Getting to "no"

Early in my career, I read that I shouldn't say "no" in a business setting but rather I should phrase things positively. Instead of saying "we can't do it" say "we can do it and it would require X." This keeps an optimistic outlook, makes the tradeoffs clear, and you come across as a willing collaborator.

While I still think that's a helpful framing, I now realize it fed into my weakness: I wasn't comfortable with disagreement. One of the quirks of my family of origin is that we didn't disagree directly but rather worked our way around tough topics.

When I felt a work conversation moving toward a disagreement, my heart rate would go up. I didn't want people to think I'm unreasonable or "don't get it." I associated disagreement with a risk to the relationship.

This became worse in Product Strategy. As an influence function, landing my ideas wasn't just a matter of my ego but also my job performance.

Disagreements can have real stakes (from who looks good in front of a leader up to whose department gets laid off), and a tough argument can hurt the relationship even if you do everything right. However, my fear of harming the relationship by disagreeing was out of proportion to reality.

The problem with my discomfort is that it prevented me from stating my positions clearly. It also made me focus too much on areas of agreement.

Consider a colleague who says: "I agree with you about the value of the project, and I also agree that we should be the team to do it, and I also agree that the timeline is reasonable, and I also agree [...]"

Not sure about you, but I'm waiting for the "but." It's the inverse of the sales tactic that aims to get you to say yes ("do you agree that it's important to save the environment?"). It puts me on edge since I'm waiting for the catch.

While Strategy exacerbated my fear, Product Management served as exposure therapy. In this role I disagree all day every day. The clearer I am in my disagreement, the better for everyone.

In fact, I now look forward to hearing "no." Agreement runs the risk of being too general ("we all agree this is an important topic"). It's once I hear the first "no" that I know that we're getting to the details that matter ("we all agree this is an important topic but we won't commit three weeks of work on it").

The point of explaining why you disagree isn't to get your way. It's to drive clarity. It gives an opportunity to explore why we see things differently. Do we have different information? Assumptions? Incentives? One of the delights of working with smart people is that they have ideas you've never considered. If you want to feel right all the time, work alone.

There's still a part of me that prefers that everyone get along.

Rather than avoiding disagreement, I've tried to channel that energy towards investing in the relationship before & after a disagreement. This helps ensure that my colleagues trust my intentions and that I see them as real people who are doing their best with the information they have.

And even in the heat of the argument, with real stakes, it's important to maintain perspective. Over the long run, most work relationships matter more than most work decisions.

Keep it light; drive for clarity; show you want them to get what they want. Perhaps you'll jointly come up with creative solutions that are better than any of your previous positions.