Early in my career, I earned the unfortunate nickname “Dr. No.”

Some form of this moniker is pervasive for gatekeeper organizations, bordering on the banal. Finance is no exception.

Chief No Officer. The Office of No. The No It All. Ok…the last one is pretty funny, but you get the gist.

It’s understandable why this stereotype exists. Resources are scarce, the allocation of which creates a natural (arguably healthy!) tension between Operations and Finance. If you think of the business as a car, the two operate as the gas and brake pedals, respectively, with the intention that the tandem creates a smooth ride - not too fast, not too slow.

Perceived through this lens, it is expected - predestined, even - that Finance has to say “no” a lot. Otherwise, the car will continue to speed up, eventually careening off the proverbial fiscal cliff.

In practice, stepping on the gas and breaks in quick succession (if not simultaneously!) is anything but smooth. Ideally, the brakes are only applied in emergencies or transition points. You don't have to rush to slow down if you’re conscious about when to speed up!

As a recovering no-aholic, I can attest to another approach that breaks free of the mold, preserving Finance’s role as a partner and financial steward. A response framework that begins with “yes.”

Yes, And

In the early days of improvisational theater, performers often tried to one-up each other with clever quips or jokes. This competition undermined the scene, with performers losing confidence in each other and audiences losing interest. This dynamic was perfectly encapsulated in the following scene from The Office:

In the 1950s, a group of performers known as The Second City experimented with a different approach. Rather than competing to be the funniest individuals, they focused on how to be the funniest group. Rejecting each others’ ideas on stage was killing momentum, but simply saying “yes” wasn’t enough to build momentum as the onus to develop the scene reverted to one individual. The best scenes were those that leveraged all of the talents on stage.

This insight led to the development of “Yes, And,” where performers would accept and, most importantly, build on each other’s ideas instead of trying to outdo them. The intent is not to develop every idea but to maximize momentum by focusing energy on building upon each other rather than tearing each other down. Often, the words “yes, and” aren’t even uttered - the new information is implicitly accepted and built upon.

As you watch the scene above, notice how ideas are treated as abundant rather than scarce. Not every concept is expanded upon - many are acknowledged and allowed to fade away - but the duo never stops to debate what’s been added to the scene. This is the real power of Yes, And - the performers leverage each other’s contributions in linguistic judo to move towards an aligned objective.

Now that we understand what Yes, And is, let’s turn our attention to how leveraging it will disqualify you from winning the “No”bel prize.

The V/C Response Framework

When presented with an idea, we effectively have two decision spectrums to factor into our response: validation (V) and collaboration (C).

• Validation (no → neutral → yes) reflects the degree to which someone feels heard, irrespective of the approval outcome.

• Collaboration (conflict → neutral → collaborate) reflects the effort to build towards a desired outcome, irrespective of the degree to which the proposed idea factors into that equation.

The key to the point above is that the quality of the response is not based on the decision but on the presentation. How we respond is just as important as what we say. This framework suggests that we can make someone feel heard and valued, even if their suggestion is rejected.

In How to Castrate a Bull, NetApp co-founder Dave Hitz describes how he leverages this framework to defend unpopular decisions.

Yes, And is not about agreeing with someone. It’s a technique to recognize the value of and encourage participation in the ideation process. It’s a belief that we’re at our best when moving forward rather than stopping or looking backward.

With this in mind, we can plot the validation/collaboration vectors graphically and see how easy it is to be branded “Dr. No.”

More than half of the responses equate to a no! Going counter-clockwise starting from the top-left quadrant:

• Yes, But is a long-winded No. As Jon Snow says in Game of Thrones, “Everything before the word ‘but’ is horseshit.” The Yes is an unnecessary preamble, and your audience knows it. Next time you lead with Yes, But, take out the Yes part of the statement and see if it loses meaning!

• No, But is an unconfident No. Leading with No, followed by caveats, effectively says, “I’m not sure,” or worse, “I don’t want to be the villain here.” Maybe it means we’re unsure if we have the authority or the knowledge to weigh in, but in either case, it’s far more valuable for all involved to be candid. Trust erodes with such a wishy-washy answer.

• No, And is an egotistical No. Following a No with And typically stems from one of two thought patterns: (1) opportunism and (2) supremacy. The underlying driver is the same - ego - but it differs in the intent.

  • An opportunistic No, And is one where we redirect the focus to a completely different topic (No, we shouldn’t pay for people to go to this training seminar, and we should be pulling back on other expenditures like travel!). In this situation, we’ve killed the momentum and undermined ourselves by introducing a topic at the wrong time.

  • A supremacist No, And is a Yes, And that demands sole credit - we’re aligned on the outcome but downplaying their ideas in favor of our own (No, we shouldn’t invest in that product feature X to improve retention, we should invest in product feature Y!). Even if our idea is objectively better, the chances that others will see that is diminished if we just got done telling them why theirs is terrible!

• Yes, And is the sweet spot of Validation & Collaboration. Finally, we’ve reached the promised land. In this response, we are not saying “approved” (again, think of Dave Hitz’s example of why we’re going with Plan A). Instead, this is a way to convey, “I hear you” and “here’s what’s possible.”

To help ground the theory, let’s apply it to an everyday use case. Imagine a business partner approached you for approval to throw an unbudgeted, expensive year-end party to celebrate the team’s efforts throughout the year. This matters a lot to the team, and there is no question that the budget cannot absorb this incremental spend. Which response do you believe will be best received?

1. Yeah…that sounds like a good idea, but we can’t afford it.

2. We don’t have that in the budget, but you’re welcome to follow up with the CEO to see if he’s willing to take that hit to the P&L.

3. We can’t afford it (followed by a bah-humbug for good measure).

4. We don’t have that in the budget, and candidly, I’m not sure we should be throwing a celebration when our gross margins have eroded over the last three quarters.

5. That sounds like something the team would appreciate, and given how we’re pacing on the P&L, we’ll have to figure out a way to fund it.

Unless you take distinct pleasure in disappointing others, #5’s Yes, And is the winner here. The same message is delivered in all instances (we don’t have the budget), but the response validates the requestor and shifts the discussion to how to do what they want within the current constraint environment. By inviting the requestor into the process, the question is reframed from “can I spend this money” to “what am I willing to give up to have this party.” This is no longer a yes/no question; it’s a trade-off question.

Poof, no more Dr. No.

Tips on How to Say Yes, And

This is a deceptively complicated technique, and it takes a lot of practice to be good at it. Here are a few tips for breaking free from being seen as a No It All.

• Saying Yes requires seeing the good. In See the Good / Suppress the Bad, we noted that every major movie studio rejected many of Jason Blum’s blockbuster films because they focused on what didn’t work about the film instead of what was great. Most ideas are like that - they have some inherently good underpinning. In leading with yes, you have to recognize and emphasize that nugget.

• The Yes has to be genuine. If you can’t see the good, don’t pretend you do. Patronizing your partners are effectively masquerading a No as a Yes, and they will see right through it! Ask clarifying questions to uncover the good and, if it’s not there, explain why. It’s not that you can never say No; it shouldn’t be your default opener.

• And, not but. Do what you can to eliminate but from your response template. Your responses will be more succinct and candid, and, more importantly, you will be forced to use and more often.

• The And will be the first of many. The point of the And is to collaborate; as you improve in this technique, so will your partners. Welcome and encourage that participation! When you perfect this technique, the conversation will build momentum as you and your partners contribute towards the shared outcome.