Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss and Tahl Raz (2016)
TL;DR: The current theories on Negotiation are outdated. There is a correct way to Mirror, Empathize, Ask, Summarize, Push Back, Bargain and Ensure Implementation. Basically to Negotiate much better.
We're always bargaining; In the office with bosses, at the streets with car salesmen and in dinners with family members. For Chris Voss, it was in international hostage situations or with high strung kidnappers. Moving in the international stage, he now negotiates with readers, business clients, MBA students and parents handling kids.
The book opens with a hook: "We've got your son, Voss. Give us one million dollars or he dies". The rest of this interaction prompts the current "school" and ideas on Negotiation with deep, academic sounding theories. In the field however, some of these theories are not holding up. CV rethinks and field tests new ways of negotiating; injecting Empathy, not pushing for "Yes" etc.
Boiled down to its essence:
Negotiation serves two distinct, vital life functions-information gathering and behavior influencing-and includes almost any interaction where each party wants something from the other side.
Mirroring
also called isopraxism, is essentially imitation. [...] display in which we copy each other to comfort each other. It can be done with speech patterns, body language, vocabulary, tempo, and tone of voice.
CV writes a mirror as repeating the last three words or the critical one to three words of what someone has just said.
Labeling with Tactical Empathy
Empathy is paying attention to another human being, asking what they are feeling, and making a commitment to understanding their world.
Tactical Empathy is understanding the feelings and mindset of another in the moment and also hearing what is behind those feelings so you increase your influence in all the moments that follow.
And a tool to exercise that Tactical Empathy is to label your counterpart's emotions.
Labeling is a way of validating someone's emotion by acknowledging it.
- It sounds like...
- It seems like...
- It looks like...
This goes against the previous thought of separating people from the problem. CV acknowledges that people are emotional and sometimes irrational creatures. We simply can't separate emotions and irrationalities from another person. So why manage it first?
Research shows that the best way to deal with negativity is to observe it, without reaction and without judgment. Then consciously label each negative feeling and replace it with positive, compassionate and solution-based thoughts.
And the good thing, is we can anticipate comebacks.
The first step of doing so is listing every terrible thing your counterpart could say about you, in what I call an accusation audit.
Ask "No" Questions
We've all been so bogged down by insurance salesmen, or people selling Multilevel Marketing products, "Are you open-minded?" You feel like saying a forced: "Yes", but "No". Another melee of "Do you want to be rich?", "Do you want to succeed?" And You know why he's asking these. He wants something from you. Your resources. You feel defensive. You feel trapped. This is called the "Yes" ladder. There may have been a time when it worked its charm but it seems as though people have caught up to it. Unless people feel receptive to the cause, they're not going to open up.
It comes down to the deep and universal human need for autonomy. People need to feel in control. When you preserve a person's autonomy by clearly giving them permission to say "No" to your ideas, the emotions calm, the effectiveness of the decisions go up, and the other party can really look at your proposal.
You can be sure that everyone you meet is driven by two primal urges: the need to feel safe and secure, and the need to feel in control. If you satisfy those drives, you're in the door.
CV writes, in reality there are 3 kinds of "Yes"; Counterfeit, Confirmation and Commitment.
A counterfeit "yes" is one in which your counterpart plans on saying "no" [...] A confirmation "yes" is generally innocent, a reflexive response to a black-or-white question [...] And a commitment "yes" is the real deal; it's a true agreement that leads to action
Trigger: "That's right"
How do you trigger "That's right"? Summarize. Why? It makes the speaker feel like you're really listening and that you understand. You can't summarize without actually listening. Best way to summarize?
A good summary is the combination of re-articulating the meaning of what is said plus the acknowledgement of the emotions underlying that meaning (paraphrasing + labeling = summary)
What's fair
Don't compromise. On life and death negotiations, you don't compromise and split half a hostage.
We don't compromise because it's right; we compromise because it is easy and because it saves face. We compromise in order to say that at least we got half the pie. Distilled to its essence, we compromise to be safe.
Deadlines. It makes you rush; the same way it affects your counterpart. But remember, deadlines are really arbitrary.
Be careful with the word "fair". Used in the common accusatory way, this triggers feelings of defensiveness and discomfort. The correct use is in setting it up early on and with empathy:
"I want you to feel like you are being treated fairly at all times. So please stop me at any time you feel I'm being unfair, and we'll address it."
Be aware of The Prospect Theory from Daniel Kahneman, which is of two parts.
Certainty Effect: People are drawn to sure things over probabilities, even when the probability is a better choice. Possibility Effect or Loss Aversion: People will take greater risks to avoid losses than to achieve gains.
Calibrated Questions
Asking is a great equalizer. CV writes, done the right way it helps create an illusion of control in your counterpart.
Calibrated Questions are open-ended questions calibrated for a specific effect
The most useful ones? "How"' and "What" questions. "Where", "When" and "Who" simply gives a fact. and "Why" questions triggers feelings of defensiveness and loss of control. Which makes negotiations harder.
Hostage Mentality:In moments of conflict when people feel they are not in control, they react to their lack of power by either becoming extremely defensive or lashing out.
Guarantee Execution
How? That's it. Ask "How" questions.
The trick to "How" questions is that, correctly used, they are gentle and graceful ways to say "No" and guide your counterpart to develop a better solution-your solution.
Why? Because if you want it to be done correctly, you'd want people to own it. To take ownership of your solution.
People always make more effort to implement a solution when they think it's theirs. [...] That's why negotiation is often called "the art of letting someone else have your way. [...]Let the other side feel victory. Let them think it was their idea. Subsume your ego. Remember: "Yes" is nothing without "How." So keep asking "How?" And succeed.
Tools
The 7-38-55 Percent Rule; essentially 93% of a message comes from the non-verbals.
Only 7 percent of a message is based on the words while 38 percent comes from the tone of voice and 55 percent from the speaker's body language and face.
The Rule of Three
Simply getting the other guy to agree to the same thing three times in the conversation. The first time they agree to something or give you a commitment. You might label or summarize what they said so they answer, "That's right," .Calibrated "How" or "What" question about implementation that asks what will constitute success, something like "What do we do if we get off track?"
The Pinocchio Effect
Liars tend to speak in more complex sentences in an attempt to win over their suspicious counterparts. [...] The researchers dubbed this the Pinocchio Effect because, just like Pinocchio's Nose, the number of words grew along with the lie.
Pronouns, More "I", "Me" and "My" means they are less important in the decision. More "We", "They", "Them" means they are more powerful in the decision to be made.
The use of pronouns by a counterpart can also help give you a feel for their actual importance in the decision and implementation chains.
Use your name
Humanize yourself. Use your name to introduce yourself. Say it in a fun, friendly way. Let them enjoy the interaction, too. And get your own special price.
Your Personal Negotiation Style
formed through childhood, schooling, family, culture and a million other factors; by recognizing it you can identify your negotiating strengths and weaknesses (and those of your counterpart) and adjust your mindset and strategies accordingly.
The Three Personal Negotiation Styles are: Analysts, Accomodators and Assertives.
Analysts are methodical and diligent [...] Smile, an essential source of data is your counterpart. Accomodators are relationship builders. [...] Be wary of too much chit chat. The Assertives believe time is money. [...] Be conscious of your tone. [...] Analysts puts time in preparation. Accomodators puts time in relationship. Assertives puts time in money.
Why? Knowing your personal negotiation style gives you a view of your tendencies in negotiations (the same towards to your counterpart). And we often get this wrong because of the "I am normal" Paradox.
The hypothesis that the world should look to others as it looks to us.
Heard of the Golden Rule? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". CV writes it is out of place in negotiating.
The Black Swan rule is don't treat others the way you want to be treated; treat them the way they need to be treated.
Push Back
Anger doesn't work; instead
Threats delivered without anger but with "poise", that is confidence and self-control are great tools. Saying "I'm sorry that just doesn't work for me," with poise, works.
"Why" Questions
The idea is to employ the defensiveness the question triggers to get your counterpart to defend your position. [...] The basic format goes like this. [...] "Why would you do that" but in a way that the "that" favors you.
"I" Messages
"I'm sorry, that doesn't work for me" [...] Counteract unproductive statements from you counterpart, you can say, " I feel __ when you __ because __"
Don't be needy. Have the mindset to be willing to walk away.
No Deal is better than a bad beal
Ackerman Bargaining
Set price target goal at 65%, 85%, 95%, 100%
- Set target price (your goal)
- Set first offer at 65% of target price)
- Calculate three raises of decreasing increments (to 85, 95, 100 percent)
- Use lots of empathy and different ways of saying "No" to get the other side to counter before you increase your offer
- When calculating the final amount, use precise, non-round numbers.
- On your final number; throw in a non-monetary item to show that you're at your limit
Black Swans
In Nassim Taleb's Black Swan, these are events that are unpredictable, of very high consequence, can be rationalized afterwards. In Negotiations, these are things you don't know that you don't know, and still have a great effect on the overall outcome once uncovered.
As Taleb uses the term, the Black Swan symbolizes the uselessness of predictions based on previous experience. Black Swans are events or pieces of knowledge that sit outside our regular expectations and therefore cannot be predicted.
Three Types of Leverage
Leverage is the ability of inflict loss and withhold gain.
- Positive Leverage is quite simply your ability as a negotiator to provide-or withhold-things that your counterpart wants.
- Negative Leverage is a negotiator's ability to make his counterpart suffer.
- Normative Leverage is using the other party's norms and standards to advance your position.
Coincidentally, the more we push something that isn't aligned with our counterparts, the more they resist
Paradox of Power, the harder we push the more likely we are to be met with resistance.
And then we call them crazy, when really
- They are ill-informed
- They are constrained
- They have other interests
Ways to unearth powerful Black Swans
- Get Face Time
- Observe Unguarded Moments
- When it doesn't make sense, there's cents to be made
Overcome fear and anxiety in negotiations
Our sweaty palms are just an expression of physiological fear, a few trigger-happy neurons firing because of something more base: our innate human desire to get along with other members of the tribe: It's not the guy across the table who scares us: it's the conflict itself.
Other Books:
Comments
Post a Comment