Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as If Your Life Depended on It

About the Author

A 24-year veteran of the FBI, Chris Voss is a preeminent practitioner and professor of negotiating skills. Before 2008, Voss was the lead international kidnapping negotiator for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the FBI’s hostage negotiation representative for the National Security Council’s Hostage Working Group.

Voss is the founder of The Black Swan Group, a consulting firm that provides Fortune 500 companies with training on how to deal with complex negotiations. He has also taught in many business schools, including the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, Harvard University, MIT’s Sloan School of Management, and Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, among others.

Sources: blackswanltd.com and “About the Author” section of the book

Our one-sentence summary

To master negotiation, we need to understand that every conversation is a small conflict that we can creatively manage when we learn the tools and skills that emerge from the psychological elements that drive people’s cognitive processes.

Publisher’s Summary

“Never Split the Difference is a riveting, indispensable handbook of negotiation principles culled and perfected from Chris Voss’s remarkable career as a hostage negotiator and later as an award-winning teacher in the world’s most prestigious business schools. From policing the rough streets of Kansas City, Missouri, to becoming the FBI’s lead international kidnapping negotiator to teaching negotiation at leading universities, Voss has tested these techniques across the full spectrum of human endeavor and proved their effectiveness. Those who have benefited from these techniques include business clients generating millions in additional profits, MBA students getting better jobs, and even parents dealing with their kids.  

Never Split the Difference provides a gripping, behind-the-scenes recounting of dramatic scenarios from the gang-infested streets of Haiti to a Brooklyn bank robbery gone horribly wrong, revealing the negotiation strategies that helped Voss and his colleagues succeed where it mattered most: saving lives. As a world-class negotiator, Voss shows you how to use these skills in the workplace and in every other realm of your life. Whether buying a car, getting a better raise, buying a home, renegotiating rent, or deliberating with your partner, Never Split the Difference gives you the competitive edge in any discussion.”

Source: Book Jacket

Detailed Summary

Chapter 1 — The new rules: How to become the smartest person in any room

• When Voss went to the Harvard Law School’s Winter Negotiation Course, he was surprised that FBI techniques differed significantly from what students were learning. Through experiential learning, agents learned how to negotiate with mercenaries, drug dealers, killers, etc. But the road to success was a bumpy one.
  • In Downs vs. the United States (1975), after a devastating incident where hostages’ lives were lost, the court ruled that “a reasonable attempt at negotiation must be made before any tactical intervention” (p. 10). This case inspired the development of techniques for a hostage negotiation.
  • One of the first developed projects was called Getting to Yes. In it, Fisher and Ury systematized problem-solving under the assumption that the emotional brain can be overcome through a rational, problem-solving mindset. This was Harvard’s approach.
  • Meanwhile, economist Amos Tversky and psychologist and Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman began the study of a new field: behavioral economics. It posits that man is very irrational, as we suffer from cognitive bias – an unconscious tendency to distort the way we observe and understand the world.
  • They also discovered and defined the concepts of the Framing Effect and Loss Aversion, among others. The first describes how we respond differently to the same choice depending on how it is framed. The second suggests that we are more likely to act to avert loss that to achieve a gain of equal magnitude.
• Voss came to realize that what the Harvard techniques were missing – an imperative consideration in hostage negotiation – was the role of human psychology, particularly understanding that humans are irrational and emotionally driven.
• While some strategies in the Getting to Yes approach work, its value is more in that it laid the grounds for more modern approaches to negotiating hostages. But the FBI needed psychological tactics to get through to emotionally driven people, to calm them down, establish rapport, gain trust, and persuade others through empathy.
• Voss contends that negotiation starts with the premise that people want to be understood and accepted. As such, listening is the most effective strategy. This is Tactical Empathy.
• While his experience stems from hostage negation, Voss contends negotiation is rooted in everyday life. It serves two distinct functions: information gathering and behavior influencing. Careers, finances, and relationships all hinge on negotiation skills. 

Chapter 2 — Be a mirror: How to quickly establish rapport

• As Voss recounts his first experience dealing with a hostage situation during a bank robbery, he explains key strategies and techniques. “Good negotiators, going in, know they have to be ready for possible surprises; great negotiators aim to use their skills to reveal the surprises they are certain exist” (p. 24).
• Whenever negotiating, you should have a discovery mindset. Your goal is to observe and extract as much information as you can.
• People are surprised when they hear that the FBI usually has a team of agents listening in when dealing with a hostage negotiation. Listening is not easy. Most of us approach negotiation focusing on our personal arguments and engage in selective listening.
  • When we’re not talking, we’re thinking about our arguments. When both sides of the negotiation do this, which is most of the time, we end up in a state of schizophrenia – everyone listens only to the voice in their heads.
  • Instead of prioritizing your arguments, focus on the other person. Active listening will disarm them, make them feel safe, and the voice in their head will quiet down.
  • The goal is to identify what your counterpart needs and make them feel safe enough to talk and reveal information.
• In 1993, the negotiation approach in most police departments was mainly trying to manipulate in any way possible. The problem back then was that everything was hurried. Hurry leads people to feel unheard, and therefore, unsafe.
• Beyond, and more important than your words, is your demeanor. Our brains unconsciously process the social meaning behind our emotions and behavior as we speak, so it is important to control your body language and voice.
• There are three voice tones available to negotiators:

1. Late Night FM DJ: Use selectively to make a point, keeping your voice calm and slow. Build a sense of authority and trustworthiness without triggering defensiveness.
2. Positive & Playful: This should be your default. It’s an easy-going voice that builds a sense of a good-natured person. Relax and smile when you talk. When people are in a positive frame, they think more quickly and are more likely to collaborate.
3. Assertive & Direct: Use this voice rarely. It can lead to pushback and more problems.

• Mirroring, or isopraxism, is imitation. This is an effective strategy to have your counterpart open up and talk more. You can do this by imitating speech patterns, body language, tone of voice, and words. It usually happens unconsciously and reflects that people are bonding. But when practiced consciously, you’re signaling “we’re similar, you can trust me.”
  • For the FBI, mirroring is repeating the last three words (or the critical three words). By repeating back, the person will inevitably elaborate on what was just said.
  • The intention behind mirroring should be “help me understand.”

 Chapter 3 — Don’t feel their pain, label it: How to create trust with tactical empathy

• Voss recounts an experience he had in 1998. He was the primary negotiator during a case of fugitives hiding inside an apartment.
  • Voss and his team were able to convince the fugitives to surrender via labeling.
• Until recently, most research didn’t consider emotions in negotiation. “Separate the people from the problem,” they’d say. But how can we do that if emotions are the problem?
• Instead of denying or ignoring emotions, good negotiating requires that you identify and influence emotions. You need to listen, observe, and remain quiet.
• When people feel ignored or feel like their emotions don’t matter, frustration builds up and it disrupts any negotiation. The opposite of this is tactical empathy.
  • Empathy is the ability to recognize someone else’s perspective and being able to vocalize that recognition.
  • Tactical empathy is understanding the person’s feelings at the moment but also deciphering what’s behind those feelings so you can increase your influence in the moments that follow.
    • It’s not about being nice or agreeing with your counterpart. It’s about understanding how their actions make sense in their minds.
  • Labeling is employing tactical empathy by recognizing and verbalizing emotions. Spot the feelings, turn them to words, and calmly and respectfully repeat them back to the person.
    • Research shows that labeling an emotion helps move the feeling from the emotional part of the brain to the rational part of the brain, disrupting its intensity.
  • Labeling is a simple tactic, but it has very specific rules about form and delivery:

1. Labeling is detecting the other person’s emotional state.
2. After spotting an emotion to highlight, label it out loud as a statement or question. Make sure it starts with “It seems/sounds/looks like…” Notice two things here:
   1. The statements are not in the first person (“I’m hearing…”) because “I” puts people on guard.
   2. The statements use “seems” or similar terms because you might be wrong. And they might want to correct you (which is still getting them to talk).
3. Once you’ve spoken the label, stay quiet and listen. Let it sink in. They will respond.

• Labeling negatives diffuses them; labeling positives reinforces them.
  • This tactic works well when de-escalating angry confrontations because it helps the other person acknowledge their feelings. It also helps when apologizing.
  • The best way to deal with negativity is to observe and not react. Consciously label the feeling and replace it with a positive compassionate solution-based thought.
• When we start criticism by saying “I don’t want this to sound harsh…”, we deny the negative. Instead, point out every negative thing your counterpart could say about you. This is called an accusation audit and it helps reduce negative dynamics by encouraging others to claim that the opposite is true. Use phrases like “You might/will feel like I am too harsh.”
• Use labels to reinforce positive perceptions and dynamics.

Chapter 4 — Beware “yes” – Master “no.”

• Before Voss became a hostage negotiator, he volunteered on the suicide hotline. While recounting his experience, he also shares lessons learned, mainly that “yes” isn’t always good and “no” can alter a conversation and start a negotiation.
• Like a telemarketer, pushing for a “yes” doesn’t get you a win. Instead, it angers the other person. “Yes” and “maybe” are many times worthless.
  • “Yes” can be a counterfeit when the counterpart sees it as an escape route (just so that we will stop and leave), or because they don’t want to be impolite.
  • “Yes” can be a confirmation when it is a reflexive response to black-or-white questions. It’s an affirmation that doesn’t necessarily lead to action.
  • “Yes” can be a commitment when it is a true agreement and leads to action. This is the “yes” you want.
• We usually get the first two forms of “yes” and then a “no.” You want to get the “no” at the beginning of the conversation and end it with a “yes.”
• “No” is frequently a temporary decision that helps maintain the status quo. It provides protection. As a negotiator, it is good to allow your counterpart to say “no.”
  • Humans need autonomy. Once you give people a chance to say “no,” you let them feel safe and in control, and their emotions calm.
• The first step as a negotiator is to train yourself to hear “No” as something other than rejection. It usually means “I’m not ready to agree yet.” Or, “I don’t understand.” Or, “I don’t think I can afford it.”
• When you hear a “no,” pause and ask solution-based questions “What about this doesn’t work for you?” Or, “What would you need to make this work?”
• People will only really change a behavior if they feel like they are responsible for coming up with the idea. As a negotiator, you need to guide them there but not tell them what to do.
• Voss tells the story of a friend whose boss, due to a jealous rage, wanted to fire her. She started the conversation with him by asking “Do you want the FBI to be embarrassed?” She got her “No.” and then she followed with an open question “What do you want me to do?”
• To push for “No” you have to change your first few questions. Instead of asking several questions that lead to “Yes”, hoping that the last one (the one you care about) also leads to “Yes,” make the first few questions a “No.”
  • g., “Do you believe gas prices are too high?” (Yes) “Do you think we need a change?” (Yes) vs. “Do you think things should stay the same for a better America?” (No) “Are you going to sit down and do nothing about the economy?” (No)
• If your counterpart isn’t listening, force a “No” by intentionally mislabeling emotions or desires. Something like, “It seems like you want this project to fail” will force them to clarify.
• “Yes” is the final goal but don’t aim for it at the start. It will build your counterpart’s guard up and you’ll appear untrustworthy.

Chapter 5 — Trigger two words that transform negotiations: Gain permission to persuade

• In 2000, when Voss was Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI’s elite Crisis Negotiation Unit, he dealt with an international hostage situation where an American was being held hostage by an Islamic Group in the Philippines. As he writes the story, he shares insights into how he and his team were able to free the American.
• The two words that will transform any negotiation are “That’s right.” You need to learn how to get your counterpart to say it. It signals a breakthrough for you, and the other person will most likely not even notice.
• “That’s right” reflects that you have convinced someone you truly understand them. This sense of understanding causes them to disarm, and behavioral change becomes possible.
• Humans have an innate urge to feel understood. A positively affirmed person is more likely to receive constructive feedback and adjust their behavior.
• To trigger a “that’s right,” you need six tactics:

1. Effective Pauses: Silence is powerful. Use it for emphasis and to keep the other person talking. Eventually, they will clear out their emotions.
2. Minimal Encouragers: Use simple phrases like “yes,” “okay,” “Uh-huh,” or “I see” to convey you’re paying attention and keep the person talking.
3. Mirroring: Listen and repeat back.
4. Labeling: Name the feelings and identify with how the person feels.
5. Paraphrasing: Repeat back but in your own words to show that you really understand.
6. Summarizing: Use a combination of retelling the meaning of what was said in your own words and acknowledging the emotions underneath it (paraphrasing and labeling).

• Beware of “You’re right.” This signals that you’re headed towards disaster.
  • They might agree with you, but because the conclusion is not their own, it won’t affect their behavior. Nothing will change.
  • Or, they might just have said it so that we would stop bothering them.
• Voss was able to let the Islamic Group leader know that he understood his situation and his feelings by phrasing his words back to him (even if they were nonsense). When the leader said “That’s right,” he let his guard down and Voss’s team was able to rescue the American.
• “‘That’s right’ is better than ‘yes.’ Strive for it” (p.112).

Chapter 6 — Bend their reality: How to shape what is fair

• Voss recounts the experience of dealing with a hostage negotiation in Haiti, where people were kidnapped daily. At first, he and his team thought these were politically driven kidnappings. By listening closely and debriefing previous hostages, they figured out all these kidnappers wanted was money to party on the weekends. This finding changed the negotiation tactics completely.
• Once we understand the other party’s unspoken needs (or wants), we discover several variables that can become of leverage to us to change our counterpart’s mind.
• Typically, negotiations push for a win-win scenario. But this isn’t effective. Best case scenario, neither side is satisfied. Worst case, you’re setting yourself up to lose.
  • Splitting the difference is a bad deal. And no deal is better than a bad deal.
  • We compromise, not because it’s right, but because it’s easy and safe.
• Time and deadlines are the most crucial variables in negotiation. They trick you into thinking that closing the deal is more important than a good deal. They make us impulsive because we fear the consequences – the perception of losing the deal.
• In the past, people thought keeping your deadline a secret was a good strategy. But it is not. Once the negotiation is over for one side, it is over for the other side too. It also leads to the risk of an impasse. While you feel pressured and hurried because you do know your deadline, your counterpart will hold out for more because they think they’ve got time.
• Another common strategy negotiators employ is using the term “fair.” Because humans like to be respected, we are easily swayed when we feel like we’re being treated fairly. But fairness is most often messy, emotional, and destructive.
• There are three ways to use the word “fair,” but only one is positive:

1. Using it as a defensive move to destabilize others. It is a manipulation that sounds like “we just want what’s fair.” And even if the person is just overwhelmed and not manipulating you, it is most likely not fair. The best way to respond, either way, is “Okay, I apologize. Let’s go back to where I started treating you unfairly and we’ll fix it.”
2. Using it to accuse the other person of being dishonest. “We’ve given you a fair offer.” It is usually a distraction to make you give in. The best way to respond is to mirror “fair?” and pause. Then add “Seems like you’re ready to show the evidence that supports that.”
3. Using it as a positive and constructive, even honest, negotiation. “I want you to feel like you’re being treated fairly all the time. Please stop me at any time if you feel I am being unfair and we will address it.” Start your negotiations like this.

• In every negotiation, keep in mind emotional drivers and frame the benefits in a language that will resonate. E.g., a babysitter doesn’t just sell child-care. She/he can also sell a relaxing, stress-free evening for the parents.
• Prospect Theory suggests that we are drawn to sure things over probabilities, even if the latter is a better choice. Keep in mind that we are also loss aversive. In a tough negotiation, persuade your counterpart by showing what they’ll definitely lose if the deal falls through.
• A good strategy for negotiation is Bending Reality. The following are six tactics/strategies:

1. Anchor their emotions. Start with an accusation audit and acknowledge the other person’s fears. Anchor their emotions in preparation for loss to exacerbate loss aversion. They’ll avoid it.

• g., if you’re going to tell someone you’re going to have to pay them less than what you’d agreed, try saying something like “When we get off the phone, you’ll think [insert their fears here] … Still, I wanted to bring this opportunity to you before I took it to someone else.”

2. Let the other person go first (most of the time). When negotiating an offer or price, going first might not be the best approach. Maybe they were willing to offer more. Let them anchor monetary negotiations.
3. Establish a range. If you have to make an offer, set an extreme anchor to make your offer seem reasonable and use a range to appear less aggressive. “At [X company] people in this job get between $130,000 and $170,000.” Research shows they’ll most likely adjust to the direction of the opening number, so plan accordingly.
4. Pivot to non-monetary terms. Offer (or take, depending on the side you’re on) something that’s not monetary that doesn’t cost you (them) anything but helps the other person (you). E.g., Voss once accepted an offer at a very low price because it included him being on the front cover of a reputable magazine. It helped him and cost nothing to the magazine editors who had to have someone on their cover anyway.
5. When talking about numbers, use odd numbers. Anything that’s not rounded, e.g., $37,263, sounds like a thoughtful calculation. These numbers sound serious and are more convincing to your counterpart.
6. Surprise with a gift. An unrelated surprise gift usually helps.

• To negotiate a better salary, be pleasantly persistent on non-salary terms (if they can’t meet those requests, they may counter with more money). Make sure to define success for your position, as well as metrics for your next raise.

Chapter 7 — An illusion of control: Calibrate questions & transform conflict into collaboration

• As Voss recalls one of his most dramatic experiences with a 13-month hostage situation in the Philippines that went really bad (because the FBI’s allies weren’t really helping but keeping them uninformed), he shares lessons learned.
• At that time, in 2001, negotiating was a match that sought to exhaust the opponent until they gave up. But soon they learned that negotiation “was coaxing, not overcoming; co-opting, not defeating. [It] involves getting your counterpart to do the work for you and suggest your solution himself. It involves giving the illusion of control while you, in fact, were the one defining the conversation” (p. 141).
• Back then, the mentality was very tit-for-tat. The perception was that if the FBI called the bad guys, it was to ask for something, and if they gave it to them, then the FBI would have to give something back.
• Nowadays, the best strategy is to suspend unbelief and recur to open-ended questions. E.g., “How do I know she’s all right?” This is a natural and normal question that, instead of requesting a fact, it engages a conversation; it asks for help. In his experience, Voss finds that this question leads kidnappers to decide on their own to put the hostage on the phone. And they still perceive they remain in control.
• As persuaders, we don’t have to get others to believe what we say. We need to stop them from unbelieving. Unbelief refers to resisting what the other side is saying. It’s complete rejection. To do so, use calibrated questions: questions that start with “how” or “what.”
  • By implicitly asking for help, you give your counterpart an illusion of control that will inspire them to continue speaking and revealing more information.
  • g., Voss tells the story of a patient that insisted he wanted to leave the emergency room. Nurses and residents couldn’t handle him as he ripped out his IV and packed his bags. So they called the senior physician. When the patient said, “I’m going to leave,” the doctor, instead of saying “You can’t leave,” said “What is so important about leaving?” The patient explained he had some errands to run, and the doctor had someone help him with that. The patient then decided to stay.
• Like softening words (e.g., “perhaps,” “maybe,” “I think,” or “it seems”), calibrated questions take out the aggression in a confrontational statement.
• Calibrated questions help tell the counterpart what the problem is without having to directly tell them and cause conflict. But they have to have direction. You have to design (calibrate) the questions carefully. First, avoid verbs and words like “can,” “is/are,” and “do/does” in your questions, as they lead to “yes/no” answers. Start with “what” or “how.”
  • Be careful with “why.” It may sound aggressive or accusatory. Use it only if you want your counterpart to defend a goal that serves you.
  • Maintain your tone of voice, be respectful, have self-control, and regulate your emotions.
• Calibrate your questions to point your counterpart toward solving your problem.

Chapter 8 — Guarantee execution: Spot the liars to ensure follow-through from everyone else

• Negotiating isn’t just about reaching an agreement. Is also about making sure it can be implemented and ensuring it will happen. “‘Yes’ is nothing without ‘How’” (p. 163).
• To get to the “How,” rely on the calibrated questions technique. This approach puts pressure on your counterpart to not only come up with answers but also to contemplate your demands. It also forces your counterpart to figure out how to implement the deal.
  • Calibrated questions convince your counterpart that the final solution is their idea. They are more likely to follow through.
  • Ask questions like, “How will we know we are on track?” and “How will we address things if we find we’re off track?” Then, summarize their answers until you get a “That’s right.”
  • Controlling your tone of voice is important to make you not sound accusatory.
• Few deal makers are sole decision-makers. Always consider the other players in the negotiation. Take the time to discover who are the other players and how to affect them.
  • Again, you can rely on calibrated questions like, “How on board are the people not on this call?” and “What do your colleagues see as a challenge in this plan?”
• Eventually, you will run into people who lie or try to scare you into an agreement. To handle aggression and identify falsehood, it is important to learn how to spot verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal cues that reveal these intentions. The following are tools that can help you:

1. The 7-38-55 Rule: Research on how we perceive messages found that only 7% depends on the words in a message. Thirty-eight percent comes from the tone of voice and 55% from body language. This is a useful ratio for negotiators to assess their counterparts. When words and body language or tone don’t align, use labels. E.g., “I heard you say ‘yes’ but it seemed like there was hesitation in your voice.”
2. The Rule of Three: To avoid a counterfeit “yes,” have your counterpart agree to the same thing three times. Be careful of your phrasing so you don’t sound pushy or repetitive.
   • The first time should be when the person naturally commits to something. For a second “Yes,” you can label or summarize what they said so that they answer, “That’s right.” Use a calibrated “How” or “What” question to get your third “Yes.”
   • You can also use three versions of the same calibrated question. Just make sure they are different enough in your wording.
3. The Pinocchio Effect: Most people have telltale signs when they lie. A few common signs include overusing third-person pronouns. Another one is speaking in more complex sentences. People who are lying are worried about being believed so they work harder to sound believable and often overdo it.
4. Pronoun Usage: If your counterpart uses a lot of “I” or “me,” the real power of decision probably lies somewhere else. But if you hear a lot of “we,” “they,” or “them,” you’re probably dealing with someone savvy and the decisionmaker.
5. Using Your Name: Using your name makes you appear more like a real person to your counterpart. It leads to a sense of humanity. And, if you funnily introduce yourself, you break the ice and reduce roadblocks.

• To get your counterparts to bid against themselves, learn how to indirectly say “No.” Start with questions like “How am I supposed to do that?”, being careful of your tone. Then, say something like “Your offer is very generous. I’m sorry, but it still doesn’t work for me.” This is an elegant way of saying “No” without using the word. “I’m sorry” also builds empathy.
• This strategy is most effective when done up to four times. Your third “No.” can sound like “I’m sorry but I’m afraid I can’t do that.” And your fourth one could be “I’m sorry, no.”

Chapter 9 — Bargain hard: How to get your price

• There are three types of negotiators. It is important to learn who you are so that you can work on your weaknesses. But it is also key to decipher who your counterpart is each time you negotiate to adjust your strategies.

1. Analyst: These negotiators are methodical and diligent. Rarely are they in a rush, as they rather take more time but get it right. They’re often distant in their way of speaking, which might limit their ability to build empathy with their counterpart. They also hate surprises and spend time doing their research. They tend to be reserved and use silence for thinking. They’re skeptical, so asking too many questions can backfire. They expect that if they give something, you’ll give back. Apologies have little value to them.
2. Accommodator: This type of negotiation spends most of his time building relationships. They love a win-win and building rapport (to the point they might end up not accomplishing anything). They are sociable, optimistic, peace-seekers, and don’t manage time well. But they might also offer and agree to something they can’t actually deliver. If there are potential problems, they won’t bring them up. Do your research beforehand. If you’re an accommodator, be aware of the effect of too much chitchat.
3. Assertive: The Assertive type thinks time is money. They’re driven by a sense of getting things done, even if it isn’t perfect. They like winning above all else, are direct and candid, and don’t worry about future interactions. They want to be heard but don’t really care much about listening. To them, every silence is an opportunity to speak, so calibrated questions, labels, and summaries work well with them; especially the “that’s right” technique. If you’re an Assertive, be conscious of your tone, and rely on calibrated questions and labels to sound more approachable.

• In this context, the Golden Rule doesn’t apply. It is the Black Swan rule that works: Don’t treat others the way you want to be treated. Treat them the way they want to be treated.
• It’s also important to be assertive but smartly. The following are four strategies:

1. Strategic Umbrage: A little bit of genuine anger increases your advantage. Too much anger never works. But faking it can backfire and destroy trust. You have to learn to “threat with poise,” show only a little anger and channel it properly.
2. “Why” Questions: Use rarely, as they make people defensive. They only work when a dubious counterpart needs to be flipped to your side. E.g., “Why would you do that?” with an emphasis on that making it sound like it favors you.
3. “I” Messages: Singular first-person pronouns set boundaries but avoid confrontation. “I’m sorry, it just doesn’t work for me” makes the focus on you.
4. No Neediness: No deal is better than a bad deal.

• Before employing any of these strategies, try to de-escalate the situation. Suggest a time out.
• Prepare your negotiations beforehand. Rely on the Ackerman Model:

1. Set your target price.
2. Set your first offer at 65% of your target price.
3. Calculate three raises of decreasing increments (up to 85, 95, and 100%).
4. Use empathy-building strategies and indirect ways of saying “No.”
5. When calculating the final amount, use imprecise numbers (e.g., $37,893).
6. When on your final number, throw in nonmonetary items.

Chapter 10 — Find a black swan: Reveal breakthroughs by revealing the unknown unknowns

• Voss tells the story of the first time a hostage-taker killed someone on a deadline in 1981. Not only was that a completely unforeseen event, but this was also among the first cases of suicide-by-cop. No one saw it coming.
  • In the experience of the FBI agents at the time, deadlines were a way to have the mind focused but what the guys usually wanted was money, respect, or a helicopter. Everyone knew that. This was a known known.
  • What happened next showed the power of Black Swans: hidden and unexpected information that is game-changing to every negotiation. The unknown unknowns.
• Black Swan theory suggests that things previously thought impossible or that we had never thought before can happen.
• Events such as 9/11 or the banking crisis of 2008 were never predicted. Yet, looking back, there were markers all along. We just didn’t see them because we weren’t paying attention. A Black Swan symbolizes how useless predictions based on previous experiences are.
• Black Swans are crucial for negotiation. In every process, you will deal with known knowns, known unknowns (things we know exist and that can happen, but we don’t know for this precise case, like your counterpart getting sick), and unknown unknowns or Black Swans.
• Voss explains through his story that when bits and pieces of a case don’t add up, it is usually because our personal frames of reference are misguiding us. Our known knowns should guide us to the extent that they don’t blind us to what we don’t know.
• To uncover unknown unknowns, we first need to understand the three types of leverage:

1. Positive Leverage refers to your ability as a negotiator to provide or withhold things your counterpart wants. If the other person says “I want…”, you know you have positive leverage. It gives you a psychological advantage.
2. Negative Leverage is what most of us imagine when we hear the word “leverage.” It’s when the negotiator can make the other person suffer. “If you don’t pay…, I will…” Voss indicates he doesn’t believe in threats and suggests using negative leverage extremely carefully. A better technique is to label the negative leverage. E.g., “It seems like you strongly value the fact that you always pay on time.”
3. Normative Leverage: Every person has values and morals. Normative leverage is using those values and norms to advance your position. If you find inconsistencies between your counterpart’s beliefs and actions, you can point them out and have leverage.

• Research suggests that we trust people more when they appear more similar to us. If you point out similarities between you and your counterpart, you’ll gain influence.
• Research has also found people are more likely to respond to requests if you use the word “because” and explain a reason.
• The following are reasons why a negotiator can sometimes mistakenly perceive their counterpart as “crazy:”

1. They Are Ill-Informed: People sometimes operate with incomplete information. Your job is to discover what information that is and supply it.
2. They Are Constrained: Other people or circumstances can limit their ability to negotiate.
3. They Have Other Interests.

• To unearth Black Swans, make sure you meet with people face-to-face. Observe them not only during the formal structured meeting but before and after, when they are unguarded. Work hard to understand the other person’s “religion:” their worldviews, emotions, etc.
• “One can only be an exceptional negotiator, and a great person, by both listening and speaking clearly and empathetically; by treating others and yourself with respect and dignity; and most of all, by being honest…” (p.243).