Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Chris Voss's Masterclass Negotiation Principles

Page 1 of 2Next

The Art of Negotiation: Summary & Review

The Art of Negotiation is an online Masterclass course on negotiation principles and techniques in which Chris Voss, the teacher, makes the case that negotiation should be done using empathy coupled with a collaborative approach to the situation at hand.

Bullet Summary

  • There are human nature rules that apply to everyone regardless of if you're a terrorist or a businessman. You can leverage those rules using empathy to get the other side to give you what you want.
  • "Great negotiation is about great collaboration." Ditch the competitive frames.
  • To get what you want, focus less on making good, principled arguments, and focus more on building rapport. Trust-based influence is a more sure way to get what you want than making the case that your request is fair.

Full Summary

About The Teacher: Christopher "Chris" Voss is an American businessman, author, and academic. Voss is a former FBI hostage negotiator, where he persuaded terrorists, bank robbers, and kidnappers to see things his way. Now, he’s the CEO of The Black Swan Group Ltd, and co-author of the bestselling book Never Split the Difference.

*All quotes from this point forward are quoted from Chris Voss's words.

Negotiation Quick Tips:

Avoid competitive frames

"The stereotype about negotiation is that it's about being the biggest jerk in the room. That it's who's the loudest, who's the most aggressive, who takes the most at the other person's expense. The stereotype is that 'I win means you got to lose. And I beat you.' That is not the case. Great negotiation is about great collaboration."

Know Your (True) Enemy

"The adversary is not the person across the table. The adversary is the situation. The person across the table is a counterpart that's struggling with some aspect of the same problem that you are [facing / dealing with]. You work with them and solve that problem together and you're both better off."

In other words, the problem is not the person you're negotiating with. The problem is the situation. Once you solve the situation, you'll realize that the real problem goes away as well as the person across the table. This is because all that person was looking for is a solution to the same problem that you're having because you're both in the same situation together. Now, the best way to make that problem go away is to work with the person you're negotiating with instead of trying to solve the problem (situation) all by yourself, or worse, work against the person you're negotiating with.

As an example, Chris Voss couldn't go into hostage negotiations believing that the kidnapping terrorist was the problem. He had to believe that the hostage situation itself was the problem and work with the hostage-taker to achieve solving that problem (situation). To achieve getting the hostage-taker to do what he wants (let go of the victim), he couldn't try solving the situation all by himself, or worse, work against the hostage-taker or he'd risk failing. Similarly, you shouldn't do any negotiation in business or in life seeing the other person as the problem. The problem is the situation and you want to work with the other person to find a solution that works for everyone.

Negotiation for Goal-Achievement

"You should aim to achieve your goals through collaboration and the use of tactical empathy that creates trust-based influence."

This may be a slower way to achieve your goals since it takes time to understand the other side and empathize with them for more influence over them. However, this is the most sure-fire way to achieve getting what you want in any situation involving another individual.

Negotiation Concept/Theory: Tactical Empathy (AKA: Emotional Intelligence)

"Empathy is becoming completely aware of the other side's perspective, their point of view, their take on things, how they see it, and what they feel. It's not agreement in any way. It's not compassion. It's not sympathy."

Tactical empathy is the act of taking what you know to be the case from understanding and empathizing with the other side (as a person) and applying it in the interaction.

Negotiation Quick Tips:

Know their "rules" to know how to persuade them

"...the human nature rules that apply to all people...if you can really get at what's driving someone, you can change their outlook and you can change their decision-making. You have to understand what their rules are. I have to understand what your rules are and I have to respect those. I don't necessarily have to adopt those rules, but I've got to understand and respect what they are."

Let the other side have your way

"The common misconception about negotiation is that you have to 'make your case'. You have to make your argument. You need to come prepared with the reasons why the other side should make the deal—your value proposition if you will—and you need to lay all that out. That is not the case. You need to find out what's possible and you need to engage the other side in what their thoughts are so that they feel involved in the process and, consequently, they want the deal to happen [to give you your way]."

Negotiation Concept/Theory: Mirror(ring)

"Mirroring. The hostage negotiator's mirroring. It's just the simple repetition of one to three words—one, two three-ish words. Typically, it's the last one to three words of what somebody said. But, when you get good at mirroring, you could pick one to three words from anywhere in the conversation."

This is basically the act of taking the last one to three words said by the other side and turning it into a question. Then, you ask that question with genuine curiosity and interest in what they mean. This process can be performed on literally any sentence.

Lucio: "Allies empower, enemies disempower."

You: "Enemies disempower?"

The following would be an example of mirroring one to three words from any part of their sentence when you get really good as Voss mentions.

Your Friend: "Yo, do you think I could borrow a dollar for the vending machine?"

You: "Borrow a dollar?"

Negotiation Principles/Strategies:

Mirror to Gather Information

"[When you use mirroring] the other person feels listened to. It tends to connect their thoughts in their head. Part of the message it sends to the other person is 'I heard every word you said word for word and I'm proving it because I just repeated it back to you. But, it's not enough. I still don't get it.' And, when people go on with a further explanation, they're going to add more words. They're going to change their terms."

Him: "Hey, can I borrow your notebook?"

You: "Borrow my notebook?"

Him: "Yea, your notebook. I want to check my work to make sure I did the homework right."

You: "My notebook?"

Him: "Dude. Yes. Your notebook. Or...actually, wait. You call it a binder, right?"

You: "Oh, my binder. Yea, here you go."

*Click the box above to reveal more text.

Here, you used mirroring to gather more information on what exactly the other side was talking about. In this case, you cleared up the miscommunication of what they were referring to.

Mirror to Build Rapport

"Mirroring is also a rapport-building relationship process. People love to be mirrored. They love to be encouraged to go on. There's an old saying, 'Interesting people are interested.' If you mirror, you will be ridiculously interesting to other people because you're interested in them and [as a result] they're going to love talking to you."

When you're mirroring, show a genuine interest and curiosity in order to build rapport. "Genuine curiosity is a great trigger to get people to keep talking. And a mirror that finishes with a tone of voice of genuine curiosity is compelling. It's powerful. People are drawn to it. They want to say more."

"...you're genuinely curious about the other person, you're interested, you're looking forward to hearing what they have to say. You want to learn from them. You're positive about it. You're not judgemental. You're interested."

Mirror Confrontational People

Let's say someone is coming at you in a very confrontational manner in a business setting.

Him: (verbally aggressive) Your price is too high!

You: (pauses, looking into their eyes calmly) "Our price is too high?"

Him: (confrontational) "Yeah! You know, we can't pay that. You know, we've got a limited budget here."

You: (with calm and genuine interest) "You got a limited budget?"

Him: (noticeably upset) Yeah. Well, you know, we've got other things that we have to worry about. There's a lot of things that we're trying to accomplish here."

*Click the box above to reveal more text.

"They're going to go on and on and they're going to elaborate and they're going to give me [you] context. And they're going to feel like I'm working with them. They're not going to feel me fighting."

"It takes two to fight. I'm going to change this wrestling match into a dance. And, if I refuse to engage in the wrestling, but I still want to engage, then that changes into a collaboration almost immediately."

Silence Is Golden

"The recipe for mirroring, first of all, is just, you know, the last one to three words of what someone just said. But, then the critical issue afterward is to shut up. You know, effective pause or dynamic silence...Let the other person think. Let your skill [the mirroring] sink into their head. Let it have its intended effect and go silent which also lets the person know that you really want to hear and you're going to shut up until they do [respond]."

Negotiation Concept/Theory: Labeling

The act of verbally identifying or "giving a voice" to the other side's feelings.

Negotiation Principles/Strategies:

Label It!

"The steps to labeling. The first step is you simply being aware of the emotion or the dynamic from the other side...Becoming aware of what your gut instinct is picking up is the first step. Then, the second step after that is to simply label it. That starts out with 'it seems like', 'it sounds like', 'it looks like', 'it feels like'. Those are the first few words of a label. And then, just fill in the blank."

*Note: This is similar to the approach that you take when you're using the "framing buffet" frame control technique after being accused. Instead of saying "I" (which causes you to appear as though you're taking ownership of the issue), you keep the issue and negativity with them (the other side) by refraining from using the word "I" and, instead, choosing to label in response. So, instead of, "I would never do that man," you label by saying, "It seems like you take this sort of thing very seriously."

Negotiation Concept/Theory: Trust-based influence

"So, my labels are going to do several things simultaneously. They're going to build the relationship and they're going to help me gather information. And, since both of those things are happening, then my influence with you is going to increase...this is what I call trust-based influence."

"It's the lowest-maintenance, most durable type of influence there is."

Negotiation Quick Tips:

How NOT to Label

  1. Avoid all use of the first-person pronoun "I". Doing this will communicate that you're more interested in your perspective than theirs.
  2. Avoid the urge to explain a label or to add some follow up (or to talk at all, actually) after using a good label.

Good labels must have the chance to sink in for it to have its effect. If you explain or follow up after a label, you're stepping on it [the label you just used] and decreasing its persuasive power/ability to influence.

Negotiation Principles/Strategies:

Reinforce Positive Emotions

One way to reinforce positive emotions in the other side is by lowering their negative emotions. Labeling a negative (emotion) diffuses the negative.

In a lot of circumstances, you're probably going to have to label more than once in order to completely deactivate the negative. "A lack of response to a negative label is a good sign that you're on the right track. Just keep going. Label it some more."

An example of a negative label would be, "It seems like you really want this project to fail." Labeling that emotion calls it out into the open and calls it into question in their mind, which lowers that negative if it's what they're feeling. After using a negative label like that, getting silence from the other side is a good sign that you're on the right track and that you should keep labeling.

*Note: This definitely doesn't sound like a one size fits all approach to negotiation or dealing with people in general. Depending on who you're talking to, if it's a hothead meathead that's already had a long day, you may be starting a fire with a negative label like this since it could be perceived as an arrogant (or at the very least annoying) accusation. However, I still like the idea and strategy of labeling, just not the risk that comes with certain labels that have the potential to incite confrontation such as this one.

Another way of reinforcing a positive emotion (and the more direct way) is by labeling it as well. Labeling a positive (emotion) reinforces the positive.

Voss: "You may be in conversation with a customer service person for an airline and they're short-tempered. They've been beaten up all day. And you didn't call them to congratulate them on doing a good job anyway. You don't call customer service to congratulate them on what a great job the airline's doing. They know that [you're calling about a problem and they're expecting you to be mad about it]...Now, here's the crazy part. Their impatience, their empathy, their perspective on this is that if you're lucky to be talking to them at all, they're actually being generous with their time [since they've been beaten up all day and are now short-tempered]! That's their bizarro worldview. Again, empathy is not the truth. It's not the reality. It's the other side's point of view. So, a great positive to reinforce here is to say to them..."It feels like you're being really generous with me right now."

Mirror and Label in Tandem

"After a great label, they may have given you a lot of information and there may be a part of that that you want to expand on. So, whatever their response is to the label, you can mirror one or two or three words out of that response and get a lot more information afterward."

Here's an example of how mirroring after a label might play out:

Voss: (label) "It sounds like this deal is making you upset."

You: "Well, it's not making me upset. What it really is is we got some real implementation problems here on the other side because we've had trouble with this in the past."

Voss: (mirror) "Trouble in the past?"

You: "Yeah, well, you know, it happened to us with another company. It was actually the vendor we had before you guys came in and they gave us a lot of problems. But, we're really worried that you guys are doing the same thing. We realize that you're different but, you know, we're not sure yet because we're still early in the relationship.

Voss: (mirror) "Early in the relationship?"

*Click the box above to reveal more text.

After saying, "Early in the relationship?": "But any one of those selected mirrors is going to tease a lot of information out about exactly what I'm after."

Real-Life Applications

Labeling and Mirroring for Better Relationships

Using labeling and mirroring in tandem is great for learning more about the receiver as well as a personal challenge to empathize more with that person. What else can you tell about them that you can label? The more great labels you can come up with, the more you're empathizing with the receiver, and the more your emotional intelligence develops.

Any time you run out of labels in your head, you can just mirror their last couple of words to draw out more information that will help you find another good label. A wonderful exercise to develop your emotional intelligence and, as we know, emotional intelligence is an important trait to become a high-quality man :).

CONS

  • All video

I've developed a newfound appreciation for Power University being a healthy combination of both video and text. The fact that this course is all video means rewinding multiple times to better internalize Voss's teachings and having to guess at what time stamp in each lesson he gives a certain piece of information if I only want to review one of the points he makes. That's time that could be put towards learning and practicing.

  • Ignores Some Power Dynamics

Mirroring doesn't work unless it's said with an apparent genuine curiosity and interest since you're not asking full questions, you're only repeating what they've already said in the form of a question. In the course, Voss says, "...a mirror that finishes with a tone of voice of genuine curiosity is compelling. It's powerful."

How does Voss recommend conveying that tone of voice? With an upward tonality inflection. An upward tonality inflection is a sign of insecurity and is verbally submissive. To repeatedly mirror the other person by repeating what they already said is a way of following their lead which can make you appear low-power on its own. To further communicate that you're low-power with submissive verbal behavior is only going to dig you deeper into a hole you don't want to be in most of the time.

  • Some Risky Suggestions

For example, mirroring to deal with confrontational people. If they have the confidence to be not only aggressive but confrontational, you're dealing with someone who could bully you if you let them. Perhaps they'll show restraint in a business setting or work environment depending on the situation, but what about outside of the workplace? As Voss says, "Everything in life is a negotiation. Life is a negotiation."

So, this is risky advice in situations where you're "negotiating" to end or avoid a possible physical escalation. Mirroring a confrontational meathead for example, in a bar, is only going to signal to them that they're able to dominate you. In cases like this, it would be better to stand your ground and signal to them you're unafraid.

PROS

The Principles Are the Real Deal 
Voss's approach to negotiation in terms of mindsets makes the course twice as valuable on its own. Too often people aim to get what they want by feeling like they need to compete with the customer service agent because they're the customer and "the customer is always right". In nearly every situation, collaboration is superior to competition and Voss emphasizes that in a way that helps the student feel like collaboration is worth the possible added social and mental effort.

Live Example Training Exercises
This course may be all video, but it uses that as an advantage when showing Chris Voss, a former FBI hostage negotiator, use all of the strategies, techniques, and principles in a live, unscripted negotiation right before your eyes. This got me excited to try out his teachings in the field myself.

Workbook is Included
I appreciated that this course came with a professional-looking workbook. It not only made me feel like I should take this course more seriously which made me more productive, but the workbook almost worked to make up for the fact that the course is all video. The workbook contains summaries, definitions, and reviews of the course content that I can look back at any time which I found very handy in more ways than one.

Review

Really good stuff so far.

I wanted to take this course because I felt like it would be a good supplement to the knowledge I gained in Yale's online negotiation class. Yale's class is all about principled arguments that successfully express that your deal is fairer than theirs (and, if you're not going to play fair, why should we do a deal together in the first place?). Voss's class is all about using empathy to better connect with the other side so they will want to listen to you because you've already listened to them while showing that you were listening. By making them feel listened to and then continuing to propose your offer/deal, the expectation is that they'll feel that your deal is what they actually want because you've built up a level of trust-based influence.

Together, I felt like this was the perfect combination for any negotiation because I could alternate between listening, empathizing, and rapport-building and using principle-based counter-arguments to move closer to a truly win-win deal in any situation.

However, Voss's techniques have their pros and cons and until I get the chance to test his strategies out in the field, it's hard to say whether the cons outweigh the pros or not.

One thing's for sure, his principles are sound and are sure to help build a better, deeper connection if followed correctly.


I know I said I was only considering doing a review like the review I did for Yale's negotiation class, but I was only waiting to see if the review would be worth my time and worth your read.

Then, I figured, I'm writing this review for you guys, so I should let you decide if this review is helpful at all and if you decide it is, then I can make a Part 2.

So, let me know what you think power movers!

 

P.S. I'm still hyped to get to Bob Iger's business leadership class 😀

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and 2 other users have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew WhitewoodNathan MoorbyZeph

Additional notes on this thread:

This review is only on Lesson 1 - Lesson 4 (of which there are 18 in total).

I'm also thinking about updating this post's "Real Life Applications" section.

My favorite frame control technique is the "agree and redirect". It's been the most effective in achieving good frame negotiations quickly and successfully.

When I first started using it, I would always say, "I agree with...but...". So, I would basically choose something to agree with from within their sentence, directly communicate that I agreed, and then redirect to my point.

Unfortunately, it made the other side feel like I was trying to persuade them whenever I prefaced every response with "I agree with" which induced in them the knee-jerk reaction to disagree.

Him: "Money is power and that's it."

Me: (agree and redirect to philosophers frame) "I agree that money is power in society, but if we're looking at the world as a whole, power comes in many forms such as information and weaponry."

Him: (insist and dominate frame, then provides example) "Dude, no. Money is power. For example, women want guys with money, not weapons or information. So, money is power to get a girl. Money is power in everything in life. Money is power and that's it."

Me: (agree, reframe from money to "financial stability" and redirect) "I agree that a woman might want a guy that has more financial stability, but..."

Him: (starts to feel that I'm trying to get them to agree to something they don't want to) "Dude, no. Money is power."

So, initially, I felt like it's not my job to make them happy with my frame since that seemed like a "judge role" situation. But, I still wanted to experiment with letting go of prefacing with "I agree" and see what happens if I imply agreement by refusing to challenge any aspect of their frame. Instead, I would simply skip straight to the redirect. By doing so, the idea was for the "agree and redirect" to work just as well because I'm not saying or communicating I disagree, I'm simply moving on.

Him: "Money is power and that's it."

Me: (control the scope / redirect) "This isn't about money, it's about the ability for an individual to get what they want. And, someone can achieve getting what they want in other ways than only using money."

However, without the open communication that I agreed with some part of their frame, it sometimes gave them the impression that I was basically pushing my frame onto them and not inviting them into my frame since I didn't verbally communicate that I was listening to their side. That sometimes led to an argument.

So, from that point forward, I would alternate between simply prefacing with "I agree" or explaining my side in a way that conveys agreement with some aspect of their frame. An example of the "explaining my side" option:

Him: "Money is power and that's it."

Me: (pauses to think then shifts to philosphers frame) "Mmm. Power is the extent to which an individual can get what he wants. So, if we look to past wars, weapons were used as a form of power to achieve the goals of one party or side. Similarly, if we look to stories of blackmail and extortion, information has been used to get power and control over individuals or even whole organizations."

A part of me disliked this route because it felt like a lot of social effort for little payoff. Whenever I used this, it felt less like I was using frame control to further the conversation and more like a situation where I wanted to "win the frame negotiation" since this route makes me feel so invested.

At other times, I would simply lead the other side to believe I agree with a quick verbal nod by saying something like, "Yea, but...".

Him: "Money is power and that's it."

Me: (agree and redirect to philosophers frame) "Right, but if we're looking at the world as a whole, power comes in many forms such as information and weaponry."

Now, with this lesson from Chris Voss, I'm considering experimenting with alternating between "agree and redirect" and "label and redirect".

Him: "Money is power and that's it."

Me: (agree and redirect to philosophers frame) "I agree that money is power in society, but if we're looking at the world as a whole, power comes in many forms such as information and weaponry."

Him: (leads with insist and dominate frame, then provides example) "Dude, no. Money is power. For example, women want guys with money, not just weapons or information. So money is power to get a girl. Money is power in everything in life. Money is power and that's it."

Me: (agree, reframe from money to "financial stability" and redirect) "Well, a woman might want a guy that has more financial stability, but..."

Him: (insist and dominate) "Dude, no. Money is power."

Me: (label) "It sounds like you feel that money holds the most power in the world.

Him: (agrees) "It does."

Me: (agree and redirect) "OK. That may be true, but..."

Realistically, I would've let him continue to believe whatever he wants so long as it doesn't negatively affect me or our relationship. So, this particular example is built on the idea that this situation requires the other side to join my frame for a better relationship.

So, I'm going to test this out and see if I can use it to perform better frame control with less social effort.

BTW, if I wanted to keep the conversation going while still negotiating frames, I might have said, "What do you mean by power?" or "What's your definition of power?" Using questions to clarify his frame.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Hi Ali,

Interesting situation, and love the example on how to apply the concepts in real life.

Note that the "but" you place right after you agreement negates a good chunk of your previous agrement.

A more typical agree and redirect would be:

You: Yes, that's true, money gives a huge amount of power and leverage in our society. There are also other forms of power that people can use until they also make money, and some of them can also help them make money, like getting realy good at something, learning persuasion skills, high confidence behavior...

Also optional, to incrase your agreement before the redirect, you can also give an example of how much money matters in life. A short story that gets him nodding will make him far more open to accept your widening of the meaning and tools for power.

 

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I like using "yet", it can mean "but", yet it sounds like yes, no idea if that matters or not (to make it come across like less negational)

Thanks for the feedback guys, your comments are really helpful.

Stef, I've read a few of your posts and you seem to really have a knack for power and social dynamics 😀

To Lucio's point, I learned about that second option you mentioned at Yale for business negotiations but never thought to apply it to frame negotiations.

Barry Nalebuff, my Yale professor, hosted a few live online Zoom classes for all of the students to attend. In that class, he goes through a negotiation using the principles and strategies he teaches. Then, he goes through the same negotiation using Chris Voss's negotiation style, principles, and techniques so we can see the difference.

This is an example of the framework he used while we were in one of his live classes. Let's take this WIIFT situation:

Nalebuff as Voss: "Yes, it seems that adding you to our list of best free book summary websites would have lots of great benefits for both of us, especially since your website would be another resource to my readers and, for you, more traffic would be directed over to your website. Now, here's why I think we should go with this [my] deal..." (then propose a more win-win deal)

I saw the applications for this negotiation style to business immediately because it's difficult to argue with since you just agreed to their side by explaining it. I used it with my business partner the same day I learned it and had great success.

Since you recommend it, Lucio, I'll have to try this approach to frame negotiations more.

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStef

Thank you Ali

well with some effort, suffering and time I have adcquired some notions and assimilated some interesting conjectures, jejeje

I read your summaries on negotiation courses, very interesting, thank you for sharing.

Lucio Buffalmano and Ali Scarlett have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoAli Scarlett
Quote from Stef on September 22, 2020, 3:30 am

I like using "yet", it can mean "but", yet it sounds like yes, no idea if that matters or not (to make it come across like less negational)

Yes, this is a very good tip.

And another good one is "and at the same time":

"Yes, what you say makes sense and applies in many situations. And at the same time, there is also X and Y to consider... "

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

*Note:

I heard a character in a TV show use the "agree and redirect" by saying "Even so..." instead of "but" or "yet". Currently experimenting with that transition along with testing "Be that as it may."

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

The Art of Negotiation (Lesson 5 - Lesson 6): Summary & Review

Bullet Summary

  • In the negotiating room, there are three main tones of voice: assertive, playful/accomodating, and late-night FM DJ
  • Detect lies to know when you need to make your counterpart more comfortable (with telling the truth)

Negotiation Concept/Theory: Voice

*Assertive (= "Analyst" Voice + Regular Speech Rate)

"This voice is declarative, straight up, and delivered like a punch in the nose." This voice is always counterproductive in negotiations.

*Playful/accommodating

"This voice is a bearer of truths delivered gently. It promotes collaboration. This should be your go-to voice in negotiations."

*Late-night FM DJ

"This voice is straightforward with a soothing, downward lilt."

In addition to the three tones of voice, master these two essential inflections:

*Inquisitive → "Playful/Accommodating" Voice
Speak with an upward inflection, as if you’re asking a question. This tone should convey genuine curiosity and interest in the other person’s point of view. This
should be your default inflection.

*Declarative → "Analyst" Voice
Speak with a downward inflection, as if you’re stating a fact. It’s best employed when establishing points of negotiation that are immovable.

Negotiation Concept/Theory: Mirror Neurons

Mirror neurons are neurons in the brain that "mirror" (reflect) the behavior of another person. In other words, if your best friend opens up to you while you're talking with them and they begin to sob, cry, and seem depressed, you're likely to begin to feel your mood lower as well. This is due to them hitting your mirror neurons with their behavior causing you to respond involuntarily with the same (unhappy) behavior.

Negotiation Principles/Strategies:

Manipulate Their Mirror Neurons

"So, if you can see me or you can hear me, I can hit the mirror neurons in your brain. So, if I'm angry, I'm going to hir your mirror neurons [by behaving angrily such as yelling and shouting], you're going to get angry too. It's an involuntary response."

You can also speak using the late-night FM DJ voice which is soothing, deep, and slow to hit their mirror neurons which will slow their brain down as an involuntary response to your slow, calm voice. If you used this technique to calm down your counterpart, it's far more effective than trying to facilitate a change of mood from them by telling them to "just calm down". And, that's because "calm down" is an order, so they're going to hate that (especially if they're already upset). Instead, slow their brain down using the late-night FM DJ voice to calm them down.

By smiling when you talk to people, you are also triggering their mirror neurons in a positive way (since smiles are positive and value-adding).

For example, you can go for what most people might do:

The Other Side: (with an angry, frustrated energy) No!

You: (with an assertive tonality) Calm down please.

The Other Side: (grows more angry)

Or:

The Other Side: (with an angry, frustrated energy) No!

You: (with a slow speech rate, deep voice, and soothing, empathetic tonality) You seem upset.

The Other Side: (aggressive energy begins to fall)

Negotiation Concept/Theory: The 7/38/55 Rule

The three components of communication are the content, tonality (with which the content is delivered), and body language. When delivering a message, 100% of that message is divided into these three parts. 7% of that message is observed and considered by the other side in terms of content, 38% in terms of voice tonality, and 55% in terms of body language.

Negotiation Principles/Strategies:

Use the 7/38/55 Rule to Detect Lies

"One great way for getting a sense of whether or not somebody is being genuine ties back to the 7/38/55 rule. Does their delivery and their body language line up with the content of the words that's being spoken? If one of those is out of line, which one of those am I going to expect to be the most reliable? I'm going to look hard at body language and tone of voice when it's out of line with the words [content]. And, then I'm going to use a label to identify the dynamic. And, I could say something as clear as, I heard you say yes, but I also heard something in your tone of voice that made you hesitate."

Watch the Sidelines to Detect Lies

"In many cases, you're going to be negotiating in a group setting. They're going to have people on the other side of the table that are listening, that are dialed in, especially if they're concealing [information]. And, they know they're concealing. And, maybe they're concealing out of defensiveness. The people who are going to be ridiculously unguarded are going to be the people that you're not talking directly to...the people that are not being spoken to are going to be insanely honest in their physical reactions."

"The people that are off the point of focus are going to be ridiculously unguarded in their body language because they're not used to being paid attention to. They're used to having all eyes on the person that's being spoken to [the primary point of contact]. So, you're going to get some really honest, some really accurate body language off the [sidelined] people...".

So, for example, let's say you own a blog and you want to hire a content creation company to post content on your blog for you. This content creation company is owned by a father and his son, who are both in business together. But, the father does all of the talking since he has the majority of the business experience. When the father says the rate that he usually charges his clients, you notice that the body language of the son begins to shift where the son appears uncomfortable. It's a good thing you kept an eye on the sidelines...chances are the father isn't telling the whole truth here.

Identify Baselines and Spot Deviations to Detect Lies

"...for a negotiator, it's a lot more important to know when somebody is telling the truth than when they're lying because if you tell the truth, you have one way you tell the truth. You may have a bunch of different ways that you lie...and I'm trying to gain a feel for what your baseline is for telling the truth."

"It's the same way a polygraph works. You go on a polygraph, a good polygrapher is going to ask you the "control questions", the questions that are the truth. What day is it? Where are you? What's your name? What was your dog's first name? You know, any of the things that you tell the truth on. They're going to get a line on what you look like when you're telling the truth. And then, when you lie, it doesn't matter how you lie, it just matters that you've come out of it [with displacement signals]...whatever you do, you didn't do it when you were telling the truth. That's an indicator that you've come out of your baseline. You're probably lying. You're at least thinking about lying."

When you see those displacement signals. When you see that they've come out of telling the truth and slipped into lying (or thinking about lying), use tactical empathy to make them feel more comfortable.

Negotiation Concept/Theory: The Pinocchio Effect

"It's when someone uses more words than is necessary to give you an answer. If someone is lying to you, they know they're lying. And, they're worried about it. And, consequently, they're going to [feel the need] to work harder to convince you. So, the more effort that they go to convince you that they're telling the truth, the more likely it is that they're lying."

It's just as Lucio says:

Lucio: "Another persuasion mistake: when you try too hard to convince people, people will always wonder why you are trying so hard. And they immediately think: maybe because they need lots of effort to hide the truth?"

Negotiation Principles/Strategies:

How To Deal with A Lie (Like an FBI Hostage Negotiator)

"If I sense you've come out of truth-telling, I can say, 'Well, I heard you say you're OK with the deal but, seems like something's bothering you? Seems like there's something here I missed? Seems like there more here than meets the eye?' Each one of these labels are designed to have the maximum chance of success of bringing you out of the lie. They're not accusatory. The tone of voice is curious. The tone of voice is collaborative. The tone of voice is interested."

"What does it tell you about yourself if somebody is lying to you? Well, first, it tells you that they are scared to tell you the truth. They perceive you as potentially being a threat. Now, that doesn't mean that you are a threat...it tells you that their assessment of the situation is that they've got their guard up."

To deal with this, revert to the late-night FM DJ voice. As Voss recommends, "Use a voice that the other side finds reassuring, be predictable, be nonjudgmental. Be predictable in that you're not going to attack them. You're not going to try and corner them. You want to be steady. You want to be accountable...you continue to show them that you're worthy of being unguarded and they'll drop their guard."

I'm considering dropping the Voss negotiation review in capsules (short chunks like these) so I don't overwhelm myself or your guys.

Hopefully, this will also make getting it done more manageable since I can do my best to crank out more in a shorter period of time.

This article is definitely going to be long when it's finished, but if Lucio prefers quality over quantity when it comes to his articles, this will definitely be a high-quality one in terms of content and value.

Unluckily, I'm unable to update the draft I have saved in my Dashboard, most likely due to the changes being made to the website. So, I'll be posting here and then combining everything into the draft later when I have access to it again.

Page 1 of 2Next
Processing...