approach to conflict resolution and community-building, emphasizing healing, accountability, empathy, and inclusivity. It provides individuals and communities with a structured process for addressing conflicts and harm while promoting personal growth and connection.
By adhering to its principles, understanding its key elements, and following the structured process, facilitators and participants can create a safe and supportive environment for dialogue, healing, and restoration. Restorative Circle represents a valuable tool for individuals, communities, organizations, and institutions seeking to address conflicts and harm in a way that promotes understanding, accountability, and the rebuilding of relationships.
Aspect
Restorative Circle
Definition
A restorative circle is a community-basedconflict resolution process that brings together affected parties and supporters to address harm, repair relationships, and promote healing. It provides a safe space for open dialogue, empathetic listening, and mutual understanding, guided by restorative principles.
Characteristics
– Voluntary Participation: Involves voluntary participation from affected parties and willing supporters who agree to engage in the restorative process.
– Equality and Respect: Emphasizes equality and respect among participants, ensuring that each person has an equal voice and is listened to with empathy.
– Focus on Relationship: Centers on restoring relationships and rebuilding trust through honest dialogue and collaborative problem-solving.
Process
– Preparation: Facilitators prepare participants by explaining the process, setting ground rules, and ensuring a safe environment for sharing.
– Circle Dialogue: Participants sit in a circle and take turns speaking, sharing their perspectives, feelings, and needs while others listen respectfully.
– Problem-Solving: Participants work together to identify the impact of harm, express needs, and collaboratively develop solutions to address the harm and restore relationships.
Benefits
– Empowerment: Empowers participants by giving them a voice in resolving conflicts and shaping outcomes that affect them.
– Accountability: Encourages accountability by holding individuals responsible for their actions and their role in repairing harm.
– Healing and Closure: Facilitates healing and closure by providing a space for expressing emotions, acknowledging harm, and seeking forgiveness.
Challenges
– Emotional Intensity: Dealing with strong emotions and tensions among participants can be challenging and require skilled facilitation.
– Resistance to Participation: Some individuals may be reluctant to participate due to fear, shame, or distrust in the process.
– Sustainability: Maintaining the impact of restorative circles over the long term requires ongoing support, follow-up, and commitment from participants and the community.
Applications
– Schools: Used in schools to address conflicts among students, improve school climate, and prevent bullying and violence.
– Criminal Justice: Implemented in the criminal justice system as an alternative to traditional punishment, promoting rehabilitation and community reintegration.
– Workplaces: Employed in workplaces to resolve interpersonal conflicts, restore relationships, and enhance communication and teamwork.
Convergent thinking occurs when the solution to a problem can be found by applying established rules and logical reasoning. Whereas divergent thinking is an unstructured problem-solving method where participants are encouraged to develop many innovative ideas or solutions to a given problem. Where convergent thinking might work for larger, mature organizations where divergent thinking is more suited for startups and innovative companies.
The concept of cognitive biases was introduced and popularized by the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Biases are seen as systematic errors and flaws that make humans deviate from the standards of rationality, thus making us inept at making good decisions under uncertainty.
Second-order thinking is a means of assessing the implications of our decisions by considering future consequences. Second-order thinking is a mental model that considers all future possibilities. It encourages individuals to think outside of the box so that they can prepare for every and eventuality. It also discourages the tendency for individuals to default to the most obvious choice.
Lateral thinking is a business strategy that involves approaching a problem from a different direction. The strategy attempts to remove traditionally formulaic and routine approaches to problem-solving by advocating creative thinking, therefore finding unconventional ways to solve a known problem. This sort of non-linear approach to problem-solving, can at times, create a big impact.
Bounded rationality is a concept attributed to Herbert Simon, an economist and political scientist interested in decision-making and how we make decisions in the real world. In fact, he believed that rather than optimizing (which was the mainstream view in the past decades) humans follow what he called satisficing.
The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where people with low ability in a task overestimate their ability to perform that task well. Consumers or businesses that do not possess the requisite knowledge make bad decisions. What’s more, knowledge gaps prevent the person or business from seeing their mistakes.
Occam’s Razor states that one should not increase (beyond reason) the number of entities required to explain anything. All things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English theologian William of Ockham.
The Lindy Effect is a theory about the ageing of non-perishable things, like technology or ideas. Popularized by author Nicholas Nassim Taleb, the Lindy Effect states that non-perishable things like technology age – linearly – in reverse. Therefore, the older an idea or a technology, the same will be its life expectancy.
Antifragility was first coined as a term by author, and options trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Antifragility is a characteristic of systems that thrive as a result of stressors, volatility, and randomness. Therefore, Antifragile is the opposite of fragile. Where a fragile thing breaks up to volatility; a robust thing resists volatility. An antifragile thing gets stronger from volatility (provided the level of stressors and randomness doesn’t pass a certain threshold).
Systems thinking is a holistic means of investigating the factors and interactions that could contribute to a potential outcome. It is about thinking non-linearly, and understanding the second-order consequences of actions and input into the system.
Vertical thinking, on the other hand, is a problem-solving approach that favors a selective, analytical, structured, and sequential mindset. The focus of vertical thinking is to arrive at a reasoned, defined solution.
Maslow’s Hammer, otherwise known as the law of the instrument or the Einstellung effect, is a cognitive bias causing an over-reliance on a familiar tool. This can be expressed as the tendency to overuse a known tool (perhaps a hammer) to solve issues that might require a different tool. This problem is persistent in the business world where perhaps known tools or frameworks might be used in the wrong context (like business plans used as planning tools instead of only investors’ pitches).
The Peter Principle was first described by Canadian sociologist Lawrence J. Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle states that people are continually promoted within an organization until they reach their level of incompetence.
The straw man fallacy describes an argument that misrepresents an opponent’s stance to make rebuttal more convenient. The straw man fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, defined as a flaw in the structure of an argument that renders it invalid.
The Streisand Effect is a paradoxical phenomenon where the act of suppressing information to reduce visibility causes it to become more visible. In 2003, Streisand attempted to suppress aerial photographs of her Californian home by suing photographer Kenneth Adelman for an invasion of privacy. Adelman, who Streisand assumed was paparazzi, was instead taking photographs to document and study coastal erosion. In her quest for more privacy, Streisand’s efforts had the opposite effect.
As highlighted by German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer in the paper “Heuristic Decision Making,” the term heuristic is of Greek origin, meaning “serving to find out or discover.” More precisely, a heuristic is a fast and accurate way to make decisions in the real world, which is driven by uncertainty.
The recognition heuristic is a psychological model of judgment and decision making. It is part of a suite of simple and economical heuristics proposed by psychologists Daniel Goldstein and Gerd Gigerenzer. The recognition heuristic argues that inferences are made about an object based on whether it is recognized or not.
The representativeness heuristic was first described by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The representativeness heuristic judges the probability of an event according to the degree to which that event resembles a broader class. When queried, most will choose the first option because the description of John matches the stereotype we may hold for an archaeologist.
The take-the-best heuristic is a decision-making shortcut that helps an individual choose between several alternatives. The take-the-best (TTB) heuristic decides between two or more alternatives based on a single good attribute, otherwise known as a cue. In the process, less desirable attributes are ignored.
The bundling bias is a cognitive bias in e-commerce where a consumer tends not to use all of the products bought as a group, or bundle. Bundling occurs when individual products or services are sold together as a bundle. Common examples are tickets and experiences. The bundling bias dictates that consumers are less likely to use each item in the bundle. This means that the value of the bundle and indeed the value of each item in the bundle is decreased.
The Barnum Effect is a cognitive bias where individuals believe that generic information – which applies to most people – is specifically tailored for themselves.
First-principles thinking – sometimes called reasoning from first principles – is used to reverse-engineer complex problems and encourage creativity. It involves breaking down problems into basic elements and reassembling them from the ground up. Elon Musk is among the strongest proponents of this way of thinking.
The ladder of inference is a conscious or subconscious thinking process where an individual moves from a fact to a decision or action. The ladder of inference was created by academic Chris Argyris to illustrate how people form and then use mental models to make decisions.
Goodhart’s Law is named after British monetary policy theorist and economist Charles Goodhart. Speaking at a conference in Sydney in 1975, Goodhart said that “any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.” Goodhart’s Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
The Six Thinking Hats model was created by psychologist Edward de Bono in 1986, who noted that personality type was a key driver of how people approached problem-solving. For example, optimists view situations differently from pessimists. Analytical individuals may generate ideas that a more emotional person would not, and vice versa.
The Mandela effect is a phenomenon where a large group of people remembers an event differently from how it occurred. The Mandela effect was first described in relation to Fiona Broome, who believed that former South African President Nelson Mandela died in prison during the 1980s. While Mandela was released from prison in 1990 and died 23 years later, Broome remembered news coverage of his death in prison and even a speech from his widow. Of course, neither event occurred in reality. But Broome was later to discover that she was not the only one with the same recollection of events.
The bandwagon effect tells us that the more a belief or idea has been adopted by more people within a group, the more the individual adoption of that idea might increase within the same group. This is the psychological effect that leads to herd mentality. What in marketing can be associated with social proof.
Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years. This observation was made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 and it become a guiding principle for the semiconductor industry and has had far-reaching implications for technology as a whole.
Disruptive innovation as a term was first described by Clayton M. Christensen, an American academic and business consultant whom The Economist called “the most influential management thinker of his time.” Disruptive innovation describes the process by which a product or service takes hold at the bottom of a market and eventually displaces established competitors, products, firms, or alliances.
Value migration was first described by author Adrian Slywotzky in his 1996 book Value Migration – How to Think Several Moves Ahead of the Competition. Value migration is the transferal of value-creating forces from outdated business models to something better able to satisfy consumer demands.
The bye-now effect describes the tendency for consumers to think of the word “buy” when they read the word “bye”. In a study that tracked diners at a name-your-own-price restaurant, each diner was asked to read one of two phrases before ordering their meal. The first phrase, “so long”, resulted in diners paying an average of $32 per meal. But when diners recited the phrase “bye bye” before ordering, the average price per meal rose to $45.
Groupthink occurs when well-intentioned individuals make non-optimal or irrational decisions based on a belief that dissent is impossible or on a motivation to conform. Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.
A stereotype is a fixed and over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. These beliefs are based on the false assumption that certain characteristics are common to every individual residing in that group. Many stereotypes have a long and sometimes controversial history and are a direct consequence of various political, social, or economic events. Stereotyping is the process of making assumptions about a person or group of people based on various attributes, including gender, race, religion, or physical traits.
Murphy’s Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law was named after aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy. During his time working at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949, Murphy cursed a technician who had improperly wired an electrical component and said, “If there is any way to do it wrong, he’ll find it.”
The law of unintended consequences was first mentioned by British philosopher John Locke when writing to parliament about the unintended effects of interest rate rises. However, it was popularized in 1936 by American sociologist Robert K. Merton who looked at unexpected, unanticipated, and unintended consequences and their impact on society.
Fundamental attribution error is a bias people display when judging the behavior of others. The tendency is to over-emphasize personal characteristics and under-emphasize environmental and situational factors.
Outcome bias describes a tendency to evaluate a decision based on its outcome and not on the process by which the decision was reached. In other words, the quality of a decision is only determined once the outcome is known. Outcome bias occurs when a decision is based on the outcome of previous events without regard for how those events developed.
Hindsight bias is the tendency for people to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. The result of a presidential election, for example, seems more obvious when the winner is announced. The same can also be said for the avid sports fan who predicted the correct outcome of a match regardless of whether their team won or lost. Hindsight bias, therefore, is the tendency for an individual to convince themselves that they accurately predicted an event before it happened.
Gennaro is the creator of FourWeekMBA, which reached about four million business people, comprising C-level executives, investors, analysts, product managers, and aspiring digital entrepreneurs in 2022 alone | He is also Director of Sales for a high-tech scaleup in the AI Industry | In 2012, Gennaro earned an International MBA with emphasis on Corporate Finance and Business Strategy.
