“No” is not the same as “Heavens, No!” We use the Veto card when facing real failure: experiments that are not cheap, safe, or fast. Everything else is worth trying.

Ask me if I want a cookie, and I might say, “Yes.” Ask me if I want a slice of lemon meringue pie, and it will probably be, “Hell, Yes!”

Ask me to vote on new fonts or colors for our house style, and my vote might be “No.” Ask my vote on an investment in a blockchain project on the metaverse, and it will surely be, “Heavens, No!”

One Yes is not the same as another Yes. And we sometimes forget that some No’s are much stronger than other No’s. In the land of decision-making, not all votes are created equal.

When you offer someone a peanut butter sandwich, the reply, “No thanks, I’m in the mood for a green salad today,” is not quite at the same level as, “No thanks, I have a severe peanut allergy. Peanuts would kill me.” The first is just a “No”; the second is “Heavens, No!”

Not all votes are created equal.

Consensus versus Consent

The difference between “No” versus “Heavens, No” (also called Veto) is what distinguishes Consensus from Consent-based decision-making.

When a group of people aims for Consensus, they can move forward with a decision as long as nobody says “No” (in any form). All votes have to be in favor (“Yes” or “Hell, Yes”) or neutral (“Don’t Know” or “Don’t Care/Won’t Fight”). Consensus-based decision-making is a great way to achieve alignment, but it can be excruciatingly slow as it takes a long time for everyone in a group to stop saying “No.” And some people claim that Consensus gives too much power to just a few No-sayers.

When a group aims for Consent, any team member can move forward with an idea even when some people say “No.” The only way for someone to block a decision is to say, “Heavens, No” (or Veto), and then this person will have to come up with a bloody good reason! The objection should be in the category of “because peanuts would kill me” instead of “I’m not in the mood for peanuts.” Consent means team members can do as they want unless someone raises a compelling objection.

Cheap, Safe, and Fast

Not long ago, I changed my mind about the word “Fail.” I have stopped using phrases such as “failing fast,” “we learn from failure,” and “safe-to-fail environments.” People who use these words usually don’t talk about failures; they talk about experiments with negative outcomes. But negative results are not failures at all! Experimenting is an integral part of life, and negative outcomes are expected. They are an essential part of gaining knowledge and experience.

Experiments with negative outcomes are not failures at all!

We should reserve the word “failure” for experiments that ruin your life, break your bank, or blow up in your face. We should reserve failure for the experiments we don’t learn anything from and for people who are not experimenting at all. Those are the real failures!

Coming back to decision-making, this means the Veto vote should be used when ideas, suggestions, and experiments are too costly, too dangerous, or when something will take too long. When we try new things, we aim for cheap, safe, and fast. Anything that’s not cheap, safe, and fast should brace itself for someone’s “Heavens, No!” vote. Expensive ideas, unsafe suggestions, and experiments that take a year or longer to get results are candidates for someone to raise an objection.

We draw the Veto card when facing true failure: wrong ways of running experiments. Everything else is worth trying.

Jurgen

p.s. If you’re neither into peanut butter sandwiches nor salads, you can always choose “Don’t Know” or “Don’t Care” (also called “Won’t Fight”) and let others decide for you. Or you offer a third option the others can vote on. I think tacos would be cheap, safe, and fast. 🌮