A conversational technique for handling a stakeholder's feature request without saying no outright. Borrowed from improv's "yes, and" rule: instead of rejecting the stakeholder's proposed solution, accept the opening and ask them to elaborate on the underlying problem it's meant to solve.
This keeps the relationship collaborative while redirecting the conversation from a proposed solution toward the problem — the same redirection at the heart of Working Backward Methodology. It's a softer, relationship-preserving counterpart to harder confrontational tools like the Unused Roadmap Items Diagnostic Question: use "yes, and" in one-on-one stakeholder conversations, save the diagnostic question for a room or an org-wide pattern.
A companion move to the 'yes, and' elaboration technique: instead of arguing that a stakeholder's request is wrong, compare it against a quantified alternative already in flight — e.g., their pitch is worth an estimated $1M against a $10M initiative the team is already executing. Stakeholders back off once they see the bigger number, not because they were told no. As Hickman puts it: 'No stakeholder is like you must do my idea, they just don't know you're working on anything more valuable' — the technique works by supplying that missing comparison, not by rejecting the request.
Из тем: Stakeholder Power and Trust