With "No, unless ...", it's a different story. Then success is dependant on the conditions mentioned and they're much more likely to do their part in making sure those conditions are met. If you said "Yes, if" they'll often just remember you promised you could do it and leave it at that.
In my opinion, most people will be "Yes, if..." people given the right cultural conditions; this looking at people as dichotomous types set-in-stone is dangerous and in my experience incorrect. It is as divisive and ineffective as the current US political climate. If someone has become a No person, it's likely because they're being moulded into that by their management, or has been in the past. Fix the environment and create an innovation-positive management structure and they'd probably jump at the opportunity to take more risks. I have seen this happen first-hand.
W. Edwards Deming, 8th point: "Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
And individuals can turn everyone else into mindless drones by constantly saying "no, because of XYZ."
Blaming "management" is so fashionable, and so counterproductive.
I had the misfortune of working with a salesperson who only read the "yes" part in an email and sold a lemon to a client for not enough cash.
I protested immediately after the sale (when I was informed of the technical specification) that all the conditions were meticulously described but ignored and presented the email. Management decided to take the risk of going forward. The project failed. I was still blamed for it because by then I was an easy scapegoat.
Never received an apology and lost a good chunk of my reputation at the time. I haven't been an employee and have been my own salesperson since then (15 years ago). Less politics and ass covering between my ears.
Tiny little things like this can make or break you.
You don't have to accept that. The general excuse, "Managers man... they suck", is something that really bothers me.
Why not stand up for your idea, insist upon the Yes, IF... and hold management accountable?
Document concerns and don't be shy about raising them. In my experience I have seen people make the assumption that management will not listen and therefor not act more often than I've seen management ignore feedback.
That's not to say that management wouldn't ignore you, or dismiss negativity in favor of the "yes", but the defeatist attitude as it relates to 'management' troubles me.
Again, Michh, not to give you a hard time. Maybe I'm naive.
If we just deal with the issue of X and solve the Y problem, then yes, we can most certainly do it. I have some ideas on how to deal with X and I think that if we bring Marketing into the discussion then we should be able to make a plan to address Y.
The above paragraph is still "can do" and it is arguably a better way to answer such questions because it is not as easy for a listener to misinterpret it.
In an article about Can Do vs Can't Do culture, it piggybacks on an insightful top comment that takes an optimistic approach and provides the kind of cynical pessimism and tries to shoot down the Can Do nature of the OP's comment. But the best part of it, the most beautiful part, is that it places the blame on the cause of all problems for hackers: the manager. Literally, managers are the only reason the world isn't amazing, they're the ones that shoot down all my brilliant ideas.
The entire idea of "can do vs can't do" is such a platitude anyways, it's not even remotely interesting. It takes all nuance away from communication. As if just because someone has to make their position clearer than a statement like "yes, if" in order to manage the expectations of others that they just don't have a "can do" attitude and by implication are destined to fail.
I think the entire point is that they say the same thing while projecting a completely different attitude.
The way that someone responds to the question of "can we do this" is very important.
Cynics always have scapegoats. It's always everyone else's fault. Dumb colleagues, idiotic managers, stupid customers. Just remember you control your situation and how those around you interact with you.
The 'Yes, if' thing is one of the major reasons I love startups.
We typically call this middle management.
Regardless I'm not really interested in the blame game on who's responsible management or engineering. Both are irrelevant to this discussion. "Can" or "can't", as the article discusses, is an issue of leadership in a business. If it isn't there, it isn't going to matter whether the engineer says "how high?" whenever their asked to jump.
The only thing that could top your comment is mine; now we're two meta levels deep, not even discussing the original article anymore.
I prefer "yes, if" but reality says that the "ifs" will never be made part of the planning and then blame will come back to you because you said "yes"
I find it similar to the "estimates" of when we'll finish something, that get turned into hard delivery deadlines once the project scribe commits them to the first draft of the project plan.
Are there really only two answers you can offer when asked whether we can do X? Am I still allowed to say "It depends on A, B and C" or "Maybe, but I don't think it's a good idea because of P and Q" or "It would be great, but how do we solve Y and Z?"
I can't help feeling that you people are all arguing about which Oldspeak word to abolish in Newspeak.
And as it relates to the business of building software, which is a tricky and hard thing to do, having a positive outlook and focusing on the end possibilities rather than oncoming challenges is a better attitude for long term success. If you're the type to get caught up in the challenges of implementing stuff, you spend a lot more time saying no and less time finding clever ways to make it a yes.
I used to be in the No, because ... camp when I first got out of college, until I met a mentor who led by example with a "Yes, if ..." attitudes, and I am now firmly in the second camp. Usually comprises and trade off needs to be made, but stop thinking about the problem definitely doesn't help.
I disagree. I've worked as a consultant for many years and I used to be a "no, because" person, and I noticed a very clear shift in my demeanor and that of clients when I started saying more "yes, if"s.
Initially I didn't know what I was doing so every project was fraught with the fear I'd be found out, this meant that on really difficult things, I'd try to talk myself and the client out of doing them, because I didn't know enough and thought something simpler (that I could do) would be better. As I became a much better software developer, all of a sudden, nothing was impossible, and it translated into my speak with clients.
Instead of presenting problems, I could tell clients exactly how to do what they wanted and how much it would cost them technically and monetarily.
I'll just tell you from experience. People respond to "yes, if"'s a whole lot better than no-anythings
"I think words are abstractions, and abstractions become expressions that frame our understanding of our experiences, expectations, culture—everything. Language is an interface, and if an interface can mold behavior and perception, than language does that to your life."
In my opinion, a better approach for an engineer in typical real world conditions is to be a problem solver while controlling the message. "Yes, if" gives up control of the message. Instead of saying "yes" rephrase and reformulate the idea into your own words while adding the necessary constraints. It's a small difference, but it allows you to take full ownership and control of what you're signing up for.
:-)
Example:
Yes, if the '"yes, if" attitude' is defined as 'never disagreeing with anyone ever, since no one ever attempts to abuse positive-thinking engineers.'
But the real question is like the programming language question - what's the most expressive and useful in a given situation? Sometimes an idiom is not a good fit.
I always responds 'yes, if' -- to people I know won't abuse it.
That's most of the people I work with. But some entrepreneurs, Project Managers, clients and so forth are simply not to be trusted with a "yes, if."
The goal is to avoid those kinds of shady operators, crappy projects, and hostile clients. But sometimes you end up working with them, at least as bit players in a business relationship that is a good fit. Especially as a freelancer, I don't know anyone who can avoid it 100% of the time.
For instance: even when working with a great organization, some project could have a weak link in a project management role. It will happen to you. And all you can do is try to do good work while extricating yourself as soon as possible.
What should I tell one of those not-very-trustworthy people if they ask something ridiculous?
Does compiling it to Yes-If prove more expressive?
Examples:
Yes, if the laws of space-time, human nature, physics and the combined sum of human experience weren't arrayed in battle order against you and your terrible idea.
Yes, if I could trust that you, a non-software PM who shifted into this job from Accounts with no training heavier than that provided by Clippy, have correctly assessed the stakeholder requirements and risk around this new feature that you think is required by 'EOD Thursday.'
Sometimes, there is an answer, and it is No. Because.
Sometimes you should signal risk and danger in your response, because risk and danger are present in their requests, and you must be sure that they are weighing those dangers. 'No, because' (or 'I'd advise against it, but here's what it would take', which is closer to what I actually say in those situations) definitely has its place.
NOTE: this is not non-technical PM hate. I may currently have two PMs, on projects for two separate fortune-50 companies. Both PMs may be non-technical, but one might know how to be a PM, and specifically on a software project, and the other might not.
If you let "Yes, if" evoke a different emotional response than, "No, because", even though they provide more or less the same information content, what does that say about you?
They may not be proper synonyms, but a listener that's forgiving of input errors can interpret them as synonyms, at least until proven otherwise through further conversation.
- Don't say no to clients "crazy" demands, just calculate what it would actually cost, or what you would need to do what they ask, and quote them that.
- A good price is when you are OK either way: You're OK if they say yes, and OK if they say no.
Edit: typos, missing word
these "no because," people are a common resistance to new ideas. In engineers, they're almost the default. It's much easier to say no; to say yes is to deal with an increasingly larger amount of resistance. However, that resistance is also what makes the idea go far.
Technically my answer was more "yes if we dump some other pieces of software, and we try to be the best player at this new idea".
So the answer is "no" to people in "suits" until they prove they aren't going to be abusive and nuance-free.
After all, they want a simple "yes, we can". If they hear about the half a dozen other problems that need to be solved first, they think "oh, yeah, that would be great, haha. But we won't do it because we want to focus on solving E, not A, B, C and D"...
Now, let's discuss the deadline...
And to be honest, most projects actually go way out of time and budget. The realist would have said no, because the scope was not realistic. Now if you wilfully or just by ignorance accept the terms and scope thinking you can always stretch other peoples time and budget, that's in my book immoral, but then again, those people will end up getting the jobs i decline.
If anything, there's a problem with too much optimism in project management. If there isn't enough budget and schedule to let a project slip by 10%, then the answer shouldn't be "yes, if we're lucky". It should be "No, let's pick something with better margins." or "Yes, because even losing money on this is worth it for strategic reasons."
If you ask many people an audacious "Can we do X?" their response is usually along the lines of "No, because [valid reasons]". They're not wrong, but the basic attitude is to shoot down what doesn't seem to fit with one's own view of the world. These are "no, because" people, and big companies are often full of them.
Much rarer and infinitely more valuable, especially for an entrepreneur, is the person who hears "Can we do X?" and responds, "Yes, if... [possible solutions]". Their response is one of problem-solving instead of confrontation, seeking to find a synthesis of the new perspective and their own. It seems like a small thing, but it is a very significant shift in mindset. Thinking like a "yes, if" person can unlock so much potential.
A friend of mine, one of the most talented and knowledgeable game programmers around, could easily have shot down many of the ambitious ideas that came his way. Instead, he greeted them with enthusiasm, often saying, "It's software! We can do anything!" Wouldn't you like to set out to do amazing things with that person on your team?
[1] - https://d23.com/harrison-price/