The Meaning of “The Worst Enemy of the Best is the Good”
Stephen R. Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, coined the phrase “The worst enemy of the best is the good” to highlight a critical obstacle in human achievement and effectiveness: complacency with mediocrity or “good enough” solutions, rather than striving for the “best” possible outcomes. In Covey’s framework, “the good” is not a benign or positive state, but rather a subtle danger that can lull individuals, organizations, and societies into inertia, preventing them from reaching their highest potential and fulfilling vital responsibilities. The comfort of accepting “good”—solutions or actions that are convenient, easy, or require little sacrifice—often stands in direct opposition to making the hard, courageous choices necessary to achieve “the best”, which may demand greater effort, vision, and sometimes the willingness to endure discomfort for a higher cause.
Defining “the Good” — Complacency, Inaction, and Missed Opportunities
In Covey’s usage, “the good” refers to choices, actions, or situations that appear satisfactory but ultimately serve as obstacles to what is truly needed: transformational, principle-centered progress. This form of “good” fosters a sense of comfort and justification in sticking with the status quo, leading to complacency, incrementalism, or half-measures that delay or preclude significant positive change. Rather than propelling us towards our highest values and aspirations, the pursuit or acceptance of “the good” often distracts from or crowds out the urgency and priority of “the best”—the actions most essential for mission, integrity, or survival.
Paradoxically, what Covey identifies as “the good” can become “the bad” precisely because it leads to inaction; when people accept “good enough”, they fail to address critical problems that require immediate and ambitious solutions. Over time, this failure results in widespread harm—missed opportunities, worsening crises, and the foreclosing of possibilities for individuals, societies, or even the planet.
The Principle of Prioritization: Saying “No” to the Good for a Greater “Yes” to the Best
Covey’s insight is instantiated in his principle of prioritization, familiar in Habit 3 (“Put First Things First”). He emphasizes that effectiveness requires courageously saying “no” to many appealing but secondary activities, so one can focus on the highest priorities—those tasks aligned with fundamental values and with the greatest long-term impact. This is only possible when driven by a “bigger yes burning inside”—a sense of inner purpose that supplies the conviction and strength to resist the temptations of lesser, more convenient choices.
The enemy of the “best” is not something obviously wrong or evil, but the “good” that appears justifiable and reasonable in the moment, drawing time, resources, and focus away from the truly crucial actions that could make an enduring difference.
Why This Is Vital to Understand in Light of Global Threats
The Trap of “Good Enough” in Addressing Existential Crises
When applied to enormous challenges such as the Sixth Mass Extinction and accelerating climate change—issues threatening the well-being of billions and the survival of life on Earth—Covey’s insight takes on an urgent collective meaning. In the face of these threats, societies often settle for “good” or incremental solutions: modest improvements, partial policy reforms, or delaying essential actions due to fear of political backlash or short-term economic costs. While these measures may seem responsible or pragmatic, they are grossly inadequate given the scope and speed of the crises, and their acceptance leads to prolonged inaction.
The Danger of Focusing on Short-term Negatives While Ignoring the Bigger Picture
A core reason for this inaction is the human tendency to fixate on immediate negative outcomes or sacrifices associated with decisive action. For example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions may threaten jobs in certain sectors or increase costs in the short term; similarly, policies to halt biodiversity loss may involve restrictions on land use or consumption. These near-term “negatives” are often allowed to outweigh the long-term imperative: to avert catastrophic climate disruption and extinction events with planetary impacts.
Covey’s teaching is clear: focusing solely on “good” (i.e., short-term comfort, minimal disruption, or incremental gains) blinds us to the necessity of pursuing the “best” (systemic change, principled action for planetary well-being), leading to missed opportunities and, ultimately, vastly greater harm. The “bigger picture”—the flourishing or even basic survival of humanity and the natural world—requires bold, values-driven action, even at the cost of immediate comfort or ease.
How “The Good” Becomes “The Bad”: Inaction, Suffering, and Environmental Collapse
This dynamic transforms “the good” into “the bad.” When societies or individuals content themselves with “good enough” responses, the cumulative result is ongoing environmental degradation, worsening social injustice, and the escalation of planetary risks that jeopardize billions of lives and entire ecosystems. The short-term preservation of comfort becomes a source of long-term suffering and loss, contradicting the deeper and more universal definition of what is truly “good” for humans and all life.
If inaction or insufficient measures persist, the outcome is not merely suboptimal but disastrous—mass extinction, resource conflicts, widespread displacement, and the “dying of life on this planet,” as referenced in your question. Thus, what people accept as “good” for themselves or their group transforms into “the bad” for the broader whole and future generations.
Redefining Good and Bad: Toward a Principle-centered Paradigm
Covey urges a re-examination and redefinition of what is considered “good” and “bad”. In the face of urgent, large-scale threats, “good” should not be equated with immediate comfort, risk-avoidance, or the absence of disruption; rather, it must be aligned with actions that uphold the long-term well-being and sustainability of humanity and the planet, even if those actions involve short-term difficulty.
A principle-centered paradigm—one of Covey’s cornerstones—requires that individuals and societies transcend reactive, self-limiting definitions of “good” and evaluate choices based on their larger, more enduring impact. True “goodness” lies in the courageous pursuit of system-level solutions, grounded in universal values like justice, stewardship, and compassion for all life. “Bad”, therefore, is revealed not by discomfort in the present, but by actions (or inactions) whose aggregate effect is to increase vulnerability, suffering, and loss on a massive scale.
Practical Application: Principle-centered Action in the Face of Global Crisis
Covey’s principle is not merely theoretical; it invites practical re-orientation. Individuals and leaders must learn to recognize and resist the seductive pull of “good enough” when facing complex, urgent problems. This means accepting that some actions—such as phasing out fossil fuels, transforming agricultural practice, or restructuring economies—will entail real costs and adjustments. Yet, the willingness to take decisive steps, guided by a commitment to the “best” (sustainability, protection of life, justice), is the only path to averting far greater harms and achieving genuine human and planetary flourishing.
Conclusion
Stephen R. Covey’s insight, “The worst enemy of the best is the good,” is a clarion call to confront complacency and excuses in the face of tremendous, non-negotiable challenges. “The good,” in Covey’s lexicon, is dangerous precisely because it masquerades as sufficient when it is a direct obstacle to courageous, effective, and enduring action. In the context of global crises like mass extinction and climate change, adherence to “the good” translates into inaction—and thus facilitates deep suffering and irreversible damage.
To move toward a viable and just future, it is imperative to redefine “good” not as comfort or minimal risk, but as alignment with principles that support life and long-term well-being, even (and especially) when that requires sacrifice in the present. Only by embracing this shift can humanity hope to achieve the “best”: the regeneration of ecosystems, the alleviation of suffering for billions, and the enduring health of the planet. Covey’s wisdom compels individuals and societies to make this leap, both in thought and in action.
