I think Friedman is using a different definition for a no person than Dunham does. My impression of Friedman’s piece was that she was arguing that being a no person tends to involve doing more work: you become the one who checks the budget or who takes notes to remind after the meeting so that everyone knows what needs to be done. It’s not the same as being a no person as Ester describes in her article; it’s more like being the yes person but for commonsense and organisation.