No! The safest answer

“No” is not merely a word. It is a management philosophy and, occasionally, a retirement plan. Ask an executive to approve an idea, and replies arrive promptly: “Is it really a priority?” “Let us examine it further,” “Perhaps the timing is not right,” or the corporate classic, “Let’s form a committee.” Nobody actually says no; they simply arrange a dignified funeral for the idea. Submit a proposal to a government office and the file may gain weight, dust, twelve observations and three committees, but not movement. In our institutions, rejecting an idea can appear rude; delaying it until everyone forgets why it mattered is considered professional.

Vanessa Bohns found that people often accept requests because saying no feels socially uncomfortable. In personal life, yes protects relationships. Inside institutions, no protects careers.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

A country cannot progress when honest officials are safer saying no, corrupt ones are paid to say yes, generous employees burn out, and politicians distribute yes free of charge.

William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser’s research on “status quo bias” showed that people prefer existing arrangements. Yes changes something; no preserves it. Omission-bias research adds that harm caused by inaction is judged less harshly than harm caused by action. Hence the perfect bureaucratic survival formula: a failed approval carries a signature; a missed opportunity carries no audit objection.

The reward system makes the difference. In a dynamic company, a successful yes may earn promotion or a bonus. In government, an honest yes may produce extra work, an audit query or a headline, while no may deliver an undisturbed pension. One system rewards value creation; the other can reward the absence of fingerprints.

Research involving civil servants found that contingent rewards can reduce blame-avoidance, while punishment may intensify it. This is why reform speeches rarely change behaviour when accountability remains untouched. Posters asking officials to “be innovative” are charming, but posters do not sign files.

Bangladesh has, unfortunately, invented an unofficial reward for yes: bribery. Once “speed money” appears, a file that had been meditating for six months suddenly discovers legs. Public service acquires a private accelerator. Transparency International Bangladesh’s 2025 household survey found that 63.6 percent of households had paid bribes while accessing public services.

Does this prove people require rewards to say yes? No. It proves that when legitimate rewards are weak and punishment for extortion uncertain, authority becomes a private barrier. Bribery does not create a yes culture; it sells selective permission to those who can pay.

Corporate yes has another danger. Adam Grant distinguishes generous people who maintain boundaries from selfless “givers” who say yes to everything. They face burnout and exploitation. Every office knows one: the reliable colleague who becomes organisational Wi-Fi -- everyone connects, nobody checks whether the system is overheating. Yes is not automatically virtuous, just as no is not automatically wise. Unthinking yes exhausts people and wastes resources; unthinking no suffocates initiative.

Politicians operate under another incentive. A political no disappoints voters immediately; a political yes sends the invoice to the future. Campaign platforms promise roads, jobs, hospitals, subsidies and reforms as though the national budget came with unlimited data and citizens with unlimited memory loss. Bangladesh thus has a peculiar partnership: politicians manufacture yes, administration processes no, and bribery occasionally provides express delivery.

The remedy is not to reward every approval. Institutions must reward responsible decisions through pilots, transparent criteria, risk limits and deadlines. Officials should be recognised for public value; unjustified delays should carry consequences. Political promises need costs, timelines and public dashboards. A country cannot progress when honest officials are safer saying no, corrupt ones are paid to say yes, generous employees burn out, and politicians distribute yes free of charge. We need fewer automatic refusals, fewer purchasable approvals and fewer decorative promises.

The writer is founder of BuildCon Consultancies Ltd and BuildNation Ltd