Ask for no, don't ask for yes (2022)
105 comments
·February 22, 2025ryandrake
Buttons840
How do you actually word this?
"We plan to defragment the thingamajig on March 1st. We're reaching out to those who might have an interest in case this might cause problems. Please let us know if you have concerns about the defragment. If we don't hear from you by March 1st, the thingamajig will be defragged."
Something like this?
lelanthran
That's a bit long.
"We're planning on defragging the thingamajig on March 1st unless objections are raised. Please send objections to manager@my.division.com"
Honestly, I've been doing this for decades with legal stuff: "Please confirm that my next pickup date for $CHILD is March 1st." often resulted in the other party just remaining silent and, when complaints against her not allowing the child out were made, she responded with "I never objected to that specific visit".
Using "Unless objections are received, I will fetch $CHILD on March 1st" stopped her from using that excuse.
It's a great way to deal with a difficult party who just wants to have as much creative misunderstandings as possible.
endofreach
[flagged]
karparov
Current style is:
"Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets of what you accomplished last week and cc your manager.
Deadline is this Monday at 11:59pmEST. Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation."
wes-k
Our team currently relies on thingamajig's responsiveness and cannot tolerate a change in performance. We will setup a temporary replica of thingamajig. Can you please hold off until our thingamajig replica is stable. My team expects this to be done by March 8th.
If I don't hear back from you by lunchtime, I WILL eat your leftovers.
danmaz74
Hey, we need to do XYZ by April 1st. Let me know if you think that's a problem.
dylan604
That’s still ambiguous. There’s no default action listed if no response is given. Listing the default action is your CYA that a non response is approval of the default
kevinlou
That seems like a much more diplomatic (and work-appropriate) way of framing it rather than just saying "hey, if I don't hear from you by x date i'm gonna do something"
hippari2
It's also good in that it force a record that someone is blocking / vetoing your progress.
kortilla
This sounds a bit like a fantasy or the rules you’re breaking are completely irrelevant.
“I’m going to do X in 5 days if you don’t respond” gives you absolutely no recourse if you do something that can result in reprimand.
About the only place where this works is violating some internal design decisions that are irrelevant to the business.
tabony
Have been doing all my life and it has never backfired.
It’s not about breaking rules. It’s that I already know what you want.
If I buy you ice cream without asking you for the flavor, it’s because I already know what you want because I pay attention to you.
And it doesn’t matter when I get it wrong because you appreciated the 500 other times I cared about you.
pmg101
And decision fatigue is a real thing. Even if the ice cream flavour/engineering decision is maybe not perfectly optimal, there's some value in not having to make the decision myself
fmbb
> About the only place where this works is violating some internal design decisions that are irrelevant to the business.
I don’t know why you feel the need to put “design” in there, but what you are describing seems like all rules governing how teams work together in any organization.
lelanthran
> “I’m going to do X in 5 days if you don’t respond” gives you absolutely no recourse if you do something that can result in reprimand.
Surely you wouldn't use this for any action that could result in a reprimand?
"Unless we receive objections, we're dropping the domain $X on March 1st and switching to the domain $Y instead" is not something you'd do.
OTOH, "Unless we receive objections from you, we're proceeding with (the current mocked-up UI|the last discussed tech-stack|deployment date|refactor|)" is not going to result in a reprimand.
fendy3002
this is a silver bullet for something that needs to be done on a specific timeframe, otherwise it'll be bad. Since the "Boss x do not give approval for it" won't cut in as a reason, and boss x needs to know this before you're doing it.
Of course criticality matters. The more critical it is, the more required for you to do a more personal message with said boss, like slack, dms, up to meeting face to face for approval.
donalhunt
This is an important insight. While the "bias towards action" approach works for smaller things, larger efforts may require change management protocols that capture explicit approvals. In regulated industries, you may have no choice but to capture approvals in some official manner (with ink sometimes).
gr3ml1n
Well, definitely don't phrase it exactly like that.
Most decisions that would be made in the context where this is a useful technique are irrelevant and/or obvious. They should be made by someone lower down the chain, but organizational dysfunction requires tricks like this to get anything done.
DeathArrow
To whom it may concern,
I am planning to leave the company in 20 business days unless I get a substantial raise.
aiiizzz
That's the implicit message in a 14 day notice
exodust
> "Occasionally someone will come back weeks later, angry that I did XYZ without telling them..."
Something fishy about this comment. Apparently you "do this all the time", spelling out the magic phrase you use like a template. Are you sure this is your anecdote and not a projection of how you'd like to be operating at work, as per the main article?
I'm trying to imagine the scene where you "show the paper trail" to achieve victory over your angry colleagues! That's when my bullshit detector is all up in the red zone.
kmoser
These days I almost take it for granted that somebody isn't going to read my email, or won't read it thoroughly, or will read it but will fail to acknowledge it. One can use this to their advantage if they want to skirt a hard "no" but as you said, it may backfire.
And the "boss" may have a point: relying on them to read, understand, and acknowledge your email, especially when it's important, is somewhat disingenuous. At the very least one has an obligation to confirm that the recipient actually read and understood what was sent, before taking the default action.
tempestn
One thing I've eventually managed to learn after failing at it many, many times is that in the vast majority of cases an email can only say one thing; if you try to ask multiple questions, or give multiple pieces of information, best case people will actually read one of them. Worst case it'll overwhelm and they'll ignore the whole thing.
It's obviously different if you know the recipient and that they're able to handle more, but my default assumption is that people will read the first 1-3 sentences of an email, so I do my best to keep it to that, and if I have more to say I'll make a note to myself for once they reply.
rvba
All those complicated recruitment processes and companies cannot hire peoppe who know how to read...
sieabahlpark
Works great until you break the law by accident if you're in a regulated industry. Sometimes it isn't as easy to do that.
gukov
Yeah, opting in by default like that can backfire when something gets done and the boss gets in trouble.
notpushkin
With great power comes great responsibility. People will think you went behind their backs, even though on paper you did everything correctly. If you abuse this trick, you’ll quickly lose people’s trust.
Use it carefully, always give a reason, and set reasonable deadlines.
finnigja
Another take on this I like is "radiating intent". Broadcast what you want to do, when you plan to do it, and give stakeholders space to explicitly object, rather than explicitly chasing consensus / alignment / approval. Works in some scenarios, and generally requires baseline trust to have been earned.
https://medium.com/@ElizAyer/dont-ask-forgiveness-radiate-in...
seanwilson
Part of this "I'm going to do this unless you let me know otherwise" trick is not phrasing it like a question to reduce communication overhead. That way the receiver doesn't have to write a reply and you don't get another email to read (and for anyone CCed).
Saying that, I like emoji reaction features like on GitHub and Google Docs where you can just give a thumbs up to acknowledge you read and agreed to something. Seems really unpopular with some on HN for some reason, but emoji reactions are a useful lightweight way to communicate that you're on the same page, rather than making someone go through the motions of sending a "Okay, makes sense!" comment for every little thing. A bit like an upvote.
weitzj
I think this person has also interesting content regarding No and Yes
hamandcheese
I like the perspective, but then the concrete example given (adding a new GitHub action) is such a trivial 2-way door that I am worried for the author. There are better companies out there!
conductr
I call this “Don’t Ask, Tell” and it has so many uses inside but also outside work. It really is just a basic communication skill to hone. It leads to concise and decisive outcomes.
I actually have this conversation a lot with my wife. She’s more of an asker. A recent example from earlier this evening. We had arrangements set to meet a group for dinner. Her style is to send a text to the group, 8 people, saying “what time is everyone arriving?” Which is so open ended it would initiate a flurry of comms. But, we knew we would be there an hour early because of where/when we were dropping our kid off for the evening. So I just said TELL them when will be there and TELL them we’ll be at the bar if anyone wants to have a drink beforehand. So much more straight forward, everyone showed up early and it was perfect with minimal comms required. Sure it was a lucky accident that everyone had care for their kids lined up to and was able to make it but the point is It took no time and actually didn’t even require any response at all in the case someone was not monitoring their messages.
It’s somewhat related to the idea of “ask for forgiveness, not permission” which I’m a huge fan of in all kinds of ways. Sure it can be riskier but I’m a rebel at my core so it comes with the territory. But this has its place too, group collaborations like GitHub repos is probably not a good place to yolo big changes that effect other people.
glitchc
I think this kind of approach, and I've used it in the past, only works in American companies or bosses who are familiar with the American way of business. It can backfire badly if the boss doesn't like it. During a performance review, the boss inevitably labels you as insubordinate and all of the evidence needed was handed to them on a platter. Sometimes asking for permission really is the best way, even in the US. Doubly so where resources are concerned.
null
coffeemug
I don't think I've ever worked for a boss who would have disliked this approach, and I had many (good and bad). Assuming of course what you're doing isn't idiotic. All of them were steeped in American culture, though.
foobarian
Honestly it's not my boss I worry about, more like a sibling team or service client that would have a stake in the decision but is known to drag their feet.
ulfw
This will not work in non-American companies where a boss might actually have a life and not work weekends, or heaven forbids have days/week(s) off.
Jolter
This would have worked fine in a Scandinavian company where managers are expected to delegate (some/most) technical responsibility. If boss was off, and couldn’t react in time, their eventual reaction would depend entirely on the outcome. If you were successful, they’ll appreciate that you didn’t hold up the decision by asking them.
JackFr
This is a recipe for disaster the first time you break something. Getting a yes or a no indicates that your boss is aware of it.
When you’re in the hot seat, and someone asks “Who approved this?”, the truthful answer is that no one approved it.
ludston
It really depends on the culture of your organisation and how effective management is. If there is nobody that can act like this at your org it shows that your leadership team suffers from failure to delegate.
lelanthran
> It really depends on the culture of your organisation and how effective management is. If there is nobody that can act like this at your org it shows that your leadership team suffers from failure to delegate.
I think it's more than just that - upthread I posted that I used this technique for over a decade against a difficult party.
This approach is, briefly, for CYA: It's for when you are in the following situation:
You have to do something and will be punished if you don't, but a stakeholder is being difficult and/or hostile. They can delay you or outright sabotage you just by silence and/or bike-shedding.
rendaw
I think this isn't for your superior, it's for lateral people who need to be involved some the work. Like person X in team Y is arguing against something.
If your boss 1. tells you that something needs to be done, 2. refuses to approve any plans, then you just don't do it - in that case it's on them to direct the work in a way that it gets done.
capkutay
Owning things is breaking things (and fixing it).
sdwr
Yeah this only works for decisions you are basically allowed to make yourself.
brookst
The key insight is that the concept of “allowed” is flawed. Most of us are responsible for outcomes, not actions.
If you communicate well that an action is necessary for the outcome you are responsible for, that’s enough. Obviously with notice, and with a genuine effort to get acknowledgement, but ultimately it’s not about what you’re allowed to do, it’s about what you’re expected to achieve.
Now, if you’re wrong, or capricious, or disingenuous… well all bets are off. But done responsibly this is a completely appropriate and defensible approach.
42772827
I call this “creating sane defaults.” That is, rather than going to people and asking that they make decisions about every detail, pick a set of sane defaults that demonstrate your knowledge of the situation and just tell them you’re going to run with it. This will build trust with people, and they’ll be more likely to give you attention when you really need it — because they’ll know you’re not wasting their time.
wes-k
I like the framing of "defaults" too. Gives space for suggestion and change.
locusofself
I like this approach to communication, except the the "deadline" part. I'd prefer my reports just let me know if they are working on something which I may want to veto (because I may have more context as to why it's a waste of time or not a priority). Giving a "deadline" to your manager is strange, and almost like a weird, annoying threat. I also would like to think I would give people on my team enough autonomy to make their own decisions about something as trivial as a github action.
wvenable
I think the article does a disservice calling it a deadline. I had the same concerns at that point until I read the example and it clicked. It's really just the date you will do the thing, not really a deadline.
afarviral
I really like the idea of seeking a no (e.g. let me know if I shouldn't go ahead) but as soon as I add something like, "I will do this on this date, unless I hear otherwise", is a little aggressive feeling. It might be easy enough to simply mention the time the work will take place, but leave it unspoken that they could decide it's best to not proceed, "I should get it done around this time". Then again, it's been a goal of mine forever to be assertive. Cowing only takes you so far.
post-it
It's just a matter of phrasing. "Hi, I wanted to give you a heads up that XYZ needs doing, and I'll be doing it on Wednesday. Let me know if that doesn't work."
wavemode
Agreed, stating a deadline on something that is still just an idea, is weird and aggressive. Usually, a deadline is used to communicate "I have already decided I'm doing this, and received approval/consensus to do it, so now I'm informing you of the fact that I'm doing it."
zmgsabst
If I don’t tell you when I’m doing the work, how will I know if you’ve said no or not? If I think one day is enough time, so proceed, but you take two days to respond, now I’ve done something against your instructions.
Adding a date avoids that:
“I’ll be migrating the build system on Wednesday (26th); please let me know if you have any concerns.”
burnished
I feel like a deadline on your own actions can also be a courtesy, in the sense that you are communicating the notice window as well as letting someone catching up on old emails gauge how relevant it now is
vmurthy
I like the general idea. I read the book “Start with no” a long time ago and the lessons stuck. The first principle here is that people have an innate need for autonomy and giving them the option to say no gives them peace of mind. Highly recommended.
This is a critical skill in big companies where everyone is swamped and busy and things get lost. I do this all the time when I’m dealing with people who don’t answer their email, or who tend to stall and delay approvals, or people who are just very busy. I’ll Email and describe the problem and then say the magic phrase “If I don’t hear back from you in [N] days, I am going to do XYZ on [DAY N].” This way I’m not asking for approval and then helplessly waiting and pinging. I’m putting them on notice. XYZ is going to happen unless you get off your butt and stop me.
Occasionally someone will come back weeks later, angry that I did XYZ without telling them, and I always have a paper trail showing that they were the ones who dropped the ball.