Doing Good versus Avoiding Bad

Last Christmas I heard a recording of a zoom meeting in which the ‘Leader’ was addressing his team to discuss their performance and results as the year was drawing to a close. The meeting was the final one scheduled before the Christmas break. There was a very high level of emotion being expressed and sentences such as:

“ This is not f***ing acceptable”.

“If you think this is good enough, then you don’t f***ing belong here”.

“I’m probably going to get the sack now because of you”.

“Just know that none of us might be here in January”.

“This is bulls***”.

“This is amateurism”.

“ I hope you realise how serious this is and have a great f***ing Christmas”.

It was actually sometimes hard to fully decipher what the leader was saying as each sentence was peppered with so much shouting (almost screaming at times) and swearing and the same statements were being repeated multiple times. This process continued as a monologue for about 15 minutes after which the leader ended the call.

In January, two members of that team were fired (who had in fact met their performance targets), the ‘Leader’ is still there.

More recently, I saw an email from a different ‘Leader’ outlining his expectation of his team in the coming period. He was being very clear and direct, and his narrative included sentences such as:

“I expect you to do XYZ by the end of business this week”.

“I want you to focus on…”.

“I need you to deliver XYZ”.

Whilst it was direct, it was neutral, clear and concise and seemed to be in-keeping with reasonable delivery expectations of that team at that time…

He then said:

“I would never ask any of you to do anything that I don’t do myself. I’m clocking about 65 hours on average, per week. I know many of you are already doing this and I appreciate it”.

As with most ethical case studies, there is, of course, more to both of these stories than is outlined here, however what struck me about them was two questions:

1. Is the way the ‘Leader’ is speaking to his team and positioning his expectations reasonable, appropriate, professional, fair etc?
2. Why was there absolutely no open, public reaction or response from any team member in either case at any time?

Once again, as with most ethical case studies, there is sometimes no clear right or wrong, good or bad, and ethics can be a space of ’50 shades of grey’. In this way, whilst someone (like me, I must admit) might feel that this kind of leadership is not appropriate, I am sure that there could be a stance seeking to justify this kind of behaviour. In fact, when I asked someone how they felt about this, they said: “Yeah, it sucks, but it’s just the way things are in (they stated their profession)”

So, this got me thinking about a couple of things…

One is Standard 28 in the ICF Code of Ethics which states: As an ICF Professional, I am aware of my and my client’s impact on society. I adhere to the philosophy of “doing good” versus “avoiding bad”.

The other is the concept of Wilful Blindness

So, I decided to explore these concepts a little and here is what I have found so far…

The Distinction between Doing Good and Avoiding Bad

The distinction between doing good and avoiding bad is a central ethical issue. Here’s a summary of the key differences:

1. Doing Good (Positive Ethics)

• Active Beneficence: Doing good involves taking deliberate actions to benefit others, improve well-being, or promote positive outcomes. This could involve acts of kindness, charity, or justice.
• Moral Duty: Some ethical systems emphasize that doing good is not just optional but a moral duty. We should actively seek opportunities to contribute to the happiness or welfare of others.
• Examples: Volunteering, helping someone in need, donating to charity, or working to create social change.

2. Avoiding Bad (Negative Ethics)

• Non-Maleficence: Avoiding bad refers to refraining from actions that cause harm, injury, or wrongdoing. It’s about ensuring that our actions do not negatively impact others.
• Moral Duty: Most ethical systems agree that avoiding bad is a fundamental moral duty. It is typically seen as the minimum requirement of ethical behaviour, whereas doing good can be seen as an additional moral aspiration.
• Examples: Not lying, not stealing, refraining from violence, or respecting others’ rights.

Key Ethical Distinctions:

• Active vs. Passive: Doing good is often seen as an active duty, requiring positive actions, while avoiding bad is more about passivity or restraint—avoiding harmful behaviours.
• Moral Obligation: In many ethical frameworks, avoiding bad is seen as a stricter obligation than doing good. We are more accountable for harm caused than for missed opportunities to do good.
• Scope of Responsibility: Avoiding bad is seen as more universal, applying to all situations. Doing good, on the other hand, often involves more specific responsibilities or opportunities.

In summary, doing good focuses on promoting positive outcomes and benefiting others, while avoiding bad focuses on preventing harm and ensuring one’s actions don’t result in negative consequences.

A look at Wilful Blindness

Firstly, wilful blindness can be described as:

“A situation where an individual or organization deliberately chooses to ignore or remain unaware of certain facts or information, particularly when they have a responsibility to know or address them. It is not just a case of simple ignorance, but a conscious effort to avoid recognizing something that might impose a moral, legal, or social obligation to act”.

Key Features of Wilful Blindness:

1. Deliberate Ignorance: The person or entity actively avoids acknowledging or seeking out relevant information that could implicate them in wrongdoing or demand intervention.
2. Moral and Legal Responsibility: In many cases, wilful blindness occurs when someone has a duty to be aware of certain facts but chooses not to investigate or acknowledge them, knowing that doing so might require them to act in a way that could be difficult or inconvenient.
3. Avoiding Consequences: By remaining “blind” to the facts, the individual or organization often seeks to escape the consequences, such as legal liability, moral accountability, or social judgment.

Example:

• A company CEO who knows about harmful business practices—like unsafe working conditions or environmental violations—but chooses not to look into them to maintain profits.
• A bystander who sees signs of abuse but avoids intervening or reporting it, knowing that getting involved could complicate their life.
• An employee who becomes aware of some kind of malpractice by a leader in their organisation (e.g. lying, harassment, bullying etc.) and turns a ‘blind eye’ so that they don’t have to get involved.

There are multiple reasons why wilful blindness becomes the preferred option, ranging from greed, fear, obedience, ignorance, inconvenience and many other responses. In addition, being the person to ‘call out’ certain, facts, information, situations etc., often labelled the ‘whistle-blower’, is a role that is quite often not valued by society at all. People who have made public certain situations have found themselves marginalised, socially excluded, ex-communicated from their community, ignored, overlooked, criticised, even received death threats in some more extreme situations. It therefore perhaps sad, and yet not surprising, to know that, if a person is being hit by another person in the street, most people will turn their head the other way and keep walking… However, the consequences for us and others of this ‘blindness’ can result in a loss of wellbeing, stress, illness, job loss, project failure, organisational failure, economic turmoil, prison, loss of homes, and loss of lives.

It does not appear that we are generally encouraged within society, given many societal norms, to comfortably and readily speak up about or act upon things we feel are not right. I wonder therefore, where does this leave us with how this relates to ‘doing good’ versus ‘avoiding bad’?

The relationship between wilful blindness, doing good, and avoiding bad revolves around ethical responsibility, moral awareness, and how individuals respond to harmful or beneficial situations. Let’s break it down:

1. Wilful Blindness:

Wilful blindness is the act of intentionally ignoring, denying, or remaining unaware of facts, information, or situations that one has a duty or responsibility to know or acknowledge. This is not mere ignorance, but a conscious choice to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths. It is often used to escape moral responsibility or legal accountability.

• Moral Responsibility: Wilful blindness is ethically problematic because it involves neglecting one’s duty to acknowledge facts that are relevant to making moral decisions. By choosing to ignore these facts, individuals or institutions avoid taking responsibility for addressing harmful actions or preventing further harm.
• Example: A business executive who ignores evidence that their company’s practices are harming the environment, or a bystander who turns away from someone being harassed, both engage in wilful blindness.

2. Wilful Blindness and Avoiding Bad:

• Neglect of Non-Maleficence: Wilful blindness is deeply connected to the ethical obligation to avoid bad. When one chooses not to acknowledge potential harm, they fail to take the necessary steps to prevent or stop that harm. This makes wilful blindness morally equivalent to contributing to the harm, even if indirectly.
• Moral Avoidance: By refusing to see the harm, individuals often escape accountability for bad actions that result from their inaction or lack of intervention. Ethically, this is a form of complicity in wrongdoing.
• Example: A government official turning a blind eye to corruption or human rights violations is failing in the duty to avoid harm and is ethically implicated in the wrongdoing.

3. Wilful Blindness and Doing Good:

• Obstructing Active Beneficence: Wilful blindness also affects one’s ability to do good. In order to perform positive moral actions and promote well-being, one must be aware of the needs, problems, or opportunities that require action. Wilfully avoiding knowledge prevents individuals from stepping in to help or improve a situation.
• Missed Opportunities: Wilful blindness often results in missed opportunities to do good because people consciously avoid knowing about situations where they could contribute positively. By turning a blind eye to suffering or injustice, they remove themselves from the possibility of making a meaningful, positive difference.
• Example: Someone who ignores poverty or inequality in their community because it is uncomfortable to acknowledge is failing to engage in acts that could alleviate these issues (such as charitable work, advocacy, or donations).

4. Ethical Implications:

• Accountability and Moral Culpability: Wilful blindness undermines both the avoidance of harm and the promotion of good by creating a false sense of moral innocence. However, from an ethical perspective, those who engage in wilful blindness are often still morally culpable for the consequences of their inaction, as ignorance in these cases is a choice, not a passive state.
• Moral Integrity: Ethical behaviour requires both awareness and action. Wilful blindness erodes moral integrity because it is an intentional withdrawal from moral engagement. By avoiding the reality of a situation, individuals sidestep both their duty to avoid causing harm and their opportunity to contribute to the common good.

Conclusion:

Wilful blindness, doing good, and avoiding bad are interconnected through the concept of moral awareness and responsibility. Wilful blindness leads to a failure in both avoiding harm and doing good because it represents a conscious choice to ignore situations where moral action is required. Ethically, it is a form of negligence that can result in complicity in harm and missed opportunities to promote positive change.

I would like to finish by stating that none of what I have shared is my opinion (apart from my acknowledgement that I didn’t feel the leaders’ behaviour was appropriate in the examples I outlined at the beginning). It is a summary of what I have found so far when reading and researching into this topic. My intention is to raise our awareness to this and to pose and few reflective questions, which I hope are useful and thought-provoking for coaches and which help us explore Statement 28 of our ICF Code of Ethics.

Reflective Practice: Doing Good, Avoiding Bad and Wilful Blindness

• What is our role as a coach when it comes to doing good, avoiding bad and wilful blindness regarding what we observe and know from our client work (about them, their colleagues, bosses, organisations)?
• What is the relationship between these areas and our boundary of client confidentiality?
• Can confidentiality be breached for moral and ethical reasons as well as those pertaining to law?
• What does ‘imminent or likely risk of danger to self or to others’ actually mean? How might ‘danger’ be defined more usefully?
• How do you feel about all of this in terms of your own historical, current or potential responses to situations where these topics becomes relevant within your client work?