<p>In the experiential outdoor sector, differing beliefs about complex trauma and causes of harm can result in markedly different approaches to outdoor leadership practices. This paper examines the conflict between coercive and humanist approaches, and how these lead to conflicting approaches to coercive practices in outdoor programs. The source of the current situation will be shown to be the colonising of humane experiential outdoor practice by some early adventure leadership literature and its enduring beliefs. These beliefs centre on the individual being responsible for their situation and overlook the causes of their behaviour. A more supportive counter-belief is that individuals are doing their best and require a socially supportive environment to regain their developmental trajectory toward functional adulthood. Experiential outdoor practitioners are encouraged to adopt human rights-based approaches and view the temporary group as a lived experience of an ideal society.</p>