signaled a failure of imagination. But then I realized I did
the same thing with my teenage son, and that after I’d said
“No” to him, I often found that I was open to hearing what
he had to say.
That’s because having protected myself, I could relax
and more easily consider the possibilities.
“No” is the start of the negotiation, not the end of it.
We’ve been conditioned to fear the word “No.” But it is a
statement of perception far more often than of fact. It
seldom means, “I have considered all the facts and made a
rational choice.” Instead, “No” is often a decision,
frequently temporary, to maintain the status quo. Change is
scary, and “No” provides a little protection from that
scariness.
Jim Camp, in his excellent book, Start with NO,^1
counsels the reader to give their adversary (his word for
counterpart) permission to say “No” from the outset of a
negotiation. He calls it “the right to veto.” He observes that
people will fight to the death to preserve their right to say
“No,” so give them that right and the negotiating
environment becomes more constructive and collaborative
almost immediately.
When I read Camp’s book, I realized this was something
we’d known as hostage negotiators for years. We’d learned
that the quickest way to get a hostage-taker out was to take
the time to talk them out, as opposed to “demanding” their
surrender. Demanding their surrender, “telling” them to
come out, always ended up creating a much longer standoff