Ask the three restorative questions
Start every harm conversation with: who was hurt, what do they need, and who is responsible for meeting those needs?
Key takeaways
- What it is: Start every harm conversation with: who was hurt, what do they need, and who is responsible for meeting those needs?
- Why it works: Conventional responses to harm focus on the rule violated and the punishment warranted — a backward-looking, perpetrator-centered frame. The three restorative questions shift focus forward and outward: to the person harmed, their actual needs, and the community responsible for meeting them. This reframe changes who has voice in the process and what counts as resolution — from "punishment delivered" to "harm repaired."
- Evidence: Backed by observational / correlational evidence.
- Avoid: Asking what happened and immediately jumping to who was at fault, rather than first establishing who was harmed and what they need — which determines what resolution even means.
Why it works
Conventional responses to harm focus on the rule violated and the punishment warranted — a backward-looking, perpetrator-centered frame. The three restorative questions shift focus forward and outward: to the person harmed, their actual needs, and the community responsible for meeting them. This reframe changes who has voice in the process and what counts as resolution — from "punishment delivered" to "harm repaired."
How to do it
- 1When harm occurs — an offense, a conflict, a breach of trust — pause and explicitly ask: "Who was hurt by what happened?"
- 2Ask the harmed party directly: "What do you need in order for this to be right?" Listen without proposing solutions.
- 3Ask the person who caused harm: "What needs to happen for you to take responsibility for this?" — not as an accusation but as a genuine accountability question.
What the evidence says
ObservationalRestorative justice meta-analyses find consistently higher victim satisfaction with restorative processes compared to conventional criminal justice, along with moderate evidence for reduced reoffending in some juvenile and adult contexts.
Honest caveat: Most restorative justice research is in criminal contexts; generalization to workplace or interpersonal conflicts involves contextual differences. Outcomes vary by type of offense and voluntary participation.
- — Sherman, L. W. & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice: The Evidence. The Smith Institute, London.
Common mistake
Asking what happened and immediately jumping to who was at fault, rather than first establishing who was harmed and what they need — which determines what resolution even means.
IX Coach coaches you through the three restorative questions in the order they matter: harm first, needs second, responsibility third — so the conversation stays oriented toward repair.
Practice this with IX Coach →