Never Split the Difference (2016) is a book on negotiation techniques in which Chris Voss, the author, makes the case that psychology, empathy, and rapport play a crucial role that has long been neglected and misunderstood.
Takeaways
- Consider emotions: Don’t pretend they didn’t exist: they’re often part of the problem you must tackle
- Use empathy: put yourself in the other person’s shoes and label their feelings
- Make the other feel powerful, listen to them, and power protect them
Notes
About The Author:
Christopher Voss is a former FBI negotiator turned businessman, public speaker, lecturer, and author.
The 3 Voice Tones
Chris Voss says there are three types of voices available to negotiators:
- Late-night “FM DJ voice”
- Positive playful
- Direct and assertive tone of voice
The assertive one should be used sparingly, as it signals that you are trying to assert dominance either aggressively or passive-aggressively. Others would push back.
Most of the time, you should be using positive and playful.
Empathy to Win Negotiation
The author says that the old approach of “leaving the feelings outside of the negotiation” makes no sense.
Feelings are part and parcel of the human experience and often are the main problem.
He says instead that a great negotiator always has empathy for the other side. That doesn’t mean you agree, but it means you put yourself in his shoes.
Also, see this post on smart collaboration:
The ‘Smart Collaborator’: Giving For Win-Win, Without Being Exploited
Label Their Feelings
Once you recognize the feelings the other person must be feeling, you should put them into words and tell them about them.
In the book’s example, with fugitives holed in inside a house, it was:
Chris Voss: It looks like you don’t want to go back to jail
And:
Chris Voss: It seems like you’re worried if you open the door they will come with guns blazing
Labeling decreases the intensity of the emotions.
Steps of Difficult Negotiations
- Focus on clearing barriers to the agreement (why they don’t want a deal is more powerful than why they want)
- Label barrier or mirror the statement
- Pause (let them talk and gather intel)
Allow Them To Say No
The author says you must phrase your question to make the other party say no.
If they can say no they feel safe and secure.
You can do it by saying something obviously wrong, like for example:
So it seems like you are really eager to leave your job
Or you could talk about what they don’t want.
Dump The Yes Ladder: Use the No Ladder
The author says that the final yes of a ‘yes ladder’ is not sincere.
Much better to let the prospect start with a no and empower him to choose the final yes instead after a series of “no” that makes him feel in charge.
Example of NO Ladder
Calling for campaign donations against the sitting president the caller would start by saying:
You: Do you think the best day for America are ahead?
Him: No
You: And are you letting this president sit in office without a fight?
Him: No
And then the caller would say: if you want to do something today to make sure that doesn’t happen, you can give to the X committee, which is fighting hard for you not to make that happen.
The “no” script got a 23% higher return rate.
Don’t Use Deadlines as Weapons
Chriss Voss attacks what he sees as another pillar of negotiating theory: hiding your deadline.
He says hiding deadlines increases the risk of an impasse.
My Note: It’s contextual, there is no ‘always best’ rule
I also find that a bit imprecise. As Roger Dawson says in Secrets of Power Negotiating, deadlines help the party with the most options and damage the party with fewer options (or who wants the deal the most).
You Must Learn About The Other Party
There is no encompassing form or fairness that everyone recognizes and none of us is really rational.
If you approach the negotiation table thinking the other party has your same opinion on what’s a good deal or what’s fair, you’re wrong.
TPM Note: Not always true, many people from different cultures can still agree on several foundational principles of ‘fairness’
Using Fairness As Manipulative Technique
Chris Voss says that people who utter “we just want what’s fair” are using it as a manipulation negotiation technique to get a concession from you.
He says he uses it this way:
I want you to feel like I’m being fair at all times, so please stop me if you like I’m being unfair and we’ll address it
For more manipulative negotiation techniques also read:
Anchor Their Emotions Low
If you need to offer something lower than expected, preface it by saying what you’re about to tell them might be shocking and they won’t like it.
That you’re terribly sorry.
Then, once you set your expectations very low, you can say:
but before I take it to someone else, I wanted to at least let you know. Here is what I can offer.
Faced with the options of nothing or something and having their expectations much lowered, they will take you up on the offer.
The Tit for Tat Blunder
Once again seeking to undermine what he sees as ‘mistaken mainstream negotiation’, the author says that the assumption of asking or getting something back for each concession paralyzed his team’s effectiveness.
For example, they wouldn’t ask the kidnapper to put hostages on the phone for fear that they would say no and that they’d be embarrassed.
And they wouldn’t ask much for fear they’d have to give something back. Everything was a race for the negotiator: if you ask, then you owe.
TPM Note: Tit-for-tat is grounded on human nature
Voss doesn’t address the fact that tit-for-tat is a natural consequence of social exchange dynamics and reciprocity (Cialdini, 1984). It may be one of the foundations of intercultural perceived fairness, actually.
Make Them Feel in Charge With Calibrated Questions
Calibrated questions start with “how” and “what” and are designed to open up dialogue, make the other party feel in charge, and let them negotiate with themselves.
Some examples are:
- What caused you to do it (instead of accusatory “why did you do it”)
- What did you have in mind when you…
- How could we go about doing it
Avoid “why” questions as they seem accusatory. And bite your tongue and never overreact.
There is great power in treating jerks with deference
The Three Types of Negotiators
There are three types of different psychology and dispositions when it comes to negotiating:
- Accommodators
- Assertive
- Analysts
It’s a common mistake to think that assertive are the most successful.
Each style can be successful, but to reach your peak potential you need elements from all three styles.
A study also shows that 65% of some of the most successful negotiators are accommodators.
Some Real Life Examples
I had written a few posts before here on real-life negotiation.
Without ever having read “Never Split the Difference” before, I realize that most of the techniques I used there were exactly what Chris Voss recommends.
Check them out:
And some with more advanced tactics for self-defense:
In a way, Never Split the Difference also vibes well with How to Win Friends and Influence People in that it seeks to save people’s faces and avoid needless escalation.
Here is a good example of when such an approach would have worked wonders:
CRITICISM
Voss seems intent at criticizing and undermining standard negotiation theory that came before him.
Whether that comes from genuine belief, over-conviction, or something else, many standard negotiation principles aren’t as ineffective as Voss sometimes make them sound.
Splitting the difference works
Says Thomas Schelling in his classic ‘The Strategy of Conflict“:
The frequency with which final agreement is precipitated by an offer to “split the difference” illustrates the same point, and the difference that is split is by no means always trivial. More impressive, perhaps, is the remarkable frequency with which long negotiations over complicated quantitative formulas or ad hoc shares in some costs or benefits converge ultimately on something as crudely simple as equal shares, shares proportionate to some common magnitude (gross national product, population, foreign-exchange deficit, and so forth), or the shares agreed on in some previous but logically irrelevant negotiation.
Authority-Inflating With Unwarranted
Conviction?
The way he says “they’re wrong” or “you’re wrong” gives me a feeling of someone who’s trying to self-frame as higher authority than both readers and all other negotiation experts past and present.
Talking about a “student of his” who did a mistake, he is careful to highlight “this is before he was a student of mine”. And I felt that was unnecessary.
Possible Poorer Suggestions (or at left, very risky)
In an effort to make the other party say no to make him feel in charge, the author uses the sentence:
it seems like you really want this project to fail.
That’s not a good idea in my opinion because it won’t just push the other party to say no, but it will also actively make them dislike you.
There was also a rent negotiation example, with the student/renter talking to the real estate agent. And the student, to make the agent say no, tells him
“it seems like you would rather run the risk of keeping the place unrented“
That is a barely veiled threat and sounds very confrontational to me (in spite of the author presenting his method as “working along” instead of ever risking an escalation).
Seems a Bit Simplistic at Times
At times it feels to me like “Never Split the Difference” is a bit shallow and simplistic.
It stresses so much these little moments of interaction as if they were the big secrets to changing everything.
The pause after you say X or the words “that’s right” in the author’s opinion are the turning moment of all successful negotiations.
As if all of them were infallible. And as if someone could not use different words to convey the same meaning (ie.: “that makes sense” instead of “that’s right”).
PROS
Valid Strategies of Deploying Empathy, Listening Skills, and (Perceived) ‘Fairness’
Chris Voss has a good grasp of human psychology and power dynamics, and his use of empathy is not weak, but effective. That’s the difference between ineffective dominance, trying to steamroll an opponent, and power that achieves goals.
Many Examples
I appreciated Never Split the Difference where there are a lot of dialogues and examples.
Review
Never Split the Difference is a good negotiation book focusing on the more empathic and collaborative aspects of negotiation.
It’s not as novel as the author may believe since Fisher and Ury had already brought negotiation theory away from a stronger focus on dominance and competition.
However, Voss adds plenty of good insights and it could have become a true strong manual of empathic negotiation if it had been more organized.
I’d advise complementing this book with a broader power dynamics perspective though.
Sometimes you will meet negotiating parties that are out to take advantage of you, scare you, or simply don’t play by the fair rules.
And of course, there are times when more aggressive negotiation styles win:
When Power Negotiating Works
There are many situations in which you don’t need to make the other feel powerful and in which you can steer the negotiation more powerfully.
The author says that two pit bulls will only make a bloodbath where everyone loses. True.
But you’re not always negotiating with a pit bull. Or the pit bull you’re negotiating with may have no real teeth.
Basically: don’t overgeneralize that one method is “superior”. And train yourself to at least have the guts to be in charge and push back.
Check out the best books on negotiation or for full power-training see Power University.
