When ‘No’ actually opens doors

Ever watched two people argue so intensely during a mediation that you’re pretty sure they’ve forgotten what they’re fighting about? During my years as a mediator, I stumbled upon a technique (usually used in negotiation) that transformed seemingly deadlocked disputes into pathways of understanding. By deliberately crafting questions designed to invite a “no” response, I saw remarkable breakthroughs in even the most entrenched conflicts.

The common advice in mediation (and negotiation) is to get the other person to say “yes”. However, seeking “no” might be a more effective strategy. When people say “no,” it provides them with a sense of safety and control. They feel as though they can answer either way, reducing pressure and allowing for genuine dialogue. “Yes” is commitment or obligation. “No“ is protection. This strategy is known as asking “No-Oriented Questions”.

Instead of asking “Do you agree with this proposal?” you could ask, “Do you disagree with this proposal?”. This approach works well because “yes” is associated with commitment and obligation, while “no” represents protection.

For instance, here are some examples of how I used no-oriented questions:

■ “Would it be ridiculous to consider a different approach in resolving this challenge?”

■ “Are you completely opposed to exploring other options that might also work?”

■ “Would you feel uncomfortable if we addressed this concern now?”

■ “Is it unreasonable for us to take a moment to reflect on what has been said?”

■ “Are you opposed to sharing your thoughts on this matter?”

■ “Would it be too much trouble for you to elaborate on your concerns?”

■ “Is there anything about this plan that feels unacceptable to you?”

 Why use no-oriented questions?

No-oriented questions create a more collaborative and less adversarial atmosphere. Instead of pushing for agreement, mediators can use this technique to gain insight, understanding what is driving the participant’s decisions.

Here are some reasons why No-oriented questions work well in mediation:

Safety and control: Instead of pressuring someone to agree, No-oriented questions give them the freedom to disagree. This makes them feel safe and in control.

Openness and honesty: Allowing individuals to say “no” creates an environment where they feel more comfortable expressing dissent, uncovering hidden concerns and reservations.

Reduced pressure: When questions are framed to elicit a “yes,” it creates implicit pressure. No-oriented questions alleviate that pressure by giving people the option to reject proposals without feeling confrontational.

Deeper insights: When individuals feel safe saying “no,” they will explain why they disagree, revealing valuable information that can guide the negotiation.

Trust building: The other side is more likely to feel understood and respected when given the space to say “no.” This increases trust between the parties.

Combating superficial agreement: Traditional questioning techniques, which often seek “yes” responses, can lead to counterfeit affirmations—agreements given to appease rather than reflect true consent. No-oriented questions help uncover these situations by prompting honest feedback.

Timing and flow: Ask No-oriented questions when the conversation arrives at a point of contention or when participants are hesitant to agree.

Transitioning from open-ended questions: Begin with open-ended questions to learn about the participants’ perspectives. Then transition to No-oriented questions as the discussion progresses.

Humour and lightness: Use humour to decrease tension and make it easier for participants to answer No-oriented questions.

Following up: Ask additional questions to understand why someone responded “no” to a No-oriented question.

The psychology behind no-oriented questions

 No-oriented questions are sometimes more effective than traditional questions because they tap into several key psychological principles:

• Autonomy protection: People want to feel in control of their decisions. No-oriented questions offer this autonomy by providing a choice. When individuals perceive external pressure to agree or commit, their natural psychological defense mechanisms immediately activate. By aggressively pursuing a “yes” response, you inadvertently create a sense of manipulation that triggers an instinctive resistance. Humans fundamentally desire autonomy and the freedom to make their own choices without feeling coerced or maneuvered into a predetermined outcome.
• The moment someone feels their personal agency is being challenged, they unconsciously construct emotional barriers.
• Reduced defensiveness: Traditional questions can make people defensive. By framing questions to elicit “no,” people become more open to listening and considering other viewpoints.
• Cognitive dissonance manipulation: By asking someone to say “no,” it may lead them to reconsider their stance. They might contemplate why they would say “no,” which may open them up to other perspectives.

Some words of warning though…

 Though no-oriented questions can be effective, there are some potential drawbacks to consider:

Overuse and manipulation: Do not overuse this technique or use it mechanically. Stay adaptable and pay attention to the participants’ verbal and nonverbal communication.

Transparency: Some people might recognise the technique and feel manipulated. It is crucial to be authentic and genuine.

When you adopt this approach, a remarkable transformation in the way you ask questions during your mediation session might unfold. Conversations become less combative and more collaborative, shifting from forceful agreement to thoughtful exploration. Give it a try in your next mediation. You’ll transition from pushing solutions to drawing out deeper understanding.

Compiled by Eugene Opperman (B.Proc. LLB.) (LSSA L.E.A.D., ADR Network, FAMAC, NABFAM), a legal practitioner and accredited mediator.