Code of Practice

This work is grounded in the Profit Without Oppression framework and governed by four guiding principles. These are not aspirational commitments. They are the operating conditions of every engagement. By choosing to work together, we are both agreeing to conduct this relationship in a way that is supremacy, coercion, discrimination, and exploitation free.

Expertise in this context means a specific set of knowledge and skills developed over 30 years of practice. It is not a position of authority over you. It is a resource you are choosing to access. Anyone willing to do the work can develop it.

Every decision has a political dimension. Technology, strategy, hiring, policy: none of it is neutral. The people most harmed by organizational decisions rarely have the power to change them. This work begins with that acknowledgment. We agree to act in ways that support rather than harm, to assume equal value in what each of us brings, and to operate in good faith at all times. Good faith means acting in a way that genuinely serves the best interests of the engagement, not just the comfort of either party.

Impact matters more than intention. When something goes wrong, the conversation focuses on what happened and what needs to change, not on who meant well. We agree to speak up when harm occurs or is likely to occur, to address it directly, and to decide on a course of action consistent with this Code.

Silence is not agreement. Someone may stay quiet not because they are fine but because speaking up feels unsafe. We agree to create the conditions where concerns can be named, and to ask directly rather than assume compliance.

The most vulnerable person affected by a decision is the most important indicator of whether that decision is working. We agree to name needs honestly and to define expectations accordingly.

What you should know up front. Kim prioritizes individual and community safety over organizational strategy. If Kim identifies potential for harm, names it directly, and the client takes no reasonable steps to address it, Kim has sole discretion to stop the engagement immediately and to share her perspective publicly. This is not a threat. It is how the work stays aligned with the principles it is built on.

If you have caused harm and are not willing to address it, this engagement is not available to you. If you have caused harm and do not know how to repair it, including when reputational preservation and crisis management are part of the picture, that is work Kim can help with. A willingness to repair is the requirement.