Interesting Case of Saying No – Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1170

Interesting Case of Saying No – Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1170

Dear Colleagues! This is Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1170 for Pharma Veterans. Pharma    Veterans Blogs are published by Asrar Qureshi on its dedicated site https://pharmaveterans.com. Please email to pharmaveterans2017@gmail.com  for publishing your contributions here.

Matrix by Jens Meyer

Preamble

This blog post is based on a recent article published in INSEAD Knowledge, written by Jens Meyer. Link to article at the end.

The Curious Comfort of Saying “No”: Why It’s Too Easy – and How to Reset

In many organizations, particularly large or complex ones, “No” is often the safest word. Jens Meyer, in "The Curious Comfort of Saying ‘No’," argues that in systems where authority is disconnected from accountability, saying “no” becomes a default safe mode. It costs nothing in capital, commitment, or risk, and allows the status quo to persist without blame. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost, the innovation not taken, never gets counted.

This dynamic is subtle but deeply corrosive, gradually eroding ambition, slowing down progress, and creating an organizational culture that prioritizes safety over possibility. In this blog post, we’ll unpack Meyer’s key insights, explore the organizational dysfunctions created by structural “Nos,” and propose how leaders can shift toward a culture where saying “Yes” is empowered, meaningful, and accountable.

Why “No” Becomes the Default in Organizations

Authority Without Accountability

One of the main structural problems Meyer identifies is the separation of decision authority from outcome responsibility. Many central functions, legal, compliance, HR, finance, IT, control veto power but are not held accountable for the downstream consequences of blocking initiatives.

Because these gatekeepers aren’t directly exposed to the risk or cost of failures, their path of least resistance is to say “No” or delay. The logic is simple: if you veto a risky project and it fails, you remain untouched; if you approve and it fails, you become culpable. This creates upside bias in rejecting new ideas.

“No” Doesn’t Cost You Anything (in the Short Term)

Meyer notes a striking truth: the cost of saying “No” is rarely measured, whereas the cost of a failed initiative is visible. The authority who blocks is seldom audited; the opportunity cost of rejecting innovation is invisible. Therefore, structural design favors passive obstruction, not courageous enablement.

He calls this dynamic “veto in a vacuum”, a power without real consequence, embedded in structural design rather than individual malice. The result is paralysis dressed as prudence.

Cumulative Drag, Not Single Blunders

A single “No” rarely sinks an organization. But many small “Nos” accumulate into inertia. Over time, the organization becomes risk-averse, innovation-light, and disengaged. Teams stop pitching ideas; they assume they will be reworked or blocked anyway. The cultural message becomes: “Better not to try than to be rejected.”

Consequences of a “No-As-Default” Culture

Allowing “No” to be the default decision creates several toxic, long-term effects:

Erosion of initiative and agency – Employees stop initiating new ideas because they expect rejection. Entrepreneurial energy shrinks.

Slow decision cycles – Ideas traverse endless layers of review, being reshaped and dampened before ever reaching execution.

Stunted innovation and adaptation – As environments change, organizations slow to respond because permission is constrained.

Reduced accountability and ownership – When people aren’t empowered to decide, they can’t fully own outcomes.

Culture of risk aversion – The organization becomes optimized to avoid failure rather than to pursue excellence.

Reversing the Default: How to Cultivate a Culture of “Yes, If”

Changing from “No By Default” to “Yes, If (with guardrails)” is hard but essential. Here are actions leaders can take:

Realign Authority and Accountability – Ensure that decision-makers are accountable for what they approve or block. Veto power without consequence breeds cautious preservation. Decision rights must flow with ownership of outcomes. One practical step: map all decisions (big and small), and ask: Who should decide this? Should they also be accountable for the results? Reassign decision rights where misalignment exists.

Create Clear “Decision Pipelines” and Safe Boundaries – Rather than full freestyle permission, define guardrail frameworks—thresholds or criteria under which ideas can proceed with lighter approvals. For example, initiatives under a certain budget or risk profile may require fewer reviews. This doesn’t mean abandoning control; it means distinguishing between high-stakes and low-stakes decisions and giving autonomy where possible.

Transparent “No” Accountability – If someone must say “No,” require that they log it, explain it, revisit it after outcomes are known. Make the rejection explicit and accountable rather than a silent veto. Ask: What is the cost of rejecting this now? Could the idea be improved rather than blocked outright? That way “No” becomes a rare, deliberate act—not the mindless default.

Signal and Reward “Yes” Behavior – Celebrate teams and leaders who say “Yes, with intelligent risk”. Make acts of enabling, launching, experimenting visible. Incentives and recognition should reward those who enable positive movement, not just preserve safety.

Pilot, Learn, Improve – Encourage small experiments or pilot projects that can prove value. Rather than demanding perfect plans, allow trial runs, fast feedback, and iterative improvement. This reduces the psychological cost of saying “Yes.”

Flatten Layers Where Possible – Hierarchy is one cause of veto layers. Flattening approval layers (or delegating authority deeper) reduces the number of veto points. The fewer hands that must approve, the less friction.

Train Gatekeepers as Partners, Not Parasites – Departments like legal, compliance, IT, and finance often see their role as protectors. Instead, orient them as partners in enablement. Teach them frameworks to assess risk versus opportunity, and encourage constructive alternatives rather than blocking.

A Leadership Mindset for “Yes, Intelligently”

Shifting culture is not just process—it’s mindset. Leaders must embody the shift, being comfortable taking calculated risks and owning outcomes. Openness, curiosity, and humility help. Asking “What could go right?” as often as “What could go wrong?” changes orientation.

Promote psychological safety so people feel safe proposing ideas, even risky ones.

Regularly review ideas that were rejected. Did “No” decisions make sense in hindsight? What opportunities were lost?

Sum Up

In the arc of organizational life, the accumulation of small “Nos” can be more damaging than a single misstep. The courage is not only in bold bets, but in creating systems that let possibility emerge.

INSEAD’s “Curious Comfort of Saying ‘No’” warns us that when organizations create veto machines divorced from consequence, they stifle themselves. But the future belongs to those who build \\accounts of “Yes, intelligently”—where power meets responsibility, where permission aligns with purpose, and where culture enables possibility rather than suppressing it.

If you lead, ask yourself: How many “Nos” pass silently in my organization—and how many opportunities never see the light of day? The work of leadership is not just saying “No” better—it’s saying “Yes, with courage.

Concluded.

Disclaimers: Pictures in these blogs are taken from free resources at Pexels, Pixabay, Unsplash, and Google. Credit is given where available. If a copyright claim is lodged, we shall remove the picture with appropriate regrets.

For most blogs, I research from several sources which are open to public. Their links are mentioned under references. There is no intent to infringe upon anyone’s copyrights. If, any claim is lodged, it will be acknowledged and duly recognized immediately.

References: 

https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/curious-comfort-saying-no