Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss with Tahl Raz – Reflection

Book Reflection Overview

I’ll write my General Impression of the book first, followed by a Book Breakdown which briefly and loosely describes what occurs chapter by chapter and/or section by section. Then I’ll write down any Stray Musings I might have. These three initial sections of the reflection will be the only ones explicitly written with the general public (especially those who have not yet read this book) in mind. The Takeaway section after will be written mostly for me but could hold some value for others who have read the book. However, as the section’s title implies, do not think that this even covers all the major topics and concepts presented in the book. I’m only writing down here what I wish to retain. The Connections section is where I write down thoughts I had about the book in relation to other materials I’ve learned or read. If you know the two works there might be an interesting nugget for you in there and, if not, perhaps you’ll uncover a nice new thing to experience. Then I might write one or more special sections if the book calls for it. Lastly, I’ll write down whatever thoughts I had about the process of writing this up in my Reflection Reflection.

General Impression

The first things I think about Never Split the Difference are how well-suited it is for mass consumption and how, in my view, it exists as a more tactical companion book to Dale Carnegie’s classic How to Win Friends and Influence People. In comparison, it’s perhaps not quite an all-time classic due to a bit of structural funkiness but I would strongly recommend reading it nonetheless. There’s plenty of wisdom within its pages and the abundance of anecdotes really hammers home the messages in the book. This might be a bit repetitive or tedious for some but, for others reading more casually, it could be a major boon to their understanding of both the underlying concepts and when they’re applicable.

Book Breakdown

• Chapter 1 | The New Rules: Establishes a lot of context. Who Chris Voss is and what he’s done (negotiated down a lot of hostage-takers) so you know why you should trust him. How both the academic study of negotiation and the practical field of hostage negotiation tactics each came about and then developed. Why you should become a better negotiator. What the structure of the book will be.
• Chapter 2 | Be a Mirror: Talks about how to keep things steady and friendly in a discussion, using your voice and choice of language to establish positive feelings while actively listening
• Chapter 3 | Don’t Feel Their Pain, Label It: Talks about the use of labeling to reaffirm positive feelings and dispel negative ones
• Chapter 4 | Beware “Yes” – Master “No”: Talks about getting comfortable with hearing “no” and in fact pursuing it in order to support your counterpart’s autonomy rather than being misled with a fake “yes”
• Chapter 5 | Trigger the Two Words that Immediately Transform Any Negotiation: Talks about the use of summarizing and paraphrasing in order to really demonstrate your active listening and get people “on the same side” to a certain extent
• Chapter 6 | Bend Their Reality: Discusses some aspects of presenting the situation such that the options you offer are attractive to your counterpart
• Chapter 7 | Create The Illusion of Control: Digs deep into calibrated “how” and “what” questions which gently pull your counterpart to coming over to your side through their own thoughts
• Chapter 8 | Guarantee Execution: Covers some pitfalls and tactics to get around those when one approaches the stage of actually executing an agreed-upon deal
• Chapter 9 | Bargain Hard: Goes over the brass-tacks of tough negotiating after all the rapport has been built and information gathered
• Chapter 10 | Find the Black Swan: Mixed with the actual conclusion of the book, this chapter touches on the unknown unknowns and the importance of expecting, seeking, and uncovering the game-changing information that will turn the negotiation on its head

Stray Musings

It’s a loose notion but I can imagine most/all communication with humans is a form of negotiation. It’s just that at times you want more concrete (and emotionally charged) things from people – an item, to make a sale, your son back, etc.

I wonder what negotiations might look like if/when many more people are familiar with these tactics or this “meta” of negotiation. However, Chris Voss does relate a story where even he, experienced as he is, got totally taken in by one of his colleagues at his organization with the same “Mirroring” tactic he discussed in one of the very first chapters. The negotiation style as a whole is compared to various “gentle” martial arts such as tai chi, judo, and perhaps even jiu-jitsu (which I think would be a very appropriate analogy) several times throughout the book and, like those martial arts, the techniques probably remain effective due to the realities of the human body (including mind) even if one is facing another skilled practitioner.

What am I taking away from this book?

Humans, your frequent negotiation partners, are:

• Savvy
  • Therefore, do not be tempted by false “Yesses” and diversionary “You’re Rights”
  • Their pronoun use can tend to be the opposite of reality of their importance
  • Might lie to you – some indications:
    • Overuse of 3rd person pronouns and a tendency to not use “I”
    • (Perhaps unconscious) Overuse larger words and more complex sentences to be convincing
  • Can appreciate when you get the worst out of the way with an Accusation Audit of what the worst, most extreme things they could think about you are
    • “This is a lousy deal. You’re going to think I’m a terrible businessman. You may feel like we’ve treated you unfairly.
  • Might claim that they’re offering something “fair” which doesn’t seem so to you
    • You could claim in response that it seems like they’re ready to explain how it’s fair
  • They might try to hide information that they think will negatively affect the deal or their intended outcome, including what their true willingness actually is
  • They might say “I’ll try” or “You’re right” in order to bury the issue and move on without an intent to execute. However, it’s hard to fake conviction or repeatedly lie. Find ways to test their commitment without being overbearing (vary your language and your level of specificity)
    • You might want to ask them “How” they are going to make this deal work out too
      • This could be the third confirmation from them, after first their initial agreement and then asking them if your summary of the deal (perhaps from their view) sounds right to them
• Want to feel in control
  • Can appreciate responding to an incorrect Label or saying “no”
  • Would like to hear “I’m sorry” from you
  • Wants to have time to think and process your words or to just speak
  • Can appreciate hearing about your own deadline, so they can actually manage to cut a deal – if a deal is good, it’s worse for them (as well as you) if they don’t manage to cut it
  • You might want to establish that you’re looking for to treat them fairly and they can let you know if they feel like something is unfair
  • Might want to feel like they’ve squeezed you for value (see Ackerman Bargaining)
• Want to feel understood, acknowledged, and appreciated
  • Can enjoy their words being Mirrored to them
  • Can enjoy minimal encouragement: “Mmm” “Yea” “I see” “Right”
  • Can appreciate a correct label being applied
  • Can appreciate their argument or viewpoint being summarized
  • Are connected to when they say “That’s Right” instead of “You’re Right”
  • Might feel something is not “fair”
    • In which case you should reiterate that you want things to be fair and suggest we should go back to where the unfairness is
  • Might appreciate you more if they know they have common ground with you
• Vague
  • They might not be clear (with their words or in general) about what they really want or need or what’s affecting them
  • Will say “no” when they have other things in mind e.g. “This doesn’t quite work for me,” “I need to consult someone,” “I’m uncomfortable”
• Reactive
  • Doesn’t like loss – can they somehow come to understand what they stand to lose from this incomplete deal?
  • If you get them to say “Yes,” they might be feeling like they want to say “No”
  • Defensiveness can be triggered towards the status quo, impelling change “Why would you leave behind your old management software?” or “Have you given up on this project?”
  • Once again, the Accusation Audit must be brought up. You present an extreme negative view of yourself/the situation (especially if you suggest that it’s a view they hold) and their reaction is to pull back or reject that due to empathy – “No, we don’t think you’re an asshole.”
  • Can be pressured by deadlines, real and perceived
  • Respond to odd or strange numbers with more credibility than round numbers
  • Respond well to reasonable tones with a “because” explanation, even if the explanations is not very logical e.g. “Can I use the printer first because I need to print 5 pages?”
• Is embedded in complex contexts
  • They might work in a team and asking the right questions might reveal deal-killing issues bubbling under the surface of what seems like a simple two-party negotiation
  • Have reasons for what they’re doing (both to our benefit or not) – maybe not good reasons, but reasons nonetheless
    • For example, they might have bad information, misunderstood aims, or are working under unknown constraints
• The reasons why a deal won’t or shouldn’t work out for your counterpart are far more important usually than why they would make the deal so it’s most important to uncover and address those negative reasons

You, a good negotiator, are often:

• Genuine
  • Lean into your nature as someone who’s either Assertive, an Analyst, or an Accommodator
  • Will seek to speak in-person in order to communicate best with both able to speak with tone, facial expressions, and body language
  • Smile
  • Will humanize myself – “I’m Evan”
  • Can show frustration/anger when it arises but at the situation/deal… but not at your counterpart
• Curious and Sensitive
  • Listen actively
  • Don’t stay committed to ideas, realize the complexity of your counterparts and the world
  • Focus on getting the negatives out in the open so they can be addressed
  • Labels interesting conversational “It seems like…”
  • Can define your counterpart’s desires by discovering their boundaries and what they don’t want
  • Stays observant before and after the “negotiation” happens
  • Reviews what they’ve heard from their counterpart, perhaps in a team
• Calm and Calming
  • Voice: frequently positive; at times slow, deep, and downward when wanting to authoritatively but gently establish a point; rarely direct
  • Has time as your ally. Look to slow things down. Pause to give time to counterpart to react and respond to labels, summaries, firm statements, etc. instead of going on to the next point
  • Don’t get emotional and reactive
  • Don’t feel pressured by deadlines
  • Is not needy and is ready to walk from an unfavorable deal
• Vague
  • Offer price ranges
  • “It seems like…”
• Intent and, when necessary, Firm
  • Once again, the slow and deep “DJ Voice” for when a statement that shall brook no argument must be made
  • Knows how to say “no” without saying “no” for as long as possible while also doing things such as showing appreciation, showing monetary appeasement, showing regret
    • 1) “How am I supposed to do that?”
    • 2) “Your offer is very generous, I’m sorry, that just doesn’t work for me.”
    • 3) “I’m sorry but I’m afraid I just can’t do that.”
    • 4) “I’m sorry, no.”
  • Asks Calibrated Questions to have your counterpart address your problems/issues
    • “How…?” “What…?” and rarely “Why…?” (if pushback is desired)
    • Not close-ended questions “Can…?” “Does…?” “Is…?” or concrete ones “Who…?” “When…?” “Where…?”
    • Offers paths forward while your partner leads the way
• Prepared
  • Is aware of what Leverage either counterpart might have on another
    • Positive: The ability to provide what their counterpart wants
    • Negative: The ability to harm their counterpart (their reputation, their worries)
      • Often should only be alluded to in very subtle and indirect manners
    • Normative: The pull of their own (professed) beliefs based on their identities (social, professional, religious, national) – people rarely want to appear hypocritical or fake
  • Might prepare a One Sheet for a negotiation:
    • Think about worst/best, write down the best (your ideal) in a sentence
    • Summarize the situation (aim for that’s right)
    • Accusation Audit + Labeled statements answering those accusations
    • Calibrated Questions ahead of time to avoid problems
      • Deal-killing issues – “What are we up against here?”
      • Behind-the-table deal killers – “How does this affect the rest of your team?”
      • Goals/questions – “What are we trying to accomplish?” – “What’s the core issue here?” – “How is that worthwhile?”
    • Non-monetary offers (good and token)
  • Can use Ackerman Bargaining when going after nitty gritty number deals
    • 65, 85, 95, 100 of targeted number. Empathy, variable “no”s, precise and strange numbers for a final amount perhaps with a token nonmonetary item
• Flexible and can get over yourself
  • Able to put aside internal issues that might get in the way of negotiation at a moment’s notice: your harmful emotional reactions; your preconceived notions (known knowns); your arguments, strategies, and plans that aren’t working; your view of how the world works; your moral matrices/views of what’s righteous; etc.
  • Can deal with all sorts of people
    • Analysts: Skeptical, sensitive to reciprocity, take their time. Be patient with them, don’t overload with questions, be clear
    • Accommodators: May make promises they can’t deliver. May not bring out the negatives that harm the chances of the deal or their own objections because they “want to get along”
    • Assertives: Love to be heard, love their own viewpoint, love winning, love achievement, love getting it done (so, more practical perhaps than a perfection-seeking Analyst). Might not be willing to listen to you unless they think you understand their viewpoints and/or have been listening to their arguments. Also very sensitive to reciprocity

Connections to other Materials

Chris Voss’s insistence that good negotiators should know their counterpart’s “religion” to know what moves and influences them resembles the message from Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind that people have different moral matrices or intuitions that are the base of their behavior. They also both speak to commonalities working in favor of communication, activating a sort of tribalism.

Going further with the above comparison, the two aforementioned books (as well as James Clear’s Atomic Habits) seem to emphasize both the power and ubiquity of intuitional or “System 1” thinking.

Another Atomic Habits tidbit – compare the following quotes:

• “When the pressure is on, you don’t rise to the occasion—you fall to your highest level of preparation.” – Chris Voss
• “You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems.” – James Clear

As stated in my initial thoughts, Never Split the Difference provides more details in terms of what one should say and look out for compared to How to Win Friends and Influence People but both provide a lot of overlapping advice as well: smile, build rapport with acknowledgment and active listening, try to get to your partner’s perspective, avoid arousing their anger, and to be human/genuine. They also both use plenty of stories of their clients, students, and historical figures finding success by using the methods in the book in order to give you a vivid image and, hopefully, a gut sense for how to use these methods. Another difference, however, is that Never Split the Difference is targeted at a more specific field of communication.

One might characterize this book as opposed to Adam Grant’s Give and Take, where this book is advising you to be a better Taker when Adam Grant suggests that you be a Giver for maximum success. However, I think there are cases where the advice does ring similar. The clearest comparison is Adam Grant’s “powerless communication” which could be described in Chris Voss’s words as (perhaps unconscious or non-calibrated) use of calibrated “How”/”What” questions and good active listening. Another is in terms of trying to work with your partner against the situation (in other words, collaborate) rather than against your partner. Another is that you can still be “Giving” in this negotiation with “gifts” that are high value for your partner but low cost for you to provide and vice-versa, leading to an excellent deal for all.

Reflection Reflection (meta; probably not relevant for you)

Unfortunately, I did not manage to fully time the creation of this full reflection. The total time taken to write it completely would probably be somewhere between 5-6 hours, maybe? I’ll strive to do better with timing my writing in the future.

After giving the entire thing a reread, I’d say that I like the structure more than the first reflection and I think I’ll generally keep it and occasionally modify it.