High levels of violence and conflict occur in inpatient psychiatric settings, causing a range of psychological and physical harms to both patients and staff. Drawing on critiques of vulnerability from the philosophical literature, this paper contends that staff's understanding of their relationship with patients (including how they should respond to violence and conflict) rests on the dominant, reductive account of vulnerability. This account frames vulnerability as an increased susceptibility to harm and so regards ‘invulnerable’ staff's responsibility to be protecting and (...) managing vulnerable patients. We offer an alternative view of vulnerability as an openness and capability to be changed, which illuminates how the common account of vulnerability is used to justify staff's coercive power over patients and to control staff behaviour. Our main argument is that staff's adoption of this negative approach to vulnerability is associated with a range of factors that are connected to the violence and conflict endemic to these settings. Staff's need to situate themselves as invulnerable and therefore incapable of harm, we argue, leads to significant issues through: damaging staff ability to emotionally regulate; coercing patients into an asymmetrical openness leading to aggression to restore status; damaging therapeutic relationships by enforcing separation between staff and patients; increasing staff's reliance on unhelpful and rigid techniques (such as de‐escalation); repressing staffs’ ability to learn and grow through encounters with patients. Finally, we offer recommendations for how vulnerability and openness could be cultivated as a relational and radical practice in spaces that are traditionally closed and hostile to it. (shrink)