How to Have a Good Day: Harness the Power of Behavioral Science to Transform Your Working Life pdfdrive com

Technique 2: “Yes, And…”
Avoid the joy-killing phrase “Yes, but…” when you spot a problem with
someone’s suggestion.
Instead, try “Yes, and…,” to signal that you’re adding your perspective

---

alongside
that suggestion rather than in conflict with it.
For example, if someone is keen to launch a new project that you think is ill-
timed, instead of saying “Yes, great project. 
But
it’s the wrong time,” say “Yes,
great project. 
And
we also have the annual strategy round about to launch.” Then
invite discussion: “What can we do about that timing?”
The “yes, and” approach allows you to introduce important considerations
without closing down the other person’s ideas. I like it a lot, because it allows
more space for the possibility that you don’t have the whole picture. Remember
the subconscious filtering that your brain’s automatic system does for you,
ensuring that you never see all the information and options around you? So
perhaps you’ve seen the “gorilla” that your colleague missed—but perhaps
they’ve seen one that 
you
missed, and that’s why they’re saying what they’re
saying. And by encouraging you to build on what your colleague has said, the
“yes, and” approach is more likely to help you see scope for compromise, if it
exists. In fact, “yes, and” turns out to be one of the fundamental tenets of
improvisational comedy, because it’s such a reliable way of encouraging
creative collaboration. (If a normally tense feedback discussion ends up
dissolving in laughter, that may mean you’re doing it right.)
Technique 3: “What Would Need to Be True to Make That
Work?”
Instead of saying “That won’t work because of this, that, and the other…,” try
saying “What would need to be true to make that work (well)?”
The hypothetical phrasing sets an exploratory tone rather than a critical one,
and the question encourages a feasibility check without making anyone look
silly, or badging anything as “wrong.” It was a device much used by my
colleagues at McKinsey when teams discussed competing ideas, since it helped
ensure that each proposal received a fair hearing even if it didn’t initially sound
appealing. And it meant that every team member felt included in the decision on
what to do next, even if his or her preferred option didn’t make the cut.
Peter’s IT consulting job puts him in a delicate situation a lot of the time. He
cares about doing a good job, and what he really wants to say to his clients is,
“You know that big project that’s costing you millions? The way you’re going

---

about it is a disaster. Trust me, I’ve seen hundreds of these.” And that was
broadly what he was saying in his proposals and meetings, albeit more
diplomatically. He would lead with the challenges of this kind of IT work, and
how his firm could ensure that things didn’t go wrong. In projects that were
under way, he would boldly call out the blunders that nobody was willing to
admit. He called it “telling the truth,” and there were clients who told him they
appreciated it.
But, inescapably, Peter was effectively criticizing what the clients had done
before they hired him. So of course it was hard for them to avoid becoming
defensive. He didn’t want to lose his critical edge. But after we talked about the
effect he was having, he settled on a new approach using these brain-friendly
feedback techniques. For example, when he was hired to review the status of
their IT systems, he would lead with what they were doing well. It sometimes
required some generosity on Peter’s part, but he was always able to find
something to say. “Even when I didn’t agree with the specifics of what they’d
done, I was often able to say positive things about the high-level strategy.” Then
he’d go on to suggest how they could build on their successes to date. In doing
so, he says, “I tried to avoid saying the word ‘wrong’ at any point and used as
many ‘ands’ as I could. I said, ‘Here’s what would have to be true to make your
strategy work…
and
here’s another approach, with these benefits.’
”
With this new approach, he says, he started to have what he called
“unexpectedly great” meetings. He still got the chance to talk about the risks and
all the ways to mitigate them, but it happened without the clients’ brains being in
defensive mode. He stopped getting thrown out of meetings and started winning
new work. He remembers a potential client saying to him, “Now, 
this
is what I
want. This is a real conversation.”