The best of intentions. How often we do things with good motives and yet, in spite of that, our actions have unintended consequences. It’s often because we haven’t known or understood the wider implications of what, where, when, how or with-for whom we do something. We may, for instance, offer support to a specific person, team or group…only to discover that a different person, team or group perceives that intervention as partisan, favourit-ist or creating unfair advantage.
Here’s an extreme. A friend was delivering aid to a poverty-stricken village in Sudan when he was stopped at gunpoint by militia from a neighbouring village. He was forced to the ground with rifle barrel pressed hard against the back of his head whilst the group relieved him of the vehicle and relief supplies. It turns out the group and its community were envious and resentful that they were being effectively ignored whilst supplies were being provided to a different village. Or here’s a less extreme example. I spoke with an emotional intelligence (EI) specialist this week about using psychological mentoring, coaching and tools to raise awareness and insight, with a risk that some clients may use it in weaponised form to manipulate colleagues or customers. It points to a real need to pay attention to wider systemic, cultural, ethical, political and longer-term considerations when seeking to do the right thing – a principle known as ‘primum non nocere’. If you’re a leader, coach, OD or trainer, here are some questions for critical reflection: When have you acted in good faith to resolve one issue, only to discover that your interventions have inadvertently incentivised, precipitated or exacerbated another? How do you manage the tension of never fully knowing or understanding the potential implications of everything – and yet still taking meaningful stances, decisions and actions? What is your best advice on ‘do no harm’?
110 Comments
Barbara Pando-Behnke, MA, MSOD, ACC
19/12/2017 12:24:38 pm
This is an excellent post. As a coach one can encourage clients with questions to identify stakeholders and also consider how particular actions to impact them in different ways.
Reply
Nick Wright
19/12/2017 12:34:46 pm
Thanks Barbara. Yes, I think that can be a useful and important approach...although I have encountered some coaches who disagree, saying that wider stakeholder interests should only be discussed and taken into account if the client raises them him or herself. What do you think?
Reply
David Harrell
19/12/2017 12:49:20 pm
Without O.D. experience and knowledge, many times, the best of intensions go left wanting.
Reply
Nick Wright
19/12/2017 12:50:57 pm
Hi David. Do you have any examples from experience that you could share, e.g.where, in your view, OD experience and knowledge have made a net positive difference?
Reply
Robyn Cantrell, MBA
19/12/2017 06:22:38 pm
Interesting article. This resonated with me as I am investigating a consultant business for small businesses. There exists a hypocratic oath for MBA's whose tenets I agree with and have signed. Now the rubber meets the road. If I were to work with an organization, assisting with processes and business improvements, what else do I need to look at in order not to bring unintended negative consequences? Stated another way, how deeply do I need to look at an organization? Thanks for the post!
Reply
Nick Wright
19/12/2017 06:35:56 pm
Thanks Robyn and thanks for such an open and honest response. I wasn't aware there is a hypocratic oath for MBAs - fascinating! I Googled it and found this: http://mbaoath.org/take-the-oath/
Reply
Marita Jane Laxa
20/12/2017 09:57:10 am
Great article, Nick. I've experienced this in my personal life. Having honest and good intentions for one while it will impacts negatively for another, can certainly make one feel like life is unfair. Then you ask yourself, why even bother in the first place?
Reply
Nick Wright
20/12/2017 10:00:56 am
Thanks for such an honest personal response, Marita. Yes, life can sometimes feel perplexing and disheartening, especially if we set out to do a good thing and, unexpectedly, it all appears to go wrong!
Reply
Mark Molitor
20/12/2017 10:01:42 am
Another thought provoking post Nick-Thanks!
Reply
Nick Wright
20/12/2017 10:05:38 am
Thanks Mark - and well said. Yes, it's important to manage the boundaries. There is a risk that we may step so far into another's shoes that we inadvertently step out of our own. Trying to keep the bigger picture in view, including the picture that a client and his or her culture and context hold for themselves, is so important. Self-compassion: critical. Learning to forgive ourselves and others is one of the key things that enables us to learn, grow and keep moving forward.
Reply
Richard Simpson
20/12/2017 11:39:33 am
Great post, Nick. I was reminded of the proverb - 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' I can't say I'm anywhere near perfect in the 'do no harm' stakes but I am aware that if I introduce my coaching clients to techniques they can use to, say, better manage relationships, that they use those insights responsibly and with generosity and kindness. But how would I know? I guess the answer to that is in understanding the client in the first place and making a judgement about their capacity for inflicting pain on others!
Reply
Nick Wright
20/12/2017 03:52:13 pm
Thanks Richard. 'Making a judgement about their capacity for inflicting pain on others' raises such interesting and important questions. I meet so many coaches who, in my view, appear to dodge the ethical bullet by claiming 'neutrality' and asserting that it is not their role to set or influence the client's agenda.
Reply
Ian Henderson
20/12/2017 03:52:51 pm
It's the law of unintended consequence I guess Nick. My Mum once told me not to expect too much out of life so I wouldn't be disappointed. Positive intent but negative impact.
Reply
Nick Wright
20/12/2017 03:55:24 pm
Hi Ian. What a great - and sad - example of a paradoxical intervention. It reminded me of a client I worked with who said her parents never placed any expectations on her at school so that she wouldn't feel pressured by them. As a teenager, it left her with the feeling that they didn't care whether she succeeded or not. Again, 'positive intent but negative impact'.
Reply
Tara Parker
21/12/2017 09:55:44 am
The example you give here is a great one, Nick, not just in terms of intent of the message but the reception of the intent. There is a need to be mindful of what we say to others despite how thoughtful we may be.
Nick Wright
21/12/2017 09:56:46 am
Thanks Tara. I think it's something about listening and hearing to what is important for the other person or group, rather than assuming what they may want or need..?
Tara Parker
21/12/2017 09:57:32 am
Nick, this article is well-timed. I coach adult learners in higher education. As I get to know my student I will ask key questions to get get to know them and obtain an understanding of their direction in terms of school. I have been surprised by the number of students who pursue an education at the direction of their inner circle, i.e. family, friends, and co-workers. The advice received is typically well-intended as a means of protecting the adult learner but tends to be an anchor to the adult learner who would rather be pursuing an area of passion and interest versus "job security" and a high pay position. I often remind my students that while their inner circle may have good intentions they may not be well-thought out intentions. Your post provokes me to think more about my well-intended comments and how they truly impact others.
Reply
Nick Wright
21/12/2017 10:05:09 am
Thanks Tara. I really like the honesty and willingness to reflect in your response. Your final comment reminded me of an occupational psychologist who once challenged me on my OD approach. She said, 'You pose penetrating questions, insights and reflections that can deconstruct a client's paradigms, assumptions, beliefs etc. In doing so, you may inadvertently dismantle the structures that provide the client with security and meaning in the world and, thereby, leave them anxious and floundering.' Good intentions; unintended consequences.
Reply
E.G.Sebastian - CPC, CSL
22/12/2017 08:48:00 am
Tough one, Nick - yes, I've been several times in that type of situation (thinking I was guiding client in the right direction, and backfiring)... Advice? Hmm... I guess before jumping into agreeing with a client's "epiphany" or "a'ha moment," probe a little more, and make sure that that path of action is the best one to take...
Reply
Nick Wright
22/12/2017 09:01:27 am
Thanks E.G. and thank you for such an honest response. I really like your advice and find that wise and useful: '...before jumping into agreeing with a client's epiphany or aha moment, probe a little more...'
Reply
Nandita Mehta
22/12/2017 09:02:34 am
What is your best advice on ‘do no harm’?
Reply
Nick Wright
22/12/2017 09:04:45 am
Hi Nandita. Thanks for the note. Do you mean that, if a person acknowledges there are consequences to their actions, including potentially for themselves, they are more likely (and motivated) to take a bigger picture into account..?
Reply
Nandita Mehta
23/12/2017 08:23:49 pm
Yes Nick.
Nick Wright
23/12/2017 08:24:09 pm
:)
Sara Pearson MSc
22/12/2017 09:18:09 am
Hi Nick, this is indeed a profound and significant question and poses real ethical consideration. On one hand you could say its better to do nothing than something because of the uncertainty of the outcome and yet risks are integral to business growth and sustainability. Saying that, we should never over-estimate our capacity to do ‘good’ nor should we under-estimate our capacity to do harm.
Reply
Nick Wright
22/12/2017 09:24:07 am
Thanks Sara. I found your comment, 'never over-estimate our capacity to do good ... or under-estimate our capacity to do harm' thought-provoking.
Reply
Sara Pearson MSc
22/12/2017 12:25:37 pm
Hi Nick, on your first comment, I am pleased you found it thought provoking as it did with me when I was first taught this very early on in my nursing career. It has certainly stood the test of time from my perspective.
Nick Wright
22/12/2017 12:40:24 pm
Hi Sara. You reminded me of action research. Act in the light and love that is available to us, observe what happens with an open mind and heart, learn with humility from what happens, step out with courage again.
Sara Pearson MSc
22/12/2017 02:04:58 pm
Exactly! thanks for that.
Nick Wright
22/12/2017 02:05:20 pm
:)
Jeff Nelson
23/12/2017 08:18:42 pm
It's okay to include values into your training and coaching content. Love, kindness, integrity, developing one’s talents to add value, making a difference in lives of others ...
Reply
Nick Wright
23/12/2017 08:22:22 pm
Hi Jeff. I believe we always bring values into our training and coaching content - sometimes implicitly rather than explicitly and sometimes without realising it. If we are explicit and authentic about our values, at least it opens them up to support or challenge within a group.I like the values you have listed!
Reply
Rhiannon Rees
24/12/2017 12:33:41 am
Best advice is to have the ‘intention’ to ‘do no harm’ and position this with clients from the very beginning. Not always perfect, definitely solid though!!
Reply
Nick Wright
24/12/2017 12:34:52 am
Hi Rhiannon. I'm curious: do you have any examples you could share of you, 'position this with clients from the very beginning'?
Reply
Terri Hase
24/12/2017 12:35:58 am
I feel like 'do no harm' is a distinctly different thing from what is initially outlined here.
Reply
Nick Wright
24/12/2017 12:40:20 am
Hi Terri. Thanks for sharing such thoughtful reflections. In relation to 'do no harm' in the first example I cited here, you may find this paper interesting? http://badael.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DNH_Options-for-Aid-in-Conflict.pdf
Reply
Richard Simpson
24/12/2017 10:45:18 am
Wow, Nick. This Post has certainly created some interesting comments. If I may be permitted another comment, during the course of the discussion I was reminded of something I read in my other profession - Public Relations. A young British practitioner had been working in the Far East and, with her unconscious British world view, began to advise her Asian counterparts on the art of PR. I read it horrified at her lack of cultural empathy evidenced by her complete lack of understanding of why her Asian colleagues did their work in a way which was quite alien to her. They saw the Westerner as wiser and more worldly than themselves and began to adopt her advice, excited that the bars on the cage of their own worldview were being bent and broken. I feared for their jobs, worried that the cultural dissonance they would create by adopting British methods out of context would rebound on them - creating harm. Your own blogs on your experiences in The Philippines show a sensitivity to cultural norms which were sadly lacking in the inexperienced British PR person. So for me, Do No Harm is something about being aware of other perspectives and of systemic complexity. In the Coach's worldview, a problem may easily be reduced to a linear cause and effect. In the Client's situation, solving the problem so directly could have untold unintended consequences. At the end of the day, we are not there to solve the Client's problems or impose our own world view on her. Do No Harm is a useful heuristic for any Coach to take consciously into a Coaching Relationship.
Reply
Nick Wright
24/12/2017 01:41:12 pm
Hi Richard. Thanks for sharing such insightful reflections. I find the cross-cultural dimension so interesting.
Reply
Jakob Panduro
24/12/2017 01:25:44 pm
I’d just “freestyling” over some questions there maybe could be useful. It could be asked after the client have the “a’ha moment” so we don’t end there, but go a little further
Reply
Nick Wright
24/12/2017 01:30:15 pm
Hi Jakob. I think those a good questions. We could also reframe them and use them experientially and experimentally, e.g. by inviting the client to imagine other people or stakeholders in their wider 'system', to create the 'system' in the room by using a separate chair for each person or stakeholder, then to sit in each chair in turn and respond to your final 3 questions from each seat as if that person or stakeholder. Alternatively, we could invite the client to explore the possibility of holding similar conversations with the actual people and other stakeholders directly.
Reply
Anita Evans
25/12/2017 11:21:47 pm
Best advice: stop controlling. Ask questions, and listen. Our clients know whats best for them; it is our job to give them the space to figure it out without advice. Space mean there is nothing... where they can create their world in our listening. And lastly, context, context, context... once we have asked what is important for them to accomplish and make sure they are clear and simple about it; then our job is to keep them focused on what they told us important to them and hold them accountable to accomplish it. Ani. :)
Reply
Nick Wright
25/12/2017 11:24:41 pm
Hi Ani. I can see how what you are describing is important in coaching practice. Can you say a bit more about how that helps to ensure 'do no harm', e.g. perhaps vis a vis 'context, context, context'?
Reply
Derek Rowe
25/12/2017 11:26:08 pm
I find the serenity prayer works wonders.
Reply
Nick Wright
25/12/2017 11:27:18 pm
Hi Derek. Do you have any examples of how the serenity prayer has enabled you to 'do no harm' as a trainer?
Reply
Ron Bayless
29/12/2017 03:03:23 pm
One of the (many?) problem(s) with "do no harm" is that "harm" is subjective. If one of the purposes of training is to assist others in learning to do what they can't do, the mechanics of that transition will necessarily prove uncomfortable, even harmful, to some.
Reply
Nick Wright
29/12/2017 03:05:47 pm
Hi Ron. 'Harm is subjective'. I think that's an interesting point.
Reply
Lovely Kumar
30/12/2017 10:51:10 pm
This is extremely interesting. Looking forward to perspectives on "do no harm".
Reply
Nick Wright
30/12/2017 10:51:48 pm
Thanks Lovely. I would be very interested to hear your perspectives too!
Reply
Yolande Conradie
31/12/2017 02:18:00 pm
Teaching someone to bake bread to sustain themselves or as a way to earn a living is good. If they bake bread, and eat too much of it, become obese and unhealthy...would it have been better not to teach them to bake? Was it really “harm” to teach them?
Reply
Nick Wright
31/12/2017 02:19:17 pm
Hi Yolande. What a fascinating and thought-provoking illustration!
Reply
Sangeeta Shahane
1/1/2018 10:21:32 pm
'Do no harm' is pretty subjective. As a trainer I teach the participants the skill of managing conflicts by becoming assertive, especially those who I find to be passive or submissive. Many a times towards the end of the workshop I notice that they become aggressive. The training pushes them to cross the thin line between aggression and assertion.
Reply
Nick Wright
1/1/2018 10:22:58 pm
Hi Sangeeta. What an interesting example. Are you saying that, in training people to be more assertive, there is a risk that some may become more aggressive?
Reply
Bruce Bennett
2/1/2018 05:56:16 pm
In my research, I've come up with a concept I call Positive Harm™. It occurs when great training creates high expectations for change (positive) but nothing changes when employees return to their job. The results are individual cynicism, organizational resistance, and leadership inaction (harm) - exactly the opposite reasons most organizations invest in training. The better the training, the greater the harm when organizations are not prepared to support change. The key to identifying and eliminating Positive Harm™ is understanding what happens after training as employees try to use their new skills.
Reply
Nick Wright
2/1/2018 06:05:42 pm
Hi Bruce. Thanks for sharing such an interesting idea. It's as if the 'harm' is created by dynamics in the wider system or culture - and perhaps how and with whom the training was contracted at the outset - rather than in the training per se?
Reply
Nancy Boudreaux
3/1/2018 01:41:12 pm
As a former "passive" employee myself, I noticed that when trying to change my own behavior pattern, I had to go to the other extreme (aggressive) before I could find a balance in the middle. I've seen this in others, too.
Reply
Nick Wright
3/1/2018 01:42:57 pm
Hi Nancy. Thanks for such an honest response. I'm intrigued. What do you think it was about going to the other extreme that enabled you to find a 'balance in the middle'?
Reply
Mike Barnes
4/1/2018 09:26:53 pm
I think you're over-thinking this issue Nick (with respect) There's always going to be room for misinterpretation or a rogue element of some sort. From a coaches perspective, do the best you can, with what you have for who you're helping. It's just life...
Reply
Nick Wright
4/1/2018 09:36:28 pm
Hi Mike. Maybe...maybe not. Stretching the boundaries of our thinking, testing our assumptions and exposing ourselves to new experiences is at the heart of critical reflective practice - as coaches and as a profession. At the same time, we need to be careful to avoid becoming paralysed by over-thinking...which may be what you're driving at! :)
Reply
Anne McFarland
7/1/2018 02:34:48 pm
I wonder if the phrase is perhaps a bit impractical. Is it possible, in any activity, to do absolutely "no" harm?
Reply
Nick Wright
7/1/2018 02:36:56 pm
Hi Anne. I'm curious. Could you share an example in principle or from experience to illustrate the dilemma you are alluding to here..?
Reply
Jean Eva Thumm, LMFT, CPC, BCC
7/1/2018 05:46:00 pm
As coaches we need to understand not only the strengths of our clients, but also their struggles and the impediments they must overcome. We can begin by getting a wider picture of their family and social groups. Although coaching is generally goal-oriented, we need to have a wider grasp of the individual's environment. We CAN do this assessment as we work on another level to outline goals and objectives.
Reply
Nick Wright
7/1/2018 05:50:00 pm
Hi Jean. Yes - I think that's why exploring 'realities' is so important and useful. Sometimes, for instance, the strengths a client could draw on lay not in themselves per se but in the environment or in others around them. I think this is where coaching as increasing resourcefulness and developing critical reflective practice can be so valuable. It's also the domain in which some of the most important ethical considerations arise too.
Reply
Michael Taylor
7/1/2018 07:31:51 pm
Hi Nick, would a more realistic objective be to minimise harm rather than ‘do no harm’? Coaching generally will involve some degree of change for the client which results in a level of pain or ‘harm’. Through exploring the above mentioned strengths, weaknesses, building trust, shared values and others we can form an environment where change, failure and success are all accepted equally with a view to personal and professional growth beyond that of which they would have achieved without our support. I believe the work achieved in building a sound platform before engaging in coaching allows for the minimisation of harm and more openness and acceptance of any change.
Reply
Nick Wright
7/1/2018 07:37:56 pm
Hi Michael. I think that's an interesting question. I guess 'do no harm' is, in one sense, about 'don't make worse', either for the client or for others by implication. The discomfort associated with change could be painful but not necessarily harmful in the sense of causing actual damage?
Reply
Damian Gauntlett
10/1/2018 11:05:28 am
Hi Nick. This is a really powerful query for me as I don't always feel employers appreciate the power of a more empowered workforce through effective L&D interventions. Go back a few years... following a coaching intervention an employer lost an employee I was working with - they decided to pursue their lifelong dream. The employer questioned me on the role I played in this. Conversations took place and eventually all sides were very happy. My reason for reliving this is that I now include in contact conversations the reality that empowered staff will behave in new ways; as such be prepared for this. The good news is that this 'conversation' has never been negative. It has also lead to more business which is always a good thing :)
Reply
Nick Wright
10/1/2018 11:11:12 am
Thanks Damian. Yes, I think that's a good and important point. When we work with an individual on, say, their personal and professional development, if successful it will have an impact on their relationships and work in the wider systems and culture of which they are a part.
Reply
Craig McFadyen
18/1/2018 09:11:29 pm
Thanks, Nick, a great thinking post. I have always believed that as trainers we have a certain power and responsibility to always do right and well by others. We hold in our hands the ability (and I know because I have seen it many times) to change peoples lives by what we do. Therefore if you are lazy, uncaring or indifferent in this role you will do more harm than good. We also must realise we have no control over outside forces and how they choose to react, all we can do is lead by example.
Reply
Nick Wright
18/1/2018 09:12:53 pm
Thanks for your encouraging feedback, Craig. It's good to hear you take the ethical-influencing aspects of your training seriously.
Reply
Franz Villa
19/1/2018 10:15:31 am
While understanding the relevance of our actions as training professionals is all well and good, aiming to positively impact as many people as possible will probably be the best that any of us can do. "Do no harm" is impossible, but "Do as little harm as possible while doing as much good as possible", is probably more realistic. As famously written by poet John Lydgate, "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." Anne McFarland, "no", Newtons 3rd Law.
Reply
Nick Wright
19/1/2018 10:19:15 am
Hi Franz. Your quotation from Lydgate reminded me of a satirical version I saw on Twitter last week: 'You can't please all the people all the time, but all the people could try to please me all the time. I'd be OK with that.' ;)
Reply
Steve Schuster
21/1/2018 04:53:15 pm
“Do No Harm” https://youtu.be/Mbz6GJx6a4o
Reply
Nick Wright
21/1/2018 04:53:40 pm
Interesting! Thanks Steve.
Reply
Todd Walters
22/1/2018 08:41:38 am
Thought provoking piece. Reminds me not to lose focus on understanding the bigger picture to what I'm doing and to consider the wider implications by looking at things from different perspectives.
Reply
Nick Wright
22/1/2018 08:44:14 am
Thanks Todd. Me too. You may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/micro-macro
Reply
Adam Bostock
22/1/2018 09:27:13 pm
Hi Nick. That's a great topic, and I'm pleased you have raised it. It does seem that despite genuine good intentions we can "make some people happy some of the time", but "we can't make everyone happy all of the time" :-) As initiators of decisions/actions we'll make our lives better if we learn to cope with that; but we can also make more people happier if we learn how to reduce the negative impacts. Often it's down to poor communication, and forgetting that communication is a two-way process. If we had all the facts and all the individual opinions before a decision is made then this might make things better. This might allow more win-win decisions (but admittedly, sometimes it's hard to make win-win decisions).
Reply
Nick Wright
22/1/2018 09:30:18 pm
Thanks Adam. Yes, awareness and communication are so important. Although we can rarely have the full picture, we can try to be open to and curious about wider possibilities and dimensions wherever possible.
Reply
Kathy Cocchio
26/1/2018 11:22:33 am
Thank you for promoting authentic practitioner reflection. I would extend the mantra of "do no harm" to educational practice from K-higher education. Imagine the learning paths that would be illuminated by care-fueled learning experiences!
Reply
Nick Wright
26/1/2018 11:24:46 am
Thanks Kathy. What is K-higher education? I'd be interested to hear more about what you envision 'care-fueled learning experiences' to look and feel like!
Reply
Dasaradhi Koganti
26/1/2018 11:25:49 am
Life is an echo....it comes back.....all depends on how do we prepare for the session keeping the emotional needs of the trainee.....cause the other day we are going to be trainees...we have to be extremely careful while understanding the training needs and and supporting them through training....thank you for the share Nick....worth reading...
Reply
Nick Wright
26/1/2018 11:28:37 am
Thanks Dasaradhi. Your comment reminded me of what some people refer to as the golden rule in Jesus' teaching in the Bible: 'Do to others what you would have them do to you.'
Reply
Dr.Chandrashekhar Ranade
1/2/2018 10:10:03 am
I prefer to use the term ' Safe ' practices since ' Do no harm ' has a negative connotation . You can please many people but not all . I consider it a welcome feedback when I get a so called ' negative ' response to my well intentioned interventions .
Reply
Nick Wright
1/2/2018 10:13:44 am
Hi Chandrashekhar. I think that's a really interesting comment about the connotations that 'do no harm' may hold for some people. Interestingly, 'safe' holds negative connotations for some people too, e.g. vis a vis the debate in Western universities about 'safe spaces' vs 'free speech'. I like your approach to welcoming feedback. If we invite feedback, we are more likely to be in a good psychological state to receive it that if it is offered uninvited...and it means the other may feel more willing and able to be honest too.
Reply
Steve T
5/2/2018 11:21:07 am
I like the blog. It would be interesting to look at the Do No Harm framework and see what might carry over into the coaching/OD field of work.
Reply
Nick Wright
5/2/2018 11:23:26 am
Thanks Steve. Lots of profound insights and ideas...as usual! Your final comments resonate well with another short piece I posted last week: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/state-of-interdependence, especially the final question at the end of that piece. Let me know what you think?
Reply
Jan Chambers
5/2/2018 06:18:51 pm
I'm not sure you ever can cover all the bases. It reminds me of the health warning that is often issued at the beginning of some TV and radio programmes that some listeners/viewers may find aspects of the programme disturbing. And then the programme is followed by various links for people who may have been affected by the programme. I often think there are plenty of disturbing aspects in programmes that have no warnings. Who's to say what anyone might find disturbing because we have no way of knowing what someone has experienced prior to the programme's transmission or our L & D session. Not sure if that adds much to the party!
Reply
Nick Wright
5/2/2018 06:24:41 pm
Hi Jan. I think that's an interesting angle. Do you think we should add health warnings to our L&D programmes and follow-up opportunities afterwards? It could make the programmes feel a lot more edgy! :)
Reply
Jan Chambers
6/2/2018 05:32:41 pm
I actually believe that the best L & D should always challenge the participants' ideas and beliefs, not in a 'playing devil's advocate' way but in genuinely challenging whatever is current practice. Of course it does rather depend on the focus of the L & D. If the purpose of the session is to learn how to operate a piece of machinery challenge probably isn't what you're looking for but if it's about how and why the machionary might be used then challenge should be what you're looking for. After all as a learner you don't have to agree with the teacher. The best sessions I ever attended as a learner were characterised by the feeling that I came away with more questions than answers and was stimulated to find those answers.
Nick Wright
6/2/2018 05:33:54 pm
Hi Jan. Well said.
Maria Luisa Gay
5/2/2018 06:25:25 pm
This is really interesting and reflection I have all the time in many contexts both personal and professional. Like the proverbial well-intentioned road leading to the bad place. From my standpoint, trying to use the most neutral language possible in the exchange of information is a good start. The second, is something I heard from Daniel Pink and that was to encourage a self-talk so rather than "I can do this" or "You can do this" ask yourself or ask your trainee "Can you do this?" and let a self-dialogue lead you down a path where the resources needed start to emerge organically.
Reply
Nick Wright
5/2/2018 06:27:50 pm
Thanks Maria. Yes, I can imagine how encouraging and supporting self-dialogue in the way you describe can be useful. It can be useful, too, to engage and support similar dialogue in teams, groups and communities. It raises awareness and enables people to find their own focus, way of approaching an issue, conversational pace etc.
Reply
Dr. Terrence E. Maltbia
8/2/2018 07:13:21 pm
Great graphic!
Reply
Nick Wright
8/2/2018 07:13:57 pm
Thanks Terrence. I found it on Google images.
Reply
Andrea Sheehy
16/3/2018 10:28:33 am
Hi Nick.
Reply
Nick Wright
16/3/2018 10:34:24 am
Hi Andrea. I guess a 'do no harm' -related question could arise in terms of the implications of what we or the client consider as an appropriate means to 'repair'? What if, for instance, the apparent repair inadventently has harmful impacts for the client and/or others..?
Reply
Andrea Sheehy
16/3/2018 03:24:12 pm
I see rupture and repair as a part of the debate. We are all fallible. None of us are perfect and we all make mistakes. We are all going to miss our clients or others at some point and repairing this in a theraputic setting can lead to greater insights into how we were missed in childhood. There is, of course some risk in everything we do and so I like this translation from the Hippocratic Oath.
Nick Wright
16/3/2018 03:27:01 pm
Hi Andrea. That sounds like an authentic and wise approach. It points too, for me, to the critical importance of high quality supervision. It's often hard to see and make sense of these experiences on our own.
Andrea Sheehy
18/3/2018 01:22:12 pm
Absolutely.
Nick Wright
18/3/2018 01:24:24 pm
Wow, Andrea - that opens up so many wider issues in the profession!!
Mark Redwood
18/3/2018 10:34:25 pm
I think this depends on your ethical stance... As in do you take a consequentialist approach... The moral worth of your actions depends on the amount of good it creates... Or do you take a Kantian deontological approach... Your moral worth is based on your intentions...
Reply
Nick Wright
18/3/2018 10:36:09 pm
Thanks Mark. Interesting reflections.
Reply
Curtis DeLeon
18/3/2018 10:37:39 pm
...Just to add to all that have been already said , because of our therapeutic blind spots and personal and professional limitations, together with our unconscious bias, prejudices and unresolved conflicts, I suspect we will at times falter even unknowingly and as such I imagine all the more reason supervision s so crucial.
Reply
Nick Wright
18/3/2018 10:38:13 pm
Hi Curtis. I agree - and well said.
Reply
Paul Feiger, LMFT
18/3/2018 10:40:14 pm
Great question. IMO, it is always the best policy to just ask questions of the client(s). By that I mean have no agenda going in, have no solution based on your assessment of the "problem." It seems to me we often attempt to dx the problem prior to really getting to know the clients. We experience resistance and rejection because we make it all about us and our solutions rather than about the client. All people behave in ways they have found useful in the past. The problem seems to come from when those chosen (consciously or unconsciously) behaviors arn't working any longer. Only respectful questions will do no harm and elicit the causes.
Reply
Nick Wright
18/3/2018 10:43:53 pm
Thanks Paul. I think that's a good point about trying to fix things and the risks that often entails. At the same time, if only questions could be so neutral..?! And is having 'no agenda' always the best way of to avoid harm..?
Reply
Mary Jane Hurley Brant
19/3/2018 09:51:41 am
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Nick. When I've erred and my client speaks to me about it I accept his or her feedback. "Let's talk about it" is my first response. Once, years ago, a client was upset that I encouraged her child to spread her wings (child was 20) and live her dream of moving to a big city and working in the theater. Her mother was furious with me. I anticipated it. I asked the mother in. "Let's talk about it. If you are satisfied with the session, you pay for the therapeutic hour. If you are not, the session is on-the-house. The mother not only wrote the check, she entered therapy. Mother and daughter are closer than ever. Sometimes we just have trust that our instincts are good.
Reply
Nick Wright
19/3/2018 10:05:57 am
Thanks Mary. It sounds like the situation you described had a happy outcome. It illustrates well how our work with clients touches on wider systems and cultures (e.g. family), often out of our (and, sometimes, the client's) awareness. I think 'encouraged the child to spread her wings' touches on all sorts of issues and tensions in therapy and coaching arenas. How far should we explicitly support a client's course of action, even if it is the client who chooses it? This is also an area of increasing focus and concern for professional indemnity insurance providers in the UK..!
Reply
Ella Risi
19/3/2018 10:06:52 am
There is something about this question that bothers me. I see myself as one part of a clients life. I tend to work on the principal that I hold the therapy and keep myself accountable for who and how I am in that hour. The clients life and choices is not my responsibility.
Reply
Nick Wright
19/3/2018 10:10:14 am
Hi Ella. Yes, that is a common principle in therapy and coaching fields. In practice, however, I don't think we can draw such hard or clear lines between what we do with the client and what the client chooses to do. We invariably exert influence, e.g. through the nature and quality of the relationship itself as well as through any questions, reflections etc. that we may pose to the client. That makes issues of respective responsibility more blurry and complex.
Reply
Kevin Burns
19/3/2018 03:55:52 pm
Harm is part of life and part of healing, if only to open and clean the wounds. So I think 'do no harm' is a fantasy, and probably a dangerous one. Making mistakes that will hurt the client is inevitable, however much I try to avoid them and as Winnicott says, necessary to separation and individuation anyway. We can't be perfect and nor should we attempt to be.
Reply
Nick Wright
19/3/2018 04:04:54 pm
Thanks for your stimulating comments, Kevin. I don't believe that perfect knowledge of a therapeutic (or coaching) relationship is possible...and I recognise that working with transference and countertransference can be useful. I like your comment, 'not as obstacles but as aspects.' At the same time, I am aware that our work with clients doesn't take place in a cultural, systemic or contextual vacuum. What we do with a client will have impacts in the client's wider arena. How far do - or should - we take those wider implications into account? I think that's an important question ethically and practically.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|