Articles that open with "FBI teaches you XXX, YYY" are usually nothing more than clickbait. But we recently read Chris Voss's 《Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if your life depended on it》, and its author really is an FBI negotiation expert — someone who spent many years on hostage-rescue negotiations, no lightweight by any measure. Many of his negotiation tactics are not only practical but also closely tied to psychology, which makes them genuinely useful — they can make you more persuasive. Today we share the key ideas from this book, both to consolidate our own understanding and to pass these practical tactics along to you.
Never Split the Difference
What does "Never Split the Difference" mean? Quite simply, it means don't compromise. Many people assume that negotiation is about each side giving a little ground and meeting somewhere in the middle. But the middle is sometimes a solution neither side genuinely wants to accept; forcing it through can actually undermine your long-term interests.
The example Chris Voss gives in the book is this: imagine you want to wear black shoes to a gathering, but your wife wants you in brown ones. Could you each give a little ground — black on your right foot, brown on your left? Clearly that is not an ideal solution. Never splitting the difference is not about winner-takes-all or strong-arming the other side; it is about finding a solution both sides are genuinely happy with. So how do you get there? It starts with understanding the other person's emotions.
Negotiation isn't rational calculation — it's emotional influence
We wonder if you have ever had an experience like this. In certain situations you can't out-argue the other person, so you reluctantly agree with their point of view, or even do things their way. But deep down there is always a knot of resentment, a voice saying, "You're just more eloquent; I couldn't out-talk you, but I'm still right." So you have no intention of actually changing your own view. If it's a work situation, you grudgingly go along with the other side's plan, but you do it half-heartedly, and the end result satisfies no one. This outcome is the product of a negotiation or debate that prizes reason alone: you win on the merits, but you never actually win the other person over. To change this state of affairs, you have to understand the mechanics of how the human mind works.
Traditional negotiation theory treats people as creatures who act purely from reason, forever trying to maximise their own self-interest. But is that really what people are like? There is a behavioural-economics experiment called the Ultimatum Game that goes like this. Two players take the roles of A and B. A is given 10 US dollars and can then propose, however they like, how to split it with B. If B accepts the split, things proceed according to A's plan; if B refuses, neither side gets anything.
Assume both sides' sole aim is to maximise their own monetary gain, and that they act only by reason — what should A do? Obviously, offer the other side 0.01 dollars and keep 9.99 for themselves. Why? Because a little money is better for the other side than nothing at all, so they will accept the split. That is the theory; in practice, however, very few B players will accept a share of less than five dollars, because while their focus is on maximising their own interest, they also need to feel they are being treated fairly. The feeling of being treated unfairly can leave someone willing to watch the whole thing burn down rather than accept it. So how do you attend to the other person's feelings during a negotiation? Chris Voss mentions several tactics in the book:
Negotiation Tactic One: Mirroring
According to the Matching Hypothesis in psychology, people are naturally drawn to those who are similar to themselves. Mirroring simply means repeating the last few words the other person said. This gives them the feeling that "we're in the same boat," and it also shows that you really have been listening to what they said. There are two ways to use this tactic. The first is to repeat the words in a questioning tone, as in the example below:
Boss 1: "Mary, sort out this report for me and hand it in by the end of today."
You 2 (questioning tone): "Hand it in by the end of today?"
Boss 3: "Yes, this report really is important. You don't need to go to the 2pm meeting today — do this report first."
The value of mirroring the other person in a questioning tone is that you can disagree with them in a way they find comfortable. In the example above, you originally had a meeting to attend today. If you had said to your boss straight out, "I'm too busy today, I can't do it," he probably wouldn't be very pleased. But by mirroring what he said in a questioning tone, you are in fact encouraging him to say more, while at the same time signalling that you don't entirely agree with him. This way of disagreeing that puts the other person at ease prompts them to rethink their own position, just as above, where the boss steps into your shoes and considers how he can help you finish the report by the end of the day — by, for example, excusing you from the meeting. The second way is simply to restate, dropping the questioning tone; this carries no sense of disagreement, but simply acknowledges how the other person feels and encourages them to keep talking. For example:
John 1: "After Zoe and I broke up, it felt like my heart had been cut open."
You 2 (level, empathetic tone): "Your heart had been cut open."
John 3: "Yes, I think of him every single day. The feeling is really……"
Negotiation Tactic Two: Lead the other person to say "no"
The second tactic is to lead the other person to say no. What? Aren't we trying to get them to say "yes"? Chris Voss argues that a lot of the time we say "yes" only because we don't want to get tangled up with the other person or hurt their feelings, not because we genuinely agree with what they are saying. Think of those secondary-school classmates you haven't seen in ten years who, the moment they call, start pitching a product at you:
Old classmate 1: "Hey, long time no see! As we get older, don't you think a healthy life is really important?"
You 2 (reluctantly): "I suppose so……"
Old classmate 3: "Then you're exactly right! I've got this XYZ scheme — are you interested in hearing about it?"
In fact, most people sense by the first line that the other person is setting them up, and they instantly turn defensive — at which point nothing you say will get through. A better approach is to lead the other person to say "no," because saying "no" gives the person you're talking to a sense of being in control of the situation, like this:
Old classmate 1: "Hey, to be honest, I'm in the insurance business now — would that make you unwilling to talk to me?"
You 2: "No, of course not."
Old classmate 3: "Great. I'd like to tell you a bit about the XYZ scheme. If it really isn't right for you, feel free to turn me down outright."
This tactic at least keeps the other person from feeling they're being set up. The other person may not necessarily buy insurance from you, but lines 1 and 3 give them a sense of control over the situation, so that they don't take against you to begin with. On a separate, minor point of personal opinion, I think being upfront and honest about asking someone for help or pitching a product feels far better than arranging to meet them and then "beating around the bush" too much.
Negotiation Tactic Three: Ask questions that give the other person the illusion of leading
Following on from the previous tactic, the truth is everyone likes the feeling of being in control of a situation. Telling someone "no" or "I can't do it" outright — especially a boss or a superior — strips away their sense of control. Of course, you can't grit your teeth and force yourself to do everything either, so there is in fact a better way to "say no": ask some artful questions (Calibrated Questions). Let us pick up the earlier example of Mary and her boss:
Mary 4: "Today's meeting needs me to do XYZ, so it's hard to step away. But it sounds like you think this report is important — so what do you think I should do?"
Boss 5: "All right, then I'll ask Samson to do the report."
Dialogue 4 actually applies quite a few tactics in a single line. The first is saying "you think this report is important," acknowledging the other person's situation and feelings. The second is placing what the other person wants to hear after the "but," rather than "It sounds like you think this report is important, but today's meeting needs me to do XYZ, so it's hard to step away." Because the word "but" carries the implication that the emphasis falls on what comes after it, saying it the latter way places the emphasis on the refusal rather than on acknowledging the other person's feelings.
Finally, the main event arrives. "So what do you think I should do?" transfers the responsibility for how the plan gets done over to the other person. With a bit of luck this prompts them to take your situation into account — what Chris Voss calls Forced Empathy — and it helps give the other person the feeling that things are within their control.
That's all for today. 《Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if your life depended on it》 really is a good book, and readers who need it can pick up a copy and take a look.
Negotiation and persuasion are among the core skills of any manager. Want to practise these tactics systematically as a team? TreeholeHK's corporate training offers communication and negotiation workshops grounded in psychological principles, using role-play and hands-on practice so that the skills you learn truly stick.
Comments
No comments yet — share your thoughts.