When you're working in an organization where statements like "Good ideas can come from anyone" and "Experiment! We learn more from our mistakes than our successes!" are commonplace, does saying "no" create a contradiction that impedes adaptability and inclusivity?
The answer depends on how you say "no" and the things you say "no" to.
I didn't always know this. In fact, I was once a person who said "yes" to most of the opportunities I encountered. Saying "yes" was fun. Trying new things brought me joy, and I became the organization's go-to person for creative pilot projects. Eventually, though, the number of hours I needed to work to sustain all of the commitments took a toll on my health.
I just wasn't sure how to begin moderating my "yes" commitments with "no" statements. How could I get better at saying "no," while continuing to cultivate an open culture on my team and in my organization?
The answer: Practice, making lots mistakes, and communication.
A few clumsy attempts
My initial attempts to moderate my "yes's" with "no's" were clumsy. For example, one of my teams was working on project with a huge backlog of bugs, and I went through the list and closed many of them. While many people were thrilled that I set criteria for closing bugs and seemed to have no hesitation about saying, "No, I'm not going to work on this item," others were outraged. I received some horrified messages. So I had to explain: Bugs can be reopened and reprioritized (in fact, we reopened and fixed several bugs).
In hindsight, I realize now I should have been more proactive about communicating the problem, the severity of the issue, and how we were going to solve it. I could have also explained how we'd make exemptions available and how we's work through those special cases. But the lesson remains clear: If you're going to say "no" in an open organization, then be ready to explain why you're saying "no."
I continue to perfect my ability to say "no" without creating too much confusion. Now I often ask more questions that help me understand what people have identified as a primary goals. When I assume I understand the thinking behind an initial request, I'm quite often wrong. So I spend time understanding what motivates people submitting requests, and I explain the tradeoffs we face if we say "yes."
Additionally, I often ask for contributions from the party making the request. These can take a variety of forms—there's no "one-size-fits-all" contribution. But when people making requests are themselves invited to contribute and they say no, it says a lot about the value they place on the request. Why am I (or my team) expected to say "yes" and work solo, while someone else feels no responsibility for sharing ownership? I let that question sit in the air (and I have learned to love the silence that follows!).
When I think about saying "yes," I think about the people I'm impacting:
- Do customers lose because this single "yes" means "no" to several other things that are of higher customer value? If customers are going to lose, then what I need to do becomes abundantly clear.
- What about the team I'm leading? Does the team have the resources needed—or can I get the team the resources it may need? How am I going to motivate people to share saying "yes" to this commitment?
Stepping back and considering the deliberate work involved in deciding to say "yes" or "no" takes significant time and energy. A co-worker once labeled this type of work the "meta" work that's essential to a well-functioning organization. He's right. Think you can save time by avoiding this effort? You'll find yourself working on items that don't align with your team's core values and mission.
You need to be as committed to good decision making—saying "no" so you can get to the best "yes" for your customers—as you are to doing the work. Otherwise, you'll ask people to spend time on non-essential work. Have the courage to recognize the inevitable missteps, and you'll have the next challenge waiting for you.