The power of saying NO

I have frequently written in my blogs about the Rijnland model and its compromising approach to solve complex challenges. In the Dutch culture decisions are often based on the outcome of some kind of a democratic and explainable process (also called 'polderen'). I fully endorse this approach, but there must be a big BUT! 

In many cases there is benefit for both if you come to an agreement, as long as both feel they made a 'good deal'. This could be because both give in a little bit, or accept some extra work, longer lead time, lesser functionality , etc. If one of the parties feels it gives in more (I deliberately write the word 'feels'), the deal will always be seen by that party as not good. People being part of that party do not accept to see the benefits presented and express their concerns and disappointment on precisely what is NOT achieved. If this happens with a certain frequency, this will create unrest and ultimately an overall feeling of being disadvantaged.

Unfortunately, if you watch for example public opinion during many political debates around climate and the Corona pandemic, some of those 'deals' that are closed do not feel as being a right and fair compromise. And regardless the many words that are used to explain the benefits of those deals, at least one of the parties only sees the negatives.

So, what is the big BUT in starting to think in finding a compromise?

Instead of immediately starting the compromise game ('polderen'), consider your own position and ambition within the deal first. As I stated earlier a good deal is one that is well-balanced. If you are convinced this is not possible from the start, than you should seriously consider a no-deal or first debate changing the outline of the deal until it reaches a point that it brings back the possibility of a well-balanced solution. In simple terms, the answers is NO, UNLESS.

Clear signals that could trigger such a response are when the other party is not open or transparent about their objectives or in an early stage you expect a deal outcome with conditions that are difficult to measure, are not concrete, or are 'future intentions'.

Specifically deals that contain future intensions are extremely risky, because of the unpredictability of future circumstances. If part of a deal that you make is that you have the right for future business and you struggle to fulfil your part of the deal, there is a great risk that your investment, maybe even greater because of your struggle, does not get the promised return.

The same is true if your manager wants you for example to downsize your organisation, with the prospect of more responsibility after an expected reorganization.

If you by any chance have international managers you have to deal with, the cultural aspects start to weigh in as well. What you see as being open, transparent and compromising might be seen totally different by your international peers or manager.

I trust you see my nuance in applying the Rijnland model when making deals and that saying NO is certainly not a sign of weakness or unwillingness when it comes to solutioning. It just means that the deal in its presented form is simply not suitable to become a 'good deal'. 

And if you still feel you do not want to be the dealbreaker with a NO, then bring up the option to change the outlines first, ie. NO UNLESS...