Never Split the Difference

Chris Voss: You know, that's a great question and what I like to fire back is, what's the difference between manipulation and influence? Probably, if we'd have looked the words up in a dictionary, the definitions would be pretty much exactly the same.

So certain words have residue, and manipulation has a bad residue to it. And I suppose what the difference is, is where are you coming from? And as a hostage negotiator, my negotiation approach has always been, "What I want to do for you is going to be good for you. I want to save your life." And so, I guess the difference between manipulation and influence is where are your ethics and, when you've found out what your ethics are, how are you going to live with that? And I've got no problem with that because I'm a nice guy.

Rachel Salaman: The title of your book is, "Never Split the Difference," meaning never compromise. So why not?

Chris Voss: Well, you know, compromise is, I've got this amazing gray suit and I'm not sure. I want to wear brown shoes with it and you want me to wear black shoes, so we compromise. I wear one black and one brown. That is what compromise is in reality and it's just horrible. Compromise, splitting the difference, is borne out of uncertainty to start with, which means you get a bad solution. Let's water down both solutions and we'll both be happy, but we'll have a really bad outcome.

So that's the first thing. Even very well-meaning people, the spirit of compromise is I'm open to new ideas, but, in reality, most of the time what happens is you get tired and you get worn out. Let's just split the difference and we'll be done. And you leave money on the table, you leave better options on the table. The other thing, too, is, since I know that I can probably get you to split the difference with me, I'm just raising what I want or that I ask for. If I want a million dollars out of you, I'm going to ask for seven and you give me four million and you think you've got a bargain. And that's manipulation, and it's a tool of unconscious manipulation that's used by the throat cutters.

And what you were saying, somebody who wants to meet you in the middle is usually a poor judge of distance. So it's another one that we get pushed around on, so you have to be careful of it.

Rachel Salaman: We'll be hearing about some of the alternatives to splitting the difference as we talk further about this, and one of your pearls of wisdom is that, in negotiations, being right isn't as important as having the right mindset. So what is the right mindset for negotiation?

Chris Voss: The mindset is, you know something I don't, and it's really important, and so I ought to keep my mouth shut until I find out what that is so that I don't over-commit on the wrong idea. Sort of by definition, everybody has got stuff they're hiding and they're holding back in every negotiation. I got stuff that you don't know about. I got motivations. I got facts. Whatever.

That happens every time and there's this crazy area where the stuff you're hiding overlaps with the stuff I'm hiding. And that stuff is usually pretty important because you don't hold back, you don't hide, insignificant stuff. The stuff that you hide in the negotiation, you're hiding it because it's really important and would change everything and the other side's thinking if they knew what it was.

So not only are we hiding stuff, we're hiding big stuff. So when that overlaps, there's got to be some crazy good ideas that neither one of us have any idea about until we start to relax a little bit, and I'll show you yours and you show me mine. We feel each other out. And that's why, since that stuff is so important, you've got to find out what the other side has got before you can really make up your mind what you want.

The American general Colin Powell used to like to say, "Never let your ego get so tied to a position that, if the position collapses, your ego goes with it." So that sort of thinking also applies to negotiation. Never be so sure of what you want that you wouldn't take something better.

Rachel Salaman: Another of your observations is that people tend to focus their energy on what to say or do, but how we are is the easiest and most effective mode of influence. Now this is an elaboration of what you were just talking about, isn't it.

Chris Voss: Yes and how we are, and the other thing too about that that is just so ridiculously stupid that I usually go to great lengths to prove the point, but we get so serious about negotiation and the more serious we get, actually the dumber we get because there's really good psychological data out there that shows that our brains work up to 31 percent more effectively if we're in a positive frame of mind. If we're happy, if we're enjoying it, if we're grateful to be having a conversation at all. When was the last time somebody said to themselves, "I am so grateful that my 13-year-old is driving me up the wall and will not clean her room," or, "I am so grateful that I have this job where my boss is a jerk"? It's hard to take that attitude but we're actually smarter because our brain works up to 31 percent more effectively.

And then that has an effect, too, because that's contagious. What we have in our brains, what we have that makes it contagious is called mirror neurons. So, if I'm playful with you, the chances are you're going to be playful with me. We're both going to be smarter and, without changing any of our preparation, we increase the chances we'll make a great deal.

And so, that's how you are but we get really intense on what we want and what we want gets in our way and we're less playful. We're more direct, we're more harsh, and it creates this whole downward spiral.

Rachel Salaman: You touched on mirroring there, which is something that comes up in your book. You say it's the closest we can get to a Jedi mind trick. Can you talk a bit more about how it works and how people can use it as a technique to create this win-win situation?

Chris Voss: What the classic mirroring is is if you sit there with your arms crossed, I'll mirror your body language and I'll sit there with my arms crossed, or if you've got an elbow on the table and you're stroking your chin with your right hand, then I'll mirror that. And there is something to that but that's not what we're talking about here. Mirroring is not mirroring your accent. It's really, especially, you've got to be careful about mirroring mood because, when somebody is angry, they'll use that excuse that you should get angry back at the same time. That's not a good idea.

But what mirroring for a hostage negotiator is is repeating the last one to three words, or selected one to three words, and it causes a sort of bridge in the other person's mind to be formed, and they want to talk more and they want to go on and provide a little bit more explanation. It's the way to get people really out of yes or no, and it's a great way to probe the other side. And it's almost an automatic response every time. If I mirror you, if I repeat back the last one to three words of what you said or pick out one to three words, then you're going to want to add a little bit more to it. It increases rapport between the two of us and, in many cases, what happens is if I'm articulating something, if I'm saying something to you that you don't quite understand where I'm coming from, what it does is it gets me to reword it in a better way. It comes in a place of you saying, "What do you mean by that?" Well, sometimes if you ask me what do I mean by that, I'm going to say it exactly the same way that I just did, only louder. Like the stereotype of an American overseas. I get French people to understand me by repeating the same thing in English only louder and they'll understand.

But that's what happens a lot of times when you say to somebody, "What did you mean by that?" When a mirror will cause someone to re-word and expand and probably give you a much better answer, and feel comfortable doing it.

Rachel Salaman: Have you ever had anyone say, "Why are you repeating what I just said?"

Chris Voss: No, I haven't.

Rachel Salaman: So there must be a technique to actually doing that. To repeat back what they're saying, but in such a way that it doesn't sound like you're actually just repeating them.

Chris Voss: A good point. It's usually inflection and if you make it sound like a question, like if you say to me, "Explain to me mirroring. What is this thing of repeating the last one to three words?" And I'll say the last one to three words like a question, and a question is an inviting thing, it invites me to go on.

Rachel Salaman: Linked to this is the idea of labeling. So could you tell us about that and about when it might be useful for people to use it, for example in a business context?

Chris Voss: It sounds to me like you think that labeling is an appropriate business tactic.

Rachel Salaman: You just labeled it. Is that right?

Chris Voss: Ha, ha!

Rachel Salaman: I'm catching on!

Chris Voss: Now, you're going to let me catch you. You're too good as a listener. It sounds like you're not very comfortable with that.

Rachel Salaman: You see, then I would actually contradict you on that.

Chris Voss: And that's also one of the good things about a label because we even call that mislabeling to trigger a no. And, in many cases, a label is a way to get "yes and," or a label is a way to get "no and." Because so many times with a closed question we're trying to get a simple yes or no, and very rarely is it only yes by itself or only no. There needs to be a lot more context, which is one of the reasons why people are very uncomfortable saying the word yes, because it always calls for context. So we switch out of this with it sounds like, it feels like, it looks like - just making an observation of what's going on. If you're trying to get an appointment and the secretary is blocking you from getting the appointment, she says, "OK, I'll pass the information on to him and he'll get back to you when he has time," when you know that he's never going to get back to you. And you say, "It feels to me here like I've just got blown off, and I'm really surprised by that because our conversation has been going really well." It's a way for them to respond and give you a lot more depth.

And then a label which is like another extremely simple tool but it's kind of intuitive. People are uncomfortable using it, not having it used on them but uncomfortable getting used to using it and that is the biggest barrier to learning. But then, once you learn the simplicity of it - it's just an observation - you can really use it to pinpoint a portion of a conversation or a driving motivational factor.

And there's some interesting science behind it. Like if you're unhappy with me and I can say, "Look, it feels like you're unhappy with me," the brain science shows us that that diminishes that feeling of unhappiness every single time. My normal response would be, "I don't want you to be unhappy with me," and the brain science shows us that whenever you deny it - I don't want you to be - that increases it. It makes you more uncomfortable. So, a really slight 2mm change has a massive difference.

Rachel Salaman: What would the 2mm change be in that case?

Chris Voss: It would be from the denial to the observation. And the denial is, "I don't want you to be unhappy about this," and the 2mm change would be the observation, "Look, it feels like you're unhappy about this."

Rachel Salaman: Yes, which is much softer and much more likely to get the other person talking more and feeling more comfortable. Now, related to that is the section of your book which talks about naming the worst case scenario up front, which also not exactly disarms the other person but makes them feel a little bit more relaxed and more primed to hear what you're going to say. So can you tell us about that?

Chris Voss: That's a preemptive strike. That's a really sophisticated move to preemptively keep someone from feeling bad.

If I know you're going to have a negative reaction to something, if I know it, like if we're in a negotiation and I know you're not going to like what I have to say. If I'm a good partner, why do I want you to feel bad? It's an adversary situation. I'm not the adversary - we're all trying to work together to solve a problem. And I've got something here to bring up and I need to keep you on my side. I need to keep you in a positive frame of mind. So if I say, "Look, this is going to sound harsh so I'm going to give you three seconds, I'm going to give you a moment," and then whatever I say after that is going to be less than what went through your caveman brain, that still is in all of our thinking, that protects us and always over-emphasizes the negative because that's how it keeps us alive from harm. So whatever went through your brain and then what I say next is actually relief and you think, "That wasn't that bad. I don't know what you were worried about."

Well, I just did something that, in my view, satisfies the mercenary and the missionary. And that gets us back to the influence here and manipulation, because the mercenary has got no problem with the word manipulation because they don't care. They just want to know what works. Utterly cold-hearted about the ethics of it. The missionary actually cares about you as a human being, has ethics. And I like negotiation techniques that make both the mercenary and the missionary happy. If I make both of those people happy on my team then I'm good with it.

And that's why I like this whole disarming the amygdala in advance with a sort of proactive negative label, because I keep you from feeling horrible and I don't want you to feel horrible.

Rachel Salaman: Do you think there are any situations where it's not the right technique to use, just because it's so simple it could border on manipulation?

Chris Voss: Again, it really depends on where you're coming from. Are you an ethical player or am I trying to manipulate you into something bad? And the secondary issue with that is, if I try to manipulate you into something bad, our implementation is going to be horrible. It's going to be a train wreck and the deal is not going to work anyway. So I could manipulate you into an agreement and then, as soon as you realize you were manipulated into a bad deal, you're not going to perform or you're going to get me back or you're going to drag your feet.

There's another saying, never be mean to someone who can hurt you by doing nothing. Well, you're going to do nothing every single time you get the opportunity because you know it's going to hurt me. And then I can't blame you for doing nothing. So that's not a good idea in the long run anyway for me to be manipulative, unless I'm manipulating you into something you want, because you're not going to do it.

Rachel Salaman: You make the point in the book that people often mistake projection for empathy. In other words, they assume the other person thinks just like they do. So how can we avoid that?

Chris Voss: That's hard because we want to think we're normal, and if I'm normal and the vast majority of us think of ourselves as good people and rational and normal, when everybody has got their own things that are weighing on them at that moment, that skews their decision making in a way that's different from the other person's. One of them is just in our basic approach to conflict which is fight, flight or make friends - the caveman. And every single thought we have in our brain goes through the caveman part of our brain. The psychologists will argue whether or not it starts there, but nobody argues whether or not it goes through there.

So fight, flight or make friends - what does that mean? It means that two out of three people are different than you in their instinctive response. This normalcy idea breaks down for us immediately with two out of three people we deal with. And so we have to be careful about that because the golden rule, treat someone in the way you want to be treated, should really be substituted for treat someone the way they need to be treated, especially in that moment.

Rachel Salaman: Absolutely, and I suppose if you do this labeling thing then you get more of a handle on whether you're understanding the other person correctly.

Chris Voss: That's a great point, and it's one of the reasons why labeling right off the bat shortens what seems like a waste of time, shortens a conversation because then you get on the same sheet of paper much more quickly.

Rachel Salaman: We talked a bit earlier about the importance of yes and no, particularly no, in moving things forward, but in your book you say that the two sweetest words in any negotiation are that's right, while you're right is the worst answer to hear. So there's quite a lot in this question. Can you talk us through it and why that's right is such a useful place to end up?

Chris Voss: That's right is when we see something that's completely true, whether we've seen it on TV, heard it on the radio, or heard it on a podcast. It's a moment of epiphany, that's right, and, when we say, "That's right," we totally and completely embrace that and we feel enlightened by it and if somebody said it to us, we feel bonded to them. And this immediately gets us back to don't be so sure of what you want, you're wanting something better. When someone says, "That's right," they're at the moment where they're going to throw something better on the table and you just created that moment by getting them to say, "That's right."

Now, you're right. The flipside of that is you're right. This is what people say to a colleague, someone who is just after us, and we care about them and we want to keep the relationship, and this colleague just won't let up. And they're in our office, we want to get back to work, we want to go on Facebook, whatever we want to do, but we want them to leave us alone and we look them in the eye and say, "You're right." And they get a happy look on their face and they jump up and they go away and they leave us alone and they still like us.

It's the worst answer to hear because people say that when they have no intention of going along with the other person. They will not comply. They're not going to change what they're doing a bit. And it's wonderfully seductive and that's why we do it to people all the time, because they love it and I have no intention of changing whatsoever. And that's one of the reasons why we say yes. There's nothing without how. You've got no how with you're right - there is no how that exists.

Rachel Salaman: Let's talk a bit about questions now and, in the book. you say that we should use how and what, but not why. But often it's why questions that spring to mind during a negotiation, so can you talk us through that?

Chris Voss: First of all, just substitute the word what for why. Instead of, "Why did you do that?" you say, "What made you do that?" Instead of, "Why was that a good choice?" you say, "What makes that a good choice?"

One of the things that I have an advantage of as a hostage negotiator, having negotiated in every continent on the planet, why universally makes people feel accused, and we've found that to be the case in every single culture there is. No one ever asks why unless they think that there's something wrong with what somebody's doing. And why can be very legitimate. You need to know why so much of the time. It's just that, when I think you're wrong, I'm going to say, "Why did you do that?" When I'm supportive of you, I'm never going to ask you why. I'll say, "So that makes a lot of sense to me. I can see what made you do that," or, "I can see how that's a good idea."

So why has become universal code for accusation, but we still need to know why and that is why the how goes in its place.

Rachel Salaman: Another tip that you give us in the book is that you advise us to be aware of deadlines in negotiations, which I think people can see in the kind of hostage negotiations that you were doing professionally. What about in a business situation? Can you give an example of how an awareness of deadlines might be useful?

Chris Voss: Yes, it's two things. First of all, you've got to know what the hard deadlines really are, and they really are hard. Sometimes they are, but they almost never are. The question is, is that when you need it or when you want it?

Then the next thing is, really what's more important is, what's the process? Like if we get a week, if you have to have a project in in a week or you have to have an answer in a week, some people might be seduced if you will - politicians - to wait til the last minute to get an answer. But the process might take a week so not only do I need to know when your hard deadline is, when you really have to get up and walk away from the table, but what do we have to get done between now and then, and how long is it going to take? Maybe you want this deal in July, because you want to go on vacation in August, or you want this deal because your fiscal year is different than your calendar year and that's going to make a difference in your bonus, or you want this deal because it's the last Friday of the month and it makes a difference in your bonus.

So there are different time pressures that are on you that become deadlines that I can use to my advantage or not. What the difference with deadlines is, is what you do to yourself over them. Do you take you hostage on your deadline and will they take themselves hostage? And that's one of the first deadly sins in negotiation - it's don't take yourself hostage over your deadlines.

Rachel Salaman: So people need to really analyze their own deadlines and figure out whether they actually are hard deadlines or whether they're just imposed for some other random reason?

Chris Voss: Yes. Decide what's making you impose the deadline and then decide whether or not it's you taking you hostage. And most of the time we're taking ourselves hostage.

Rachel Salaman: Just before you go, Chris, I know people would love to hear a story from your life as an FBI hostage negotiator. Do you have a favorite story that you can share with us, that perhaps has some lessons for business as well?

Chris Voss: I got a call from a gentleman whose son had been kidnapped in Haiti and his son was a dual citizen. The kidnappers didn't know that they'd grabbed an American; he was a young man whose mother gave him the gift of American citizenship by making sure that, when he was born, she was in the United States. It used to happen all the time in Haiti. A lot of dual nationals back down there before the earthquake. The kidnappers didn't know that they'd grabbed Americans.

And he gets grabbed in a carjacking, a 12-year-old boy, and his father, who is not an American citizen, goes to the US government and the US government says, "The FBI can help you." And I don't know what he imagined in his mind when he was told that, but somehow I think he figures he's going to hear a knock on his door and the Men in Black, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, are going to be there to save the galaxy. And instead of getting a knock on his door, 20 minutes later he gets a phone call from this guy in Washington DC named Chris Voss. And he literally says to me on the phone, "You're in Washington DC. How are you going to help me?" Now, I've got about three seconds before he hangs up the phone. I can't trot out my resumé, my industry experience, all the things that we do to impress other people when we first meet them. What impresses them is if we know what's going on and our history correlates loosely with that.

So, instead of telling him how many years I've been an FBI agent, what all my training was, I said, "Look, here's the deal. While Haitian criminals kill other Haitians for no reason at the drop of a hat constantly, Haitian kidnappers are not killing kidnap victims. I don't know why that is, I just know that's the way things are happening right now. But today is Thursday and Haitian kidnappers love to party on Saturday night, so, if you follow my guidance, we'll have your son out by Friday afternoon or Saturday morning."

And he said to me, "Tell me what you want me to do." And we had his son out Saturday morning. He followed my strategy.

In any business situation, in any personal situation, whoever you're dealing with, they don't care what your resumé is. They only care if you understand the problem and you can articulate it in a way where, deep down inside, they say to themselves, "That's right." And when you can articulate what they're faced with and lay out some real rough parameters of how you want to proceed, the cooperation that you will get will be fantastic.

And that's what happened with me with that father and that little 12-year-old boy in Haiti.

Rachel Salaman: Chris Voss, thank you very much for joining us today.

Chris Voss: Rachel, it was my pleasure. I really enjoyed talking with you.

Rachel Salaman: The name of Chris's book again is, "Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It." And you can find out more about him and his work at his company's website www.blackswanltd.com.

I'll be back in a few weeks with another Expert Interview. Until then, goodbye.