Saying "No" to "No Negativity" - Part 1

“Get rid of negative people in your life. They waste your time and bring you down.”

“Negative people suck! Avoid them at all costs. If you have to cut ties with people you’ve known for a long time because they’re a negative drain on you, so be it.”

So say two prominent motivational speakers and coaches as quoted by Barbara Ehrenreich in her new book Bright-Sided, a critical look into the world of positive thinking.

So – sounds like good advice, right?

Not surprisingly, Ehrenreich says: No. And her observations may help us continue exploring the question I raised earlier: Are there limits to “Yes And” – and to positivity in general?

I’ve already mentioned one limit to the “Yes And” concept for the Daily Improviser when she attempts to collaborate with another person. In my view, “Yes And” means Accepting the Person, Acknowledging the Possibilities, and Advancing with Positive Purpose – but it does not necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position or Accepting the Proposal. The Daily Improviser shouldn’t ignore a deeply held value of hers in the name of “being positive.” There are times when NO is an appropriate stance to take – as long as it’s a NO that keeps the door open for further dialog.

But what’s wrong with applying positivity to our personal relationships in the way the motivational gurus suggest above? Why not avoid people who represent a toxic influence in our lives?

Two reason, says Ehrenreich. First:

“[P]urge everyone who brings you down and you risk being … cut off from reality.”

Individuals and organizations need people who will sound the cautionary note, who will prevent others from marching off a cliff, who will head off the momentum of rampant Groupthink. By pointing out the value of continual reality checks, Ehrenreich echoes what Jim Collins in his book Good to Great refers to as the Stockdale Paradox: “Confront the brutal facts - yet never lose faith.”

Just as there is a time and a place for NO in the “Yes And” collaboration context, so does NO have a place in evaluating an individual’s or organization’s situation, performance, and options. Yet, just as in the collaboration context, it must be the type of NO that keeps dialog flowing – that suggests possible solutions, that supports others in their search for a better future, that maintains a faith in the ability to move forward productively.

In my next article, I’ll cover the second reason that Ehrenreich cites for negating the notion of “no negativity.”