The '''Law of No''' is an interesting phenomenon - nay, an AntiPattern - I've observed in management circles, which explains a lot.

The law is:

''It is far more dangerous to one's career to say "yes" to a venture which ultimately fails than it is to say "no" to a venture which ultimately succeeds (either over your objection, or at a competitor).''

And the sad part is - at many companies, it's true. Those who advocate or sponsor risky ventures often put their careers on the line - should the venture fail, odds are good that they'll get the sack. In some case, senior managers will directly ask the question: "Are you willing to bet your career on that?" (which carries the implicit message: If this doesn't work, it's you and not me who is going down).

Those who act as CornCob''''''s, on the other hand - refusing to support (and in some cases, opposing or obstructing) even reasonable ventures, aren't remembered if the venture succeeds. (If they are remembered, they can always plead "due diligence").  As a result, many people can achieve long and comfortable careers saying "No". It's easy, it doesn't require any thought, and it doesn't require any further effort. Just say no, and get on with whatever you were doing before.

This isn't to say that wild goose chases or other unwise projects should be started willy-nilly and without consequence. And companies shouldn't attempt more ventures then they can adequately support. Due diligence is, of course, appropriate. But it is also important to remember that many ventures and projects fail, '''even''' if it's team and leadership acts professionally and appropriately at all times. That's the nature of business - sometimes, the bear gets you. It's an all too common event for a well-respected manager or leader, with a track record of success, to lead a project which doesn't pan out - and lose his or her job as a result (or suffer some other lesser punishment, such as a demotion or reassignment). Which is often unfortunate - good leaders learn from failure; and all leaders will fail at some venture at some point in their career. Excepting, of course, for those who never attempt anything which isn't a slam dunk.

The sack, it says here, should be reserved for those leaders who demonstrate a long record of incompetence, unprofessionalism, or other inappropriate conduct; not for the .400 hitter who finally strikes out. Even if in the bottom of the proverbial ninth.

As businesses often ''need'' risky ventures to survive over the long term (their competitors are engaging in such ventures all around them, and sooner or later one may produce the DisruptiveTechnology or other innovation that slaughters the company's CashCow), this behavior is an unfortunate sign.