Lived experience can inform how someone uses authority. It cannot replace accountability for their actions.
Sometimes people assume that someone who has experienced hardship will naturally understand how to protect others from it.
That having been hurt means they will know better than to hurt someone else.
Sometimes that understanding does shape how people treat others.
But not always.
Through my experiences and observations, I've questioned how easily someone's history of hardship can become associated with an assumption that they will use power responsibly.
Lived experience can bring valuable insight.
It can help people recognise overlooked problems, challenge established practices and understand the consequences of decisions.
But experience alone does not guarantee empathy, fairness or accountability.
What happens when someone's history is treated as evidence of good character, while their present behaviour receives less scrutiny?
Consider someone in a position of authority who controls information, dismisses honest concerns, withholds support or makes people fearful of speaking openly.
Those behaviours deserve examination regardless of the person's background.
Yet concerns may sometimes be minimised because others know that person has experienced hardship.
“They've been through a lot.”
“That's just how they are.”
“They mean well.”
These explanations may come from genuine sympathy.
But understanding someone's circumstances is not the same as excusing the impact of their actions.
There is also a danger in assuming we know why someone behaves as they do.
Past hardship does not automatically explain present conduct, and we cannot necessarily know how someone has processed their experiences.
What can be examined is how they use their authority, how their decisions affect others and whether concerns are taken seriously.
When someone holds power over employees, families, service users or others with less influence, the consequences of their decisions can be significant.
People may become reluctant to question instructions, challenge unfair treatment or report problems.
And when concerns are raised, the response of those around the person in authority matters.
Are complaints examined fairly?
Are decisions open to scrutiny?
Or does the person's seniority, reputation or personal history carry more weight than the concerns being raised?
These questions extend beyond individual relationships.
Organisations may value someone's lived experience, qualifications, achievements or professional reputation.
Those qualities can be important.
But none should remove the need for clear boundaries, independent oversight and accountability.
A person can contribute valuable knowledge while still making decisions that need to be questioned.
Someone can have experienced injustice and still be responsible for treating others fairly.
And someone can deserve compassion for their past without being protected from legitimate criticism of their present actions.
This is not about suggesting that people who have experienced trauma are unsuitable for positions of responsibility.
Nor is it about expecting anyone to have completely resolved their personal experiences before they can contribute or lead.
The concern is what happens when authority becomes difficult to challenge.
When systems respond more readily to protecting someone's position than examining the impact of their behaviour, harm can continue without meaningful accountability.
Organisations should be prepared to ask not only what someone has achieved or experienced, but how they exercise responsibility towards others.
They should ensure people can raise concerns without fear, that decisions can be reviewed and that harmful conduct is addressed regardless of who is involved.
Experiencing harm does not give someone permission to cause harm. Equally, someone's painful history should never become a substitute for examining their actions.
Lived experience deserves recognition.
But recognition and accountability must be able to coexist.
Because the question is not whether someone has suffered.
It is whether the power they now hold is being used responsibly, and whether anyone is willing to challenge it when it is not.
THE QUESTION
When someone's history of hardship earns them respect or authority, how do we ensure their present actions remain open to fair scrutiny?
