Everything we’ve previously been taught about negotiation is wrong: people are not rational; there is no such thing as ‘fair’; compromise is the worst thing you can do; the real art of negotiation lies in mastering the intricacies of No, not Yes. These surprising tactics—which radically diverge from conventional negotiating strategy—weren’t cooked up in a classroom, but are the field-tested tools FBI agents used to talk criminals and hostage-takers around the world into (or out of) just about any scenario you can imagine. 

In NEVER SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It, former FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator Chris Voss breaks down these strategies so that anyone can use them in the workplace, in business, or at home.

This talk was moderated by Mairin Chesney.

My name is Maren Chesney, and welcome to this Talks at Google event.

For much of his career, Chris Voss has been at the forefront of negotiation technique.

the New York City Joint terrorist task force for 14 years and lead crisis negotiator for the New York City division of the FBI before becoming the FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator.

He currently teaches business negotiation in the MBA programs at the University of Southern California and Georgetown University as well as having taught at Harvard University and guest lectured at Northwestern University.

He is the founder and CEO of the Black Swan Group and author of the new book, Never Split the Difference, Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It.

Talks at Google is honored to welcome him here today.

And I got to tell you, with that introduction, it makes it sound like I can't keep a job, doesn't it?

So to begin, you and I were talking earlier, and I was telling you about how I read your book.

And it is full of incredibly practical tips and great stories.

And I told you about something that happened to me this morning.

In preparing for this talk, I was going through all of my notes and all of the tickets and making sure that everything was in line.

And I realized that I had forgotten to request directors' chairs for us to sit in.

And so I sent out a quick email of, oh, shoot, I'm so sorry.

Is there any way that we can get some chairs for the day?

And the response was, no, we're cleaning up from I.O.

Sorry, but we can't get them to you today.

And 1 of the lessons in the book is that no is not the end of the conversation.

And me, before reading this book, would have said, oh, OK, I got to know.

But I really did think of the book and think, OK, no.

What's a different question that can be asked?

And so I responded, well, is there any way that I can go pick them up somewhere?

I understand you can't drop them off, but can I go pick them up?

To which I got a response, actually, I was able to arrange it so that they can be dropped off for you.

So Yeah, that was just 1 of the many, many topics that you highlight in this book.

All right, so first of all, thanks for getting me a chair.

Now, the interesting thing about that story, though, is 2 really important points.

First of all, there's a lot more space between yes and no than most of us realize.

Sometimes we get into sort of a binary on-off, yes-no sort of thing, and we don't realize how much space there really is there if we just give the other side a little bit of time to sort of think, a moment, if you will.

There's some data out there that indicates to us that a moment is just 3 seconds.

And the 3 seconds can be an eternity for mind process.

So the other thing that's also really interesting about that, and I think it's 1 of the completely different approaches we take in a book, is what happens after the other side says no.

Now, early on in my career, I came across a book that I still refer to all the time called Start With No by a guy named Jim Camp.

And Camp's theory was if you make the other side feel free that they can say no at any time, then it respects their autonomy.

They'll be more willing to work with you, just knowing that it's OK to say no.

So we decided to take it 1 step further and see what happens when someone actually says no.

And since yes is protection, or no, yes is commitment, And we don't know what we've gotten ourselves into, which is why we're scared to say yes.

That typically what we find is as soon as somebody says no, if they feel protected, they tend to relax, they center a little bit more, and they can think more quickly, which is exactly what happened with you.

You remain very pleasant in the way you talk to her.

And we know that if we're pleasant to interact with, it actually helps the other person think better.

Because your mind works up to 31% more effectively if you're in a positive frame of mind.

So when you're in a positive frame of mind, it triggers in somebody else and it makes them smarter.

Just by smiling at them, You've got a wonderful tone of voice.

So she's already making this person smarter by the way she interacts with her.

She says, your counterpart says no, which she now sort of centers herself and triggers.

And the next thing you know, She's throwing ideas at you and working it out.

And that's finding that space between yes and no.

And many times, it's triggered when the other person actually says no, because they feel protected and they feel safe.

And people are more likely, once they feel protected and safe, to interact with you.

So just in a few moments, you were brilliant.

So after that first no, in general, what's the correct response?

Earlier when we were chatting, you said, well, you don't want to ask a, you don't want to attack in any way.

So what's the right approach after that initial no?

Well, first of all, just to hesitate, give them a chance to think.

Because You never know what's going through the other person's mind when you start talking with them.

There's probably 4 or 5 things that have been going through their mind throughout the day.

So giving them a chance to sort of focus on you is the other thing that no does.

We never call anybody on the phone and say, have you got a few minutes to talk, ever.

Because if you say that to somebody, a whole bunch of things start going through their mind.

Whenever we call someone, we say, is now a bad time to talk?

Or they'll say, yeah, as a matter of fact, it is.

Now, the follow up to that, if nothing good happens in that space that happens after that, the next most important thing to do is get the other person to say, that's right.

And you get a that's right when you summarize a situation from the other person's point of view.

Don't be afraid to summarize a situation that sounds like it's against your best interests.

And we've broken open a number of negotiations.

But it's a summary of what the other person, the facts, and how the other person sees them.

And that's right will then move you forward in like ridiculously phenomenal ways.

It's actually, there's a number of different reasons why we think that it works.

1 of the reasons is my co-writer, Tal Raz, is brilliant.

If he's written it, it's well written, and it's worth reading.

But We were going through this, and he said, I think it triggers a subtle epiphany.

Because think of the number of times when you've heard someone on TV, or you've seen a slogan, that you totally agreed with.

That's right is when you completely agree with something and you think it's the complete truth.

So that's a powerful thing to get somebody to say.

The other thing I think it is, we think it is, is if someone you're talking to says that to you, they're telling you they feel empathy with you at that brief moment.

And there's a difference between empathy and sympathy.

But when they feel empathy from you, they feel connected with you.

So if you get a no, the very next most important thing to try to get out of somebody's that's right.

And so it sounds like the that's right is similar to, oh, you get it.

And there are a couple of times where, in different ways, you sort of highlight the importance of your counterpart feeling like you get it, finding their religion and triggering a that's right.

And so how is this empathy and the oh, you understand important in a negotiation?

You know, it's a great question because we believe the entire world breaks down into 3 basic approaches to conflict.

And it's basically fight, flight, or make friends.

And Each 1, something is more important to them than making the deal.

The deal is secondary to each 1 of those 3 types.

And 1 particular type that I happen to belong to, the assertive type, the natural born assertives, We think of ourselves as being very direct and honest.

It's more important that you actually understand where I'm coming from than you agree with me.

If you know completely what my perspective is and I'm satisfied that you've heard me out, then there's a pretty good chance that I'm going to agree to your deal, as long as you know where I'm coming from.

I mean, it's sort of like if you work for a boss who wasn't doing what you want him or her to do, well, if you understood, if they knew that you knew where you were coming from, they accepted everything that you said, you actually wouldn't have a problem if they didn't follow your advice.

Just as long as you were 1, 000% sure they knew where you were coming from.

So the other 2 types, what we call the accommodator, friend-oriented person.

They want to make sure that we have a great relationship.

We don't make a deal that's fine, but as long as you know that I like you and I feel you like me, That's important.

And then the third type is the analytical.

And they're highly pragmatic, try very hard to make dispassionate decisions.

As long as they have the opportunity to share their reason for what they want, their thinking, the results of their analysis, then they're happy also.

So there are things more important than making a deal to all of us.

Do you find that people usually fall pretty strongly into 1 of these 3 camps?

Or are some people a combination of 2, or even a combination of all 3?

Well, you end up, the more experience you get,

you tend to pick up traits from the other 2 types.

Because to be a complete negotiator, even a rainmaker, you need all 3.

You need to be able to assert your best position.

And you need to be able to assert your best position.

So very few people are just like stone cold 1 of the 3.

And then as we learn, we begin to pick up the other types.

So the assertives and the analysts tend to pick up the accommodators' characteristics because there's some solid data out there that indicates that you're 6 times more likely to make a deal with somebody you like.

And as an assertive, I want to know a better way to come to agreement.

So if you enjoy interacting with me, that increases the chances that I'll get what I want.

And then Do you have to adapt your technique, depending on who you're dealing with, as well?

Well, you learn, and then you begin to understand that if you have impasse, if you have a disagreement, how the other person might be looking at it in really broad characteristics.

Like, for example, just silence, dead silence.

Each 1 of those 3 types looks at silence very differently.

As an assertive, if you're quiet, I think that means you want to hear more from me.

Where if you're an analyst and you're quiet, you just want to think.

And I could completely misinterpret that.

And you're happy when I go silent, because you're like, thank god he shut up so I can think.

And then the accommodator, who's very relationship-focused when there's silence, well, the only time the accommodator goes silent is when they're mad.

So if we're talking and you go silent on me, I'm afraid you're mad at me.

So When there's an impasse, when there's a difference, when you're having a problem, it's usually a result of the 3 types.

And I sent him an email once when we were working on the book.

And there was some wording that I wanted to have changed.

And what we were working on, I want it written a little bit differently.

And a writer will say, change whatever you want.

You start changing words, they don't like that.

I didn't hear anything from him, like 4 or 5 days.

And now I'm like, oh my god, oh my god, this has got to be bad.

So I call him on the phone, and he'd been on vacation with his family.

And he goes, what's with all the concern?

It's 4 or 5 days since we spoke, and I sent you this email.

Well, a lot of people tell me going silent on them bothers them, too.

You started your negotiation career in hostage negotiation.

Well, I started it actually when I was about 3, trying to get out of trouble with my parents.

And so I was wondering if you might talk a little bit about how you found Hostas Negotiation and then how that's led into the rest of your career, founding the Black Swan Group, and how negotiation has been a part of your life.

Completely indirectly, everything sort of fell out of the sky.

I was on a SWAT team with the FBI, had a recurring knee injury, and then just decided before the knee was completely shot, whether you could still put it back together, try something different.

And in the crisis response, I always like crisis response, We had hostage negotiators.

I didn't know what they did, but how hard could it be?

And so I decided I was going to be a hostage.

And I very definitely distinctly remember thinking, yeah, I'll talk to Terrace.

So I went to the head of the New York office, this team, a woman named Amy, phenomenal, tough New York agent.

Any background whatsoever in this that would make you a good negotiator?

Everybody wants to be a hostage negotiator.

And I said, there's got to be something I could do.

Go volunteer at a suicide hotline, which I did.

I recontacted Amy recently because I wanted to put the story in the book.

And she said, you know, I had to have told 1, 000 people to volunteer at suicide hotlines, and 2 people did, and you were 1 of them.

1 of the things I learned was Ask the right person, do what they tell you to do.

And I said, yeah, I've been volunteering.

It was founded by Norman Vincent Peale, the power positive thinking guy in New York.

She said, that's where I volunteered too.

So I was the only 1 that did what I was told to do.

I went down to the FBI's crisis hostage negotiation school.

And then came back and was lucky enough, not terribly long after I got back, there was a bank robbery with hostages in Brooklyn, which is actually a very rare event.

In real life, it happens in the entire country about once every 20 years.

The first bank robber to surrender surrendered to me personally.

And then I started to teach that incident and tell everybody how it went and found that I liked teaching.

And next thing I know, I'm sitting here in Google.

I wondered if you also might talk about the Black Swan Group a little bit and what you do there.

While I was still with the Bureau, talked my way into Harvard Law School's negotiation course.

And while I was there collaborating with my now colleagues at Harvard, we decided we were doing the same thing, only same techniques, different stakes.

Basically, that means I had better stories.

And then after that, I decided that this was an area that hostage negotiation does apply to business and personal negotiations.

And I was encouraged by my colleagues there, Sheila Heen, John Richardson, Doug Stone, phenomenal people have been very supportive of me ever since I came across them.

And so I just decided it would be something new to do.

Because most of my career, I've liked going in new directions, trying stuff that other people hadn't tried.

So about the time I retired, which was in 2007, which I know already seems like a long time ago, there was a book out called The Black Swan.

And it was about very small, little, innocuous things that had massive impacts.

And that's the whole design of these skills.

I mean, these skills, even if the other guy knows that you're negotiating with them, they're still OK with it.

1 of the cases I talk about in the book, It was a very long kidnapping in the Philippines.

And ultimately, 1 of the turning points was getting the terrorists to say that's right on the phone.

There was a $10 million ransom demand on the table, going from $10 million to 0 in 1 conversation, space of about 5 minutes.

It had been going on for a while, and our negotiator got the bad guy to say, that's right.

Murdering, raping, head chopping bad guy.

So a couple of weeks after that case was over, I was back in the Philippines on another case.

And the negotiator that I was coaching is a phenomenal, patriotic, wonderful human being, a guy named Benji.

He says, hey, you're never going to guess who called me on the phone 2 weeks ago.

And he said it was our terrorist, a bad guy named Sabaya.

He just knew Benji had to be the government military cop, some high-ranking official, but didn't know who he was.

He said, hey, have you been promoted yet?

I don't know what you said to me on the phone.

See, even when they know, they're still OK with it.

And that was the whole approach to negotiation.

Someone will deal with you, and they won't feel worse as a result of it.

Most people I know, if they got a negotiation story, they'll be like, oh, yeah, I had these guys over a barrel.

Well, the problem with that kind of approach is if you hammer somebody in a negotiation, they're going to wait for the rest of their life to pay you back.

And you don't hammer people that you never see again.

They're going to be people that stay in your world 1 way or another, either your day-to-day life, or they will see you again.

So you want to negotiate successfully with people where afterwards they call you up on the phone and they say, nice job, Nice job.

I'd talk to you again, which is exactly what happened in the Philippines.

You do make the point in this book that your counterpart is also your partner, which I thought was an interesting point in the negotiation of that you're not necessarily going head to head.

You're trying to work towards a conclusion.

But you also make the point that compromise is a little bit of a dirty word sometimes in negotiations.

And I hope they don't bleep that out on the tape, right?

What about negotiations do you think involves working together?

And then what about compromise is so negative?

a difference between a high value trade and compromise.

Compromise, splitting the difference, meeting halfway, that's usually kind of a lazy approach.

When you compromise, you meet in the middle.

I like to say, never be so sure of what you want that you wouldn't take something better.

See all Talks at Google transcripts on Youtube

Never Split the Difference | Chris Voss | Talks at Google