Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

From an organizational perspective, this is horrible advice:

> Let me tell you clearly. “No” is a complete sentence. It requires no explanation or defense.

The "It requires no explanation or defense" part is just plain wrong. If someone asks you to do something in an organization, it's fine to say "No", but an explanation is nearly always expected. And this explanation is critical, because often time the answer is something like "I don't have time", when a positive, helpful rejoinder would be "What else would you like me to stop doing if you want me to do this other thing."

This advice really just seems to my like something the "arrogant tech support guy" from SNL would say.

View on HN

“No” is too abrasive in most situations, but any flavor of “Sorry, it won’t be possible.” is a valid complete response to be processed by the person asking.

I am sympathic to author’s argument that you stay there with a valid explanation upon request and start work it out with the other party from there as needed.

Clearly stating that something won’t happen is a first important step. It often gets muddied if you start diving into menial details right away.

In particular, if as the author states, it’s a conclusion you’ve already reached and the situation will need to change to get to any different outcome.

> It is the only thing you need to say when you know you won’t be able to do something no matter how much the other party tries to get you to agree.

Great advice from Herman Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener”: simply saying “I would prefer not to…” has worked so many times for me.

This is usually the way I respond to friends who know they can follow that up with "please!" and I'll do it. It's kind of a "how important is this to you?" test.

I would like to hear (read) Melville's Bartebly's genius response in other languages.

For my part:

Radije ne bih. (Serbian)

Wolałbym nie. ((I would wish/chose/prefer) (not))

Θα προτιμούσα να μην το κάνω.

Je préférerais ne pas.

That’s not grammatically correct in my opinion. I’d say “je n’aime autant pas” ou “je ne préférerais pas” but it doesn’t sound exactly like it should.

“je n’aime autant pas” sounds weird. “je ne préférerais pas” is correct but I agree it does not have the same feeling as "I'd prefer not to".

I suspect "I'd prefer not to" is somewhat difficult to translate in French. This is probably because in English, "not to" without repeating the verb / action feels natural but in French it would feel like something is missing. You could try "Je préfèrerais ne pas faire ça" but that does not sound great either.

I would probably go for "Ça ne m'arrange pas" ("It isn't convenient for me").

"Je préfererais pas" is valid (and matches the contraction of "I'd prefer not to"), although a bit less formal. Almost equivalent to "Je préfererais ne pas (le faire)" is valid too in everyday speak.

And slightly different from "Je ne préfererais pas".

"je ne préférerais pas" is "I would not prefer to" not "I would prefer not to"

"je n'aime autant pas" is "I might as well not"

I once heard, "I'd love to want to, but I don't".

Contra: saying that you would prefer not to means that you can and will if pushed enough.

Counterexample:

    "What's your favourite kind of theatre?"
    "No."

I'd need more explanation if they said Yes¹.

[1] counter-counter-example:

    "which one is your favourite unix command?"
    "no, yes".

Indeed an example which needs more explanation.

I don't get what you mean

https://linux.die.net/man/1/no

It works if your are asked "which is your favorite command?" "no, yes" ('which' is a command).

It doesn't work if you are asked "which one is your favorite command".

Oh but it does.

PSA: don't use linux.die.net. It's horribly outdated.

Yes. Not no. Yes.

When I read the title, I imagined this would be about social and romantic situations. In personal contexts, of course you have the right to say no with no further explanation.

In professional contexts... you're being paid to be to serve the business. If someone who's part of that business asks you something, you don't get to just say no unless you're the CEO. You can say no and explain that you're not the right person, or you can direct them elsewhere or any number of other things, but when you agree to take money to do a job, you obligate yourself to do things like answer questions reasonably.

Agreed on the personal contexts - and also where I expected the article to go. I think a better argument for professional contexts is that everyone is expected to maintain a certain level of professionalism and politeness - including CEOs. Or in other words I don't think the obligation comes from the company hierarchy, but from being in a professional context at all (for example working with someone at a different company).

A solid article on the personal context no's for anyone reading by is by Captain Awkward: https://captainawkward.com/2011/03/23/the-art-of-no/

Thanks for sharing the article, I found it very insightful

> If someone who's part of that business asks you something, you don't get to just say no unless you're the CEO.

Of course you get to say no. You are not paid to "serve the business" as if business owned you. You are paid for specific role, specific amount of time, specific achievements. And that pretty often includes saying no to other people in same organization.

This is a typical big company attitude that can make work miserable. It helps a lot if everybody tries to keep track of the overall situation and tries to improve it. That doesn't mean that you're a slave, it just means that you do good work.

Obviously don't burn yourself out trying to improve something that the organization resists to improve (unless that is your role).

Edit: Parent is talking more about requests of others, I'm more talking about own initiative. That is an important difference. Getting "sidetracked" is much less frustrating if that is what you want to do.

This is super valid in small company too. Being unable to say effective no will make your life hell in small companies too ... even faster then in large one.

The "you dont get to say no, because you are hired to serve the company" implies horrible workplace no matter what size of the company.

> When I read the title, I imagined this would be about social and romantic situations. In personal contexts, of course you have the right to say no with no further explanation.

Maybe you need to rethink that. Do your friends really warrant less respect than colleagues?

> Maybe you need to rethink that. Do your friends really warrant less respect than colleagues

Are your friends paying you to complete whatever tasks they ask of you?

Really what it means is this: A friend may ask something of you and you decline with a stated reason. Then they start finding ways to tell you your reason is invalid and then therefore you shouldn't refuse. This is the part that's disrespectful. Sometimes you are willing to have a discussion and change your mind, but there is too much of a culture where people think they can always out argue your "no".

With people who don't respect this boundary, giving a reason is never good enough and just gives them fodder to exhaust you with pointless arguments. Sometimes you really are not willing to change your mind. This is where the title of this article applies -- don't give them any material to go on and end with a "no" alone.

> Then they start finding ways to tell you your reason is invalid

The moment I cut them out of my life. Whoever feels entitled to denigrating the reasons I state for not doing something (in the context of friendship) and so blatantly disrespects me by showing that they feel their needs trump mine is nothing I need in my life.

I cut clients loose that disrespect me in a professional manner, why should I deal with such people privately.

> With people who don't respect this boundary, giving a reason is never good enough

Agreed. But to me it is a great filter as described above. It works to my advantage in triggering people I don't want to have in my life to reveal themselves.

A positive example: My SO and me are providing a foster home to stray cats rescued in neutering campaigns (cats that were to ill/young/hurt to be returned to the spot they were captured at for neutering). It happenes that we regularly receive request if we could take in a cat or more. As we are doing this for different groups they never know if we have capacity left. So we sometimes have to say no. One group tried to argue that one more cat would not burden us much more. They really did not respect our no. Since then we don't work with this group anymore and concentrate one the two animal welfare groups that actually respect the people in the back (the foster homes and others).

No.

I think you've twisted "personal contexts" into "friends" and "explaining yourself when you say no" into "respecting other people".

Personal contexts are different. Quite acceptable to say just "No" to:

- do you want me to get you a drink?

- may I kiss you?

- I hear they're doing shrooms next door, shall we join them?

In what way can't you just say a plain "no" to:

- do you want to take my shift?

- Do you know how this api works?

- Do you want to attend the meeting this afternoon?

I don't see how personal vs professional changes anything.

In professional settings you will often encounter requests like:

- (Can you) Do this report by tomorrow? - I had a report due yesterday, but I don't understand how to login to XYZ to get the data. Can you show me right now?

The first one is (depending on who asks) potentially difficult to answer with a short 'No'.

The second one may be answerable with 'No' but people like these will spread the word that you are difficult to work with and unfriendly. They will more often than not taint your reputation and create problems in your compensation talks (as being likeable and easy to work with is often a factor in these things).

I would say the first one is really a personal question, so just No is fine.

As to the second two, sying "No" with no explanation would probably mark you out as a bit of a dick/ difficult to work with.

I wouldn’t simply say no either, but to be fair their advice was to start with no. Then wait for their reply to determine whether you need to provide a detailed explanation or not. Essentially use their reply to smoke out the people who are going to get angry even if do you give an explanation, so you don’t waste time.

I don’t know if the overlap between those 2 groups (people who get mad at “No” with no explanation, and people who get mad at No with an explanation) is great enough that this advice makes sense (I doubt that it is), but it’s more nuanced that just saying No.

I think the prior comment is pretty spot on. It's hard for me to think of anyone I might ask for something and not feel annoyed or even disrespected if I was given absolutely no explanation. Even if I had reached out to someone I don't know, basic politeness would dictate some sort of reason even if it's a "sorry I don't have time for that right now" or even "I'm just not interested in participating".

If I actually knew the person, a "no" with no explanation would virtually always have negative consequences. To a boss, it would likely be insubordinate. From an in subordinate, the same and would likely elicit a "I beg your pardon?" From a friend or colleague, it would cause me to question our friendship.

In the modern world, politeness is largely built on a willingness to explain and give verbal consideration. Not doing so will often (if not usually) feel disrespectful or like some sort of power-play.

I’m not saying it’s good advice, but the critique was missing the 2nd half of the advice. This was the top comment, and many people won’t read the article.

I also think the article is likely a bit hyperbolic/clickbaity, and what the author would actually say is something like, “No. Sorry” or “No. Sorry. Don’t have time.” As opposed to “No. <detailed reason why>.

I used to explain everything, but then people pressured me a lot on most of my "no". It was interpreted as start of negotiation or maybe I was then seen as potential pushover, I don't know.

I learned to say no with no explanation and look a bit sad while doing it. Pressure stopped, people accept my no as valid and seem to treat me with more respect.

So, plain no is not attack on you. It is experience that explanation makes one vulnerable to uncomfortable pressure.

> Has someone asked you to do something recently that you know you don’t have time to do but felt like you needed to do anyway?

"When is this needed" is a great alternative to a hard "no". It opens up a conversation about priorities. And lets you transparent about what needs to get delayed so that this new priority can be worked. It's a perfectly reasonable conversation to have, and helps you keep healthy boundaries.

“Yesterday”

Followed by a blog post about why the deadline of yesterday doesn't need an explanation

This reminds me of a former director who liked to say to some of our partner teams, "poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.". She was good at putting a buffer in between IC's on our team and partner teams so we could focus more on planned work.

The "yesterday" need-by date maybe works the first time. Beyond that, if that's really the company culture or management style, I'd be quietly looking for a new job. Same category as Friday afternoon requests for things due Monday morning.

It depends whether someone is making a reasonable request as your supervisor or they’re asking you for a favour. If the former, it’s literally your job to do what they ask and if you can’t, you need to give them a reason why not. If the latter, ‘no’ is fine… but I wouldn’t use this too often with anyone I might ever need a favour from in return.

I agree .. it's absolutely ridiculous advice.

Business, and life is general, depend on relationships. Relationships depend on understanding.

Just saying 'no', is primarily going to piss people off.

Not entirely. The explanation is very very often taken as start of negotiation and an invitation to pressure/question you.

Saying that as someone who was taught to explain everything as kid and found out in real life that I have to unlearn that. Say no, maybe bonus "cant" but don't say reasons unless you really have to.

This sounds like the people you work with have boundary issues, this may warrant being addressed first.

Right now, no, they are actually fine. I know you dont know them, but I feel the need to defend them.

The above is a more of lifelong lesson that seems to serve mi well (still).

Yeah, terrible advice.

Saying "no" to other people's requests will put you in a position where you will be told "no" to any of your own.

Unless you're indispensable and never had to ask others for anything this is just career suicide.

It really depends on where the request is coming from. If it's from your manager or another department that depends on you, then sure, an explanation is probably a good idea.

Anyone else, well, no. If their issue is important enough, they can escalate it to your manager.

I think this is still terrible advice. As a manager, I expect the people on my team to at least try to fight their own battles. I'm always there to help if they need me, but if I'm continually being called in to resolve disputes that could have been avoided with a few minutes of conversation, I'm going to be upset. It wastes everyone's time and strain on relationships with the people around you.

As a manager, and I have no compunction telling my team to try and fight their own battles first, and if they need to refer someone to me to resolve the issue, then to do so. I'm there to support my team 100% at all times as well as to deliver business outcomes.

If you're getting upset over issues like this, perhaps management is not for you. Of course it may also depend on how tenuous the relationship with your own manager is.

Well... it depends. If it is going to take me 10 minutes? Sure, I can spare 10 minutes to help you out. If it's going to take 10 months? No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com