Chris Voss, former FBI lead kidnapping negotiator.
In a negotiation, laying bare crucial information that the other side — or a client, perhaps — is keeping from you is part art, part science.
Former FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator Chris Voss — whose "emotional intelligence on steroids" was key to his success — reveals how to uncover black swans and other FBI negotiating tacks in an interview with ThinkAdvisor.
Voss' bestselling book, "Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended on It," written with Tahl Raz (Harper Business- 2016), is packed with stories of Voss' dramatic hostage negotiations, as well as serious how-to info.
His work for the FBI included a 14-year stint in New York City with the agency's Joint Terrorism Task Force and serving there as lead crisis negotiator. Later, he was a lead hostage negotiator in Iraq and Gaza.
Retiring from the FBI in 2007, he founded The Black Swan Group consulting firm, which trains individuals and advises companies on complex negotiations. He is a frequent keynote speaker debunking "the biggest myths of negotiation."
In the interview, Voss, 62, discusses how his style of collaborative negotiation, as opposed to attacking the other side, brings superior outcomes. Effective negotiation is "applied people smarts" to uncover value, he frames it.
This is not to say that collaborating means compromising, or splitting the difference. That's tantamount to "caving in" and can result in "leaving millions on the table," argues Voss, who has taught negotiation at the University of Southern California, Georgetown University and Harvard Law School.
In our conversation, he explores the biggest mistake made in negotiating and explains why he insists that focusing on getting to "Yes" is no way to build rapport.
ThinkAdvisor recently interviewed Voss, on the phone from his Los Angeles office. Another strategy he revealed: the marketing tool he employs to reach hot leads. "Facebook voodoo," he labels it.
Here are excerpts from our interview:
THINKADVISOR: Why is it inadvisable to split the difference — that is, to compromise in a negotiation?
CHRIS VOSS: There isn't a real big difference between compromising and caving in, which is not a good thing. Compromising always turns out to have a bad outcome because you're trying to blend ideas that probably don't blend. I have story after story of compromises that destroyed businesses, relationships, value and left hard feelings.
Let the other party "convince themselves that the solution was their idea," you write. Is that basic to your technique?
It's a large part of it. People have to feel vested in an idea because if it's their opponent's idea, they don't feel ownership or care if it collapses. But if it's their idea, they'll work extra hard to fix flaws.
There are three different negotiating styles, you write: Analyst, Accommodator and Assertive. Please explain.
If we get backed into a corner, we have a default type we resort to. But based on successes we've observed, we'll start to adopt some characteristics of the other types.
What's an example?
The Analyst wants to be very dispassionate and as a result, comes off cold and distant. They'll see the Accommodator getting along really well with people and making more deals. So eventually, the Analyst will figure out that an Accommodator's demeanor is their competitive edge, and they'll adopt it. It's a great tool to avoid conflict and get to an agreement quickly.
What's the biggest negotiating mistake?
Wanting to go first, whether it be with the person's argument or stating their case or price. The other side has a lot they're just dying to tell us if we'd just listen. And if we do, it will make them feel bonded to us.
But suppose the other side asks, "What do you charge for this service?" Doesn't that require an answer?
It's the difference between answering a question and being responsive to what they're really asking. If someone asks about price, what they're really worried about is value: Are they going to waste their money and their time?
So should you launch into why the product or service you're selling would be of value to them?
No. That didactic approach is making an argument. Because they're worried about wasting their money, they're feeling [highly emotional]. So to deactivate that negativity, if they insist on a price, you can say, "It sounds like you're feeling a lot of pressure; sounds like you're worried about getting ripped off. Sounds like you've been stung in the past."
Some experts say that in sales, the goal is to get to "Yes." But you write that getting to "No" early in a negotiation is advisable because it makes the opponent feels like they're "in the driver's seat. No is pure gold." Please elaborate.
There are three kinds of "Yes": Counterfeit, Confirmation and Commitment. People have tried to use "Yes" as a shortcut to trapping the other side. Every "Yes" functions as a tie-down; and that begins to take away autonomy — people will choose death rather than give up their autonomy. So when someone tries to get a "Yes," their opponent begins to react negatively. "Yes" is not rapport-building.
"The sweetest two words in any negotiation are 'That's right,'" you say. So is that rapport-building?
Yes. "That's right" is what people say when they feel they've heard the truth, especially when they have an epiphany, during which the brain releases dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin [often referred to as the bonding hormone]. When that happens as someone is talking to you, they're automatically bonded to you, either in a small or big way.
Black swans are "the underlying breakthrough dynamics of a negotiation," you say. That's why it's critical to expose them — correct?
