I find it fascinating that the average leader will include the importance of leadership in communication among the list of essential leadership principles, yet many are poor communicators when it comes to saying no. I get it. We don’t like confrontation. We don’t like disappointing people. We don’t like being the naysayer. But when no is the necessary response, I believe people, or at least most people, want to know the truth.
A friend of mine points to the existence of what he calls the destructive slow no which is a bit of a dance. You might first inform the requestor that you will think about it, even though you have absolutely no intention of thinking about. You know their request will be denied, but just not today. When the request surfaces again, perhaps this time you say you have thought about it and you have several concerns but need a little more time to talk with so-and-so or review the data. In this step, you attempt to subtly signal to the requestor that a no may be headed their way. Hoping they take the hint and don’t ask again, you do not intend to get back with them as promised, but rather wait to see if they move on their merry way. If for some reason they are too dense to get your subtle signals, then you deliver the finality of a no.
According to my friend, this slow no simply infuriates people. If the requestor had received the pending denial immediately, time, effort and frustration would have been saved.
When sharing this concept of a slow no with another friend, he recognized it immediately as a strategy his company uses on a much broader basis. He recalled how incremental strategic moves were used to subtly signal a closing of a department, a firing of a leader or a reversal of a previous decision. He indicated his senior leaders had mastered the art of saying no without saying no.
When I heard of my friend’s account of his company slow no strategy, I thought of the boiling frog analogy. We have all boiled the frog at some point such that we release clues that a denial is coming without jumping to an immediate no. The heat increases but not enough to scare anyone away or cause panic.
While widely used, boiling frogs is a significant waste of time, energy and money just to avoid the inevitable. It’s easier to declare the no and offer why we won’t pursue that business line, or why we won’t keep that department or why a job must be eliminated. Reaching a slow boil is disingenuous when we gradually increase the heat of the pot such that the frog will be boiled without us having to look them in the eye and say goodbye.
People are far more perceptive about these clandestine strategies than leaders believe. Our team members have a right to the truth. They want their leader to treat them as adults. Good news. Bad news. All news. They want it. It’s time to stop playing slight of hand with the careers of those we lead and be honest with them. If it is a no, then please say it.