Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss is an outstanding book on negotiation. The author understand and deploys effective psychology to overcome impasses, avoid escalations and reach the best possible outcome.
- Bullet Summary
- Full Summary
- The 3 Voice Tones
- Allow Them To Say No
- Make Them Say “That’s Right”
- Don’t use Deadlines as Weapons
- There is No Fairness or Rationality
- Anchor Their Emotions Low
- The Tit for Tat Blunder
- Make Them Feel in Charge With Calibrated Questions
- Reinforce Commitment With The Rule of 3
- The Three Types of Negotiators
- Some Real Life Examples
- Real Life Applications
- Don’t negotiate as if emotions didn’t exist: they do exist and are often part of the problem you must tackle
- Use empathy: put yourself in the other person’s shoes and label their feelings
- Make the other feel powerful, listen to them, summarize what they’ve just said until they say “that’s right” and ask “how” and “what” questions
Never Split the Difference tells a lot of stories as examples. I will focus here on the major takeaways instead of the examples.
The 3 Voice Tones
Chris Voss says there are three type of voices available to negotiators:
- Late night fm dj voice
- Positive playful
- Direct and assertive tone of voice
The assertive one should be used sparingly as it says that you are trying to assert dominance either aggressively or passive aggressively and people tend to push back.
Most of the times you should be using the positive and playful.
The author says that the old approach of “leaving the feelings outside of the negotiation” makes no sense. How can you leave the feelings outside when feelings are part and parcel of the human experience and when feelings often are the main problem.
He says instead that a great negotiator always has empathy for the other side. That doesn’t mean you agree, but it means you put yourself in his shoes.
Once you recognize the feelings the other person must be feeling, you should put them into words and tell them about it.
In the book’s example, with fugitives holed in in a house, it was:
It looks like you don’t want to go back to jail
It seems like you’re worried if you open the door they will come with guns blazing
Labeling decrease the intensity of the emotions.
- Focus on clearing barrier to agreement (why they don’t want a deal is more powerful of why they want)
- Label barrier or mirror the statement
- Pause (let them talk and gather intel)
Allow Them To Say No
If the other person has a chance of saying he is feeling safe and secure.
The mistake many salespeople do is to force a yes, which often is a hollow yes that will not lead to any followup.
Dump The Yes Ladder: Use the No Ladder
I particularly loved the author takes aim at the yes ladder and says that in spite everyone raves about it, it’s not the best sales tool because the final yes is not sincere.
Much better to let the prospect start with a no and empower him to choose the final yes instead after a series of “no” that make him feel in charge.
So for example when calling for campaign donations against the sitting president the caller would start by saying “do you think the best day for America are ahead?”, “are you letting Obama sit in office without a fight?”
And then the caller would say: if you want to do something today to make sure that doesn’t happen, you can give to the X committee, which is fighting hard for you not to make that happen.
The “no” script got a 23% higher return rate.
Make the Other Party Say No
The author you phrase your question to actually make the other party say no.
You can do it by saying something obviously wrong, like for example:
So it seems like you are really eager to leave your job
Or you could talk about what they don’t want.
Make Them Say “That’s Right”
When they say “you’re right” it’s bad. You say “you’re right” when you don’t own the conclusion… And when you plan on doing nothing about it.
When people say “that’s right” instead you’re doing great.
Don’t use Deadlines as Weapons
Chriss Voss takes aim at an old cliche of the negotiating theory: that you should hide your deadline or that will give an advantage to the other party.
He says hiding deadlines increase the risk of an impasse and they work both ways.
My Note: I also find that a bit imprecise. Like Roger Dawson says in Secrets of Power Negotiating Deadline help the party with the most options and damage the party with fewer options (or who wants the deal the most).
There is No Fairness or Rationality
There is no encompassing form or fairness that everyone recognizes and none of us is really rational. If you approach the negotiation table thinking the other party has your same opinion on what’s a good deal or what’s fair, you’re wrong.
Chris Voss says that people who utter “we just want what’s fair” are using it as a manipulation technique to get a concession from you.
I loved how the author uses it:
I want you to feel like I’m being fair at all times, so please stop me if you like I’m being unfair and we’ll address it
Anchor Their Emotions Low
If you need to offer something lower than expected, preface it by saying what you’re about to tell them might be shocking and they won’t like it.
That you’re terribly sorry.
Then once you set your expectations very low, you can say “”but before I take it to someone else, I wanted to at least let you know. Here is what I can offer”.
Faced with the options of nothing or something and having their expectations much lowered, they will take you up on the offer.
The Tit for Tat Blunder
The author says that much of western negotiation rests on the mistaken assumption that you always have to ask for something back. Or that when you give something, you must necessarily get something back.
That paralyzed his team’s effectiveness, he says.
For example, they wouldn’t ask the kidnapper to put hostages on the phone in fear that they would say no and that they’d be embarrassed. And they wouldn’t ask much in fear they’d have to give something back. Everything was a race for the negotiator, is you ask then you owe.
Make Them Feel in Charge With Calibrated Questions
Calibrated questions start with “how” and “what” and are designed to open up dialogue, make the other party feel in charge and let them negotiate with themselves.
Some examples are:
- What caused you to do it (instead of accusatory “why did you do it”)
- What did you have in mind when you..
- How could we go about to do it
Avoid “why” question as they seem accusatory. And bite your tongue and never overreact.
Reinforce Commitment With The Rule of 3
Earlier we saw how useless are empty yeses.
To confirm ans strengthen the commitment to a course of action instead, let them confirm the resolution three times.
- First time they propose or agree to something, that’s number one
- Second time you summarize and let them confirm with “that’s right”
- Third time you ask a calibrated “how” or “what” question about the implementation
The Three Types of Negotiators
There three types of different psychology and dispositions when it comes to negotiating:
It’s a common mistake to think that assertive are the most successful.
Each style can be successful, but to reach your peak you need elements from all three styles.
A study also shows that 65% of some of the most successful negotiators are accomodators.
Some Real Life Examples
I had written a few posts before here on real-life negotiation. Without ever having read Never Split the Difference before, I realize that most of the techniques I used there were exactly what Chris Voss recommend. Check them out:
And a few sneakier tricks:
In a way, Never Split the Difference also vibes well with How to Win Friends and Influence People in that it seeks to save people’s face and to avoid needless escalation.
Here is a good example when such an approach would have worked wonders:
Real Life Applications
The More They Say “I” the Less Power They Have
I loved this rule of thumb. The more someone says “I” trying to sound more powerful, the more likely it is they’re clueless and have little actual power.
More shrewd people use “we”, “they” and “them”.
A Bit Braggart
My personal feeling is that the author came across a bit conceited at times.
The ways he says “they’re wrong” or “you’re wrong” gives me feeling of someone who’s taking the higher ground on the reader.
Talking about a “student of his” who did a mistake, he is careful to highlight “this is before he was a student of mine”. And I felt that was unnecessary.
Some Bad Suggestions (or at leave, very risky)
In an effort to make the other party say no to make him feel in charge, the author uses the sentence:
it seems like you really want this project to fail.
That’s not a good idea in my opinion because it won’t just push the other party to say no, but it will also actively make them dislike you.
There was also a rent negotiation example, with the student/renter talking to the real estate agent. And the student, to make the agent say no, tells him
“it seems like you would rather run the risk of keeping the place unrented“
That is a barely veiled threat and sounds very confrontational to me (in spite the author presents his method as “working along” instead of ever risking an escalation).
Seems a Bit Simplistic at Times
At times it feels to me like Never Split the Difference is a bit shallow and simplistic. It stresses so much these little moments of the interaction, as if they were the big secrets to changing everything.
The pause after you say X, or the words “that’s right” that in the author’s opinion are the turning moment of all successful negotiations. As if all of them were infallible. And as if someone could not use different words to convey the same meaning (ie.: “that makes sense” instead of “that’s right”).
Never Split the Difference is a book with lots of genius, but sometimes it feels it’s disorganized genius.
I had so many notes after reading it, but putting everything together to make sense out of it felt like a major task on my part -whereas it should have probably been on the editor’s part-.
Lots of Genius
Never Split the Difference is one of the best books on negotiation. Chris Voss has a great grasp of human’s psychology and uses it effectively.
Brings Emotions to The Fore
I suppose that for several years, in many classes, negotiation was taught as if the players were perfectly rational and one should keep emotions out of the equation.
That’s silly, and Never Split the Difference makes that very clear.
I appreciated of Never Split the Difference that there is a lot of dialogues and examples.
I enjoyed Never Split The Difference.
Yet, part of me feels this cannot be the only book on negotiation you need.
Sometimes you will meet negotiating parties that are out to take advantage of you, scare you or simply don’t play by the fair rules.
And of course, there are times when more aggressive negotiation styles win:
When Power Negotiating Works
There are many situations in which you don’t need to make the other feel powerful and in which you’re better off crashing the opponent -also read Secrets of Power Negotiating-.
The author says that two pit-bulls will only make a bloodbath where everyone loses. True.
But you don’t necessarily need to give power to a chihuahua or to a pit-bull to which you got a gun pointed against.
Attention: I’m not saying you need to crush your opponent. I do am saying though that there countless situations where some aholes will take advantage of a weak opponent to bully him.
And many situations where you are better served with making a show of power instead of one of deference.
Basically: don’t overgeneralize tat one method is “superior”. And train yourself to at least have the guts to be in charge and push back.
Never Split the Difference is a great book on negotiation that takes (good) psychology into account.
I wish it were written and organized a bit more clearly, but it’s a must read anyway for those who want to learn negotiation.