Saying "no" to someone with superior organizational power can be trying indeed. The unwelcome news doesn't always land easily, and the consequences to a no-sayer's reputation and career can be severe. But we can deliver "no" more effectively, and more safely, if we understand three of the many obstacles to successful delivery of "no."
- Accurate threat assessment
- In unsafe environments, where superiors abuse their power by shaping their subordinates' expressed opinions, the threat to anyone who must deliver "no" is real. Subordinates who assess this threat accurately can experience a sense of intimidation, which can cause them to appear less than confident when delivering their "no."
- Since these no-sayers appear to lack confidence, the recipients of their "n" messages tend to discount what they hear, which can lead some recipients to reject the no-sayer's "no." In this way, the no-sayer's accurate assessment of the threat to the no-sayer can lead to rejection of the "no," even when the no-sayer has mustered the courage to deliver "no."
- Incompetent task difficulty assessment
- Those who lack sufficient competence to recognize impossible task assignments represent another threat to those who would say "no." A typical threat that no-sayers experience, delivered by superiors intent on receiving "yes" instead of "no," is, "If you can't get the job done, I'll find someone who can."
- Superiors who lack competence sufficient to recognize the impossibility of their demands tend also to lack competence sufficient to recognize the incompetence of the people to whom they turn for "yes" when a no-sayer says "no." These powerful people might truly believe that they've found someone who will get the job done, but all they have really found is someone who agrees to take on an impossible task, and who isn't competent to recognize the impossibility of that task.
- Inaccurate message formation
- Superiors who are intent on shaping the expressed opinions of subordinates are more likely than others to withhold from subordinates information about the task at hand and about the environment in which it's hosted. This withholding can result in no-sayers delivering specious arguments as justification for their nos.
- When this happens, recipients A 'No' uttered from deepest conviction
is better and greater than a 'Yes'
merely uttered to please, or what is
worse, to avoid trouble.
—Mohandas Ghandifeel justified in rejecting the no-sayer's position in its entirety, even if the no-sayer's conclusion is valid. Recipients who reason in this way are committing the formal fallacy — an error in logic — known as denying the antecedent. It follows the pattern: (a) If P, then Q; (b) Not P; (c) Therefore, not Q.
Although the recipient rejects the "no" for reasons that aren't logically correct, the recipient might actually recognize the error. Recipients who do so are acting unethically.
Love the work but not the job? Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? This ebook looks at what we can do to get more out of life at work. It helps you get moving again! Read Go For It! Sometimes It's Easier If You Run, filled with tips and techniques for putting zing into your work life. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenzebyhmeQPNOijdrfner@ChacthlSisKmujxUdoagoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Knife-Edge Performers
- Some employees deliver performance episodically, while some deliver steady, but barely adequate performance.
Either way, they keep their managers drained and anxious, on the "knife edge" of terminating
them. How can you detect knife-edge performers, and what can you do about them?
- On Organizational Coups d'Etat
- If your boss is truly incompetent, or maybe even evil, organizing a coup d'etat might have crossed
your mind. In most cases, it's wise to let it cross on through, all the way. Think of alternative ways out.
- Dismissive Gestures: III
- Sometimes we use dismissive gestures to express disdain, to assert superior status, to exact revenge
or as tools of destructive conflict. And sometimes we use them by accident. They hurt personally, and
they harm the effectiveness of the organization. Here's Part III of a little catalog of dismissive gestures.
- Ethical Influence: I
- Influencing others can be difficult. Even more difficult is defining a set of approaches to influencing
that almost all of us consider ethical. Here's a framework that makes a good starting point.
- That Was a Yes-or-No Question: II
- When, in the presence of others, someone asks you "a simple yes or no" question, beware. Chances
are that you're confronting a trap. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for dealing with the yes-or-no
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 27: Brainstorming and Speedstorming: II
- Recent research into the effectiveness of brainstorming has raised some questions. Motivated to examine alternatives, I ran into speedstorming. Here's Part II of an exploration of the properties of speedstorming. Available here and by RSS on February 27.
- And on March 6: A Pain Scale for Meetings
- Most meetings could be shorter, less frequent, and more productive than they are. Part of the problem is that we don't realize how much we do to get in our own way. If we track the incidents of dysfunctional activity, we can use the data to spot trends and take corrective action. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjtletztInoqLDNfOner@ChacBdOAicapgsljYMApoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.