OceanofPDF.com

DEDICATION

Formymotherandfatherwhoshowedmeunconditionallove

andtaughtmethevaluesofhardworkandintegrity

OceanofPDF.com

CONTENTS

Dedication

CHAPTER1|THENEWRULESHowtoBecometheSmartestPerson...inAnyRoom

CHAPTER2|BEAMIRRORHowtoQuicklyEstablishRapport

CHAPTER3|DON’TFEELTHEIRPAIN,LABELITHowtoCreateTrustwithTacticalEmpathy

CHAPTER4|BEWARE“YES”—MASTER“NO”HowtoGenerateMomentumandMakeItSafetoRevealtheRealStakes

CHAPTER5|TRIGGERTHETWOWORDSTHATIMMEDIATELYTRANSFORMANYNEGOTIATION

HowtoGainthePermissiontoPersuade

CHAPTER6|BENDTHEIRREALITYHowtoShapeWhatIsFair

CHAPTER7|CREATETHEILLUSIONOFCONTROLHowtoCalibrateQuestionstoTransformConflictintoCollaboration

CHAPTER8|GUARANTEEEXECUTIONHowtoSpottheLiarsandEnsureFollow-ThroughfromEveryoneElse

CHAPTER9|BARGAINHARDHowtoGetYourPrice

CHAPTER10|FINDTHEBLACKSWANHowtoCreateBreakthroughsbyRevealingtheUnknownUnknowns

AcknowledgmentsAppendix:PrepareaNegotiationOneSheet

NotesIndex

AbouttheAuthorsCreditsCopyright

AboutthePublisher

OceanofPDF.com

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER1

THENEWRULES

Iwasintimidated.I’d spent more than two decades in the FBI, including fifteen years

negotiating hostage situations from New York to the Philippines and theMiddleEast,andIwasontopofmygame.Atanygiventime,therearetenthousandFBIagentsintheBureau,butonlyoneleadinternationalkidnappingnegotiator.Thatwasme.

ButI’dneverexperiencedahostagesituationsotense,sopersonal.“We’vegotyourson,Voss.Giveusonemilliondollarsorhedies.”Pause.Blink.Mindfullyurgetheheartratebacktonormal.Sure,I’dbeeninthesetypesofsituationsbefore.Tonsofthem.Moneyfor

lives.Butnotlikethis.Notwithmysonontheline.Not$1million.Andnotagainstpeoplewithfancydegreesandalifetimeofnegotiatingexpertise.

Yousee,thepeopleacrossthetable—mynegotiatingcounterparts—wereHarvardLawSchoolnegotiatingprofessors.

I’dcomeuptoHarvardtotakeashortexecutivenegotiatingcourse,toseeifIcouldlearnsomethingfromthebusinessworld’sapproach.Itwassupposedtobequietandcalm,alittleprofessionaldevelopmentforanFBIguytryingtowidenhishorizons.

But when Robert Mnookin, the director of the Harvard NegotiationResearchProject,learnedIwasoncampus,heinvitedmetohisofficeforacoffee.Justtochat,hesaid.

I was honored. And scared. Mnookin is an impressive guy whom I’dfollowedforyears:notonlyisheaHarvardlawprofessor,he’salsooneofthebigshotsoftheconflictresolutionfieldandtheauthorofBargainingwiththeDevil:WhentoNegotiate,WhentoFight.1

Tobehonest,itfeltunfairthatMnookinwantedme,aformerKansasCitybeat cop, to debate negotiation with him. But then it got worse. Just afterMnookin and I sat down, the door opened and another Harvard professorwalked in. ItwasGabriellaBlum, a specialist in international negotiations,armedconflict,andcounterterrorism,who’dspenteightyearsasanegotiator

for the IsraeliNationalSecurityCounciland the IsraelDefenseForces.Thetough-as-nailsIDF.

Oncue,Mnookin’ssecretaryarrivedandputataperecorderonthetable.MnookinandBlumsmiledatme.

I’dbeentricked.“We’ve got your son, Voss. Give us one million dollars or he dies,”

Mnookinsaid,smiling.“I’mthekidnapper.Whatareyougoingtodo?”I experienced a flash of panic, but that was to be expected. It never

changes: even after two decades negotiating for human lives you still feelfear.Eveninarole-playingsituation.

Icalmedmyselfdown.Sure,IwasastreetcopturnedFBIagentplayingagainstrealheavyweights.AndIwasn’tagenius.ButIwasinthisroomforareason.OvertheyearsIhadpickedupskills,tactics,andawholeapproachtohuman interaction thathadnot justhelpedmesave livesbut,as I recognizenow looking back, had also begun to transformmy own life.My years ofnegotiating had infused everything from how I dealtwith customer servicerepstomyparentingstyle.

“C’mon.GetmethemoneyorIcutyourson’sthroatrightnow,”Mnookinsaid.Testy.

Igavehimalong,slowstare.ThenIsmiled.“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”Mnookinpaused.Hisexpressionhadatouchofamusedpityinit, likea

dogwhenthecatit’sbeenchasingturnsaroundandtriestochaseitback.Itwasasifwewereplayingdifferentgames,withdifferentrules.

Mnookinregainedhiscomposureandeyedmewitharchedbrowsasiftoremindmethatwewerestillplaying.

“Soyou’reokaywithmekillingyourson,Mr.Voss?”“I’m sorry, Robert, how do I know he’s even alive?” I said, using an

apologyandhisfirstname,seedingmorewarmthintotheinteractioninordertocomplicatehisgambittobulldozeme.“Ireallyamsorry,buthowcanIgetyouanymoneyrightnow,muchlessonemilliondollars,ifIdon’tevenknowhe’salive?”

Itwasquiteasighttoseesuchabrilliantmanflusteredbywhatmusthaveseemedunsophisticated foolishness.On thecontrary, though,mymovewasanything but foolish. I was employing what had become one of the FBI’smostpotentnegotiatingtools:theopen-endedquestion.

Today,aftersomeyearsevolvingthesetacticsfortheprivatesectorinmyconsultancy,TheBlackSwanGroup,wecallthistacticcalibratedquestions:queries that theothersidecan respond tobut thathavenofixedanswers. Itbuysyoutime.Itgivesyourcounterparttheillusionofcontrol—theyarethe

onewiththeanswersandpowerafterall—anditdoesallthatwithoutgivingthemanyideaofhowconstrainedtheyarebyit.

Mnookin, predictably, started fumbling because the frame of theconversation had shifted from how I’d respond to the threat of my son’smurdertohowtheprofessorwoulddealwiththelogisticalissuesinvolvedingetting themoney.How hewould solvemy problems. To every threat anddemandhemade,IcontinuedtoaskhowIwassupposedtopayhimandhowwasIsupposedtoknowthatmysonwasalive.

Afterwe’dbeendoingthatforthreeminutes,GabriellaBluminterjected.“Don’tlethimdothattoyou,”shesaidtoMnookin.“Well,youtry,”hesaid,throwinguphishands.Blumdovein.ShewastougherfromheryearsintheMiddleEast.Butshe

wasstilldoingthebulldozerangle,andallshegotweremysamequestions.Mnookinrejoinedthesession,buthegotnowhereeither.Hisfacestarted

to get redwith frustration. I could tell the irritationwasmaking it hard tothink.

“Okay,okay,Bob.That’sall,”Isaid,puttinghimoutofhismisery.Henodded.Mysonwouldlivetoseeanotherday.“Fine,”hesaid.“IsupposetheFBImighthavesomethingtoteachus.”

I had done more than just hold my own against two of Harvard’sdistinguishedleaders.Ihadtakenonthebestofthebestandcomeoutontop.

Butwasitjustafluke?Formorethanthreedecades,Harvardhadbeentheworld epicenter of negotiating theory and practice. All I knew about thetechniquesweused at theFBIwas that theyworked. In the twenty years Ispent at theBureauwe’d designed a system that had successfully resolvedalmosteverykidnappingweapplieditto.Butwedidn’thavegrandtheories.

Our techniques were the products of experiential learning; they weredevelopedbyagentsinthefield,negotiatingthroughcrisisandsharingstoriesof what succeeded and what failed. It was an iterative process, not anintellectual one, aswe refined the toolswe used day after day.And itwasurgent.Ourtoolshadtowork,becauseiftheydidn’tsomeonedied.

Butwhydidtheywork?ThatwasthequestionthatdrewmetoHarvard,tothatofficewithMnookinandBlum.I lackedconfidenceoutsidemynarrowworld.Most of all, I needed to articulatemy knowledge and learn how tocombine itwith theirs—and they clearly had some—so I could understand,systematize,andexpandit.

Yes, our techniques clearly worked with mercenaries, drug dealers,terrorists, and brutal killers. But, I wondered, what about with normalhumans?

AsI’dsoondiscoverinthestoriedhallsofHarvard,ourtechniquesmadegreatsenseintellectually,andtheyworkedeverywhere.

It turned out that our approach to negotiation held the keys to unlockprofitable human interactions in every domain and every interaction andeveryrelationshipinlife.

Thisbookishowitworks.

THESMARTESTDUMBGUYINTHEROOM

Toanswermyquestions,ayearlater,in2006,ItalkedmywayintoHarvardLawSchool’sWinterNegotiationCourse.Thebestandbrightestcompetetogetintothisclass,anditwasfilledwithbrilliantHarvardstudentsgettinglawandbusinessdegreesandhotshotstudentsfromothertopBostonuniversitiesliketheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyandTufts.TheOlympictrialsfornegotiating.AndIwastheonlyoutsider.

The firstdayof thecourse,all144ofuspiled intoa lecturehall foranintroduction and then we split into four groups, each led by a negotiationinstructor.Afterwe’dhadachatwithourinstructor—minewasnamedSheilaHeen,andshe’sagoodbuddytothisday—wewerepartneredoffinpairsandsentintomocknegotiations.Simple:oneofuswassellingaproduct,theotherwasthebuyer,andeachhadclearlimitsonthepricetheycouldtake.

MycounterpartwasalanguidredheadnamedAndy(apseudonym),oneof those guys who wear their intellectual superiority like they wear theirkhakis: with relaxed confidence. He and I went into an empty classroomoverlookingoneofthoseEnglish-stylesquaresonHarvard’scampus,andweeach used the tools we had. Andy would throw out an offer and give arationally airtight explanation for why it was a good one—an inescapablelogictrap—andI’danswerwithsomevariationof“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”

Wedidthisabunchoftimesuntilwegottoafinalfigure.Whenweleft,Iwashappy.IthoughtI’ddoneprettywellforadumbguy.

Afterweallregroupedintheclassroom,Sheilawentaroundthestudentsandaskedwhatpriceeachgrouphadagreedon,andthenwrotetheresultontheboard.

Finally,itwasmyturn.“Chris,howdidyoudowithAndy?”sheasked.“Howmuchdidyouget?”I’ll never forget Sheila’s expression when I told her what Andy had

agreed topay.Herwholefacefirstwentred,as ifshecouldn’tbreathe,andthenoutpoppedalittlestrangledgasplikeababybird’shungrycry.Finally,shestartedtolaugh.

Andysquirmed.“Yougotliterallyeverydimehehad,”shesaid,“andinhisbriefhewas

supposedtoholdaquarterofitbackinreserveforfuturework.”Andysankdeepinhischair.

Thenextdaythesamethinghappenedwithanotherpartner.Imean,Iabsolutelydestroyedtheguy’sbudget.It didn’t make sense. A lucky one-off was one thing. But this was a

pattern.Withmyold-school,experientialknowledge,Iwaskillingguyswhokneweverycutting-edgetrickyoucouldfindinabook.

Thethingwas, itwasthecutting-edgetechniquestheseguyswereusingthatfeltdatedandold.IfeltlikeIwasRogerFedererandIhadusedatimemachine to go back to the 1920s to play in a tennis tournament ofdistinguishedgentlemenwhoworewhitepantsuitsandusedwoodracketsandhadpart-time training regimens.There Iwaswithmy titaniumalloy racketand dedicated personal trainer and computer-strategized serve-and-volleyplays.TheguysIwasplayingwerejustassmart—actually,moreso—andwewerebasicallyplaying the samegamewith the same rules.But I had skillstheydidn’t.

“You’regettingfamousforyourspecialstyle,Chris,”Sheilasaid,afterIannouncedmysecondday’sresults.

IsmiledliketheCheshirecat.Winningwasfun.“Chris, why don’t you tell everybody your approach,” Sheila said. “It

seemslikeallyoudototheseHarvardLawSchoolstudentsissay‘No’andstareatthem,andtheyfallapart.Isitreallythateasy?”

I knew what she meant: While I wasn’t actually saying “No,” thequestions I kept asking sounded like it. They seemed to insinuate that theothersidewasbeingdishonestandunfair.Andthatwasenoughtomakethemfalter and negotiate with themselves. Answering my calibrated questionsdemanded deep emotional strengths and tactical psychological insights thatthetoolboxthey’dbeengivendidnotcontain.

Ishrugged.“I’mjustaskingquestions,”Isaid.“It’sapassive-aggressiveapproach.I

justaskthesamethreeorfouropen-endedquestionsoverandoverandoverandover.TheygetwornoutansweringandgivemeeverythingIwant.”

Andyjumpedinhisseatasifhe’dbeenstungbyabee.“Damn!”hesaid.“That’swhathappened.Ihadnoidea.”

By the time I’d finishedmywinter course atHarvard, I’d actually becomefriendswithsomeofmyfellowstudents.EvenwithAndy.

IfmytimeatHarvardshowedmeanything,itwasthatweattheFBIhadalottoteachtheworldaboutnegotiating.

Inmy short stay I realized thatwithout a deepunderstandingof humanpsychology,withouttheacceptancethatweareallcrazy,irrational,impulsive,emotionallydrivenanimals,alltherawintelligenceandmathematicallogicinthe world is little help in the fraught, shifting interplay of two peoplenegotiating.

Yes, perhaps we are the only animal that haggles—amonkey does notexchangeaportionofhisbananaforanother’snuts—butnomatterhowwedressupournegotiationsinmathematicaltheories,wearealwaysananimal,alwaysactingandreactingfirstandforemostfromourdeeplyheldbutmostlyinvisibleandinchoatefears,needs,perceptions,anddesires.

That’s not how these folks atHarvard learned it, though.Their theoriesand techniques all had to do with intellectual power, logic, authoritativeacronyms like BATNA and ZOPA, rational notions of value, and a moralconceptofwhatwasfairandwhatwasnot.

Andbuiltontopofthisfalseedificeofrationalitywas,ofcourse,process.Theyhadascripttofollow,apredeterminedsequenceofactions,offers,andcounteroffersdesignedinaspecificordertobringaboutaparticularoutcome.Itwasasiftheyweredealingwitharobot,thatifyoudida,b,c,anddinacertainfixedorder,youwouldgetx.Butintherealworldnegotiationisfartoo unpredictable and complex for that.Youmay have to doa thend, andthenmaybeq.

If I coulddominate the country’sbrightest studentswith just oneof themany emotionally attuned negotiating techniques I had developed and usedagainstterroristsandkidnappers,whynotapplythemtobusiness?WhatwasthedifferencebetweenbankrobberswhotookhostagesandCEOswhousedhardballtacticstodrivedownthepriceofabillion-dollaracquisition?

Afterall,kidnappersarejustbusinessmentryingtogetthebestprice.

OLD-SCHOOLNEGOTIATION

Hostage taking—and therefore hostage negotiating—has existed since thedawnofrecordedtime.TheOldTestamentspinsplentyoftalesofIsraelitesand their enemies takingeachother’scitizenshostageas spoilsofwar.TheRomans,fortheirpart,usedtoforcetheprincesofvassalstatestosendtheirsons to Rome for their education, to ensure the continued loyalty of theprinces.

Butuntil theNixonadministration,hostagenegotiatingasaprocesswaslimited to sending in troops and trying to shoot the hostages free. In law

enforcement,ourapproachwasprettymuchtotalkuntilwefiguredouthowtotakethemoutwithagun.Bruteforce.

Thenaseriesofhostagedisastersforcedustochange.In1971,thirty-ninehostageswerekilledwhenthepolicetriedtoresolve

the Attica prison riots in upstate New York with guns. Then at the 1972OlympicsinMunich,elevenIsraeliathletesandcoacheswerekilledbytheirPalestiniancaptorsafterabotchedrescueattemptbytheGermanpolice.

But the greatest inspiration for institutional change in American lawenforcementcameonanairporttarmacinJacksonville,Florida,onOctober4,1971.

TheUnitedStateswasexperiencinganepidemicof airlinehijackingsatthe time; there were five in one three-day period in 1970. It was in thatchargedatmospherethatanunhingedmannamedGeorgeGiffeJr.hijackedacharteredplaneoutofNashville,Tennessee,planningtoheadtotheBahamas.

Bythetimetheincidentwasover,Giffehadmurderedtwohostages—hisestrangedwifeandthepilot—andkilledhimselftoboot.

Butthistimetheblamedidn’tfallonthehijacker;instead,itfellsquarelyontheFBI.TwohostageshadmanagedtoconvinceGiffe to let themgoonthetarmacinJacksonville,wherethey’dstoppedtorefuel.Buttheagentshadgotten impatient and shot out the engine.And that had pushedGiffe to thenuclearoption.

Infact, theblameplacedon theFBIwassostrongthatwhenthepilot’swifeandGiffe’sdaughterfiledawrongfuldeathsuitallegingFBInegligence,thecourtsagreed.

InthelandmarkDownsv.UnitedStatesdecisionof1975,theU.S.CourtofAppealswrotethat“therewasabettersuitedalternativetoprotectingthehostages’ well-being,” and said that the FBI had turned “what had been asuccessful ‘waiting game,’ during which two persons safely left the plane,intoa‘shootingmatch’thatleftthreepersonsdead.”Thecourtconcludedthat“a reasonable attempt at negotiations must be made prior to a tacticalintervention.”

TheDowns hijacking case came to epitomize everythingnot to do in acrisissituation,andinspiredthedevelopmentoftoday’stheories,training,andtechniquesforhostagenegotiations.

Soon after the Giffe tragedy, the New York City Police Department(NYPD) became the first police force in the country to put together adedicated team of specialists to design a process and handle crisisnegotiations.TheFBIandothersfollowed.

Aneweraofnegotiationhadbegun.

HEARTVS.MIND

In the early 1980s, Cambridge, Massachusetts, was the hot spot in thenegotiatingworld,asscholarsfromdifferentdisciplinesbeganinteractingandexploringexcitingnewconcepts.Thebig leap forwardcame in1979,whentheHarvardNegotiationProjectwasfoundedwithamandatetoimprovethetheory, teaching, and practice of negotiation so that people could moreeffectivelyhandleeverythingfrompeacetreatiestobusinessmergers.

Twoyearslater,RogerFisherandWilliamUry—cofoundersoftheproject—cameoutwithGettingtoYes,2agroundbreakingtreatiseonnegotiationthattotallychangedthewaypractitionersthoughtaboutthefield.

FisherandUry’sapproachwasbasically tosystematizeproblemsolvingsothatnegotiatingpartiescouldreachamutuallybeneficialdeal—thegettingto“Yes”inthetitle.Theircoreassumptionwasthattheemotionalbrain—thatanimalistic, unreliable, and irrational beast—could be overcome through amorerational,jointproblem-solvingmindset.

Their systemwas easy to follow and seductive, with four basic tenets.One, separate the person—the emotion—from the problem; two, don’t getwrappedupintheotherside’sposition(what they’reaskingfor)butinsteadfocusontheir interests(why they’reaskingfor it)sothatyoucanfindwhattheyreallywant;three,workcooperativelytogeneratewin-winoptions;and,four, establishmutuallyagreed-uponstandards forevaluating thosepossiblesolutions.

Itwasabrilliant, rational, andprofoundsynthesisof themostadvancedgametheoryandlegalthinkingoftheday.Foryearsafterthatbookcameout,everybody—includingtheFBIandtheNYPD—focusedonaproblem-solvingapproachtobargaininginteractions.Itjustseemedsomodernandsmart.

Halfway across theUnited States, a pair of professors at theUniversity ofChicagowaslookingateverythingfromeconomicstonegotiationfromafardifferentangle.

They were the economist Amos Tversky and the psychologist DanielKahneman.Together, the two launched the fieldofbehavioral economics—andKahnemanwonaNobelPrize—byshowingthatmanisaveryirrationalbeast.

Feeling,theydiscovered,isaformofthinking.As you’ve seen, when business schools like Harvard’s began teaching

negotiation in the 1980s, the process was presented as a straightforwardeconomicanalysis.Itwasaperiodwhentheworld’stopacademiceconomistsdeclared that we were all “rational actors.” And so it went in negotiation

classes:assumingtheothersidewasactingrationallyandselfishlyintryingtomaximize itsposition, thegoalwas to figureouthow to respond invariousscenariostomaximizeone’sownvalue.

Thismentality baffledKahneman,who from years in psychology knewthat,inhiswords,“[I]tisself-evidentthatpeopleareneitherfullyrationalnorcompletelyselfish,andthattheirtastesareanythingbutstable.”

Through decades of research with Tversky, Kahneman proved thathumansallsufferfromCognitiveBias,thatis,unconscious—andirrational—brainprocessesthatliterallydistortthewayweseetheworld.KahnemanandTverskydiscoveredmorethan150ofthem.

There’s the Framing Effect, which demonstrates that people responddifferently to the samechoicedependingonhow it is framed (peopleplacegreatervalueonmovingfrom90percentto100percent—highprobabilitytocertainty—thanfrom45percent to55percent,eventhoughthey’rebothtenpercentagepoints).ProspectTheoryexplainswhywetakeunwarrantedrisksinthefaceofuncertainlosses.AndthemostfamousisLossAversion,whichshowshowpeopleare statisticallymore likely toact toavert a loss than toachieveanequalgain.

Kahnemanlatercodifiedhisresearchinthe2011bestsellerThinking,FastandSlow.3Man,hewrote,hastwosystemsofthought:System1,ouranimalmind, is fast, instinctive,andemotional;System2 is slow,deliberative,andlogical.AndSystem1isfarmoreinfluential.Infact,itguidesandsteersourrationalthoughts.

System 1’s inchoate beliefs, feelings, and impressions are the mainsourcesoftheexplicitbeliefsanddeliberatechoicesofSystem2.They’rethespringthatfeedstheriver.Wereactemotionally(System1)toasuggestionorquestion. Then that System 1 reaction informs and in effect creates theSystem2answer.

Nowthinkabout that:under thismodel, ifyouknowhowtoaffectyourcounterpart’sSystem1thinking,his inarticulatefeelings,byhowyouframeanddeliveryourquestionsandstatements, thenyoucanguidehisSystem2rationalityandthereforemodifyhisresponses.That’swhathappenedtoAndyat Harvard: by asking, “How am I supposed to do that?” I influenced hisSystem1emotionalmind intoaccepting thathisofferwasn’tgoodenough;hisSystem2thenrationalizedthesituationsothatitmadesensetogivemeabetteroffer.

If you believedKahneman, conducting negotiations based on System 2conceptswithoutthetoolstoread,understand,andmanipulatetheSystem1emotional underpinning was like trying to make an omelet without firstknowinghowtocrackanegg.

THEFBIGETSEMOTIONAL

As the new hostage negotiating team at the FBI grew and gained moreexperience in problem-solving skills during the 1980s and ’90s, it becameclearthatoursystemwaslackingacrucialingredient.

At the time, we were deep into Getting to Yes. And as a negotiator,consultant,andteacherwithdecadesofexperience,Istillagreewithmanyofthe powerful bargaining strategies in the book. When it was published, itprovided groundbreaking ideas on cooperative problem solving andoriginated absolutely necessary concepts like entering negotiations with aBATNA:theBestAlternativeToaNegotiatedAgreement.

Itwasgenius.But after the fatally disastrous sieges of Randy Weaver’s Ruby Ridge

farm in Idaho in 1992 and David Koresh’s Branch Davidian compound inWaco,Texas, in1993, therewasnodenying thatmosthostagenegotiationswereanythingbutrationalproblem-solvingsituations.

I mean, have you ever tried to devise a mutually beneficial win-winsolutionwithaguywhothinkshe’sthemessiah?

Itwasbecomingglaringlyobvious thatGetting toYes didn’tworkwithkidnappers.Nomatter howmany agents read the bookwith highlighters inhand, it failed to improve how we as hostage negotiators approached dealmaking.

Therewas clearly a breakdown between the book’s brilliant theory andeverydaylawenforcementexperience.Whywasitthateveryonehadreadthisbestsellingbusinessbook and endorsed it as oneof thegreatest negotiationtextseverwritten,andyetsofewcouldactuallyfollowitsuccessfully?

Werewemorons?AfterRubyRidge andWaco, a lot of peoplewere asking that question.

U.S. deputy attorney general Philip B.Heymann, to be specific, wanted toknowwhyourhostagenegotiationtechniquesweresobad.InOctober1993,heissuedareporttitled“LessonsofWaco:ProposedChangesinFederalLawEnforcement,”4whichsummarizedanexpertpanel’sdiagnosisoffederallawenforcement’sinabilitytohandlecomplexhostagesituations.

Asaresult,in1994FBIdirectorLouisFreehannouncedtheformationoftheCriticalIncidentResponseGroup(CIRG),ablendeddivisionthatwouldcombine the Crises Negotiation, Crises Management, Behavioral Sciences,andHostageRescueteamsandreinventcrisisnegotiation.

Theonlyissuewas,whattechniqueswerewegoingtouse?

Around this time, twoof themostdecoratednegotiators inFBIhistory,my

colleagueFredLanceleyandmyformerbossGaryNoesner,were leadingahostagenegotiationclassinOakland,California,whentheyaskedtheirgroupof thirty-five experienced law enforcement officers a simple question:Howmanyhaddealtwithaclassicbargainingsituationwhereproblemsolvingwasthebesttechnique?

Notonehandwentup.Then they asked the complementary question: Howmany students had

negotiatedanincidentinadynamic,intense,uncertainenvironmentwherethehostage-takerwasinemotionalcrisisandhadnocleardemands?

Everyhandwentup.It was clear: if emotionally driven incidents, not rational bargaining

interactions,constitutedthebulkofwhatmostpolicenegotiatorshadtodealwith,thenournegotiatingskillshadtolaser-focusontheanimal,emotional,andirrational.

Fromthatmomentonward,ouremphasiswouldhavetobenotontrainingin quid pro quo bargaining and problem solving, but on education in thepsychological skills needed in crisis intervention situations. Emotions andemotional intelligencewouldhave tobecentral toeffectivenegotiation,notthingstobeovercome.

Whatwere neededwere simple psychological tactics and strategies thatworked in the field tocalmpeopledown,establish rapport,gain trust,elicitthe verbalization of needs, and persuade the other guy of our empathy.Weneededsomethingeasytoteach,easytolearn,andeasytoexecute.

These were cops and agents, after all, and they weren’t interested inbecoming academics or therapists. What they wanted was to change thebehaviorofthehostage-taker,whoevertheywereandwhatevertheywanted,toshifttheemotionalenvironmentofthecrisisjustenoughsothatwecouldsecurethesafetyofeveryoneinvolved.

In theearlyyears, theFBIexperimentedwithbothnewandold therapeutictechniques developed by the counseling profession. These counseling skillswereaimedatdevelopingpositiverelationshipswithpeoplebydemonstratinganunderstandingofwhatthey’regoingthroughandhowtheyfeelaboutit.

Itallstartswiththeuniversallyapplicablepremisethatpeoplewanttobeunderstood and accepted. Listening is the cheapest, yet most effectiveconcession we can make to get there. By listening intensely, a negotiatordemonstratesempathyandshowsa sinceredesire tobetterunderstandwhattheothersideisexperiencing.

Psychotherapyresearchshowsthatwhenindividualsfeellistenedto,theytendtolistentothemselvesmorecarefullyandtoopenlyevaluateandclarify

their own thoughts and feelings. In addition, they tend to become lessdefensiveandoppositionalandmorewillingtolistentootherpointsofview,whichgetsthemtothecalmandlogicalplacewheretheycanbegoodGettingtoYesproblemsolvers.

Thewholeconcept,whichyou’lllearnasthecenterpieceofthisbook,iscalledTacticalEmpathy.Thisislisteningasamartialart,balancingthesubtlebehaviors of emotional intelligence and the assertive skills of influence, togain access to the mind of another person. Contrary to popular opinion,listeningisnotapassiveactivity.Itisthemostactivethingyoucando.

Once we started developing our new techniques, the negotiating worldsplit into two currents: negotiation as learned at the country’s top schoolcontinued down the established road of rational problem solving, while,ironically,wemeatheadsattheFBIbegantotrainouragentsinanunprovensystem based on psychology, counseling, and crisis intervention.While theIvyLeaguetaughtmathandeconomics,webecameexpertsinempathy.

Andourwayworked.

LIFEISNEGOTIATION

While youmight be curious how FBI negotiators get some of the world’stoughest bad guys to give up their hostages, you could be excused forwonderingwhathostagenegotiationhas todowithyour life.Happily,veryfewpeopleareeverforcedtodealwithIslamistterroristswho’vekidnappedtheirlovedones.

Butallowmetoletyouinonasecret:Lifeisnegotiation.The majority of the interactions we have at work and at home are

negotiationsthatboildowntotheexpressionofasimple,animalisticurge:Iwant.

“Iwantyoutofreethehostages,”isaveryrelevantonetothisbook,ofcourse.

Butsois:“Iwantyoutoacceptthat$1millioncontract.”“Iwanttopay$20,000forthatcar.”“Iwantyoutogivemea10percentraise.”and“Iwantyoutogotosleepat9p.m.”Negotiation serves two distinct, vital life functions—information

gathering and behavior influencing—and includes almost any interactionwhere each party wants something from the other side. Your career, yourfinances,yourreputation,yourlovelife,eventhefateofyourkids—atsome

pointallofthesehingeonyourabilitytonegotiate.Negotiation as you’ll learn it here is nothingmore than communication

withresults.Gettingwhatyouwantoutof life isallaboutgettingwhatyouwant from—and with—other people. Conflict between two parties isinevitableinallrelationships.Soit’suseful—crucial,even—toknowhowtoengageinthatconflicttogetwhatyouwantwithoutinflictingdamage.

In this book, I drawonmymore than two-decade career in theFederalBureauofInvestigationtodistilltheprinciplesandpracticesIdeployedinthefieldintoanexcitingnewapproachdesignedtohelpyoudisarm,redirect,anddismantle your counterpart in virtually any negotiation. And to do so in arelationship-affirmingway.

Yes,you’lllearnhowwenegotiatedthesafereleaseofcountlesshostages.Butyou’llalsolearnhowtouseadeepunderstandingofhumanpsychologytonegotiatealowercarprice,abiggerraise,andachild’sbedtime.Thisbookwill teach you to reclaim control of the conversations that informyour lifeandcareer.

The first step to achieving amastery of daily negotiation is to get overyour aversion to negotiating. You don’t need to like it; you just need tounderstand that’s how the world works. Negotiating does not meanbrowbeating or grinding someone down. It simply means playing theemotionalgamethathumansocietyissetupfor.Inthisworld,yougetwhatyouaskfor;youjusthavetoaskcorrectly.Soclaimyourprerogativetoaskforwhatyouthinkisright.

Whatthisbookisreallyabout, then, isgettingyoutoacceptnegotiationand indoingso learnhowtogetwhatyouwant inapsychologicallyawareway. You’ll learn to use your emotions, instincts, and insights in anyencountertoconnectbetterwithothers,influencethem,andachievemore.

Effective negotiation is applied people smarts, a psychological edge ineverydomainoflife:howtosizesomeoneup,howtoinfluencetheirsizingupofyou,andhowtousethatknowledgetogetwhatyouwant.

Butbeware:thisisnotanotherpop-psychbook.It’sadeepandthoughtful(andmostofall,practical) takeon leadingpsychological theory thatdistillslessonsfromatwenty-four-yearcareerintheFBIandtenyearsteachingandconsultinginthebestbusinessschoolsandcorporationsintheworld.

And itworks forone simple reason: itwasdesigned in and for the realworld.Itwasnotborninaclassroomoratraininghall,butbuiltfromyearsofexperiencethatimprovedituntilitreachednearperfection.

Remember,ahostagenegotiatorplaysauniquerole:hehas towin.Canhe say to a bank robber, “Okay, you’ve taken four hostages. Let’s split thedifference—givemetwo,andwe’llcallitaday?”

No. A successful hostage negotiator has to get everything he asks for,withoutgivinganythingbackofsubstance,anddosoinawaythatleavestheadversariesfeelingasiftheyhaveagreatrelationship.Hisworkisemotionalintelligenceonsteroids.Thosearethetoolsyou’lllearnhere.

THEBOOK

Likeacontractorbuildingahouse,thisbookisconstructedfromthegroundup: first comes thebig slabsof foundation, then thenecessary load-bearingwalls,theelegantbutimpermeableroof,andthelovelyinteriordecorations.

Eachchapter expandson thepreviousone.Firstyou’ll learn the refinedtechniques of this approach toActiveListening and then you’llmove on tospecific tools, turnsofphrase, the insandoutsof the finalact—haggling—and, finally, how to discover the rarity that can help you achieve truenegotiatinggreatness:theBlackSwan.

In Chapter 2, you’ll learn how to avoid the assumptions that blindneophytenegotiatorsandreplace themwithActiveListening techniques likeMirroring,Silences,andtheLate-NightFMDJVoice.You’lldiscoverhowtoslow things down and make your counterpart feel safe enough to revealthemselves; to discern between wants (aspirations) and needs (the bareminimumforadeal);andtolaser-focusonwhattheotherpartyhastosay.

Chapter3willdelveintoTacticalEmpathy.You’lllearnhowtorecognizeyourcounterpart’sperspectiveandthengaintrustandunderstandingthroughLabeling—that is, by repeating that perspective back to them. You’ll alsolearn how to defuse negative dynamics by bringing them into the open.Finally,I’llexplainhowtodisarmyourcounterpart’scomplaintsaboutyoubyspeakingthemaloudinanAccusationAudit.

Next, in Chapter 4, I’ll examine ways to make your counterpart feelunderstood and positively affirmed in a negotiation in order to create anatmosphere of unconditional positive regard. Here, you’ll learn why youshould strive for “That’s right” instead of “Yes” at every stage of anegotiation, and how to identify, rearticulate, and emotionally affirm yourcounterpart’sworldviewwithSummariesandParaphrasing.

Chapter 5 teaches the flip side ofGetting to Yes.You’ll learn why it’svitally important to get to “No”because “No” starts the negotiation.You’llalsodiscoverhowtostepoutofyouregoandnegotiateinyourcounterpart’sworld, theonlyway toachieveanagreement theothersidewill implement.Finally, you’ll see how to engage your counterpart by acknowledging theirright tochoose, andyou’ll learnanemail technique that ensures thatyou’llneverbeignoredagain.

InChapter6,you’lldiscovertheartofbendingreality.Thatis,I’llexplaina variety of tools for framing a negotiation in such a way that yourcounterpartwillunconsciouslyacceptthelimitsyouplaceonthediscussion.You’lllearnhowtonavigatedeadlinestocreateurgency;employtheideaoffairness to nudge your counterpart; and anchor their emotions so that notacceptingyourofferfeelslikealoss.

Afterthis,Chapter7isdedicatedtothatincrediblypowerfultoolIusedatHarvard: Calibrated Questions, the queries that begin with “How?” or“What?”Byeliminating“Yes”and“No”answerstheyforceyourcounterparttoapplytheirmentalenergytosolvingyourproblems.

InChapter8IdemonstratehowtoemploytheseCalibratedQuestions toguardagainstfailuresintheimplementationphase.“Yes,”asIalwayssay,isnothing without “How?” You’ll also discover the importance of nonverbalcommunication;howtouse“How”questionstogentlysay“No”;howtogetyour counterparts to bid against themselves; and how to influence the dealkillerswhenthey’renotatthetable.

Atacertainpoint,everynegotiationgetsdowntothebrasstacks:thatis,toold-schoolhaggling.Chapter9offers a step-by-stepprocess for effectivebargaining, fromhow toprepare tohow tododgeanaggressivecounterpartandhowtogoontheoffensive.You’lllearntheAckermansystem,themosteffectiveprocesstheFBIhasforsettingandmakingoffers.

Finally, Chapter 10 explains how to find and use those most rare ofnegotiationanimals:theBlackSwan.Ineverynegotiationtherearebetweenthreeandfivepiecesof information that,were they tobeuncovered,wouldchange everything. The concept is an absolute game-changer; so much so,I’venamedmycompanyTheBlackSwanGroup.Inthischapter,you’lllearnhowtorecognizethemarkersthatshowtheBlackSwan’shiddennest,aswellas simple tools for employing Black Swans to gain leverage over yourcounterpartandachievetrulyamazingdeals.

Each chapterwill startwith a fast-paced story of a hostage negotiation,whichwillthenbedissectedwithaneyetoexplainingwhatworkedandwhatdidn’t. After I explain the theory and the tools, you’ll read real-life casestudies from me and others who’ve used these tools to prevail whilenegotiatingasalary,purchasingacar,orworkingoutnettlesomeproblemsathome.

Whenyoufinishthisbook,Iwillhavesucceededifyou’veappliedthesecrucial techniques to improve your career and life. I’m sure youwill. Justremember,tosuccessfullynegotiateitiscriticaltoprepare.WhichiswhyintheAppendix you’ll find an invaluable tool I usewith allmy students andclients called theNegotiationOneSheet: a conciseprimerofnearly all our

tactics and strategies for you to think through and customize for whateverkindofdealyou’relookingtoclose.

Most important tome is that you understand howurgent, essential, andeven beautiful negotiation can be. When we embrace negotiating’stransformative possibilities,we learn how to getwhatwewant and how tomoveotherstoabetterplace.

Negotiation is the heart of collaboration. It is what makes conflictpotentiallymeaningfulandproductiveforallparties.Itcanchangeyourlife,asithaschangedmine.

I’ve always thought of myself as just a regular guy. Hardworking andwilling to learn,yes,butnotparticularly talented.And I’vealways felt thatlifeholdsamazingpossibilities.Inmymuchyoungerdays,Ijustdidn’tknowhowtounlockthosepossibilities.

But with the skills I’ve learned, I’ve foundmyself doing extraordinarythingsandwatchingthepeopleI’vetaughtachievetrulylife-changingresults.WhenIusewhatI’velearnedoverthelastthirtyyears,IknowIactuallyhavethepowertochangethecourseofwheremylifeisgoing,andtohelpothersdothataswell.Thirtyyearsago,whileIfeltlikethatcouldbedone,Ididn’tknowhow.

NowIdo.Here’show.

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER2

BEAMIRROR

September30,1993

A brisk autumn morning, around eight thirty. Two masked bank robberstrigger an alarm as they storm into the ChaseManhattan Bank at SeventhAvenueandCarrollStreetinBrooklyn.Thereareonlytwofemaletellersandamale security guard inside.The robbers crack the unarmed sixty-year-oldsecurityguardacrosstheskullwitha.357,draghimtothemen’sroom,andlockhiminside.Oneofthetellersgetsthesamepistol-whippingtreatment.

Then one of the robbers turns to the other teller, puts the barrel in hermouth,andpullsthetrigger—click,goestheemptychamber.

“Nextoneisreal,”saystherobber.“Nowopenthevault.”

Abankrobbery,withhostages.Happensallthetimeinthemovies,butithadbeen almost twenty years since there’d beenone of these standoffs inNewYork,thecitywithmorehostagenegotiationjobsthananyotherjurisdictioninthecountry.

And this happened to be my very first feet-to-the-fire, in-your-facehostagejob.

Ihadbeentrainingforaboutayearandahalfinhostagenegotiations,butIhadn’thadachancetousemynewskills.Forme,1993hadalreadybeenavery busy and incredible ride.Working on the FBI’s Joint Terrorism TaskForce,Ihadbeentheco–caseagentinaninvestigationthatthwartedaplottosetoffbombsintheHollandandLincolnTunnels,theUnitedNations,and26FederalPlaza,thehomeoftheFBIinNewYorkCity.Webrokeitupjustasterroristsweremixing bombs in a safe house. The plotterswere associatedwithanEgyptiancellthathadtiestothe“BlindSheikh,”wholaterwouldbefoundguiltyofmastermindingtheplotthatweuncovered.

Youmightthinkabankrobberywouldbesmallpotatoesafterwebustedupaterroristplot,butbythenIhadalreadycometorealizethatnegotiationwouldbemy lifelongpassion. Iwaseager toputmynewskills to the test.Andbesides,therewasnothingsmallaboutthissituation.

Whenwegotthecall,mycolleagueCharlieBeaudoinandIracedtothe

scene, bailed out of his black Crown Victoria, and made our way to thecommand post. The whole cavalry showed up for this one—NYPD, FBI,SWAT—allthemuscleandsavvyoflawenforcementupagainsttheknee-jerkdesperationofacoupleofbankrobbersseeminglyinovertheirheads.

NewYorkpolice,behindawallofblueandwhitetrucksandpatrolcars,had set up across the street inside another bank. SWAT team members,peering throughriflescopesfromtheroofsofnearbybrownstonebuildings,hadtheirweaponstrainedonthebank’sfrontandreardoors.

ASSUMPTIONSBLIND,HYPOTHESESGUIDE

Goodnegotiators,goingin,knowtheyhavetobereadyforpossiblesurprises;greatnegotiatorsaimtousetheirskillstorevealthesurprisestheyarecertainexist.

Experience will have taught them that they are best served by holdingmultiple hypotheses—about the situation, about the counterpart’s wants,aboutawholearrayofvariables—intheirmindatthesametime.Presentandalertinthemoment,theyuseallthenewinformationthatcomestheirwaytotestandwinnowtruehypothesesfromfalseones.

In negotiation, each new psychological insight or additional piece ofinformation revealed heralds a step forward and allows one to discard onehypothesisinfavorofanother.Youshouldengagetheprocesswithamindsetof discovery. Your goal at the outset is to extract and observe as muchinformationaspossible.Which,bytheway,isoneofthereasonsthatreallysmart people often have trouble being negotiators—they’re so smart theythinktheydon’thaveanythingtodiscover.

Toooftenpeoplefinditeasierjusttostickwithwhattheybelieve.Usingwhat they’veheardor theirownbiases, theyoftenmakeassumptionsaboutothersevenbeforemeetingthem.Theyevenignoretheirownperceptionstomakethemconformtoforegoneconclusions.Theseassumptionsmuckupourperceptualwindowsontotheworld,showingusanunchanging—oftenflawed—versionofthesituation.

Greatnegotiatorsareabletoquestiontheassumptionsthattherestoftheinvolved players accept on faith or in arrogance, and thus remain moreemotionallyopen to all possibilities, andmore intellectually agile to a fluidsituation.

Unfortunately,backin1993,Iwasfarfromgreat.Everyonethoughtthecrisiswouldbeoverquickly.Thebankrobbershad

littlechoicebuttosurrender—orsowethought.Weactuallystartedthedaywith intelligence that the bank robbers wanted to surrender. Little did we

knowthatwasarusetheirringleaderplantedtobuytime.Andthroughouttheday, he constantly referred to the influence the other four bank robbersexertedonhim.Ihadn’tyetlearnedtobeawareofacounterpart’soveruseofpersonal pronouns—we/they orme/I. The less important hemakes himself,themoreimportantheprobablyis(andviceversa).Wewouldlaterfindoutthere was only one other bank robber, and he had been tricked into therobbery.Actually, threerobbers, ifyoucountedthegetawaydriver,whogotawaybeforeweevenenteredthescene.

The “lead” hostage-taker was running his own “counterintelligenceoperation,”feedingusallkindsofmisinformation.Hewantedustothinkhehad a bunch of co-conspirators with him—from a number of differentcountries. He also wanted us to think that his partners were much morevolatileanddangerousthanhewas.

Lookingback,ofcourse,hisgameplanwasclear—hewantedtoconfuseusasmuchashecoulduntilhecouldfigureawayout.Hewouldconstantlytellusthathewasn’tinchargeandthateverydecisionwastheresponsibilityoftheotherguys.Hewouldindicatethathewasscared—or,atleast,alittletentative—whenweaskedhimtopassalongcertaininformation.Andyethealwaysspokewithavoiceofcompletecalmandabsoluteconfidence.Itwasareminder tomycolleaguesandme thatuntilyouknowwhatyou’redealingwith,youdon’tknowwhatyou’redealingwith.

Though the call had come in about 8:30 a.m., by the time we arrivedacrossthestreetfromthebankandmadecontactitwasprobablyabout10:30a.m. Thewordwhenwe came on the scenewas that thiswas going to becookie-cutter,bythebook,shortandsweet.Ourcommandersthoughtwe’dbeinandoutofthereintenminutes,becausethebadguyssupposedlywantedtogive themselvesup.Thiswould laterbecomeaproblem,whennegotiationsstalledandCommandbecameembarrassed,becausethey’dmadethemistakeof sharing this early optimism with the press, based on all the earlymisinformation.

We arrived on the scene to take a surrender, but the situation wentsidewaysalmostimmediately.

Everythingweassumedweknewwaswrong.

CALMTHESCHIZOPHRENIC

OurNegotiationOperationCenter (NOC)was setup inanoffice in abankimmediatelyacrossanarrowstreetfromtheChasebranch.Wewerewaytooclosetothehostagesite,sorightawaywewereatadisadvantage.Wewerelessthanthirtyyardsfromthecrisispoint,whereideallyyouwanttohavea

littlemoreofabufferthanthat.Youwanttoputsomedistancebetweenyouandwhateverworst-case scenariomight bewaiting at the other end of thedeal.

WhenmypartnerandIarrived,Iwasimmediatelyassignedtocoachthepolice department negotiator on the phone.His namewas Joe, and hewasdoingfine—butinthesetypesofsituations,nobodyworkedalone.Wealwaysworkedinteams.Thethinkingbehindthispolicywasthatalltheseextrasetsofearswouldpickupextrainformation.Insomestandoffs,wehadasmanyas fivepeopleon the line, analyzing the informationas it came in,offeringbehind-the-scenes input and guidance to ourman on the phone—and that’show we were set up here. We had Joe taking the lead on the phone, andanother three or four of uswere listening in, passing notes back and forth,tryingtomakesenseofaconfusingsituation.Oneofuswastryingtogaugethemoodof thebadguy taking the leadon theother end, andanotherwaslistening in for cluesor “tells” thatmightgiveus abetter readonwhatwewerefacing,andsoon.

Students of mine balk at this notion, asking, “Seriously, do you reallyneedawholeteamto...hearsomeoneout?”ThefactthattheFBIhascometo that conclusion, I tell them, shouldbeawake-upcall. It’s reallynot thateasytolistenwell.

We are easily distracted.We engage in selective listening, hearing onlywhatwewant tohear,ourmindsactingonacognitivebias for consistencyratherthantruth.Andthat’sjustthestart.

Mostpeopleapproachanegotiationsopreoccupiedbytheargumentsthatsupport theirposition that theyareunable to listenattentively. Inoneof themostcitedresearchpapersinpsychology,1GeorgeA.Millerpersuasivelyputforththeideathatwecanprocessonlyaboutsevenpiecesofinformationinour conscious mind at any given moment. In other words, we are easilyoverwhelmed.

For thosepeoplewhoviewnegotiationasabattleofarguments, it’s thevoices in their own head that are overwhelming them. When they’re nottalking, they’re thinking about their arguments, andwhen they are talking,they’remaking their arguments. Often those on both sides of the table aredoing the same thing, so you have what I call a state of schizophrenia:everyone just listening to the voice in their head (and not well, becausethey’redoingsevenoreightotherthingsatthesametime).Itmaylooklikethere are only two people in a conversation, but really it’s more like fourpeoplealltalkingatonce.

There’sonepowerfulwaytoquietthevoiceinyourheadandthevoiceintheir head at the same time: treat two schizophrenics with just one pill.

Insteadofprioritizingyourargument—infact,insteadofdoinganythinkingatallintheearlygoingsaboutwhatyou’regoingtosay—makeyoursoleandall-encompassing focus the other person andwhat they have to say. In thatmode of true active listening—aided by the tactics you’ll learn in thefollowing chapters—you’ll disarm your counterpart. You’llmake them feelsafe.Thevoiceintheirheadwillbegintoquietdown.

Thegoal is toidentifywhatyourcounterpartsactuallyneed(monetarily,emotionally,orotherwise)andget themfeelingsafeenoughto talkandtalkandtalksomemoreaboutwhattheywant.Thelatterwillhelpyoudiscovertheformer.Wantsareeasytotalkabout,representingtheaspirationofgettingour way, and sustaining any illusion of control we have as we begin tonegotiate;needs implysurvival, theveryminimumrequired tomakeusact,andsomakeusvulnerable.Butneitherwantsnorneedsarewherewestart;itbegins with listening, making it about the other people, validating theiremotions, and creating enough trust and safety for a real conversation tobegin.

Wewere far from that goalwith the lead hostage-taker on the call. Hekeptputtinguptheseweirdsmokescreens.Hewouldn’tgiveuphisname,hetried to disguise his voice, hewas always telling Joe hewas being put onspeaker soeveryonearoundhim in thebankcouldhear, and thenhewouldabruptlyannouncethathewasputtingJoeon“hold”andhangupthephone.Hewasconstantlyaskingaboutavan,sayingheandhispartnerswantedustoarrangeoneforthemsotheycoulddrivethemselvesandthehostagestothelocalprecincttosurrender.Thatwaswherethesurrendernonsensehadcomefrom—but, of course, this wasn’t a surrender plan so much as it was anescape plan. In the back of his mind, this guy thought he could somehowleave the bankwithout being taken into custody, and now that his getawaydriverhadfledthesceneheneededaccesstoavehicle.

Afteritwasallover,acoupleofotherdetailscameclear.Weweren’ttheonlyoneswhohadbeenliedto.Apparently,thisleadbankrobberhadn’ttoldhispartnerstheyweregoingtorobabankthatmorning.Itturnedouthewasacash courier who serviced the bank, and his partners were under theimpressionthattheyweregoingtoburglarizetheATM.Theydidn’tsignupfor takinghostages, sowe learned that this guy’s co-conspiratorswere alsohostages, in away. Theywere caught up in a bad situation they didn’t seecoming—and, in theend, itwas this“disconnect”among thehostage-takersthathelpedustodriveawedgebetweenthemandputanendtothestalemate.

SLOW.IT.DOWN.

Theleaderwantedtomakeusthinkheandhispartnersweretakinggoodcareofhishostages,butinrealitythesecurityguardwasoutofthepictureandthesecondbanktellerhadruntothebankbasementtohide.WheneverJoesaidhewantedtotalktothehostages,thehostage-takerwouldstall,andmakeitseemliketherewasthisfrenzyofactivitygoingoninsidethebank,goingtoridiculous lengths to tell us howmuch time and energy he and his cohortswere spending on taking good care of the hostages. Very often, the leaderwouldusethisasareasontoputJoeonhold,ortoendacall.He’dsay,“Thegirlsneedtogotothebathroom.”Or,“Thegirlswanttocalltheirfamilies.”Or,“Thegirlswanttogetsomethingtoeat.”

Joewas doing a good job keeping this guy talking, but hewas slightlylimitedbythenegotiatingapproachthatpolicedepartmentswereusingatthetime.TheapproachwashalfMSU—MakingShitUp—andhalfasortofsalesapproach—basically trying to persuade, coerce, or manipulate in any waypossible.Theproblemwas,wewereintoomuchofahurry,drivingtoohardtowardaquicksolution;tryingtobeaproblemsolver,notapeoplemover.

Goingtoofastisoneofthemistakesallnegotiatorsarepronetomaking.Ifwe’retoomuchinahurry,peoplecanfeelasifthey’renotbeingheardandwe risk undermining the rapport and trust we’ve built. There’s plenty ofresearchthatnowvalidatesthepassageoftimeasoneofthemostimportanttools for a negotiator.When you slow the process down, you also calm itdown.Afterall,ifsomeoneistalking,they’renotshooting.

Wecaughtabreakwhentherobbersstartedtomakenoiseaboutfood.Joewasgoingbackandforthwiththemforawhileonwhattheyweregoingtohaveandhowweweregoingtogetittothem.Itbecameanegotiationinandofitself.Wegotitallsetup,preparedtosendthefoodinonakindofrobotdevice,becausethat’swhatthisguywascomfortablewith,butthenhedidanabout-face,saidtoforgetabout it.Saidthey’dfoundsomefoodinside,soitwasjustonebrickwallafteranother,onesmokescreenafteranother.Itwouldfeeltouslikeweweremakingalittleprogress,thenthisguywouldtakeanabruptturn,orhanguponus,orchangehismind.

Meanwhile,ourinvestigatorsusedthetimetoruntheregistrationofeveryone of the dozens of vehicles found nearby on the street, andmanaged tospeak to the owners of every one of them except one—a car belonging tosomeonenamedChrisWatts.Thisbecameouroneandonlylead,atthetime,andasourendlessback-and-forthcontinuedonthephonewesentagroupofinvestigators to the address onChrisWatts’s registration,where they foundsomeonewhoknewChrisWattsandagreedtocomedowntothesceneofthestandofftopossiblyidentifyhim.

We still didn’t have a visual on the inside, so our eyewitness had to be

more of an “earwitness”—and he was able to identify Chris Watts by hisvoice.

Wenowknewmoreaboutouradversarythanhethoughtweknew,whichput us at amomentary advantage.Wewere putting together all the puzzlepieces,butitdidn’tgetusanyclosertoourendgame,whichwastodetermineforsurewhowasinsidethebuilding, toensure thehealthandwell-beingofthehostages,andtogetthemalloutsafely—thegoodguysandthebadguys.

THEVOICE

Afterfivehours,wewerestuck,sothelieutenantinchargeaskedmetotakeover. Joewas out; Iwas in.Basically, itwas the only strategic play at ourdisposalthatdidn’tinvolveanescalationinforce.

ThemanwenowknewasChrisWattshadbeeninthehabitofendinghiscallsabruptly, somy jobwas to findaway tokeephim talking. I switchedintomyLate-Night,FMDJVoice:deep,soft,slow,andreassuring.IhadbeeninstructedtoconfrontWattsassoonaspossibleabouthisidentity.Ialsocameonto thephonewithnowarning, replacingJoe,againststandardprotocol. ItwasashrewdmovebytheNYPDlieutenanttoshakethingsup,butiteasilycould have backfired. This soothing voice was the key to easing theconfrontation.

ChrisWattsheardmyvoiceonthelineandcutmeoffimmediately—said,“Hey,whathappenedtoJoe?”

Isaid,“Joe’sgone.ThisisChris.You’retalkingtomenow.”Ididn’tputitlikeaquestion.Imadeadownward-inflectingstatement,in

adownward-inflectingtoneofvoice.Thebestwaytodescribethelate-nightFMDJ’svoiceisasthevoiceofcalmandreason.

Whendeliberatingonanegotiating strategyor approach,people tend tofocusalltheirenergiesonwhattosayordo,butit’showweare(ourgeneraldemeanor and delivery) that is both the easiest thing to enact and themostimmediately effectivemode of influence.Our brains don’t just process andunderstand the actions andwordsofothersbut their feelings and intentionstoo, the social meaning of their behavior and their emotions. On a mostlyunconscious level, we can understand theminds of others not through anykindofthinkingbutthroughquiteliterallygraspingwhattheotherisfeeling.

Thinkofitasakindofinvoluntaryneurologicaltelepathy—eachofusineverygivenmomentsignalingtotheworldarounduswhetherwearereadytoplayorfight,laughorcry.

Whenweradiatewarmthandacceptance,conversationsjustseemtoflow.Whenwe enter a roomwith a level of comfort and enthusiasm,we attract

peopletowardus.Smileatsomeoneonthestreet,andasareflexthey’llsmileback.Understanding that reflex andputting it into practice is critical to thesuccessofjustabouteverynegotiatingskillthereistolearn.

That’swhyyourmostpowerfultoolinanyverbalcommunicationisyourvoice.Youcanuseyourvoicetointentionallyreachintosomeone’sbrainandflip an emotional switch. Distrusting to trusting. Nervous to calm. In aninstant,theswitchwillflipjustlikethatwiththerightdelivery.

There are essentially threevoice tones available tonegotiators: the late-night FM DJ voice, the positive/playful voice, and the direct or assertivevoice.Forgettheassertivevoicefornow;exceptinveryrarecircumstances,using it is like slapping yourself in the face while you’re trying to makeprogress.You’resignalingdominanceontoyourcounterpart,whowilleitheraggressively, or passive-aggressively, push back against attempts to becontrolled.

Mostofthetime,youshouldbeusingthepositive/playfulvoice.It’sthevoice of an easygoing, good-natured person. Your attitude is light andencouraging.Thekeyhereistorelaxandsmilewhileyou’retalking.Asmile,evenwhiletalkingonthephone,hasanimpacttonallythattheotherpersonwillpickupon.

The effect these voices have are cross-cultural and never lost intranslation.OnavacationtoTurkeywithhisgirlfriend,oneofourinstructorsatTheBlackSwanGroupwasbefuddled—nottomentionalittleembarrassed—that his partner was repeatedly getting better deals in their backstreethagglingsessionsatthespicemarketsinIstanbul.Forthemerchantsinsuchmarkets throughout the Middle East, bargaining is an art form. Theiremotional intelligence is finely honed, and they’ll use hospitality andfriendlinessinapowerfulwaytodrawyouinandcreatereciprocitythatendsinanexchangeofmoney.Butitworksbothways,asourinstructordiscoveredwhileobservinghisgirlfriendinaction:sheapproachedeachencounterasafun game, so that no matter how aggressively she pushed, her smile andplayful demeanor primed her merchant friends to settle on a successfuloutcome.

Whenpeopleareinapositiveframeofmind,theythinkmorequickly,andaremorelikelytocollaborateandproblem-solve(insteadoffightandresist).Itappliestothesmile-erasmuchastothesmile-ee:asmileonyourface,andinyourvoice,willincreaseyourownmentalagility.

Playfulwasn’tthemovewithChrisWatts.Thewaythelate-nightFMDJvoiceworksisthat,whenyouinflectyourvoiceinadownwardway,youputitouttherethatyou’vegotitcovered.Talkingslowlyandclearlyyouconveyone idea: I’m in control.When you inflect in an upwardway, you invite a

response.Why?Becauseyou’vebroughtinameasureofuncertainty.You’vemade a statement sound like a question. You’ve left the door open for theotherguytotakethelead,soIwascarefulheretobequiet,self-assured.

It’s the same voice Imight use in a contract negotiation,when an itemisn’tup fordiscussion. If I seeawork-for-hireclause, forexample, Imightsay,“Wedon’tdowork-for-hire.”Justlikethat,plain,simple,andfriendly.Idon’tofferupanalternative,becauseitwouldbegfurtherdiscussion,soIjustmakeastraightforwarddeclaration.

That’s how I played it here. I said, “Joe’s gone. You’re talking to menow.”

Donedeal.Youcanbeverydirectandtothepointaslongasyoucreatesafetybya

toneofvoicethatsaysI’mokay,you’reokay,let’sfigurethingsout.

Thetidewasturning.ChrisWattswasrattled,buthehadafewmovesleftinhim.Oneofthebadguyswentdowntothebasementandcollectedoneofthefemalebank tellers.She’ddisappeared into thebowelsof thebankat somepoint, but ChrisWatts and his accomplice hadn’t chased after her becausetheyknewshewasn’tgoinganywhere.Nowoneofthebankrobbersdraggedherbackupstairsandputheronthephone.

Shesaid,“I’mokay.”That’sall.Isaid,“Whoisthis?”Shesaid,“I’mokay.”Iwantedtokeephertalking,soIaskedhername—butthen,justlikethat,

shewasgone.ThiswasabrilliantmoveonChrisWatts’spart.Itwasathreat,teasingus

with thewoman’svoice,but subtlyand indirectly. Itwasaway for thebadguytoletusknowhewascallingtheshotsonhisendofthephonewithoutdirectlyescalating thesituation.He’dgivenusa“proofof life,”confirmingthathedidindeedhavehostageswithhimwhowereindecentenoughshapeto talk on the phone, but stopped short of allowing us to gather any usefulinformation.

He’dmanagedtotakebackameasureofcontrol.

MIRRORING

ChrisWattscamebackonthephonetryingtoactlikenothinghadhappened.Hewasalittlerattled,that’sforsure,butnowhewastalking.

“We’ve identified every car on the street and talked to all the ownersexceptone,”IsaidtoWatts.“We’vegotavanouthere,ablueandgrayvan.

We’vebeenable togetahandleon theownersofallof thevehiclesexceptthisoneinparticular.Doyouknowanythingaboutit?”

“The other vehicle’s not out there because you guys chased my driveraway...”heblurted.

“Wechasedyourdriveraway?”Imirrored.“Well,whenheseenthepolicehecut.”“Wedon’tknowanythingaboutthisguy;ishetheonewhowasdriving

thevan?”Iasked.ThemirroringcontinuedbetweenmeandWatts,andhemadeaseriesof

damagingadmissions.Hestartedvomitinginformation,aswenowrefertoitin my consulting business. He talked about an accomplice we had noknowledge of at the time. That exchange helped us nail the driver of thegetawaycar.

Mirroring, also called isopraxism, is essentially imitation. It’s anotherneurobehavior humans (and other animals) display in whichwe copy eachother to comfort each other. It can be done with speech patterns, bodylanguage,vocabulary,tempo,andtoneofvoice.It’sgenerallyanunconsciousbehavior—wearerarelyawareofitwhenit’shappening—butit’sasignthatpeoplearebonding,insync,andestablishingthekindofrapportthatleadstotrust.

It’s a phenomenon (and now technique) that follows a very basic butprofound biological principle: We fear what’s different and are drawn towhat’s similar. As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together.Mirroring, then, when practiced consciously, is the art of insinuatingsimilarity.“Trustme,”amirrorsignalstoanother’sunconscious,“YouandI—we’realike.”

Once you’re attuned to the dynamic, you’ll see it everywhere: coupleswalking on the street with their steps in perfect synchrony; friends inconversationatapark,bothnoddingtheirheadsandcrossingthelegsataboutthesametime.Thesepeopleare,inaword,connected.

While mirroring is most often associated with forms of nonverbalcommunication,especiallybody language,asnegotiatorsa“mirror” focusesonthewordsandnothingelse.Notthebodylanguage.Nottheaccent.Notthetoneordelivery.Justthewords.

It’salmost laughablysimple: for theFBI,a“mirror” iswhenyourepeatthelastthreewords(orthecriticalonetothreewords)ofwhatsomeonehasjustsaid.OftheentiretyoftheFBI’shostagenegotiationskillset,mirroringistheclosestonegetstoaJedimindtrick.Simple,andyetuncannilyeffective.

Byrepeatingbackwhatpeoplesay,youtriggerthismirroringinstinctand

yourcounterpartwill inevitablyelaborateonwhatwas just saidandsustainthe process of connecting. Psychologist Richard Wiseman created a studyusingwaiters to identifywhatwas themore effectivemethod of creating aconnectionwithstrangers:mirroringorpositivereinforcement.

One group ofwaiters, using positive reinforcement, lavished praise andencouragement on patrons usingwords such as “great,” “no problem,” and“sure” in response to each order.The other group ofwaitersmirrored theircustomers simply by repeating their orders back to them. The results werestunning: the average tip of thewaiterswhomirroredwas70percentmorethanofthosewhousedpositivereinforcement.

Idecideditwastimetohithimwithhisname—tolethimknowwewereonto him. I said, “There’s a vehicle out here, and it’s registered to a ChrisWatts.”

Hesaid,“Okay.”Notlettinganythingon.Isaid,“Ishethere?Isthisyou?AreyouChrisWatts?”It was a stupid question, on my part. A mistake. For a mirror to be

effective,you’vegottoletitsitthereanddoitswork.Itneedsabitofsilence.Isteppedallovermymirror.AssoonasIsaidit,Iwantedtotakeitback.

“AreyouChrisWatts?”Whatthehellcouldthisguysaytothat?Ofcourse,hereplied,“No.”I’dmadeabone-headedmoveandgivenChrisWattsawaytododgethis

confrontation, but he was nevertheless rattled. Up until this moment, he’dthought he was anonymous.Whatever fantasy he had running through hishead,therewasawayoutforhim,ado-overbutton.Nowheknewdifferent.Icomposedmyself,sloweditdownalittle,andthistimeshutmymouthafterthemirror—Isaid,“No?Yousaid‘okay.’”

NowIhadhim,Ithought.Hisvoicewentwayup.Heendedupblurtingafew things out, vomiting more information, and became so flustered hestopped talking tome. Suddenly his accomplice,whowe later learnedwasBobbyGoodwin,cameontothephone.

Wehadn’theardfromthissecondhostage-taker,untilnow.We’dknownall along thatChrisWattswasn’t actingalone,butwehadn’tgottenagoodreadonhowmanypeoplehehadworkingwithhimonthis,andnowherewashisunwittingaccomplice, thinkingouroriginalpolicedepartmentnegotiatorwasstillhandlingourend.Weknewthisbecausehekeptcallingme“Joe,”whichtoldushe’dbeenintheloopearlyon,andsomewhatlessinvolvedasthestalematedraggedon.

Attheveryleast,thedisconnecttoldmetheseguysweren’texactlyonthesamepage—butIdidn’tjumptocorrecthim.

Another thing: it sounded like this second guywas speaking through atowel,orasweatshirt—likehewasbitingonsomekindoffabric,even.Goingtoalltheselengthstomaskhisvoice,whichmeanthewasclearlyscared.Hewasnervous,jumpyashell,anxiousoverhowthisstandoffwasgoingdown.

Itriedtosethimatease—stillwiththedownward-inflectingDJvoice.Isaid,“Nobody’sgoinganywhere.”Isaid,“Nobody’sgonnagethurt.”

Afteraboutaminuteandahalf,thejumpinessseemedtodisappear.Themuffledvoice,too.Hisvoicecamethroughmuchmoreclearlyashesaid,“Itrustyou,Joe.”

ThemoreIkeptthissecondguyonthephone,themoreitbecameclearhewassomeplacehedidnotwanttobe.Bobbywantedout—and,ofcourse,hewantedoutwithoutgettinghurt.Hewasalreadyindeep,buthedidn’twantittogetanydeeper.Hedidn’tstartout thatdayplanningtorobabank,but ittookhearingmycalmvoiceontheotherendofthephoneforhimtostarttosee a way out. The seventh-largest standing army in the world was at thereadyoutsidethebankdoors—that’sthesizeandscopeoftheNYPD,infullforce, and their gunswere fixed on him and his partner.Obviously,Bobbywasdesperatetostepoutthosedoorsunharmed.

I didn’t know where Bobby was, inside the bank. To this day, I don’tknowifhemanagedtostepawayfromhispartner,orifhewastalkingtomeinplainsightofChrisWatts.IonlyknowthatIhadhisfullattention,andthathewaslookingforawaytoendthestandoff—or,atleast,toendhisroleinit.

I learned later that in between phone calls Chris Watts was busysquirrelingcashinsidethebankwalls.Hewasalsoburningpilesofcash,infull view of the two female hostages. On the face of it, this was bizarrebehavior, but to a guy like Chris Watts there was a certain logic to it.Apparently,he’dgottenitinhisheadthathecouldburn,say,$50,000,andif$300,000wasreportedmissingbankofficialswouldn’tthinktogolookingfortheother $250,000. Itwas an interestingdeception—not exactly clever, butinteresting.Itshowedaweirdattentiontodetail.Inhisownmindatleast,ifChrisWattsmanagedtoescapethisboxhe’dmadeforhimself,hecouldlielowforawhileandcomebackatsomefuturedateforthemoneyhe’dstashedaway—moneythatwouldnolongerbeonthebank’sledgers.

WhatIlikedaboutthissecondguy,Bobby,wasthathedidn’ttrytoplayanygameswithmeonthephone.Hewasastraightshooter,soIwasabletorespondasastraightshooterinkind.ThesamewayI’dgetbackwhateverIputout,hewasgettingbackwhateverhewasputtingout,soIwaswithhimon this. Experience toldme all I had to dowas keep him talking and he’dcomearound.We’dfindawaytogethimoutofthatbank—withorwithoutChrisWatts.

Someoneonmyteamhandedmeanote:“Askhimifhewants tocomeout.”

Isaid,“Doyouwanttocomeoutfirst?”Ipaused,remainingsilent.“Idon’tknowhowI’ddoit,”Bobbysaidfinally.“What’sstoppingyoufromdoingitrightnow?”Iasked.“HowdoIdothat?”heaskedagain.“Tellyouwhat.Meetmeoutfrontrightnow.”Thiswasabreakthroughmoment forus—butwestillhad togetBobby

outofthere,andfindawaytolethimknowthatI’dbewaitingforhimontheothersideofthedoor.I’dgivenhimmywordthatIwouldbetheonetotakehis surrender, and that hewouldn’t get hurt, and nowwe had tomake thathappen—andveryoften it’s this implementationphase thatcanbe themostdifficult.

Our team scrambled to put a plan in place to bring this about. I startedputtingonbulletproofgear.Wesurveyedthescene,figuringIcouldpositionmyselfbehindoneofthebigtruckswe’dparkedoutinfrontofthebank,togivemeameasureofcover,justincase.

Then we ran into one of those maddening situations where one handdidn’tknowwhattheotherwasdoing.It turnedoutthebankdoorhadbeenbarricadedfromtheoutsideearlyoninthestandoff—aprecautiontoensurethat none of the bank robbers could flee the scene. We all knew this, ofcourse,onsomelevel,butwhenthetimecameforBobbytogivehimselfupandwalkoutthedoor,it’slikeourbrainswentintosleepmode.NooneontheSWAT team thought to remind anyone on the negotiating team of this onesignificantdetail,soforacouplelongbeatsBobbycouldn’tgetout,andIgotasickfeelinginmystomachthatwhateverprogresswe’djustmadewiththisguywouldbefornothing.

So therewewere, scrambling to recover.Soon, twoSWATguysmovedforward toward the entrance,with ballistic shields, guns drawn, to take thelocksandthebarricadeoffthedoor—andatthispointtheystilldidn’tknowwhattheywerefacingontheotherside.Itwasasuper-tensemoment.Therecould have been a dozen guns on these two SWAT guys, but there wasnothingforthemtodobutmaketheirslowapproach.Thoseguyswererocksolid.Theyunlockedthedoor,backedaway,andfinallyweweregoodtogo.

Bobbycameout—hishandsintheair.I’dwalkedhimthroughaspecificsetofinstructionsonwhattodowhenhecameoutthedoor,whattoexpect.AcoupleofSWATguyspattedhimdown.Bobby turnedand lookedandsaid,“Where’sChris?TakemetoChris.”

Finally,theybroughthimaroundtome,andwewereabletodebriefhim

insideourmakeshiftcommandpost.Thiswasthefirstwelearnedthat therewas only one other hostage-taker inside—and this naturally set thecommanderoff. Ididn’t learn thisuntil later,but Icouldseewhyhewouldhave been angry and embarrassed at this latest turn. All along, he’d beentelling the media there were a bunch of bad guys inside—an internationalassemblage of bad guys, remember? But now that it turned out it wasessentiallyatwo-manoperation,andoneofthebadguyshadwantednopartofit,thecommanderlookedlikehedidn’thaveahandleonthesituation.

ButlikeIsaid,wedidn’tknowaboutthecommander’sreactionjustyet.Allweknewwas thatwe’d just gotten all thisnew intel,which tolduswewereclosertoachievingourdesiredoutcomethanwehadjustthought.Thiswasapositivedevelopment,somethingtocelebrate.Withwhatwenowknew,itwasgoingtobeawholeloteasiertonegotiateourwaythroughtherestofit,andyetthiscommanderwasangry.Hedidn’tlikethathe’dbeenplayed,sohe turned to one of the guys fromNYPD’s TechnicalAssistanceResponseUnit(TARU)andcommandedthemtogetacamerainsidethebank,amic...something.

NowthatIwashuddledwithBobby,thecommanderswappedmeoutinfavorofanotherprimarynegotiatoronthephone.Thenewnegotiatorplayedit the sameway I had, a couple of hours earlier—said, “This isDominick.You’retalkingtomenow.”

DominickMisinowasagreathostagenegotiator—inmyview,oneoftheworld’sgreatclosers,whichwasthetermoftenusedfortheguybroughtintobangoutthelastdetailsandsecurethedeal.Hedidn’tgetrattledandhewasgoodatwhathedid.

Matter-of-fact.Streetsmart.Dominickplowedahead.Andthen,anamazingthinghappened—anearly

disastrousamazingthing.AsChrisWattswastalkingtoDominick,heheardanelectrictoolofsomekindburrowingitswaythroughthewallbehindhim.ItwasoneofourTARUguys,tryingtogetabugplantedinside—inpreciselythewrongspot,atpreciselythewrongtime.ChrisWattswasalreadyrattledenoughas itwas,hispartnergivinghimselfup like thatand leavinghim toplayoutthesiegeonhisown.Andnow,tohearourguysdrillingthroughthewall,itjustaboutsethimoff.

Herespondedlikeapitbullbackedintoacorner.HecalledDominickaliar.Dominickwasunflappable.HekepthiscoolasChrisWattsragedontheother end of the phone, and eventually Dominick’s cool, calm demeanorbroughttheguyfromaboiltoasimmer.

Inretrospect,itwasafoolmovetotrytogetabuginsidethebankatthislatestage—bornoutoffrustrationandpanic.We’dgottenoneofthehostage-

takers out of the bank, but now we’d given back a measure of control.Startlingtheoneremaininghostage-taker,whomayormaynothavebeenaloosecannon,wasabsolutelynotagoodidea.

As Dominick went to work smoothing over the situation, Chris Wattsswitchedthingsuponus.Hesaid,“WhatifIletahostagego?”

Thiscameasiffromnowhere.Dominickhadn’teventhoughttoask,butChrisWattsjustoffereduponeofthetellerslikeitwasnobigdeal—andtohim,atthislatestageinthestandoff,Iguessitwasn’t.Fromhisview,suchaconciliatorymovemightbuyhimenoughtimetofigureoutawaytoescape.

Dominick remained calm, but seized on the opportunity. He said hewanted to talk to the hostage first, to make sure everything went okay, soChrisWattstappedoneofthewomenandputheronthephone.Thewomanhadbeenpayingattention,knewthere’dbeensomesortofsnafuwhenBobbywantedtogivehimselfup,soeventhoughshewasstillcompletely terrifiedshehadthepresenceofmindtoaskaboutthedoor.Irememberthinkingthisshowedalotofbrass—tobeterrified,heldagainstyourwill,roughedupabit,andtostillhaveyourwitsaboutyou.

Shesaid,“Areyousureyouhaveakeytothefrontdoor?”Dominicksaid,“Thefrontdoor’sopen.”Anditwas.Ultimately,whathappenedwasoneof thewomencameout, unharmed,

andanhourorsolatertheotherwomanfollowed,alsounharmed.Wewereworkingongettingthebankguardout,butwecouldn’tbesure

fromtheaccountsofthesebanktellerswhatkindofshapethisguymightbein.Wedidn’tevenknowifhewasstillalive.Theyhadn’tseenhimsincefirstthingthatmorning.Hecouldhavehadaheartattackanddied—therewasjustnowaytoknow.

ButChrisWattshadonelasttrickuphissleeve.Hepulledafastoneonusandoutoftheblue,offeredtocomeout.Maybehethoughthecouldcatchusoffguardone last time.Whatwasstrangeabouthissuddenappearancewasthatheseemedtobelookingabout,surveyingthescene,likehestillthoughthe’d somehow elude capture. Right up until the moment the cops put thehandcuffs on him, his gazewas darting back and forth, scanning for somekind of opportunity. The bright lights were on this guy, he was basicallysurrounded,butsomewhereinthebackofhisscheming,racingmindhestillthoughthehadachance.

It was a long, long day, but it went down in the books as a success.Nobodywas hurt. The bad guyswere in custody.And I emerged from theexperiencehumbledbyhowmuchmore therewas to learn,butat thesametime,awakenedtoandinspiredbytheelementalpowerofemotion,dialogue,

and theFBI’sevolving toolboxofappliedpsychological tactics to influenceandpersuadejustaboutanyoneinanysituation.

In the decades since my initiation into the world of high-stakesnegotiations, I’ve been struck again and again by how valuable theseseeminglysimpleapproachescanbe.Theabilitytogetinsidethehead—andeventuallyunder theskin—ofyourcounterpartdependson these techniquesandawillingnesstochangeyourapproach,basedonnewevidence,alongtheway.As I’veworkedwithexecutivesandstudents todevelop these skills, Ialways try to reinforce the message that being right isn’t the key to asuccessfulnegotiation—havingtherightmindsetis.

HOWTOCONFRONT—ANDGETYOURWAY—WITHOUTCONFRONTATION

Ionlyhalf-jokinglyrefertomirroringasmagicoraJedimindtrickbecauseitgivesyoutheabilitytodisagreewithoutbeingdisagreeable.

Toconsiderjusthowuseful thatcanbe, thinkoftheaverageworkplace:invariablythereisstillsomeoneinapositionofauthoritywhoarrivedatthatposition through aggressive assertiveness, sometimes outright intimidation,with“oldschool”top-down,command-and-controlassumptionsthatthebossisalwaysright.Andlet’snotdeludeourselves:whatevertheenlightenedrulesof the “new school,” in every environment (work or otherwise) you willalways have to deal with forceful type A people who prefer consent tocollaboration.

Ifyoutakeapitbullapproachwithanotherpitbull,yougenerallyendupwith a messy scene and lots of bruised feelings and resentment. Luckily,there’sanotherwaywithoutallthemess.

It’sjustfoursimplesteps:

1. Usethelate-nightFMDJvoice.

2. Startwith“I’msorry...”

3. Mirror.

4. Silence.Atleastfourseconds,toletthemirrorworkitsmagiconyourcounterpart.

5. Repeat.

Oneofmystudentsexperiencedtheeffectivenessofthissimpleprocessat

herworkplace,whereherimpulsivebosswasknownforhis“drive-bys”:aninfuriatingpracticebywhichthebosswouldsuddenlyswingbyone’sofficeorcubicleunannouncedwithan“urgent,”poorlythoughtoutassignmentthatcreatedalotofunnecessarywork.Pastattemptsatanykindofdebatecreatedimmediatepushback. “There’s a betterway”was always interpretedby thisbossas“thelazyway.”

Suchadrive-byoccurredtowardtheendofalongconsultingengagement,one that had generated literally thousands of documents. The boss, stillskepticalofanything“digital,”wantedthesecurityofpapercopies.

Poppinghisheadintoheroffice,thebosssaid,“Let’smaketwocopiesofallthepaperwork.”

“I’msorry,twocopies?”shemirroredinresponse,rememberingnotonlytheDJ voice, but to deliver themirror in an inquisitive tone.The intentionbehindmostmirrorsshouldbe“Please,helpmeunderstand.”Everytimeyoumirror someone, theywill rewordwhat they’ve said.Theywillnever say itexactlythesamewaytheysaiditthefirsttime.Asksomeone,“Whatdoyoumean by that?” and you’re likely to incite irritation or defensiveness. Amirror,however,willgetyoutheclarityyouwantwhilesignalingrespectandconcernforwhattheotherpersonissaying.

“Yes,”herbossresponded,“oneforusandoneforthecustomer.”“I’msorry,soyouaresayingthat theclient isaskingforacopyandwe

needacopyforinternaluse?”“Actually,I’llcheckwiththeclient—theyhaven’taskedforanything.But

Idefinitelywantacopy.That’sjusthowIdobusiness.”“Absolutely,” she responded. “Thanks for checking with the customer.

Wherewouldyouliketostorethein-housecopy?There’snomorespaceinthefileroomhere.”

“It’sfine.Youcanstoreitanywhere,”hesaid,slightlyperturbednow.“Anywhere?” she mirrored again, with calm concern. When another

person’stoneofvoiceorbodylanguageisinconsistentwithhiswords,agoodmirrorcanbeparticularlyuseful.

Inthiscase,itcausedherbosstotakeanice,longpause—somethinghedidnotoftendo.Mystudentsatsilent.“Asamatteroffact,youcanputthemin my office,” he said, with more composure than he’d had the wholeconversation.“I’llgetthenewassistanttoprintitformeaftertheprojectisdone.Fornow,justcreatetwodigitalbackups.”

Adaylaterherbossemailedandwrotesimply,“Thetwodigitalbackupswillbefine.”

Not long after, I received an ecstatic email from this student: “I wasshocked!Ilovemirrors!Aweekofworkavoided!”

Mirroring will make you feel awkward as heck when you first try it.That’s theonlyhardpartabout it; the technique takesa littlepractice.Onceyougetthehangofit,though,it’llbecomeaconversationalSwissArmyknifevaluableinjustabouteveryprofessionalandsocialsetting.

KEYLESSONS

The language of negotiation is primarily a language of conversation andrapport:awayofquicklyestablishingrelationshipsandgettingpeopletotalkandthinktogether.Whichiswhywhenyouthinkofthegreatestnegotiatorsofalltime,I’vegotasurpriseforyou—thinkOprahWinfrey.

Her daily television show was a case study of a master practitioner atwork:onastageface-to-facewithsomeoneshehasnevermet, infrontofacrowdedstudioofhundreds,withmillionsmorewatchingfromhome,andatasktopersuadethatpersoninfrontofher,sometimesagainsthisorherownbest interests, to talk and talk and keep talking, ultimately sharingwith theworlddeep,darksecretsthattheyhadheldhostageintheirownmindsforalifetime.

Lookcloselyatsuchaninteractionafterreadingthischapterandsuddenlyyou’ll see a refined set of powerful skills: a conscious smile to ease thetension,useofsubtleverbalandnonverballanguagetosignalempathy(andthussecurity),acertaindownwardinflectioninthevoice,embraceofspecifickinds of questions and avoidance of others—a whole array of previouslyhidden skills thatwill prove invaluable to you, once you’ve learned to usethem.

Herearesomeofthekeylessonsfromthischaptertoremember:

■ A good negotiator prepares, going in, to be ready for possiblesurprises; a great negotiator aims to use her skills to reveal thesurprisessheiscertaintofind.

■ Don’t commit toassumptions; instead,view themashypothesesandusethenegotiationtotestthemrigorously.

■ People who view negotiation as a battle of arguments becomeoverwhelmedbythevoicesintheirhead.Negotiationisnotanactof battle; it’s a process of discovery. The goal is to uncover asmuchinformationaspossible.

■ To quiet the voices in your head, make your sole and all-encompassingfocustheotherpersonandwhattheyhavetosay.

■ Slow. It. Down. Going too fast is one of the mistakes allnegotiators are prone to making. If we’re too much in a hurry,people can feel as if they’re not being heard. You riskunderminingtherapportandtrustyou’vebuilt.

■ Putasmileonyourface.Whenpeopleareinapositiveframeofmind,theythinkmorequickly,andaremorelikelytocollaborateandproblem-solve(insteadof fightandresist).Positivitycreatesmentalagilityinbothyouandyourcounterpart.

Therearethreevoicetonesavailabletonegotiators:

1. The late-night FM DJ voice: Use selectively to make a point.Inflect your voice downward, keeping it calm and slow. Whendoneproperly,youcreateanauraofauthorityandtrustworthinesswithouttriggeringdefensiveness.

2. Thepositive/playfulvoice:Shouldbeyourdefaultvoice. It’s thevoiceofaneasygoing,good-naturedperson.Yourattitudeislightandencouraging.Thekeyhereistorelaxandsmilewhileyou’retalking.

3. The direct or assertive voice: Used rarely.Will cause problemsandcreatepushback.

■ Mirrorsworkmagic.Repeat the last threewords (or the criticalonetothreewords)ofwhatsomeonehasjustsaid.Wefearwhat’sdifferentandaredrawn towhat’s similar.Mirroring is theartofinsinuating similarity, which facilitates bonding. Use mirrors toencourage the other side to empathize and bondwith you, keeppeopletalking,buyyoursidetimetoregroup,andencourageyourcounterpartstorevealtheirstrategy.

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER3

DON’TFEELTHEIRPAIN,LABELIT

Itwas1998andIwasstandinginanarrowhallwayoutsideanapartmentonthetwenty-seventhfloorofahigh-riseinHarlem.IwastheheadoftheNewYork City FBI Crisis Negotiation Team, and that day I was the primarynegotiator.

The investigative squad had reported that at least three heavily armedfugitives were holed up inside. Several days earlier the fugitives had usedautomaticweapons in a shoot-outwith a rival gang, so theNewYorkCityFBI SWAT team was arrayed behind me, and our snipers were on nearbyrooftopswithriflestrainedontheapartmentwindows.

Intensesituationslikethis,thetraditionalnegotiatingadviceistokeepapoker face. Don’t get emotional. Until recently, most academics andresearcherscompletely ignoredtheroleofemotioninnegotiation.Emotionswerejustanobstacletoagoodoutcome,theysaid.“Separatethepeoplefromtheproblem”wasthecommonrefrain.

But think about that: How can you separate people from the problemwhentheiremotionsaretheproblem?Especiallywhentheyarescaredpeoplewith guns.Emotions are one of themain things that derail communication.Oncepeoplegetupsetatoneanother,rationalthinkinggoesoutthewindow.

That’s why, instead of denying or ignoring emotions, good negotiatorsidentifyandinfluencethem.Theyareabletopreciselylabelemotions,thoseofothersandespeciallytheirown.Andoncetheylabeltheemotionstheytalkaboutthemwithoutgettingwoundup.Forthem,emotionisatool.

Emotionsaren’ttheobstacles,theyarethemeans.The relationship between an emotionally intelligent negotiator and their

counterpart is essentially therapeutic. It duplicates that of a psychotherapistwith a patient. The psychotherapist pokes and prods to understand hispatient’sproblems,andthenturns theresponsesbackontothepatient togethim to go deeper and change his behavior. That’s exactly what goodnegotiatorsdo.

Getting to this levelofemotional intelligencedemandsopeningupyoursenses,talkingless,andlisteningmore.Youcanlearnalmosteverythingyou

need—andalotmorethanotherpeoplewouldlikeyoutoknow—simplybywatching and listening, keeping your eyes peeled and your ears open, andyourmouthshut.

Think about the therapist’s couch as you read the following sections.You’llseehowasoothingvoice,closelistening,andacalmrepetitionofthewords of your “patient” can get you a lot further than a cold, rationalargument.

Itmaysoundtouchy-feely,butifyoucanperceivetheemotionsofothers,youhaveachancetoturnthemtoyouradvantage.Themoreyouknowaboutsomeone,themorepoweryouhave.

TACTICALEMPATHY

WehadonebigproblemthatdayinHarlem:notelephonenumbertocallintothe apartment. So for six straight hours, relieved periodically by two FBIagentswhowere learning crisis negotiation, I spoke through the apartmentdoor.

Iusedmylate-nightFMDJvoice.I didn’t give orders inmyDJ voice, or ask what the fugitives wanted.

Instead,Iimaginedmyselfintheirplace.“It looks likeyoudon’twant to comeout,” I said repeatedly. “It seems

likeyouworrythatifyouopenthedoor,we’llcomeinwithgunsblazing.Itlookslikeyoudon’twanttogobacktojail.”

Forsixhours,wegotnoresponse.TheFBIcoacheslovedmyDJvoice.Butwasitworking?

And then,whenwewere almost completely convinced that noonewasinside,asniperonanadjacentbuildingradioedthathesawoneofthecurtainsintheapartmentmove.

Thefrontdoorof theapartmentslowlyopened.Awomanemergedwithherhandsinfrontofher.

I continued talking. All three fugitives came out. None of them said aworduntilwehadtheminhandcuffs.

ThenIaskedthemthequestionthatwasmostnaggingme:Whydidtheycomeoutaftersixhoursofradiosilence?Whydidtheyfinallygivein?

Allthreegavemethesameanswer.“Wedidn’twanttogetcaughtorgetshot,butyoucalmedusdown,”they

said.“Wefinallybelievedyouwouldn’tgoaway,sowejustcameout.”

Thereisnothingmorefrustratingordisruptivetoanynegotiationthantogetthefeelingyouaretalkingtosomeonewhoisn’tlistening.Playingdumbisa

validnegotiatingtechnique,and“Idon’tunderstand”isalegitimateresponse.But ignoring theotherparty’spositiononlybuildsup frustrationandmakesthemlesslikelytodowhatyouwant.

Theoppositeofthatistacticalempathy.Inmynegotiatingcourse,Itellmystudentsthatempathyis“theabilityto

recognize the perspective of a counterpart, and the vocalization of thatrecognition.” That’s an academic way of saying that empathy is payingattentiontoanotherhumanbeing,askingwhattheyarefeeling,andmakingacommitmenttounderstandingtheirworld.

NoticeIdidn’tsayanythingaboutagreeingwiththeotherperson’svaluesandbeliefs or giving out hugs.That’s sympathy.What I’m talking about istryingtounderstandasituationfromanotherperson’sperspective.

Onestepbeyondthatistacticalempathy.Tacticalempathyisunderstandingthefeelingsandmindsetofanotherin

themoment and alsohearingwhat isbehind those feelings so you increaseyour influence in all themoments that follow. It’s bringing our attention toboth the emotional obstacles and the potential pathways to getting anagreementdone.

It’semotionalintelligenceonsteroids.As a cop in Kansas City, I was curious about how a select handful of

veterancopsmanagedtotalkangry,violentpeopleoutoffightsortogetthemtoputdowntheirknivesandguns.

When I asked how they did that, I rarely gotmore than a shrug. Theycouldn’t articulate what they did. But now I know the answer is tacticalempathy.Theywereabletothinkfromanotherperson’spointofviewwhiletheyweretalkingwiththatpersonandquicklyassesswhatwasdrivingthem.

Mostofusenterverbalcombatunlikely topersuadeanyoneofanythingbecauseweonlyknowandcareaboutourowngoalsandperspective.Butthebestofficersaretunedintotheotherparty—theiraudience.Theyknowthatiftheyempathize,theycanmoldtheiraudiencebyhowtheyapproachandtalktothem.

That’swhy,ifacorrectionsofficerapproachesaninmateexpectinghimtoresist, heoftenwill.But if he approaches exudingcalm, the inmatewill bemuchmorelikelytobepeaceful.Itseemslikewizardry,butit’snot.It’sjustthatwhentheofficerhashisaudienceclearlyinmind,hecanbecomewhoheneedstobetohandlethesituation.

Empathy is a classic “soft” communication skill, but it has a physicalbasis.Whenwecloselyobserveaperson’sface,gestures,andtoneofvoice,ourbrainbeginstoalignwiththeirsinaprocesscalledneuralresonance,andthatletsusknowmorefullywhattheythinkandfeel.

In an fMRI brain-scan experiment,1 researchers at Princeton Universityfound that neural resonance disappears when people communicate poorly.The researchers could predict how well people were communicating byobserving how much their brains were aligned. And they discovered thatpeople who paid the most attention—good listeners—could actuallyanticipatewhatthespeakerwasabouttosaybeforehesaidit.

Ifyouwanttoincreaseyourneuralresonanceskills,takeamomentrightnowandpractice.Turnyourattentiontosomeonewho’stalkingnearyou,orwatchapersonbeinginterviewedonTV.Astheytalk, imaginethatyouarethat person. Visualize yourself in the position they describe and put in asmuchdetailasyoucan,asifyouwereactuallythere.

But bewarned, a lot of classic dealmakerswill think your approach issoftheadedandweak.

JustaskformersecretaryofstateHillaryClinton.A few years ago during a speech at Georgetown University, Clinton

advocated, “showing respect, even for one’s enemies. Trying to understandand,insofaraspsychologicallypossible,empathizewiththeirperspectiveandpointofview.”

Youcanpredictwhathappenednext.Agaggleofpunditsandpoliticianspouncedonher.Theycalledherstatement inaneandnaïve,andevenasignshehadembracedtheMuslimBrotherhood.Somesaidthatshehadblownherchancesatapresidentialrun.

Theproblemwithallofthathotairisthatshewasright.Politicsaside,empathyisnotaboutbeingniceoragreeingwiththeother

side. It’saboutunderstandingthem.Empathyhelpsus learn theposition theenemy is in,why theiractionsmakesense (to them),andwhatmightmovethem.

As negotiators we use empathy because it works. Empathy is why thethreefugitivescameoutaftersixhoursofmy late-nightDJvoice. It’swhathelped me succeed at what Sun Tzu called “the supreme art of war”: tosubduetheenemywithoutfighting.

LABELING

Let’sgobacktotheHarlemdoorwayforaminute.Wedidn’thavealottogoon,butifyou’vegotthreefugitivestrappedin

anapartmentonthetwenty-seventhfloorofabuildinginHarlem,theydon’thave to say aword for you to know that they’reworried about two things:gettingkilled,andgoingtojail.

Soforsixstraighthoursinthatswelteringapartmentbuildinghallway,the

twoFBInegotiatingstudentsandItookturnsspeaking.Werotatedinordertoavoid verbal stumbles and other errors caused by tiredness.Andwe stayedrelentlesslyonmessage,allthreeofussayingthesamething.

Now,paycloseattentiontoexactlywhatwesaid:“Itlookslikeyoudon’twant to comeout. It seems likeyouworry that if youopen thedoor,we’llcomeinwithgunsblazing.Itlookslikeyoudon’twanttogobacktojail.”

We employed our tactical empathy by recognizing and then verbalizingthepredictableemotionsof thesituation.Wedidn’t justputourselves in thefugitives’shoes.Wespottedtheirfeelings, turnedthemintowords,andthenverycalmlyandrespectfullyrepeatedtheiremotionsbacktothem.

Inanegotiation,that’scalledlabeling.Labelingisawayofvalidatingsomeone’semotionbyacknowledgingit.

Give someone’s emotion a name and you showyou identifywithhow thatperson feels. It gets you close to someone without asking about externalfactorsyouknownothingabout(“How’syourfamily?”).Thinkoflabelingasashortcuttointimacy,atime-savingemotionalhack.

Labeling has a special advantage when your counterpart is tense.Exposingnegativethoughtstodaylight—“Itlookslikeyoudon’twanttogobacktojail”—makesthemseemlessfrightening.

Inonebrainimagingstudy,2psychologyprofessorMatthewLiebermanoftheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,foundthatwhenpeopleareshownphotosoffacesexpressingstrongemotion,thebrainshowsgreateractivityintheamygdala, thepart thatgenerates fear.Butwhen theyareasked to labeltheemotion,theactivitymovestotheareasthatgovernrationalthinking.Inother words, labeling an emotion—applying rational words to a fear—disruptsitsrawintensity.

Labelingisasimple,versatileskillthatletsyoureinforceagoodaspectofthenegotiation,ordiffuseanegativeone.Butithasveryspecificrulesaboutformanddelivery.ThatmakesitlesslikechattingthanlikeaformalartsuchasChinesecalligraphy.

Formostpeople, it’s oneof themost awkwardnegotiating tools touse.Beforetheytryitthefirsttime,mystudentsalmostalwaystellmetheyexpecttheircounterparttojumpupandshout,“Don’tyoudaretellmehowIfeel!”

Letmeletyouinonasecret:peopleneverevennotice.The first step to labeling isdetecting theotherperson’s emotional state.

Outsidethatdoor inHarlemwecouldn’tevenseethefugitives,butmostofthe timeyou’llhaveawealthof informationfromtheotherperson’swords,tone,andbodylanguage.Wecallthattrinity“words,music,anddance.”

The trick tospottingfeelings is topaycloseattention tochangespeopleundergowhen they respond toexternalevents.Mostoften, thoseeventsare

yourwords.If you say, “How is the family?” and the corners of the other party’s

mouth turndownevenwhen theysay it’sgreat,youmightdetect thatall isnotwell;iftheirvoicegoesflatwhenacolleagueismentioned,therecouldbea problem between the two; and if your landlord unconsciously fidgets hisfeetwhenyoumention the neighbors, it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t thinkmuch of them (we’ll dig deeper into how to spot and use these cues inChapter9).

Picking up on these tiny pieces of information is how psychics work.They size up their client’s body language and ask him a few innocentquestions.Whenthey“tell”hisfutureafewminuteslater,they’rereallyjustsayingwhat hewants to hear based on small details they’ve spotted.Morethanafewpsychicswouldmakegoodnegotiatorsforthatveryreason.

Onceyou’vespottedanemotionyouwanttohighlight,thenextstepistolabel it aloud. Labels can be phrased as statements or questions. The onlydifference is whether you end the sentence with a downward or upwardinflection. But no matter how they end, labels almost always begin withroughlythesamewords:

Itseemslike...Itsoundslike...Itlookslike...Noticewesaid“Itsoundslike...”andnot“I’mhearingthat...”That’s

becausetheword“I”getspeople’sguardup.Whenyousay“I,”itsaysyou’remore interested in yourself than the other person, and it makes you takepersonalresponsibilityforthewordsthatfollow—andtheoffensetheymightcause.

Butwhenyouphrase a label as a neutral statement of understanding, itencouragesyourcounterpart tobe responsive.They’llusuallygivea longeranswer than just “yes” or “no.” And if they disagree with the label, that’sokay.Youcanalwaysstepbackandsay,“Ididn’tsaythatwaswhatitwas.Ijustsaiditseemslikethat.”

The last rule of labeling is silence.Once you’ve thrown out a label, bequiet and listen.We all have a tendency to expand onwhatwe’ve said, tofinish, “It seems like you like the way that shirt looks,” with a specificquestionlike“Wheredidyougetit?”Butalabel’spoweristhatitinvitestheotherpersontorevealhimself.

Ifyou’lltrustmeforasecond,takeabreaknowandtryitout:Strikeupaconversationandputalabelononeoftheotherperson’semotions—itdoesn’tmatter if you’re talking to themailmanor your ten-year-old daughter—andthengosilent.Letthelabeldoitswork.

NEUTRALIZETHENEGATIVE,REINFORCETHEPOSITIVE

Labelingisatactic,notastrategy,inthesamewayaspoonisagreattoolforstirringsoupbutit’snotarecipe.Howyouuselabelingwillgoalongwayindeterminingyoursuccess.Deployedwell,it’showweasnegotiatorsidentifyand then slowlyalter the innervoicesofour counterpart’s consciousness tosomethingmorecollaborativeandtrusting.

First, let’s talk a little human psychology. In basic terms, people’semotions have two levels: the “presenting” behavior is the part above thesurface you can see and hear; beneath, the “underlying” feeling is whatmotivatesthebehavior.

Imagine a grandfather who’s grumbly at a family holiday dinner: thepresentingbehavior is that he’s cranky,but theunderlying emotion is a sadsenseoflonelinessfromhisfamilyneverseeinghim.

What good negotiators do when labeling is address those underlyingemotions. Labeling negatives diffuses them (or defuses them, in extremecases);labelingpositivesreinforcesthem.

We’llcomebacktothecrankygrandfatherinamoment.First, though,Iwanttotalkalittlebitaboutanger.

As an emotion, anger is rarely productive—inyouor the personyou’renegotiatingwith.Itreleasesstresshormonesandneurochemicalsthatdisruptyourabilitytoproperlyevaluateandrespondtosituations.Anditblindsyoutothefactthatyou’reangryinthefirstplace,whichgivesyouafalsesenseofconfidence.

That’snottosaythatnegativefeelingsshouldbeignored.Thatcanbejustasdamaging.Instead,theyshouldbeteasedout.Labelingisahelpfultacticinde-escalatingangryconfrontations,becauseitmakesthepersonacknowledgetheirfeelingsratherthancontinuingtoactout.

Earlyoninmyhostagenegotiationcareer,Ilearnedhowimportantitwastogodirectlyatnegativedynamicsinafearlessbutdeferentialmanner.

ItwastofixasituationI’dcreatedmyself.I’dangeredthetopFBIofficialinCanadawhenIenteredthecountrywithoutfirstalertinghim(sohecouldnotifytheDepartmentofState),aprocedureknownas“countryclearance.”

IknewIneededtocallandassuagehimtostraightenoutthesituation,orIrisked being expelled. Top guys like to feel on top. They don’twant to bedisrespected. All the more so when the office they run isn’t a sexyassignment.

“Blessme,Father,forIhavesinned,”Isaidwhenheansweredthephone.Therewasalongpauseattheotherendoftheline.

“Whoisthis?”hesaid.“Blessme,Father,forIhavesinned,”Irepeated.“It’sChrisVoss.”Againtherewasalongsilence.“Doesyourbossknowyou’rehere?”Isaidhedid,andcrossedmyfingers.Atthispoint,theFBIofficialwould

have been completely within his rights to tell me to leave Canadaimmediately.Butbymentioningthenegativedynamic,IknewI’ddiffuseditasmuchasIcould.Ihadachance.

“Allright,you’vegotcountryclearance,”hefinallysaid.“I’lltakecareofthepaperwork.”

Try this thenext timeyouhave toapologizeforabone-headedmistake.Go right at it. The fastest andmost efficientmeans of establishing a quickworkingrelationshipistoacknowledgethenegativeanddiffuseit.WheneverIwasdealingwiththefamilyofahostage,IstartedoutbysayingIknewtheywerescared.AndwhenImakeamistake—something thathappensa lot—Ialways acknowledge theotherperson’s anger. I’ve found thephrase “Look,I’manasshole”tobeanamazinglyeffectivewaytomakeproblemsgoaway.

Thatapproachhasneverfailedme.

Let’sgobacktothecrankygrandfather.He’sgrumpybecausehenever sees the family andhe feels left out.So

he’sspeakingupinhisowndysfunctionalwaytogetattention.Howdoyoufixthat?Insteadofaddressinghisgrumpybehavior,youacknowledgehissadness

inanonjudgmentalway.Youheadhimoffbeforehecanreallygetstarted.“Wedon’tseeeachotherallthatoften,”youcouldsay.“Itseemslikeyou

feellikewedon’tpayanyattentiontoyouandyouonlyseeusonceayear,sowhyshouldyoumaketimeforus?”

Noticehowthatacknowledgesthesituationandlabelshissadness?Hereyoucanpausebriefly, lettinghimrecognizeandappreciateyourattempts tounderstandwhathe’sfeeling,andthenturnthesituationaroundbyofferingapositivesolution.

“Forusthisisarealtreat.Wewanttohearwhatyouhavetotalkabout.Wewanttovaluethistimewithyoubecausewefeelleftoutofyourlife.”

Researchshowsthatthebestwaytodealwithnegativityistoobserveit,withoutreactionandwithoutjudgment.Thenconsciouslylabeleachnegativefeeling and replace it with positive, compassionate, and solution-basedthoughts.

OneofmyGeorgetownUniversitystudents,aguynamedTJ,whoworkedas

an assistant controller at theWashingtonRedskins, put that lesson toworkwhilehewastakingmynegotiationsclass.

The economy was in the toilet at the time, and Redskins season ticketholderswere leaving indroves toavoid thecost.Worse, the teamhadbeenterrible the year before, and off-field player problems were alienating thefans.

Theteam’sCFOwasgettingmoreworried—andcranky—bytheday,andtwo weeks before the season was to start he walked by TJ’s desk andslammeddownafolderfullofpaper.

“Betteryesterdaythantoday,”hesaidandwalkedaway.Insidewasalistoffortyseasonticketholderswhohadn’tpaidtheirbills,

aUSBdrivewithaspreadsheetabouteachone’ssituation,andascripttousewhencallingthem.

TJsawrightawaythatthescriptwasadisaster.Itbeganbysayingthathiscolleagues had been trying to call for months, and the account had beenescalatedtohim.“Iwantedtoinformyou,”itread,“thatinordertoreceiveyour tickets for the upcoming season opener against theNewYorkGiants,youwillneedtopayyouroutstandingbalanceinfullpriortoSeptember10.”

It was the stupidly aggressive, impersonal, tone-deaf style ofcommunicationthatisthedefaultformostbusiness.Itwasall“me,me,me”from TJ, with no acknowledgment of the ticket holder’s situation. Noempathy.Noconnection.Justgivemethemoney.

MaybeIdon’tneedtosayit,butthescriptdidn’twork.TJleftmessages;noonecalledback.

Afewweeksintotheclass,TJrewrotethescript.Theseweren’tmassivechanges, and he didn’t offer the fans any discounts.What he did was addsubtletweakstomakethecallaboutthefans,theirsituation,andtheirloveoftheteam.

Nowtheteamwas“YOURWashingtonRedskins”andthepurposeofthecall was to ensure that the team’s most valuable fans—the delinquentcustomers—wouldbethereattheseasonopener.“Thehome-fieldadvantagecreatedbyyoueachandeverySundayatFedExFielddoesnotgounnoticed,”TJwrote.Hethentoldthem,“Inthesedifficulttimes,weunderstandourfanshavebeenhithardandwearehere toworkwithyou,”andasked the ticketholderstocallbacktotalkthroughtheir“uniquesituation.”

Thoughsuperficiallysimple,thechangesTJmadeinthescripthadadeepemotional resonance with the delinquent ticket holders. It mentioned theirdebt to the team but also acknowledged the team’s debt to them, and bylabeling the tough economic times, and the stress they were causing, itdiffused the biggest negative dynamic—their delinquency—and turned the

issueintosomethingsolvable.ThesimplechangesmaskedacomplexunderstandingofempathyonTJ’s

side.With thenewscript,TJwasable to setuppaymentplanswithall theticketholdersbeforetheGiantsgame.AndtheCFO’snextvisit?Well,itwasfarlessterse.

CLEARTHEROADBEFOREADVERTISINGTHEDESTINATION

Remembertheamygdala,thepartofthebrainthatgeneratesfearinreactiontothreats?Well,thefasterwecaninterrupttheamygdala’sreactiontorealorimaginary threats, the faster we can clear the road of obstacles, and thequickerwecangeneratefeelingsofsafety,well-being,andtrust.

We do that by labeling the fears. These labels are so powerful becausetheybathe thefears insunlight,bleachingthemof theirpowerandshowingourcounterpartthatweunderstand.

ThinkbacktothatHarlemlanding:Ididn’tsay,“Itseemslikeyouwantustoletyougo.”Wecouldallagreeonthat.Butthatwouldn’thavediffusedthe real fear in the apartment, or shown that I empathized with the grimcomplexity of their situation. That’swhy Iwent right at the amygdala andsaid,“Itseemslikeyoudon’twanttogobacktojail.”

Once they’ve been labeled and brought into the open, the negativereactionsinyourcounterpart’samygdalawillbegintosoften.Ipromiseitwillshock you how suddenly his language turns from worry to optimism.Empathyisapowerfulmoodenhancer.

Theroad isnotalwaysclearedsoeasily,sodon’tbedemoralized if thisprocessseemstogoslowly.TheHarlemhigh-risenegotiationtooksixhours.Manyofuswearfearsuponfears, like layersagainst thecold,sogetting tosafetytakestime.

Thatwastheexperienceofanotheroneofmystudents,afund-raiserforthe Girl Scouts, who backed into naming her counterpart’s fears almostaccidentally.

We’renottalkingaboutsomeonewhosoldGirlScoutcookies:mystudentwasanexperiencedfund-raiserwhoregularlygotdonorstoponyup$1,000to$25,000acheck.Overtheyears,she’ddevelopedaverysuccessfulsystemtogether“clients,”usuallywealthywomen,toopentheircheckbook.

She’d invite a potential donor to her office, serve a few Girl Scoutscookies, walk her through an album of heartwarming snapshots andhandwrittenlettersfromprojectsthatmatchedthewoman’sprofile,andthencollectacheckwhenthedonor’seyeslitup.Itwasalmosteasy.

One day, though, she met the immovable donor. Once the woman sat

downinheroffice,mystudentbegan to throwout theprojectsher researchhadsaidwouldfit.Butthewomanshookherheadatoneprojectafteranother.

My student found herself growing perplexed at the difficult donorwhohadno interest indonating.But sheheldheremotion incheckand reachedback to a lesson from my recent class on labeling. “I’m sensing somehesitationwiththeseprojects,”shesaidinwhatshehopedwasalevelvoice.

As if she’d been uncorked, the woman exclaimed: “I want my gift todirectlysupportprogrammingforGirlScoutsandnotanythingelse.”

This helped focus the conversation, but asmy student put forth projectafter project that seemed to fulfill the donor’s criteria, all she gotwas stillrejection.

Sensingthepotentialdonor’sgrowingfrustration,andwantingtoendonapositive note so that they might be able to meet again, my student usedanotherlabel.“Itseemsthatyouarereallypassionateaboutthisgiftandwantto find the right project reflecting the opportunities and life-changingexperiencestheGirlScoutsgaveyou.”

Andwiththat,this“difficult”womansignedacheckwithoutevenpickinga specificproject. “Youunderstandme,” she saidas shegotup to leave. “Itrustyou’llfindtherightproject.”

Fearofhermoneybeingmisappropriatedwasthepresentingdynamicthatthe first label uncovered. But the second label uncovered the underlyingdynamic—her very presence in the office was driven by very specificmemoriesofbeingalittleGirlScoutandhowitchangedherlife.

Theobstacleherewasn’tfindingtherightmatchforthewoman.Itwasn’tthatshewas thishighlyfinicky,hard-to-pleasedonor.Therealobstaclewasthat this woman needed to feel that she was understood, that the personhandling her money knew why she was in that office and understood thememoriesthatweredrivingheractions.

That’swhylabelsaresopowerfulandsopotentiallytransformativetothestateofanyconversation.Bydiggingbeneathwhatseemslikeamountainofquibbles,details,andlogistics,labelshelptouncoverandidentifytheprimaryemotiondrivingalmost allofyourcounterpart’sbehavior, theemotion that,onceacknowledged,seemstomiraculouslysolveeverythingelse.

DOANACCUSATIONAUDIT

Onthefirstdayofnegotiatingclasseachsemester,Imarchthegroupthroughanintroductoryexercisecalled“sixtysecondsorshedies.”Iplayahostage-takerandastudenthastoconvincemetoreleasemyhostagewithinaminute.It’s an icebreaker that showsme the level ofmy students, and it reveals to

themhowmuchtheyneedto learn.(Here’sa littlesecret: thehostagenevergetsout.)

Sometimes students jump right in, but finding takers is usually hardbecauseitmeanscomingtothefrontoftheclassandcompetingwiththeguywhoholdsallthecards.IfIjustaskforavolunteer,mystudentssitontheirhands and look away. You’ve been there. You can almost feel your backmusclestenseasyouthink,Ohplease,don’tcallonme.

SoIdon’task.Instead,Isay,“Incaseyou’reworriedaboutvolunteeringtorole-playwithmeinfrontoftheclass,Iwanttotellyouinadvance...it’sgoingtobehorrible.”

After the laughter dies down, I then say, “And those of you who dovolunteerwillprobablygetmoreoutofthisthananyoneelse.”

IalwaysendupwithmorevolunteersthanIneed.Now, look at what I did: I prefaced the conversation by labeling my

audience’sfears;howmuchworsecansomethingbethan“horrible”?Idefusethemandwait, letting it sink inand therebymaking theunreasonable seemlessforbidding.

All of us have intuitively done something close to this thousands of times.You’llstartacriticismofafriendbysaying,“Idon’twantthistosoundharsh...”hopingthatwhatevercomesnextwillbesoftened.Oryou’llsay,“Idon’twanttoseemlikeanasshole...”hopingyourcounterpartwilltellyouafewsentences later that you’re not that bad. The small but criticalmistake thiscommitsisdenyingthenegative.Thatactuallygivesitcredence.

Incourt,defenselawyersdothisproperlybymentioningeverythingtheirclient is accused of, and all the weaknesses of their case, in the openingstatement.Theycallthistechnique“takingthestingout.”

What I want to do here is turn this into a process that, appliedsystematically, you can use to disarm your counterpart while negotiatingeverythingfromyourson’sbedtimetolargebusinesscontracts.

The first stepofdoing so is listingevery terrible thingyourcounterpartcouldsayaboutyou,inwhatIcallanaccusationaudit.

Thisideaofanaccusationauditisreally,reallyhardforpeopletogettheirminds around. The first time I tellmy students about it, they say, “OhmyGod.Wecan’tdothat.”Itseemsbothartificialandself-loathing.Itseemslikeitwouldmakethingsworse.But thenIremindthemthat it’sexactlywhatIdid the first day of classwhen I labeled their fears of the hostage game inadvance.Andtheyalladmitthatnoneofthemknew.

As an example, I’mgoing touse the experienceof oneofmy students,Anna,becauseIcouldn’tbemoreproudathowsheturnedwhatshelearned

inmyclassinto$1million.At the time,Annawas representingamajorgovernmentcontractor.Her

firmhadwonacompetitionforasizablegovernmentdealbypartneringwitha smaller company, let’s call it ABC Corp., whose CEO had a closerelationshipwiththegovernmentclientrepresentative.

Problems started right after they won the contract, though. BecauseABC’srelationshiphadbeeninstrumentalinwinningthedeal,ABCfeltthatitwasowedapieceof thepiewhether it fulfilled itspartof thecontractornot.

And so,while the contract paid them for thework of nine people, theycontinually cut back support. As Anna’s company had to perform ABC’swork, the relationship betweenABC andAnna’s company fragmented intovituperative emails and bitter complaining. Facing an already low profitmargin,Anna’s companywas forced into toughnegotiations togetABC totakeacutto5.5people.Thenegotiationsleftabitteraftertasteonbothsides.Thevituperative emails stopped,but then againallemails stopped.And nocommunicationisalwaysabadsign.

A few months after those painful talks, the client demanded a majorrethinkontheprojectandAnna’sfirmwasfacedwithlosingseriousmoneyifitdidn’tgetABCtoagreetofurthercuts.BecauseABCwasn’tlivinguptoitssideofthebargain,Anna’sfirmwouldhavehadstrongcontractualgroundstocut out ABC altogether. But that would have damaged Anna’s firm’sreputationwith a very important customer, and could have led to litigationfromABC.

Facedwiththisscenario,AnnasetupameetingwithABCwheresheandherpartnersplannedtoinformABCthatitspaywasbeingcuttothreepeople.Itwas a touchy situation, asABCwas already unhappy about the first cut.Even though she was normally an aggressive and confident negotiator,worriesaboutthenegotiationsruinedAnna’ssleepforweeks.Sheneededtoextract concessions while improving the relationship at the same time. Noeasytask,right?

To prepare, the first thing Anna did was sit downwith her negotiatingpartner,Mark,and listeverynegativecharge thatABCcould levelat them.The relationship had gone sour long before, so the list was huge. But thebiggestpossibleaccusationswereeasytospot:

“Youarethetypicalprimecontractortryingtoforceoutthesmallguy.”“Youpromiseduswewouldhaveallthisworkandyourenegedonyour

promise.”“Youcouldhavetoldusaboutthisissueweeksagotohelpusprepare.”Anna and Mark then took turns role-playing the two sides, with one

playing ABC and the other disarming these accusations with anticipatorylabels.“You’regoingtothinkweareabig,badprimecontractorwhenwearedone,”Anna practiced saying slowly and naturally. “It seems you feel thisworkwaspromised toyoufromthebeginning,”Marksaid.They trained infrontofanobserver,honingtheirpacing;decidingatwhatpointtheywouldlabel each fear; and planning when to include meaningful pauses. It wastheater.

When the day of the meeting arrived, Anna opened by acknowledgingABC’sbiggestgripes.“Weunderstandthatwebroughtyouonboardwiththesharedgoalofhavingyou lead thiswork,”shesaid.“Youmayfeel likewehave treated you unfairly, and that we changed the deal significantly sincethen.Weacknowledgethatyoubelieveyouwerepromisedthiswork.”

This received an emphatic nod from theABC representatives, soAnnacontinuedbyoutliningthesituationinawaythatencouragedtheABCrepstosee the firms as teammates, peppering her statements with open-endedquestions that showed she was listening: “What else is there you feel isimportanttoaddtothis?”

By labeling the fears and asking for input, Anna was able to elicit animportantfactaboutABC’sfears,namelythatABCwasexpectingthistobeahigh-profitcontractbecauseitthoughtAnna’sfirmwasdoingquitewellfromthedeal.

ThisprovidedanentrypointforMark,whoexplainedthattheclient’snewdemandshadturnedhisfirm’sprofitsintolosses,meaningthatheandAnnaneeded to cut ABC’s pay further, to three people. Angela, one of ABC’srepresentatives,gasped.

“It sounds likeyou thinkweare thebig, badprimecontractor trying topushoutthesmallbusiness,”Annasaid,headingofftheaccusationbeforeitcouldbemade.

“No, no, we don’t think that,” Angela said, conditioned by theacknowledgmenttolookforcommonground.

Withthenegativeslabeledandtheworstaccusationslaidbare,AnnaandMarkwereabletoturntheconversationtothecontract.Watchwhattheydoclosely, as it’s brilliant: they acknowledge ABC’s situation whilesimultaneously shifting the onus of offering a solution to the smallercompany.

“Itsoundslikeyouhaveagreathandleonhowthegovernmentcontractshouldwork,”Annasaid,labelingAngela’sexpertise.

“Yes—butIknowthat’snothowitalwaysgoes,”Angelaanswered,proudtohaveherexperienceacknowledged.

Anna then asked Angela how she would amend the contract so that

everyonemadesomemoney,whichpushedAngelatoadmitthatshesawnowaytodosowithoutcuttingABC’sworkercount.

Severalweekslater,thecontractwastweakedtocutABC’spayout,whichbroughtAnna’scompany$1millionthatputthecontractintotheblack.ButitwasAngela’s reaction at the end of themeeting thatmost surprisedAnna.AfterAnnahadacknowledgedthatshehadgivenAngelasomebadnewsandthatsheunderstoodhowangryshemustfeel,Angelasaid:

“This is not a good situation but we appreciate the fact that you areacknowledgingwhathappened,andwedon’tfeellikeyouaremistreatingus.Andyouarenotthe‘BigBadPrime.’”

Anna’s reaction to how this turned out? “Holy crap, this stuff actuallyworks!”

She’sright.Asyoujustsaw,thebeautyofgoingrightafternegativityisthatitbringsustoasafezoneofempathy.Everyoneofushasaninherent,human need to be understood, to connectwith the person across the table.Thatexplainswhy,afterAnna labeledAngela’s fears,Angela’s first instinctwas to addnuance anddetail to those fears.And that detail gaveAnna thepowertoaccomplishwhatshewantedfromthenegotiation.

GETASEAT—ANDANUPGRADE—ONASOLD-OUTFLIGHT

Up to this point, we’ve been building each skill as if they were musicalinstruments: first, try the saxophonemirror; now here’s the bass label; andfinally,whydon’tyoublowanoteontheFrenchhornoftacticalsilence.Butinarealnegotiationthebandallplaystogether.Soyou’vegottolearnhowtoconduct.

Keepingalltheinstrumentsplayingisreallyawkwardformostpeople.Itseemstogobyinsucharush.SowhatI’mgoingtodohereisplayasongatslow speed so you canhear each instrument note bynote. I promise you’llquicklyseehowtheskillsyouhavebeenbuildingplayoffoneanother,rising,riffing,falling,andpausinginperfectharmony.

Here is the situation (the song, if you will): My student Ryan B. wasflyingfromBaltimoretoAustintosignalargecomputer-consultingcontract.Forsixmonths,theclientrepresentativehadgonebackandforthonwhetherhewantedtheservices,butamajorsystemcollapseputtherepresentativeinatightspotwithhisCEO.Toshifttheblame,hecalledRyanwithhisCEOonthelineandveryaggressivelydemandedtoknowwhyitwastakingRyansolong tocomeink thecontract. IfRyanwasnot therebyFridaymorning,hesaid,thedealwasoff.

Ryanboughtaticketforthenextmorning,Thursday,butafreaklightning

stormwhippedupinBaltimore,closingtheairportforfivehours.Itbecamepainfully clear that Ryan wasn’t going to make his original connection toAustin from Dallas. Worse, when he called American Airlines just beforedeparting,hefoundthathisconnectionhadbeenautomaticallyrebookedto3p.m.thenextday,puttingthecontractinjeopardy.

WhenRyan finallygot toDallasat8p.m.,he ran to thegatewhere theday’s final AmericanAirlines flight to Austin was less than thirtyminutesfrom takeoff. His goalwas to get on that flight or, at worst, get an earlierflightthenextday.

Infrontofhimatthegate,averyaggressivecouplewasyellingatthegateagent,whowasbarelylookingatthemasshetappedonthecomputerinfrontofher; shewasclearlymakingeveryeffortnot toscreamback.Aftershe’dsaid,“There’snothingIcando,”fivetimes,theangrycouplefinallygaveupandleft.

To start, watch howRyan turns that heated exchange to his advantage.Following on the heels of an argument is a great position for a negotiator,because your counterpart is desperate for an empathetic connection. Smile,andyou’realreadyanimprovement.

“Hi,Wendy,I’mRyan.Itseemsliketheywereprettyupset.”Thislabelsthenegativeandestablishesarapportbasedonempathy.This

in turn encourages Wendy to elaborate on her situation, words Ryan thenmirrorstoinvitehertogofurther.

“Yeah.Theymissedtheirconnection.We’vehadafairamountofdelaysbecauseoftheweather.”

“Theweather?”AfterWendyexplainshowthedelaysintheNortheasthadrippledthrough

the system, Ryan again labels the negative and thenmirrors her answer toencouragehertodelvefurther.

“Itseemslikeit’sbeenahecticday.”“There’vebeenalotof‘irateconsumers,’youknow?Imean,Igetit,even

thoughIdon’tliketobeyelledat.AlotofpeoplearetryingtogettoAustinforthebiggame.”

“Thebiggame?”“UT is playingOleMiss football and every flight intoAustin has been

bookedsolid.”“Bookedsolid?”Nowlet’spause.Uptothispoint,Ryanhasbeenusinglabelsandmirrors

to build a relationship with Wendy. To her it must seem like idle chatter,though,becausehehasn’taskedforanything.Unliketheangrycouple,Ryanisacknowledginghersituation.Hiswordsping-pongbetween“What’sthat?”

and“Ihearyou,”bothofwhichinvitehertoelaborate.Nowthattheempathyhasbeenbuilt,sheletsslipapieceofinformation

hecanuse.“Yeah, all through theweekend. Thoughwho knows howmany people

willmaketheflights.Theweather’sprobablygoingtoreroutealotofpeoplethroughalotofdifferentplaces.”

Here’swhereRyanfinallyswoopsinwithanask.Butnoticehowheacts:not assertive or coldly logical, but with empathy and labeling thatacknowledgeshersituationandtacitlyputstheminthesameboat.

“Well,itseemslikeyou’vebeenhandlingtheroughdayprettywell,”hesays. “Iwasalsoaffectedby theweatherdelays andmissedmyconnectingflight.Itseemslikethisflightislikelybookedsolid,butwithwhatyousaid,maybesomeoneaffectedbytheweathermightmissthisconnection.Isthereanypossibilityaseatwillbeopen?”

Listentothatriff:Label,tacticalempathy,label.Andonlythenarequest.At this point,Wendy says nothing and begins typing on her computer.

Ryan,who’seagernottotalkhimselfoutofapossibledeal,engagesinsomesilence.After thirty seconds,Wendy prints a boarding pass and hands it toRyan,explainingthat therewereafewseats thatweresupposedtobefilledbypeoplewhowould nowarrivemuch later than the flight’s departure.TomakeRyan’ssuccessevenbetter,sheputshiminEconomyPlusseating.

Allthatinundertwominutes!Thenexttimeyoufindyourselffollowinganangrycustomeratacorner

storeorairplane line, takeamomentandpractice labelsandmirrorson theserviceperson.Ipromisetheywon’tscream,“Don’ttrytocontrolme!”andburst into flames—and you might walk away with a little more than youexpected.

KEYLESSONS

As you try to insert the tools of tactical empathy into your daily life, Iencourageyou to thinkof themasextensionsofnaturalhuman interactionsandnotartificialconversationaltics.

Inanyinteraction,itpleasesustofeelthattheothersideislisteningandacknowledgingoursituation.Whetheryouarenegotiatingabusinessdealorsimplychattingtothepersonatthesupermarketbutchercounter,creatinganempatheticrelationshipandencouragingyourcounterparttoexpandontheirsituationisthebasisofhealthyhumaninteraction.

Thesetools,then,arenothinglessthanemotionalbestpracticesthathelpyoucurethepervasiveineptitudethatmarksourmostcriticalconversationsin

life. They will help you connect and create more meaningful and warmrelationships. That theymight help you extract what you want is a bonus;humanconnectionisthefirstgoal.

Withthatinmind,Iencourageyoutotaketheriskofsprinklingtheseineveryconversationyouhave.Ipromiseyouthattheywillfeelawkwardandartificialatfirst,butkeepatit.Learningtowalkfeltawfullystrange,too.

As you internalize these techniques, turning the artifice of tacticalempathyintoahabitandthenintoanintegralpartofyourpersonality,keepinmindtheselessonsfromthechapteryou’vejustread:

■ Imagine yourself in your counterpart’s situation. The beauty ofempathy is that it doesn’t demand that you agreewith the otherperson’s ideas (you may well find them crazy). But byacknowledging the other person’s situation, you immediatelyconvey thatyouare listening.Andonce theyknow thatyouarelistening,theymaytellyousomethingthatyoucanuse.

■ Thereasonswhyacounterpartwillnotmakeanagreementwithyouareoftenmorepowerful thanwhytheywillmakeadeal,sofocusfirstonclearingthebarrierstoagreement.Denyingbarriersor negative influences gives them credence; get them into theopen.

■ Pause.Afteryou labelabarrierormirrorastatement, let it sinkin.Don’tworry,theotherpartywillfillthesilence.

■ Labelyourcounterpart’sfearstodiffusetheirpower.Weallwantto talk about the happy stuff, but remember, the faster youinterrupt action in your counterpart’s amygdala, the part of thebrain that generates fear, the faster you can generate feelings ofsafety,well-being,andtrust.

■ Listtheworstthingsthattheotherpartycouldsayaboutyouandsay thembefore the other person can. Performing an accusationaudit in advance prepares you to head off negative dynamicsbeforetheytakeroot.Andbecausetheseaccusationsoftensoundexaggeratedwhen said aloud, speaking themwill encourage theotherpersontoclaimthatquitetheoppositeistrue.

■ Remember you’re dealing with a person who wants to beappreciated and understood. So use labels to reinforce and

encouragepositiveperceptionsanddynamics.

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER4

BEWARE“YES”—MASTER“NO”

Letmepaintascenariowe’veallexperienced:You’reathome,justbeforedinner,andthephonerings.Itis,nosurprise,atelemarketer.Hewantstosellyou magazine subscriptions, water filters, frozen Argentine beef—to behonest, it doesn’tmatter, as the script is always the same.After butcheringyourname,andengaginginsomedisingenuouspleasantries,helaunchesintohispitch.

Thehardsell thatcomesnext isascriptedflowchartdesigned tocutoffyourescaperoutesasitfunnelsyoudownapathwithnoexitbut“Yes.”“Doyouenjoyaniceglassofwaterfromtimetotime.”“Well,yes,but...”“Me,too.AndlikemeIbetyoulikecrisp,cleanwaterwithnochemicalaftertaste,likeMotherNaturemadeit.”“Well,yes,but...”

Whoisthisguywithafakesmileinhisvoice,youwonder,whothinkshecantrickyouintobuyingsomethingyoudon’twant?Youfeelyourmusclestighten,yourvoicegodefensive,andyourheartrateaccelerate.

Youfeellikehisprey,andyouare!Thelastthingyouwanttodoissay“Yes,”evenwhenit’stheonlywayto

answer, “Do you drink water?” Compromise and concession, even to thetruth, feels like defeat. And “No,” well, “No” feels like salvation, like anoasis.You’retemptedtouse“No”whenit’sblatantlyuntrue,justtohearitssweet sound. “No, I donot needwater, carbon filtered or otherwise. I’m acamel!”

Nowlet’sthinkaboutthissellingtechnique.It’sdesignedtogetto“Yes”atallcosts,asif“No”weredeath.Andformanyofusitis.Wehaveallthesenegativeconnotationswith“No.”Wetalkabouttherejectionof“No,”aboutthefearofhearingit.“No”istheultimatenegativeword.

Butattheendoftheday,“Yes”isoftenameaninglessanswerthathidesdeeper objections (and “Maybe” is even worse). Pushing hard for “Yes”doesn’tgetanegotiatoranyclosertoawin;itjustangerstheotherside.

Soif“Yes”canbesodamnuncomfortable,and“No”sucharelief,whyhavewefetishizedoneanddemonizedtheother?

We have it backward. For good negotiators, “No” is pure gold. That

negative provides a great opportunity for you and the other party to clarifywhat you really want by eliminating what you don’t want. “No” is a safechoicethatmaintainsthestatusquo;itprovidesatemporaryoasisofcontrol.

Atsomepointintheirdevelopment,allnegotiatorshavetocometogripswith“No.”When you come to realize the real psychological dynamic behind it,you’ll love theword. It’snot just thatyou loseyour fearof it,but thatyoucometolearnwhatitdoesforyouandhowyoucanbuilddealsoutofit.

“Yes” and “Maybe” are often worthless. But “No” always alters theconversation.

“NO”STARTSTHENEGOTIATION

My fascination with “No” in all its beautiful nuance began with aconversationIhadafewmonthsbeforemynegotiationcareerbegan.

IstartedmycareerwiththeBureauasamemberoftheFBISWATteaminthePittsburghDivisionbut after nearly twoyears Iwas transferred toNewYork,wheretheFBIattachedmetotheJointTerrorismTaskForce(JTTF).Itwas an amazing post: We spent our days and nights tracking suspectedterrorists, investigating theircells,andassessingwhetherorhowtheymightstrike. We were untying knots of human anger in the midst of America’sbiggestcity,makinglife-and-deathdecisionsonwhowasdangerousandwhowasjustblowinghotair.Theworkfascinatedme.

EversincemyfirstdayswiththeBureau,Ihadbeenobsessedwithcrisisresponse. The immediacy of the task enthralledme. The stakes were high.Liveshunginthebalance.

The emotional terrainwas complex, changing, andoften conflicting.Tosuccessfully gain a hostage’s safe release, a negotiator had to penetrate thehostage-taker’smotives, stateofmind, intelligence, andemotional strengthsandweaknesses.Thenegotiatorplayedtheroleofbully,conciliator,enforcer,savior, confessor, instigator, and peacemaker—and that’s just a few of theparts.

IthoughtIwascutoutforeveryoneofthem.Afewweeksafter Igot toManhattan, I showedupat thedeskofAmy

Bonderow,whorantheFBI’sCrisisNegotiationTeaminNewYork.Ididn’tknowbeansaboutnegotiating,soIwentforthedirectapproach.

“Iwantbeahostagenegotiator,”Isaid.“Everyonedoes—gotanytraining?”sheasked.“No,”Isaid.“Anycredentials?”

“Nope.”Ianswered.“Anyexperience?”sheasked.“No,”Ianswered.“Doyouhaveadegreeinpsychology,sociology,anythingatallrelatedto

negotiation?”“No.”“Looks like you answered your own question,” she said. “No.Now go

away.”“Goaway?”Iprotested.“Really?”“Yep. As in, ‘Leave me alone.’ Everybody wants to be a hostage

negotiator,andyouhavenorésumé,experience,orskills.Sowhatwouldyousayinmyposition?Yougotit:‘No.’”

Ipausedinfrontofher, thinking,This isnothowmynegotiatingcareerends.Ihadstareddownterrorists;Iwasn’tgoingtojustleave.

“Comeon,”Isaid.“TherehastobesomethingIcando.”Amyshookherheadandgaveoneof those ironic laughs thatmean the

persondoesn’tthinkyou’vegotasnowball’schanceinhell.“I’ll tell you what. Yes, there is something you can do: Volunteer at a

suicidehotline.Thencometalktome.Noguarantees,gotit?”shesaid.“Now,seriously,goaway.”

My conversation with Amy kicked off my awareness of the complex andhiddensubtletiesofconversation,thepowerofcertainwords,theseeminglyunintelligibleemotionaltruthsthatsooftenunderlieintelligibleexchanges.

A trap intowhichmany fall is to takewhat other people say literally. Istartedtoseethatwhilepeopleplayedthegameofconversation,itwasinthegamebeneaththegame,wherefewplayed,thatalltheleveragelived.

Inourchat,Isawhowtheword“No”—soapparentlyclearanddirect—reallywasn’tsosimple.Overtheyears,I’vethoughtbackrepeatedlytothatconversation, replaying how Amy so quickly turned me down, again andagain.Buther “No’s”were just thegateway to “Yes.”Theygaveher—andme—time to pivot, adjust, and reexamine, and actually created theenvironmentfortheone“Yes”thatmattered.

While assigned to the JTTF, Iworkedwith anNYPD lieutenant namedMartin.Hehadahardshell,andwheneveraskedforanythingherespondedwitha tersenegative.After I’dgotten toknowhimabit, I askedhimwhy.“Chris,”hesaid,proudly,“alieutenant’sjobistosay,‘No.’”

At first, I thought that sort of automated response signaled a failure ofimagination.ButthenIrealizedIdidthesamethingwithmyteenageson,andthatafterI’dsaid“No”tohim,IoftenfoundthatIwasopentohearingwhat

hehadtosay.That’s because having protected myself, I could relax and more easily

considerthepossibilities.“No” is the start of the negotiation, not the end of it. We’ve been

conditionedtofeartheword“No.”Butitisastatementofperceptionfarmoreoftenthanoffact.Itseldommeans,“Ihaveconsideredallthefactsandmadearationalchoice.”Instead,“No”isoftenadecision,frequentlytemporary,tomaintainthestatusquo.Changeisscary,and“No”providesalittleprotectionfromthatscariness.

JimCamp, inhisexcellentbook,StartwithNO,1 counsels the reader togivetheiradversary(hiswordforcounterpart)permissiontosay“No”fromtheoutset of a negotiation.He calls it “the right to veto.”Heobserves thatpeoplewillfighttothedeathtopreservetheirrighttosay“No,”sogivethemthat right and the negotiating environment becomes more constructive andcollaborativealmostimmediately.

WhenIreadCamp’sbook,Irealizedthiswassomethingwe’dknownashostage negotiators for years.We’d learned that the quickest way to get ahostage-taker out was to take the time to talk them out, as opposed to“demanding” their surrender. Demanding their surrender, “telling” them tocomeout,alwaysendedupcreatingamuchlongerstandoffandoccasionally,actuallycontributedtodeath.

It comes down to the deep and universal human need for autonomy.People need to feel in control.Whenyoupreserve a person’s autonomybyclearlygivingthempermissiontosay“No”toyourideas,theemotionscalm,theeffectivenessofthedecisionsgoup,andtheotherpartycanreallylookatyourproposal.They’reallowedtoholditintheirhands,toturnitaround.Anditgivesyoutimetoelaborateorpivot inordertoconvinceyourcounterpartthatthechangeyou’reproposingismoreadvantageousthanthestatusquo.

Greatnegotiatorsseek“No”becausetheyknowthat’softenwhentherealnegotiationbegins.

Politely saying “No” to your opponent (we’ll go into this inmore depth inChapter9),calmlyhearing“No,”andjustlettingtheothersideknowthattheyarewelcome to say “No”has apositive impact on anynegotiation. In fact,yourinvitationfortheothersidetosay“No”hasanamazingpowertobringdownbarriersandallowforbeneficialcommunication.

Thismeans youhave to train yourself to hear “No” as something otherthanrejection,andrespondaccordingly.Whensomeonetellsyou“No,”youneed to rethink the word in one of its alternative—and much more real—meanings:

■ Iamnotyetreadytoagree;

■ Youaremakingmefeeluncomfortable;

■ Idonotunderstand;

■ Idon’tthinkIcanaffordit;

■ Iwantsomethingelse;

■ Ineedmoreinformation;or

■ Iwanttotalkitoverwithsomeoneelse.

Then, after pausing, ask solution-based questions or simply label theireffect:

“Whataboutthisdoesn’tworkforyou?”“Whatwouldyouneedtomakeitwork?”“Itseemslikethere’ssomethingherethatbothersyou.”People have a need to say, “No.” So don’t just hope to hear it at some

point;getthemtosayitearly.

PERSUADEINTHEIRWORLD

I’d like to present you with a guy named Joe Businessman as he readieshimself for a negotiation. You’ve met him before. He’s the prepared type,with all hisGetting to Yes strategies written out andmemorized. And he’smore than ready tounleash themon theguyacross the table. Joepauses tolook at his expensive suit in the mirror, fantasizing about the impressivethingshe’llsayand thefancychartsandgraphs that’llbackup those thingsand leave his counterpart—his opponent—vanquished and in defeat. He isRussellCroweinGladiator.HeisTheMan.

Now allowme to let you in on a secret: None of that preparationwillmean a damn thing.His negotiation style is allme,me,me, ego, ego, ego.Andwhen the people on the other side of the table pick up those signals,they’re going to decide that it’s best to politely, even furtively, ignore thisSuperman...bysaying“Yes”!

“Huh?”yousay.Sure,thewordthey’llsayrightoffis“Yes,”butthatwordisonlyatoolto

get this blowhard to go away. They’ll weasel out later, claiming changingconditions,budgetissues,theweather.Fornow,theyjustwanttobereleased

becauseJoeisn’tconvincingthemofanything;he’sonlyconvincinghimself.I’ll let you in on a secret. There are actually three kinds of “Yes”:

Counterfeit,Confirmation,andCommitment.Acounterfeit“yes”isoneinwhichyourcounterpartplansonsaying“no”

buteitherfeels“yes”isaneasierescaperouteorjustwantstodisingenuouslykeeptheconversationgoingtoobtainmoreinformationorsomeotherkindofedge.A confirmation “yes” is generally innocent, a reflexive response to ablack-or-whitequestion;it’ssometimesusedtolayatrapbutmostlyit’sjustsimpleaffirmationwithnopromiseofaction.Andacommitment“yes”istherealdeal; it’s a trueagreement that leads toaction, a“yes”at the table thatends with a signature on the contract. The commitment “yes” is what youwant,butthethreetypessoundalmostthesamesoyouhavetolearnhowtorecognizewhichoneisbeingused.

Human beings the world over are so used to being pursued for thecommitment “yes” as a condition to find out more that they have becomemasters at giving the counterfeit “yes.” That’s what the people facing JoeBusinessmanaredoing,danglingthecounterfeit“yes”sotheycanhearmore.

Whether you call it “buy-in” or “engagement” or something else, goodnegotiators know that their job isn’t to put on a great performance but togentlyguidetheircounterparttodiscovertheirgoalashisown.

Letmetellyou,Ilearnedthatthehardway.Two months after talking with Amy, I started answering phones for

HelpLine,thecrisishotlinefoundedbyNormanVincentPeale.Thebasic rulewas thatyoucouldn’t bewith anybodyon thephone for

more than twentyminutes. If youdidyour job, itwasn’t going to takeyoulonger than that to get them to a better place. We had a thick book oforganizations we referred them to for help. It was a paramedic approach:patchthemupandsendthemontheirway.

Butpeople incrisisonlyaccounted forabout40percentof thecallswegot.Themajority of the calls came from frequent callers.These are highlydysfunctional people, energy vampires whom no one else would listen toanymore.

Wekeptalistoffrequentcallersandwhenyougotone,thefirstthingyouhad to dowas check to see if the person had called that day, because theywereonlyallowedonecall aday.Theyknew it, too.A lotof times, they’dsay,“Yeah,I’mEddie.Ihaven’tcalledyettoday.Goaheadandcheckthelist.Yougottotalktome.”

Since Iwas thereprimarily to learn a skill, I loved the frequent callers.Theywereaproblem,andIlovedtryingtofigurethemout.IfeltIhadsometalentatit.Ifeltlikeasuperstar.

Whenitcametimeformyperformancereview,theyassignedmeashiftsupervisornamedJimSnyder.Jimwasahotlineveteranandasweetheart;theonly problem was he always wanted to joke around. Jim understood thatvolunteerburnoutwas thebiggest problemat ahotline, sohededicatedhistimetomakingworkfun.IbecamegoodfriendswithJim.

Formyreview,JimwaiteduntilIgotacallandwentintothemonitoringroomwherethesupervisorscouldlistentoourcalls.Thecallwasfromoneofmyfrequentclients,acabbiewithafearofgoingoutsideandplentyoftimetotellmeaboutit.Thisenergyvampire(hisnamewasDaryl)launchedintohisshtickabouthowhewasgoingtolosehishouseandwithithiswilltoliveifhecouldn’twork.

“Seriously, when was the last time someone tried to hurt you on thestreets?”Iasked.

“Well,Imean,it’sbeenalongtime,”Darylsaid.“Like...?”“Ican’treallyrememberadate,Chris.Maybeayear,Iguess.”“So it’s safe to say that the outsideworld hasn’t been too hard on you,

right?”“Yes,”Darylsaid.“Isupposeso.”Wewent back and forth like this for awhile, as Imadehimadmit that

mostofushad little to fear in theworld. Iwas feelinggoodaboutmynewskills,about listening toDaryland then“CareFronting”him,whichwas theslightly goofy name we gave to assertively—but caringly—responding tofrequentcallers.

Itwasallflowing,andourrapportwasgreat.IevengotDaryltolaughafewtimes.BythetimeIwasdonewithhim,hecouldn’tgivemeonereasonnottostepoutside.

“Thankyou,Chris,”Darylsaidjustbeforehehungup.“Thanksfordoingsuchagreatjob.”

Before Iwent to see Jim, I leaned back inmy chair and basked in thatcompliment.Howoftendoyougetthatfromamaninpain,Ithought.ThenIsprungupandstrodetowardthemonitoringroom,soproudIwaspracticallybuffingmynailsonmyshirtandpattingmyownback.

Jimmotionedme to the chair in front of him and gaveme his biggestsmile.Imusthavereturneditwithtwicethewattage.

“Well, Chris,” he said, still smiling. “Thatwas one of theworst calls Ieverheard.”

Istaredathim,gape-jawed.“Jim,didyouhearDarylcongratulateme?”Iasked.“Italkedhimdown,

man.Ikilledit.”

Jimsmiled—Ihatedthatsmilerightthen—andnodded.“That’s one of the signs, because they should be congratulating

themselves when they get off the line,” he said. “They don’t need to becongratulatingyou.Thattellsmeyoudidtoomuch.Iftheythinkyoudidit—ifyouweretheguywhokilledit—howishegoingtohelphimself?Idon’twanttobeharsh,butyouwerehorrible.”

AsIlistenedtowhatJimsaid,Ifeltthatacidstomachrushyougetwhenyou are forced to accept that the guy dumping on you is completely right.Daryl’sresponsehadbeenakindof“yes,”butithadbeenanythingbutatruecommitment “yes.” He’d made no promise to action. His “yes” had beendesigned tomakeme feel good enough to leave him alone.Darylmay nothaveknownit,buthis“yes”wasascounterfeitastheycame.

Yousee,thatwholecallhadbeenaboutmeandmyegoandnotthecaller.Buttheonlywaytogetthesecallerstotakeactionwastohavethemowntheconversation,tobelievethattheywerecomingtotheseconclusions,tothesenecessarynextsteps,andthatthevoiceattheotherendwassimplyamediumforthoserealizations.

Usingallyourskills tocreaterapport,agreement,andconnectionwithacounterpartisuseful,butultimatelythatconnectionisuselessunlesstheotherpersonfeelsthattheyareequallyasresponsible,ifnotsolelyresponsible,forcreatingtheconnectionandthenewideastheyhave.

Inoddedslowly,thefightdrainedoutofme.“Oneoftheworstcalls?”IsaidtoJim.“That’sright.”Iworkedhardatreorientingmyselffromthatpointon.Iaskedsomany

questions and read so much about it that soon they had me teaching twoclassesfornewvolunteersatHelpLine:theopeningclass,onactivelistening;andtheoneonCareFrontation.

Gotit,yousay.It’snotaboutme.Weneedtopersuadefromtheirperspective,notours.Buthow?

Bystartingwiththeirmostbasicwants.Ineverynegotiation,ineveryagreement,theresultcomesfromsomeone

else’sdecision.Andsadly,ifwebelievethatwecancontrolormanageothers’decisionswithcompromiseandlogic,we’releavingmillionsonthetable.Butwhilewecan’tcontrolothers’decisions,wecaninfluencethembyinhabitingtheirworldandseeingandhearingexactlywhattheywant.

Though the intensitymaydiffer fromperson toperson,youcanbe surethateveryoneyoumeet isdrivenby twoprimalurges: theneed to feel safeandsecure,andtheneedtofeelincontrol.Ifyousatisfythosedrives,you’reinthedoor.

As we saw with my chat with Daryl, you’re not going to logicallyconvincethemthatthey’resafe,secure,orincontrol.Primalneedsareurgentand illogical, so arguing them into a corner is just going to push yourcounterparttofleewithacounterfeit“Yes.”

And being “nice” in the form of feigned sympathy is often equally asunsuccessful.Weliveinanagethatcelebratesnicenessundervariousnames.Weareexhortedtobeniceandtorespectpeople’sfeelingsatalltimesandineverysituation.

Butnicealoneinthecontextofnegotiationcanbackfire.Nice,employedas a ruse, is disingenuous andmanipulative.Who hasn’t received the shortendofthestickindealingswitha“nice”salesmanwhotookyouforaride?Ifyourushinwithplasticniceness,yourblandsmileisgoingtodredgeupallthatbaggage.

Insteadofgetting insidewith logicor feignedsmiles, then,weget therebyaskingfor“No.”It’sthewordthatgivesthespeakerfeelingsofsafetyandcontrol.“No”startsconversationsandcreatessafehavenstoget to thefinal“Yes”ofcommitment.Anearly“Yes”isoftenjustacheap,counterfeitdodge.

About five months after she’d told me to “go away,” I stopped by AmyBonderow’sofficeandtoldherthatI’dvolunteeredatHelpLine.

“Youdid?”sheasked,smilingwithsurprise.“Itelleverybodytodothat.Andnobodyeverdoes.”

ItturnedoutthatAmyhadstartedhernegotiatingcareerbyvolunteeringatthesameplace.Shestartednamingpeoplewhowerenowmutualfriendsofours.WelaughedaboutJim.

Inasuddenshift,Amystoppedspeakingandstaredatme.IshiftedinmyshoesasshegavemethePause.Thenshesmiled.

“Yougetthenextposition.”Atthattime,therewerefiveotherpeopleaimingforthesameslot,people

whohadpsychologydegrees, experience, and credentials.But Iwason theroad to thenexthostagenegotiation training course at theFBIAcademy inQuantico,Virginia, aheadof everybody else.Mycareer as a negotiator hadofficiallybegun.

“NO”ISPROTECTION

Thinkbacktothetelemarketeratthebeginningofthischapter.Theobviousreplytohisquestion—“Doyouenjoyaniceglassofwater?”—is“Yes.”Butallyouwanttodoisscream,“No!”Afteraquestionlikethatyoujustknowtherestofthephonecallisgoingtobepainful.

That, in a nutshell, distills the inherent contradictions in the values wegive “Yes” and “No.”Wheneverwenegotiate, there’snodoubtwewant tofinishwitha“Yes.”Butwemistakenlyconflatethepositivevalueofthatfinal“Yes”withapositivevalueof“Yes”ingeneral.Andbecausewesee“No”astheoppositeof“Yes,”wethenassumethat“No”isalwaysabadthing.

Nothing couldbe further from the truth.Saying “No”gives the speakerthefeelingofsafety,security,andcontrol.Youuseaquestionthatpromptsa“No” answer, and your counterpart feels that by turning you down he hasprovedthathe’sinthedriver’sseat.Goodnegotiatorswelcome—eveninvite—asolid“No”tostart,asasignthattheotherpartyisengagedandthinking.

Gun for a “Yes” straight off the bat, though, and your counterpart getsdefensive, wary, and skittish. That’s why I tell my students that, if you’retrying to sell something, don’t start with “Do you have a few minutes totalk?”Insteadask,“Isnowabadtimetotalk?”Eitheryouget“Yes,itisabadtime”followedbyagoodtimeorarequest togoaway,oryouget“No,it’snot”andtotalfocus.

Asanexercise,thenexttimeyougetatelemarketingcall,writedownthequestions thesellerasks. Ipromiseyou’ll find thatyour levelofdiscomfortcorrelatesdirectlytohowquicklyhepushesyoufor“Yes.”

MycolleagueMartiEvelsizerwastheonewhofirstopenedmyeyestowhy“No”wasbetterthan“Yes.”

Martiwas the FBI’sCrisisNegotiationCoordinator in Pittsburgh at thetime. She was a dynamo and a negotiating genius, which earned her hugerespectbothwithin theBureauandwith the localpolice.Buthumanbeingsare innately jealous, andher immediate supervisorwasnoexception to thatrule.Hersuccessdiminishedhim,andthatmadeherathreat.

His jealousy got the better of him when the Pittsburgh PoliceDepartment’s Hostage Negotiation Team asked her to sit on the selectionboardfortheirnewcandidates.Pickingher,anddoingsooverherboss,wasanunprecedentedmove.

So her boss decided to remove her from her position. For ignoring herregularduties,hesaid.Butreallyitwasforbeingathreat.

WhenMarti sat downwithher supervisor for her official dismissal, heroptionswerefew.Hehadeveryrighttodoashepleased.

Marti told me that she considered a variety of scenarios. She thoughtaboutgoingrightathisjealousyandhashingitout,orexplaininghowthejobwouldreflectwellontheBureau:“Wouldyoulikeouroffice tobehonoredforitsexpertise?”

Butby the timeshesatdownwithhim,shehadpickedoneof themost

stronglyworded“No”-orientedsetupquestionsIhaveeverheard.“DoyouwanttheFBItobeembarrassed?”shesaid.“No,”heanswered.“Whatdoyouwantmetodo?”sheresponded.Heleanedbackinhischair,oneofthose1950sfaux-leathernumbersthat

squeakmeaningfullywhenthesittershifts.Hestaredatheroverhisglassesandthennoddedeversoslightly.Hewasincontrol.

“Look,youcankeep theposition,”he said. “Justgobackout thereanddon’tletitinterferewithyourotherduties.”

AndaminutelaterMartiwalkedoutwithherjobintact.

WhenIheardMartidothat,Iwaslike,“Bang!”Bypushingfora“No,”Martinudgedhersupervisor intoazonewherehewasmaking thedecisions.Andthen she furtheredhis feelingsof safetyandpowerwithaquestion invitinghimtodefinehernextmove.

The important thing here is thatMarti not only accepted the “No”; shesearcheditoutandembracedit.

Atarecentsalesconference,Iaskedtheparticipantsfortheonewordtheyalldread.Theentiregroupyelled,“No!”To them—and toalmosteveryone—“No”meansonething:endofdiscussion.

Butthat’snotwhatitmeans.“No” isnot failure.Usedstrategically it’sananswer thatopens thepath

forward.Getting to thepointwhereyou’re no longer horrifiedby theword“No”isaliberatingmomentthateverynegotiatorneedstoreach.Becauseifyourbiggest fear is“No,”youcan’tnegotiate.You’re thehostageof“Yes.”You’rehandcuffed.You’redone.

Solet’sundress“No.”It’sareaffirmationofautonomy.Itisnotauseorabuse of power; it is not an act of rejection; it is not a manifestation ofstubbornness;itisnottheendofthenegotiation.

Infact,“No”oftenopensthediscussionup.Thesooneryousay“No,”thesooneryou’rewillingtoseeoptionsandopportunitiesthatyouwereblindtopreviously. Saying “No” often spurs people to action because they feelthey’veprotectedthemselvesandnowseeanopportunityslippingaway.

SinceI’vedemystified“No”formyself,I’vefoundtheideas,perceptions,andbaggagethatpeoplehavewiththattwo-letterwordtobefascinating.Tome, it’s like watching a movie or a music video from the 1980s for theumpteenthtime.Youcanidentifywiththeexperience—whilesimultaneouslybeingconsciousofthefactthattheworld,andyou,havemovedon.

Today,Icoachmystudentstolearntosee“No”forwhatitis.Ratherthanharming them or those they negotiate with, “No” protects and benefits all

parties in an exchange. “No” creates safety, security, and the feeling ofcontrol. It’s a requirement to implementable success. It’s a pause, a nudge,andachanceforthespeakertoarticulatewhattheydowant.

Asyoucansee,“No”hasalotofskills.

■ “No”allowstherealissuestobebroughtforth;

■ “No” protects people from making—and lets them correct—ineffectivedecisions;

■ “No”slows thingsdownso thatpeoplecan freelyembrace theirdecisionsandtheagreementstheyenterinto;

■ “No”helpspeoplefeelsafe,secure,emotionallycomfortable,andincontroloftheirdecisions;

■ “No”moveseveryone’seffortsforward.

One of my grad school students, a political fund-raiser named BenOttenhoff,drovehomethislessonwithabang.Foryears,he’dbeenusingatraditional “Yes pattern” fund-raising script to raise money for Republicancongressionalcandidates.

FUND-RAISER:Hello,canIspeakwithMr.Smith?MR.SMITH:Yes,thisishe.FUND-RAISER: I’mcallingfromtheXYZCommittee,andIwanted toask

you a few important questions about your views on our economytoday.Doyoubelievethatgaspricesarecurrentlytoohigh?

MR.SMITH:Yes,gaspricesaremuchtoohighandhurtingmyfamily.FUND-RAISER:Doyoubelieve that theDemocratsarepartof theproblem

whenitcomestohighgasprices?MR.SMITH:Yes,PresidentObamaisabadpersonFUND-RAISER:DoyouthinkweneedchangeinNovember?MR.SMITH:Yes,Ido.FUND-RAISER:Canyougivemeyourcreditcardnumbersoyoucanbea

partofthatchange?

Intheoryatleast,the“Yes”answersbuiltupareservoirofpositivitythatexplodedintodonationswhenrequestedattheendofthescript.Theproblem,in reality, was that the “Yes pattern” scripts had been giving poor rates of

returnforyears.Allthestepswere“Yes,”butthefinalanswerwasinvariably“No.”

ThenBenreadJimCamp’sbookStartwithNOinmyclassandbegantowonderif“No”couldbeatooltoboostdonations.Benknewthatgivingthepotentialdonorsano-hard-feelingswaytogetoffthecallwasgoingtobeatough sell to his grassroots fund-raisers, because it goes against everythingthey had been trained to do. But Ben’s a smart guy, so instead of totallyswapping scripts he had a small group of his grassroots guys test-market a“No”-orientedscript.

FUND-RAISER:Hello,canIspeakwithMr.Smith?MR.SMITH:Yes,thisishe.FUND-RAISER: I’mcallingfromtheXYZCommittee,andIwanted toask

you a few important questions about your views on our economytoday.Doyoufeelthatifthingsstaythewaytheyare,America’sbestdaysareaheadofit?

MR.SMITH:No,thingswillonlygetworse.FUND-RAISER:Are you going to sit andwatch PresidentObama take the

WhiteHouseinNovemberwithoutputtingupafight?MR.SMITH:No,I’mgoing todoanythingIcan tomakesure thatdoesn’t

happen.FUND-RAISER: If youwant do something today tomake sure that doesn’t

happen,youcangive toXYZCommittee,which isworkinghard tofightforyou.

Seehowclearlythatswaps“Yes”for“No”andofferstotakeadonationifMr.Smithwants?ItputsMr.Smithinthedriver’sseat;he’sincharge.Anditworks! In a truly remarkable turnaround, the “No”-oriented script got a23percentbetterrateofreturn.

Theonly sadpart ofBen’s tale is thatdespite thehuge improvement inresults,hecouldn’t rollout the script to allhis fund-raisers. Itwent againstfund-raisingorthodoxy,andlongtimefund-raiserslikethefakecomfortofthe“Yes.”Geniusisoftenmissedthefirsttimearound,right?

One negotiating genius who’s impossible to miss is Mark Cuban, thebillionaireowneroftheDallasMavericks.Ialwaysquotetomystudentsoneofhisbestlinesonnegotiation:“Every‘No’getsmeclosertoa‘Yes.’”Butthen I remind them that extracting those “No’s” on the road to “Yes” isn’talwayseasy.

Thereisabigdifferencebetweenmakingyourcounterpartfeelthatthey

cansay“No”andactuallygettingthemtosayit.Sometimes,ifyou’retalkingto somebody who is just not listening, the only way you can crack theircraniumistoantagonizetheminto“No.”

Onegreatwaytodothisistomislabeloneoftheotherparty’semotionsor desires. You say something that you know is totally wrong, like “So itseemsthatyoureallyareeagertoleaveyourjob”whentheyclearlywanttostay.That forces them to listenandmakes themcomfortablecorrectingyoubysaying,“No,that’snotit.Thisisit.”

Anotherwaytoforce“No”inanegotiationistoasktheotherpartywhattheydon’twant. “Let’s talk aboutwhat youwould say ‘No’ to,” you’d say.And people are comfortable saying “No” here because it feels like self-protection.Andonceyou’vegottenthemtosay“No,”peoplearemuchmoreopentomovingforwardtowardnewoptionsandideas.

“No”—or the lack thereof—alsoservesasawarning, thecanary in thecoalmine. If despite all your efforts, the other party won’t say “No,” you’redealingwith peoplewho are indecisive or confused or who have a hiddenagenda.Incaseslikethatyouhavetoendthenegotiationandwalkaway.

Thinkofitlikethis:No“No”meansnogo.

EMAILMAGIC:HOWNEVERTOBEIGNOREDAGAIN

There’snothingmoreirritatingthanbeingignored.Beingturneddownisbad,butgettingnoresponseatallisthepits.Itmakesyoufeelinvisible,asifyoudon’texist.Andit’sawasteofyourtime.We’veallbeenthroughit:Yousendanemail tosomeoneyou’retryingtodobusinesswithandtheyignoreyou.Thenyousendapolitefollow-upandtheystonewallyouagain.Sowhatdoyoudo?

Youprovokea“No”withthisone-sentenceemail.

Haveyougivenuponthisproject?

Thepoint is that thisone-sentenceemail encapsulates thebestof “No”-orientedquestionsandplaysonyourcounterpart’snaturalhumanaversiontoloss.The“No”answertheemaildemandsofferstheotherpartythefeelingofsafety and the illusion of control while encouraging them to define theirpositionandexplainittoyou.

Justasimportant,itmakestheimplicitthreatthatyouwillwalkawayonyourownterms.Tostopthatfromhappening—tocuttheir lossesandprovetheirpower—theotherparty’snaturalinclinationistoreplyimmediatelyanddisagree.No,ourprioritieshaven’tchanged.We’vejustgottenboggeddown

and...Ifyou’reaparent,youalreadyuse this technique instinctively.Whatdo

youdowhenyourkidswon’tleavethehouse/park/mall?Yousay,“Fine.I’mleaving,”andyoubegintowalkaway.I’mgoingtoguessthatwelloverhalfthe time they yell, “No, wait!” and run to catch up. No one likes to beabandoned.

Now,thismayseemlikearudewaytoaddresssomeoneinbusiness,butyouhavetogetoverthat.It’snotrude,andthoughit’sdirect,it’scloakedwiththesafetyof“No.”Ignoringyouiswhat’srude.IcantellyouthatI’veusedthissuccessfullynotjust inNorthAmerica,butwithpeopleintwodifferentcultures(ArabicandChinese)famousforneversaying“No.”

KEYLESSONS

Using this chapter’s tools in daily life is difficult formany people becausetheygodirectlyagainstoneofsociety’sbiggestsocialdictums.Thatis,“Benice.”

We’veinstrumentalizednicenessasawayofgreasingthesocialwheels,yetit’softenaruse.We’repoliteandwedon’tdisagreetogetthroughdailyexistence with the least degree of friction. But by turning niceness into alubricant,we’veleecheditofmeaning.Asmileandanodmightsignify“Getmeoutofhere!”asmuchasitmeans“Nicetomeetyou.”

That’s death for a good negotiator, who gains their power byunderstanding their counterpart’s situation and extracting information abouttheir counterpart’s desires and needs. Extracting that information meansgetting the other party to feel safe and in control.Andwhile itmay soundcontradictory,thewaytogetthereisbygettingtheotherpartytodisagree,todrawtheirownboundaries,todefinetheirdesiresasafunctionofwhattheydonotwant.

Asyoutrytoputthechapter’smethodstouse,Iencourageyoutothinkofthemastheanti–“nicenessruse.”Notinthesensethattheyareunkind,butinthe sense that they are authentic. Triggering “No” peels away the plasticfalsehoodof“Yes”andgetsyoutowhat’sreallyatstake.Alongtheway,keepinmindthesepowerfullessons:

■ Break the habit of attempting to get people to say “yes.”Beingpushed for “yes” makes people defensive. Our love of hearing“yes”makesusblindtothedefensivenessweourselvesfeelwhensomeoneispushingustosayit.

■ “No”isnotafailure.Wehavelearnedthat“No”istheanti-“Yes”andthereforeawordtobeavoidedatallcosts.Butitreallyoftenjustmeans“Wait”or“I’mnotcomfortablewiththat.”Learnhowto hear it calmly. It is not the end of the negotiation, but thebeginning.

■ “Yes”isthefinalgoalofanegotiation,butdon’taimforitatthestart. Asking someone for “Yes” too quickly in a conversation—“Do you like to drinkwater,Mr. Smith?”—gets his guard upandpaintsyouasanuntrustworthysalesman.

■ Saying“No”makesthespeakerfeelsafe,secure,andincontrol,so trigger it. By saying what they don’t want, your counterpartdefinestheirspaceandgainstheconfidenceandcomforttolistentoyou.That’swhy“Isnowabadtimeto talk?”isalwaysbetterthan“Doyouhaveafewminutestotalk?”

■ Sometimes the only way to get your counterpart to listen andengage with you is by forcing them into a “No.” That meansintentionally mislabeling one of their emotions or desires orasking a ridiculous question—like, “It seems like youwant thisprojecttofail”—thatcanonlybeanswerednegatively.

■ Negotiate in their world. Persuasion is not about how bright orsmoothorforcefulyouare. It’sabout theotherpartyconvincingthemselvesthatthesolutionyouwantistheirownidea.Sodon’tbeatthemwithlogicorbruteforce.Askthemquestionsthatopenpathstoyourgoals.It’snotaboutyou.

■ Ifapotentialbusinesspartnerisignoringyou,contactthemwithaclear and concise “No”-oriented question that suggests that youare ready to walk away. “Have you given up on this project?”workswonders.

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER5

TRIGGERTHETWOWORDSTHATIMMEDIATELYTRANSFORMANY

NEGOTIATION

In August 2000, the militant Islamic group Abu Sayyaf, in the southernPhilippines,broadcastthatithadcapturedaCIAagent.Thetruthwasnotasnewsworthy,orasvaluabletotherebels.

Abu Sayyaf had kidnapped Jeffrey Schilling, a twenty-four-year-oldAmericanwhohadtraveledneartheirbaseinJoloIsland.ACalifornianative,Schillingbecameahostagewitha$10millionpricetagonhishead.

AtthetimeIwasaSupervisorySpecialAgent(SSA)attachedtotheFBI’seliteCrisisNegotiationUnit(CNU).TheCNUistheequivalentofthespecialforcesofnegotiations.It’sattachedtotheFBI’sHostageRescueTeam(HRT).Both are national counterterrorist response assets. They are the best of thebest.

TheCNU is based at the FBIAcademy inQuantico,Virginia.TheFBIAcademy has come to be known by the one word, “Quantico.” Rightly orwrongly,Quanticohasdevelopedthereputationasoneof thecenters, ifnotthe centerofknowledge, for lawenforcement.Whenanegotiation isgoingbadly and the negotiators involved are directed to call and find out what“Quantico”hastosay,theCNUiswhotheycall.

CNU developed what is a powerful staple in the high-stakes world ofcrisis negotiation, the Behavioral Change Stairway Model (BCSM). Themodelproposesfivestages—activelistening,empathy,rapport,influence,andbehavioral change—that take any negotiator from listening to influencingbehavior.

The origins of the model can be traced back to the great AmericanpsychologistCarlRogers,whoproposedthatrealchangecanonlycomewhena therapist accepts the client as he or she is—an approach known asunconditional positive regard. The vastmajority of us, however, as Rogersexplained, come to expect that love, praise, and approval are dependent onsaying and doing the things people (initially, our parents) consider correct.That is, because for most of us the positive regard we experience is

conditional, we develop a habit of hiding who we really are and what wereally think, instead calibrating our words to gain approval but disclosinglittle.

Which iswhyso fewsocial interactions lead toactualbehaviorchange.Consider the typical patient with severe coronary heart disease recoveringfrom open-heart surgery. The doctor tells the patient: “This surgery isn’t acure. The only way to truly prolong your life is to make the followingbehavior changes . . .” The grateful patient responds: “Yes, yes, yes, ofcourse,Doctor!Thisismysecondchance.Iwillchange!”

Anddothey?Studyafterstudyhasshownthat,no,nothingchanges;twoyearsaftertheiroperation,morethan90percentofpatientshaven’tchangedtheirlifestyleatall.

Though the stakes of an everyday negotiationwith your child, boss, orclientareusuallynotashighasthatofahostage(orhealthcrisis)negotiation,the psychological environment necessary for not just temporary in-the-momentcompliance,butrealgut-levelchange,isthesame.

If you successfully take someone up the Behavioral Change Stairway,eachstageattemptingtoengendermoretrustandmoreconnection,therewillbeabreakthroughmomentwhenunconditionalpositiveregardisestablishedandyoucanbeginexertinginfluence.

AfteryearsofrefiningtheBCSManditstactics,Icanteachanyonehowtogettothatmoment.Butascardiologistsknowalltoowell,andlegionsofB-school gradsweaned on themost famous negotiating book in theworld,Getting to Yes, have ultimately discovered, you more than likely haven’tgottenthereyetifwhatyou’rehearingistheword“yes.”

As you’ll soon learn, the sweetest two words in any negotiation areactually“That’sright.”

CREATEASUBTLEEPIPHANY

IwasanaturalfortheSchillingcase.IhadspentsometimeinthePhilippinesandhadanextensivebackgroundinterrorismfrommyNewYorkCitydaysassignedtotheJointTerrorismTaskForce(JTTF).

A fewdays after Schilling became a hostage,mypartnerChuckReginiandIflewtoManilatorunthenegotiations.AlongwithJimNixon,theFBI’shighest official inManila, we conferredwith top Philippinemilitary brass.Theyagreedtoletusguidethenegotiations.Thenwegotdowntobusiness.One of us would take charge of the negotiation strategy for the FBI andconsequently for the U.S. government. That became my role. With thesupport ofmy colleagues,my jobwas to come upwith the strategy, get it

approved,andimplementit.As a result of the Schilling case, I would become the FBI’s lead

internationalkidnappingnegotiator.

Our principal adversary was Abu Sabaya, the rebel leader who personallynegotiated for Schilling’s ransom. Sabaya was a veteran of the rebelmovementwithaviolentpast.Hewasstraightoutofthemovies,aterrorist-sociopath-killer.Hehadahistoryofrape,murder,andbeheadings.HelikedtorecordhisbloodydeedsonvideoandsendthemtothePhilippinemedia.

Sabaya always wore sunglasses, a bandana, a black T-shirt, and camopants. He thought itmade him amore dashing figure. If you look for anyphotos of Abu Sayyaf terrorists from this period, you always see one insunglasses.That’sSabaya.

Sabayaloved,loved,lovedthemedia.HehadthePhilippinereportersonspeed dial. They’d call him and ask him questions in Tagalog, his nativetongue.HewouldanswerinEnglishbecausehewantedtheworldtohearhisvoice on CNN. “They should make a movie about me,” he would tellreporters.

Inmyeyes,Sabayawasacold-bloodedbusinessmanwithanegoasbigasTexas.Arealshark.Sabayaknewhewasinthecommoditiesgame.InJeffreySchilling,hehadanitemofvalue.Howmuchcouldhegetforit?Hewouldfindout,andIintendedittobeasurprisehewouldn’tlike.AsanFBIagent,Iwantedtofreethehostageandbringthecriminaltojustice.

Onecrucialaspectofanynegotiationistofigureouthowyouradversaryarrivedathisposition.Sabayathrewout the$10millionransombasedonabusinesscalculation.

First,theUnitedStateswasoffering$5millionforinformationleadingtothearrestofanyoftheremainingfugitivesfromthe1993WorldTradeCenterbombing.Sabayareasonedthat if theUnitedStateswouldpay$5milliontogetitshandsonsomeoneitdidn’tlike,itwouldpaymuchmoreforacitizen.

Second, a rival factionof theAbuSayyafhad just reportedlybeenpaid$20millionforsixWesternEuropeancaptives.LibyanstrongmanMuammarGaddafi had made the payment as “development aid.” This absurdity hadbeen compounded by a significant portion of the ransom being paid incounterfeitbills.ItwasanopportunityforGaddafitobothembarrassWesterngovernments and get money over-the-table to groups with whom hesympathized.I’msurehelaughedaboutthatepisodeuntilthedayhedied.

Regardless, a price had been set. Sabaya did the math and figuredSchillingwasworth $10million. Problemwas, Jeff Schilling came from aworking-classfamily.Hismothercouldcomeupwith$10,000,perhaps.The

UnitedStateswasn’tabouttopayonedollar.Butwewouldallowapaymenttobemadeifitcouldberunasa“sting”operation.

IfwecoulddrawSabaya intoanoffer-counterofferbargaining situation,wehadabargainingsystemthatworkedeverytime.Wecouldbeathimdowntowherewewantedhim,getthehostageout,andsetupthe“sting.”

For months Sabaya refused to budge. He argued that Muslims in thePhilippines had suffered five hundred years of oppression, since Spanishmissionaries had brought Catholicism to the Philippines in the sixteenthcentury.HerecitedinstanceswhereatrocitieshadbeencommittedagainsthisIslamicforebears.HeexplainedwhytheAbuSayyafwanted toestablishanIslamic state in the southern Philippines. Fishing rights had been violated.Younameit,hethoughtitupandusedit.

Sabaya wanted $10 million in war damages—not ransom, but wardamages.Heheldfirminhisdemandandkeptusoutoftheoffer-counteroffersystemwewantedtouseagainsthim.

And he occasionally dropped in threats that he was torturing JeffSchilling.

Sabayanegotiated directlywithBenjie, aFilipinomilitary officer.Theytalked in Tagalog. We reviewed transcripts translated to English and usedthem toadviseBenjie. I rotated inandoutofManilaandoversaw the talksand strategy. I instructed Benjie to ask what Schilling had to do with fivehundredyearsofbadbloodbetweenMuslimsandFilipinos.HetoldSabayathat$10millionwasnotpossible.

No matter what approach we took to “reason” with Sabaya over whySchillinghadnothingtodowiththe“wardamages,”itfellondeafears.

Ourfirst“that’sright”breakthroughactuallycamewhenIwasnegotiatingwithBenjie.HewasatrueFilipinopatriotandhero.HewastheleaderofthePhilippineNationalPolice’sSpecialActionForceandhadbeeninhisshareoffirefights.Onmanyoccasions,Benjie andhismenhadbeen senton rescuemissions to save hostages, and they had a sterling record. His men werefeared,forgoodreason.Theyrarelytookhandcuffs.

BenjiewantedtotakeahardlinewithSabayaandspeaktohimindirect,no-nonsenseterms.WewantedtoengageSabayaindialoguetodiscoverwhatmade the adversary tick. We actually wanted to establish rapport with anadversary.ToBenjiethatwasdistasteful.

Benjie told us he needed a break. We had been working him nearlytwenty-fourhoursaday,sevendaysaweekforseveralweeks.Hewantedtospend some time with his family in the mountains north of Manila. Weagreed, but only on the condition thatwe could accompany him and spend

severalhoursbothonSaturdayandSundayworkingonnegotiationstrategy.ThatSaturdaynightwe sat in the libraryof theAmericanambassador’s

summerresidenceworkingonthestrategy.AsIwasexplainingtoBenjiethevalue of establishing a rapport-based, working relationship, even with anadversaryasdangerousasSabaya,Icouldseeasnarlcomingoverhisface.IrealizedIneededtonegotiatewithBenjie.

“YouhateSabaya,don’tyou?”Isaid,leadingwithalabel.Benjieunloadedonme.“ItellyouIdo!”hesaid.“Hehasmurderedand

raped.Hehas comeuponour radiowhenwewere lobbingmortars onhispositionandsaid‘thesemortarsaremusictomyears.’Iheardhisvoicecomeonourradioonedayandcelebratethathewasstandingoverthebodyofoneofmymen.”

This outburst was Benjie’s equivalent of “that’s right.” As heacknowledged his rage, I watched him get control of his anger and calmdown. Though he had been very good up to that point, from that momentforward Benjie became a superstar. He blossomed into a truly talentednegotiator.

This“negotiation”betweenBenjieandmewasnodifferentthananyothernegotiation between colleagues who disagree on a strategy. Before youconvincethemtoseewhatyou’re tryingtoaccomplish,youhavetosaythethingstothemthatwillgetthemtosay,“That’sright.”

The“that’sright”breakthroughusuallydoesn’tcomeatthebeginningofanegotiation.It’sinvisibletothecounterpartwhenitoccurs,andtheyembracewhatyou’vesaid.Tothem,it’sasubtleepiphany.

TRIGGERA“THAT’SRIGHT!”WITHASUMMARY

Afterfourmonthsofnegotiations,Sabayastillrefusedtobudge.Idecideditwastimetohittheresetswitch.

Benjiehadgottensogoodatextendingtheconversations thatyoucouldtellthatthereweretimesthatSabayamusthavepacedbackandforthforanhourbeforecallingBenjie,tryingtofigureouthowtogetwhathewanted.Hewouldcallinandsay,“Tellmeyesorno!Justyesorno!”

WehadtogetSabayaoffthiswardamagesnonsense.Nomatterwhattypeofquestioning,logic,orreasoningwetriedwithhim,hewouldn’treleaseit.ThreatsagainstSchillingcameandwent.Wetalkedhimdowneachtime.

IdecidedthatinordertobreakthroughthisphaseweneededtorepositionSabayawithhisownwordsinawaythatwoulddissolvebarriers.Weneededtogethimtosay,“That’sright.”Atthetime,Ididn’tknowforsurewhatkindofbreakthrough itwasgoing togiveus. I justknewweneeded to trust the

process.Iwroteatwo-pagedocumentthatinstructedBenjietochangecourse.We

weregoingtousenearlyeverytacticintheactivelisteningarsenal:

1. EffectivePauses:Silenceispowerful.WetoldBenjietouseitforemphasis, to encourage Sabaya to keep talking until eventually,like clearing out a swamp, the emotions were drained from thedialogue.

2. MinimalEncouragers:Besidessilence,weinstructedusingsimplephrases,suchas“Yes,”“OK,”“Uh-huh,”or“Isee,”toeffectivelyconvey thatBenjiewasnowpaying full attention toSabayaandallhehadtosay.

3. Mirroring: Rather than argue with Sabaya and try to separateSchillingfromthe“wardamages,”BenjiewouldlistenandrepeatbackwhatSabayasaid.

4. Labeling: Benjie should give Sabaya’s feelings a name andidentifywithhowhefelt.“Itallseemssotragicallyunfair,Icannowseewhyyousoundsoangry.”

5. Paraphrase: Benjie should repeatwhat Sabaya is saying back tohiminBenjie’sownwords.This,wetoldhim,wouldpowerfullyshow him you really do understand and aren’tmerely parrotinghisconcerns.

6. Summarize:Agoodsummaryisthecombinationofrearticulatingthe meaning of what is said plus the acknowledgment of theemotions underlying that meaning (paraphrasing + labeling =summary). We told Benjie he needed to listen and repeat the“world according to Abu Sabaya.” He needed to fully andcompletelysummarizeallthenonsensethatSabayahadcomeupwithaboutwardamagesandfishingrightsandfivehundredyearsofoppression.Andoncehedidthatfullyandcompletely,theonlypossible response for Sabaya, and anyone faced with a goodsummary,wouldbe“that’sright.”

Two days later Sabaya phoned Benjie. Sabaya spoke. Benjie listened.When he spoke, he followed my script: he commiserated with the rebelgroup’s predicament. Mirroring, encouraging, labeling, each tactic worked

seamlessly and cumulatively to soften Sabaya up and begin shifting hisperspective. Finally, Benjie repeated in his ownwords Sabaya’s version ofhistoryandtheemotionsthatcamewiththatversion.

Sabayawassilentfornearlyaminute.Finallyhespoke.“That’sright,”hesaid.Weendedthecall.The“wardamages”demandjustdisappeared.FromthatpointforwardSabayanevermentionedmoneyagain.Henever

asked for another dime for the release of Jeffrey Schilling. He ultimatelybecamesowearyof this caseandholding theyoungCalifornian thathe letdown his guard. Schilling escaped from their camp, and Philippinecommandoesswoopedinandrescuedhim.HereturnedsafelytohisfamilyinCalifornia.

TwoweeksafterJeffSchillingescaped,SabayacalledBenjie:“Haveyoubeenpromotedyet?”heasked.“Ifnot,youshouldhavebeen.”“Why?”Benjieasked.“IwasgoingtohurtJeffrey,”Sabayasaid.“Idon’tknowwhatyoudidto

keepmefromdoingthat,butwhateveritwas,itworked.”In June 2002 Sabayawas killed in a shoot-outwith Philippinemilitary

units.

In the heat of negotiations for aman’s life, I didn’t appreciate the value ofthose two words: “That’s right.” But when I studied the transcripts andreconstructed the trajectory of the negotiations, I realized that Sabaya hadchanged course when he uttered those words. Benjie had used somefundamental techniques that we had developed over many years. He hadreflectedSabaya’s vision.He had stepped back from confrontation.He hadallowedSabayatospeakfreelyandexhausthisversionofevents.

“That’sright”signaledthatnegotiationscouldproceedfromdeadlock.Itbrokedownabarrierthatwasimpedingprogress.Itcreatedarealizationpointwithouradversarywhereheactuallyagreedonapointwithoutthefeelingofhavinggivenin.

Itwasastealthvictory.

Whenyouradversariessay,“That’sright,”theyfeeltheyhaveassessedwhatyou’vesaidandpronounceditascorrectoftheirownfreewill.Theyembraceit.

“That’s right” allowed us to draw out the talks and divert Sabaya fromhurting Schilling. And it gave Philippine commandos time to mount theirrescueoperation.

Inhostagenegotiations,wenevertriedtogetto“yes”asanendpoint.Weknew that “yes” is nothing without “how.” And when we applied hostagenegotiating tactics tobusiness,wesawhow“that’s right”often leads to thebestoutcomes.

“THAT’SRIGHT”ISGREAT,BUTIF“YOU’RERIGHT,”NOTHINGCHANGES

Driving toward “that’s right” is a winning strategy in all negotiations. Buthearing“you’reright”isadisaster.

Takemyson,Brandon,andhisdevelopmentasafootballplayer.Hehadbeenplayingontheoffensiveanddefensivelinesallthroughhighschool.Atsix foot two and 250 pounds, hewas formidable.He loved to knock everyplayerwearinganopposingjerseytotheground.

Havingplayedquarterback,Ididn’tfullyappreciatetheblue-collarnatureof being a lineman.Linemen are likemountaingoats.Theyput their headsdownandhitthings.Itmakesthemhappy.

AtSt.ThomasMoreprepschoolinConnecticut,Brandon’scoachmovedhimtolinebacker,andhisrolesuddenlychangedfromhittingeverythinghesawtoavoidingplayerswhowere trying toblockhim.Hewassupposed toplayoffblocks—dodge them, ifyouwill—andget to theball.ButBrandoncontinued to confront opposing blockers head-on, which kept him fromgetting to theballcarrier.Hiscoachpleadedwithhimtoavoidblockers,butBrandoncouldn’tchange.Helovedtohit.Flatteningopposingplayerswasasourceofpride.

BothhiscoachandIkepttryingtoexplainittohim.Andeverytimewegot theworstpossibleanswer—“You’re right.”He agreed, in theory, but hedidn’towntheconclusion.Thenhewouldgorightback to thebehaviorweweretryingtogethimtostop.Hewouldsmashblockersandtakehimselfoutoftheplay.

Whyis“you’reright”theworstanswer?Consider this:Whenever someone isbotheringyou, and they justwon’t

let up, and theywon’t listen to anything you have to say,what do you tellthemtogetthemtoshutupandgoaway?“You’reright.”

Itworkseverytime.Tellpeople“you’reright”andtheygetahappysmileon their face and leave you alone for at least twenty-four hours. But youhaven’tagreedtotheirposition.Youhaveused“you’reright”togetthemtoquitbotheringyou.

IwasinthesamesituationwithBrandon.Hedidn’thearmeandembracemyrequest.WhatcouldIsaytoget throughto thiskid?HowcouldIreach

Brandonandhelphimchangecourse?IthoughtbacktoBenjieandSabaya.ItookBrandonasidebeforeacrucial

game. I had searched my mind for a way to hear the two critical words,“That’sright.”

“Youseemtothinkit’sunmanlytododgeablock,”Itoldhim.“Youthinkit’scowardlytogetoutofsomeone’swaythat’stryingtohityou.”

Brandonstaredatmeandpaused.“That’sright,”hesaid.WiththosewordsBrandonembracedtherealityofwhatwasholdinghim

back.Onceheunderstoodwhyhewastryingtoknockdowneveryblocker,hechangedcourse.Hestartedavoidingtheblocksandbecameanexceptionallyfinelinebacker.

With Brandon on the field tackling and playing star linebacker, St.ThomasMoreSchoolwoneverygame.

USING“THAT’SRIGHT”TOMAKETHESALE

Getting to “that’s right” helped one of my students in her job as a salesrepresentativeforalargepharmaceuticalcompany.

She was trying to sell a new product to a doctor who used similarmedication.Hewasthelargestuserofthiskindofmedicationinherterritory.Thesalewascriticaltohersuccess.

Inherfirstappointments,thedoctordismissedherproduct.Hesaiditwasnobetter than theoneshewas alreadyusing.Hewasunfriendly.Hedidn’tevenwanttohearherviewpoint.Whenshepresentedthepositiveattributesofherproduct,heinterruptedherandknockedthemdown.

Making the sales pitch, she soaked up as much as possible about thedoctor. She learned that hewas passionate about treating his patients.Eachpatientwasspecialinhiseyes.Improvingtheirsenseofcalmandpeacewasthemostimportantoutcomeforhim.Howcouldsheputherunderstandingofhisneeds,desires,andpassionstoworkforher?

At her next visit, the doctor asked what medications she wanted todiscuss.Ratherthantoutthebenefitsofherproduct,shetalkedabouthimandhispractice.

“Doctor,”shesaid,“the last timeIwas inwespokeaboutyourpatientswith this condition. I remember thinking that you seemed very passionateabouttreatingthem,andhowyouworkedhardtotailorthespecifictreatmenttoeachandeverypatient.”

Helookedherintheeyesasifhewereseeingherforthefirsttime.“That’s right,” he said. “I really feel like I’m treating an epidemic that

otherdoctorsarenotpickingupon—whichmeans thata lotofpatientsarenotgettingtreatedadequately.”

She told him he seemed to have a deep understanding of how to treatthese patients, especially because someof themdidn’t respond to the usualmedications. They talked about specific challenges he had confronted intreatinghispatients.Hegaveherexamples.

Whenhewasfinished,shesummarizedwhathehadsaid,especially theintricaciesandproblemsintreatment.

“Youseemtotailorspecifictreatmentsandmedicationsforeachpatient,”shesaid.

“That’sright,”heresponded.Thiswasthebreakthroughshehadhopedtoreach.Thedoctorhadbeen

skeptical and cold. Butwhen she recognized his passion for his patients—usingasummary—thewallscamedown.Hedroppedhisguard,andshewasabletogainhistrust.Ratherthanpitchherproduct,shelethimdescribehistreatmentandprocedures.With this, she learnedhowhermedicationwouldfitintohispractice.Shethenparaphrasedwhathesaidaboutthechallengesofhispracticeandreflectedthembacktohim.

Oncethedoctorsignaledhistrustandrapport,shecouldtouttheattributesof her product and describe precisely how it would help him reach theoutcomeshedesiredforhispatients.Helistenedintently.

“ItmightbeperfectfortreatingapatientwhohasnotbenefitedfromthemedicationIhavebeenprescribing,”hetoldher.“Letmegiveyoursatry.”

Shemadethesale.

USING“THAT’SRIGHT”FORCAREERSUCCESS

OneofmyKorean students got to “that’s right” innegotiatingwithhis ex-bossforanewjob.

Returning to Seoul after getting his MBA, he wanted to work in hiscompany’s consumer electronics division, rather than the semiconductorsection,wherehehadbeen stationed.Hewas ahuman resources specialist.Under the company’s rules, he believed he had to remain in his previousdepartment,unlesshecouldalsogetapprovalfromhisex-boss.Hehadgottentwo joboffers from theconsumerproductsdivision.Hephonedhisex-bossfromtheUnitedStates.

“You should reject this offer and find your spot here with thesemiconductordivision,”theex-bosssaid.

Mystudenthungupdepressed.Ifhewantedtoadvanceinthecompany,hehadtoobeyhisformersuperior.Herejectedthetwooffersandpreparedto

returntothesemiconductorside.Then he contacted a friend who was a senior manager in the human

resourcesdepartmenttocheckonthecompany’sregulations.Hefoundtherewasno rule thathehad to staywithinhisdivision,buthedidneedhis ex-boss’sblessingtoswitch.

Hephonedhisex-bossagain.This timeheaskedquestions todrawhimout.

“Is there any reason you want me to go to the semiconductorheadquarters?”heasked.

“It’sthebestpositionforyou,”theex-bosssaid.“Thebestposition?”heasked.“Itsoundslikethere’snoregulationthatI

havetoremainwiththesemiconductordivision,”hesaid.“Hmm,”theex-bosssaid.“Idon’tthinkthereisany.”

“ThenwillyoupleasetellmewhatmadeyoudecidethatIremaininthesemiconductorheadquarters?”heasked.

Theex-bosssaidheneededsomeonetohelphimnetworkatheadquartersbetweenthesemiconductorandconsumerproductsdivisions.

“So it sounds likeyoucouldapprovemynewpositionnomatterwhichdivision, as longas Iwas inheadquartersandcouldhelpyoucommunicatebetterwiththetopmanagers.”

“That’sright,”hesaid.“ImustadmitIneedyourhelpinheadquarters.”My student realized he hadmade a breakthrough.Not only had his ex-

bossutteredthosesweetwords—“that’sright”—buthehadrevealedhistruemotive:heneededanallyinheadquarters.

“Isthereanyotherhelpyouneed?”heasked.“Letmetellyoueverything,”theex-bossresponded.It turns out his former superior would be up for a promotion to vice

president in twoyears.Hedesperatelywanted tomoveup into this job.HeneededsomeoneinheadquarterstolobbythecompanyCEO.

“Iwouldhelpyouinanyway,”mystudentsaid.“ButIcouldhelpwiththenetworkingandalsotalkyouuptotheCEOevenifIwereatheadquarterswiththeconsumerproductsdivision,right?”

“That’s right,”hesaid.“Ifyougetanoffer from theconsumerproductsunit,Iwillapproveit.”

Bingo!Byaskingquestionsthatgothimto“that’sright,”mystudenthadachieved his goal. He also got his boss to reveal two “Black Swans,” theunspoken, underlying breakthrough dynamics of a negotiation (explored inmoredetailinChapter10):

■ Hisbossneededsomeonetohelphimnetworkandcommunicate

inheadquarters.

■ HisbosswouldbeupforapromotionandneededsomeonetotalkhimuptotheCEO.

Mystudentwasabletowinthejobhedesiredontheconsumerelectronicsdivision.Andhe’sbeentalkinguphisformerboss.

“Iwasstunned,”hewrotemeinanemail.“Inthiscultureitisnotreallypossibletoknowwhatasuperioristhinking.”

Ihavemanyopportunitiestotravelthecountryandspeaktobusinessleaders,either in formal speaking engagements or private counseling sessions. Ientertainthemwithwarstories,thenIdescribesomebasicnegotiatingskills.Ialwaysimpartafewtechniques.Gettingto“that’sright”isastaple.

After a speech inLosAngeles, one of the attendees,Emily, sentme anemail:

HiChris,IfeelcompelledtotellyouthatIjusttriedthe“That’sright”techniqueinapricenegotiationwithapotentialnewclient.And,IgotwhatIwanted.I’msoexcited!

BeforeIprobablywouldhave justgonewith the“in-the-middle”suggested price (halfway between my initial offer and her initialcounter). Instead, I believe I correctly assessed her motivations,presentedherwiththerightstatementtogettoa“that’sright”(inhermind)...andthensheproposedthesolutionIwantedandaskedifIwouldagreetoit!So,Ididofcourse.

Thankyou!Emily

AndIthoughttomyself:That’sright.

KEYLESSONS

“Sleepinginthesamebedanddreamingdifferentdreams”isanoldChineseexpressionthatdescribestheintimacyofpartnership(whetherinmarriageorinbusiness)withoutthecommunicationnecessarytosustainit.

Suchistherecipeforbadmarriagesandbadnegotiations.With each party having its own set of objectives, its own goals and

motivations, the truth is that the conversational niceties—the sociallylubricating “yeses” and “you’re rights” that get thrownout fast and furiousearly in any interaction—are not in any way a substitute for real

understandingbetweenyouandyourpartner.Thepowerofgettingtothatunderstanding,andnottosomesimple“yes,”

is revelatory in the art of negotiation. The moment you’ve convincedsomeonethatyoutrulyunderstandherdreamsandfeelings(thewholeworldthat she inhabits),mental and behavioral change becomes possible, and thefoundationforabreakthroughhasbeenlaid.

Usetheselessonstolaythatfoundation:

■ Creatingunconditionalpositiveregardopensthedoortochangingthoughts and behaviors. Humans have an innate urge towardsocially constructive behavior. The more a person feelsunderstood, and positively affirmed in that understanding, themorelikelythaturgeforconstructivebehaviorwilltakehold.

■ “That’sright” isbetter than“yes.”Strivefor it.Reaching“that’sright”inanegotiationcreatesbreakthroughs.

■ Useasummarytotriggera“that’sright.”Thebuildingblocksofagoodsummaryarealabelcombinedwithparaphrasing.Identify,rearticulate,andemotionallyaffirm“theworldaccordingto...”

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER6

BENDTHEIRREALITY

OneMondaymorninginHaiti’scapital,Port-au-Prince,acallcameintotheFBIofficefromthenephewofaprominentHaitianpoliticalfigure.HespokesofasthehadtorepeathisstorythreetimesbeforeIunderstood.ButfinallyIgot the basics: kidnappers had snatched his aunt from her car, and theirransomdemandwas$150,000.

“Giveus themoney,” thekidnappers toldhim,“oryouraunt isgoingtodie.”

Inthelawless,chaoticwakeof the2004rebellionthat toppledPresidentJean-BertrandAristide,HaitisurpassedColombiaasthekidnapcapitaloftheAmericas. In fact,withbetweeneightand tenpeopleabductedeveryday inthe Caribbean nation of eight million, Haiti earned the dubious honor ofhavingthehighestkidnappingrateintheworld.

Duringthisonslaughtofabductionsanddeaththreats,IwastheFBI’sleadinternational kidnapping negotiator. And I had never seen anything like it.Reports of abductions—increasingly bold, daylight attacks right in Port-au-Prince—seemedtoroll intotheofficehourly:fourteenstudentsabductedontheirschoolbus;AmericanmissionaryPhillipSnydershotinanambushandseizedalongwithaHaitianboyhewas taking toMichiganforeyesurgery;prominentHaitianpoliticiansandbusinessmenbundled from theirhomes inbroaddaylight.Noonewasspared.

Most of the abductions went down the same way: ski-mask-cladkidnapperssurroundedahouseoracar,forcedentrywithagun,andsnatchedavulnerablevictim—usuallyawoman,child,orelderlyperson.

Early on, therewas the possibility that the kidnappingswere driven bypoliticallyalignedgangsseekingtodestabilizeHaiti’snewgovernment.Thisprovedtobewrong.Haitiancriminalsarefamousforemployingbrutalmeansforpoliticalends,butwhenitcametokidnappings,itwasalmostalwaysallbusiness.

Lateron,I’llgettohowwepiecedtogetherthecluestodiscoverwhotheperpetratorswereandwhattheyreallywanted—invaluableinformationwhenitcametonegotiatingwithanddestabilizingthesegangs.ButfirstIwantto

discussthecrystallizingfeatureofhigh-stakes,life-and-deathnegotiating:thatis,howlittleofitisonthesurface.

When thatMonday ransom call came in to the politician’s nephew, theguywassopetrifiedhecouldonlythinkofdoingonething:payingthethugs.Hisreactionmakessense:whenyougetacallfrombrutalcriminalswhosaythey’llkillyourauntunlessyoupaythemimmediately,itseemsimpossibletofind leverage in the situation.Soyoupay the ransomand they releaseyourrelative,right?

Wrong. There’s always leverage. Negotiation is never a linear formula:addX toY to get Z.We all have irrational blind spots, hidden needs, andundevelopednotions.

Once you understand that subterranean world of unspoken needs andthoughts, you’ll discover a universe of variables that can be leveraged tochangeyourcounterpart’sneedsandexpectations.Fromusingsomepeople’sfear of deadlines and the mysterious power of odd numbers, to ourmisunderstood relationship to fairness, there are always ways to bend ourcounterpart’srealitysoitconformstowhatweultimatelywanttogivethem,nottowhattheyinitiallythinktheydeserve.

DON’TCOMPROMISE

Let’sgobackto the$150,000ransomdemand.We’realwaystaught to lookfor thewin-win solution, to accommodate, to be reasonable. Sowhat’s thewin-win here? What’s the compromise? The traditional negotiating logicthat’s drilled into us from an early age, the kind that exalts compromises,says,“Let’sjustsplitthedifferenceandofferthem$75,000.Theneveryone’shappy.”

No.Just,simply,no.Thewin-winmindsetpushedbysomanynegotiationexpertsisusuallyineffectiveandoftendisastrous.Atbest,itsatisfiesneitherside.Andifyouemployitwithacounterpartwhohasawin-loseapproach,you’resettingyourselfuptobeswindled.

Ofcourse,aswe’venotedpreviously,youneedtokeepthecooperative,rapport-building, empathetic approach, the kind that creates a dynamic inwhich deals can bemade.But you have to get rid of that naïveté.Becausecompromise—“splitting the difference”—can lead to terrible outcomes.Compromiseisoftena“baddeal”andakeythemewe’llhitinthischapteristhat“nodealisbetterthanabaddeal.”

Eveninakidnapping?Yes.Abaddealinakidnappingiswheresomeonepaysandnoonecomes

out.

To make my point on compromise, let me paint you an example: Awomanwantsherhusbandtowearblackshoeswithhissuit.Butherhusbanddoesn’t want to; he prefers brown shoes. So what do they do? Theycompromise,theymeethalfway.And,youguessedit,hewearsoneblackandone brown shoe. Is this the best outcome? No! In fact, that’s the worstpossibleoutcome.Eitherofthetwootheroutcomes—blackorbrown—wouldbebetterthanthecompromise.

Nexttimeyouwanttocompromise,remindyourselfofthosemismatchedshoes.

Sowhy arewe so infatuatedwith the notion of compromise if it oftenleadstopoorresults?

Therealproblemwithcompromiseisthatithascometobeknownasthisgreatconcept,inrelationshipsandpoliticsandeverythingelse.Compromise,wearetoldquitesimply,isasacredmoralgood.

Think back to the ransom demand: Fair is no ransom, and what thenephewwantsistopaynothing.Sowhyishegoingtooffer$75,000,muchless$150,000,for theransom?Thereisnovalidity in the$150,000request.Withanycompromise,thenephewendsupwithabizarrelybadresult.

I’mheretocallbullshitoncompromiserightnow.Wedon’tcompromisebecauseit’sright;wecompromisebecauseitiseasyandbecauseitsavesface.Wecompromiseinordertosaythatatleastwegothalfthepie.Distilledtoitsessence,wecompromisetobesafe.Mostpeople inanegotiationaredrivenby fear or by the desire to avoid pain. Too few are driven by their actualgoals.

So don’t settle and—here’s a simple rule—never split the difference.Creative solutions are almost always preceded by some degree of risk,annoyance, confusion, and conflict. Accommodation and compromiseproducenoneofthat.You’vegottoembracethehardstuff.That’swherethegreatdealsare.Andthat’swhatgreatnegotiatorsdo.

DEADLINES:MAKETIMEYOURALLY

Time is one of the most crucial variables in any negotiation. The simplepassing of time and its sharper cousin, the deadline, are the screw thatpressureseverydealtoaconclusion.

Whetheryourdeadlineisrealandabsoluteormerelyalineinthesand,itcan trick you into believing that doing a deal now is more important thangettingagooddeal.Deadlines regularlymakepeople sayanddo impulsivethings that are against their best interests, because we all have a naturaltendencytorushasadeadlineapproaches.

Whatgoodnegotiatorsdoisforcethemselvestoresistthisurgeandtakeadvantage of it in others. It’s not so easy.Ask yourself:What is it about adeadline thatcausespressureandanxiety?Theanswer isconsequences; theperceptionofthelosswe’ll incurinthefuture—“Thedealisoff!”ourmindscreams at us in some imaginary future scenario—should no resolution beachievedbyacertainpointintime.

Whenyouallow thevariableof time to trigger such thinking, youhavetaken yourself hostage, creating an environment of reactive behaviors andpoorchoices,whereyourcounterpartcannowkickbackandletanimaginarydeadline,andyourreactiontoit,doalltheworkforhim.

Yes,Iusedtheword“imaginary.”InalltheyearsI’vebeendoingworkintheprivatesector, I’vemade itapoint toasknearlyeveryentrepreneurandexecutive I’veworkedwithwhether, over the courseof their entire careers,theyhaveeverbeenawitnesstoorapartyofanegotiationinwhichamisseddeadlinehadnegativerepercussions.Amonghundredsofsuchclients,there’sone single, solitary gentlemanwho gave the question serious considerationand responded affirmatively. Deadlines are often arbitrary, almost alwaysflexible, and hardly ever trigger the consequences we think—or are told—theywill.

Deadlines are the bogeymen of negotiation, almost exclusively self-inflictedfigmentsofourimagination,unnecessarilyunsettlingusfornogoodreason.Themantrawecoachourclientsonis,“Nodealisbetterthanabaddeal.” If thatmantra can truly be internalized, and clients begin to believethey’ve got all the time they need to conduct the negotiation right, theirpatiencebecomesaformidableweapon.

Afewweeksafter theHaitiankidnappingboombegan,westarted tonoticetwo patterns. First, Mondays seemed to be especially busy, as if thekidnappershadaparticularlystrongworkethicandwantedtogetajumpontheweek.And,second, the thugsgrewincreasinglyeager togetpaidas theweekendapproached.

At first, this didn’t make any sense. But by listening closely to thekidnappersanddebriefingthehostageswerescued,wediscoveredsomethingthatshouldhavebeenobvious:Thesecrimesweren’tpoliticallymotivatedatall.Instead,theseguysweregarden-varietythugswhowantedtogetpaidbyFridaysotheycouldpartythroughtheweekend.

Oncewe understood the pattern and knew the kidnappers’ self-imposeddeadline, we had two key pieces of information that totally shifted theleveragetoourside.

First, if we let the pressure build by stalling the negotiations until

Thursday or Friday, we could cut the best deal. And, second, because youdidn’t need anything close to $150,000 to have a good weekend in Haiti,offeringalot,lotlesswouldsuffice.

How close we were getting to their self-imposed deadline would beindicated by how specific the threats were that they issued. “Give us themoneyoryourauntisgoingtodie”isanearlystagethreat,asthetimeisn’tspecified. Increasing specificity on threats in any type of negotiationsindicatesgettingclosertorealconsequencesatarealspecifiedtime.Togaugethe levelof aparticular threat,we’dpayattention tohowmanyof the fourquestions—What?Who?When?Andhow?—were addressed.Whenpeopleissue threats, they consciously or subconsciously create ambiguities andloopholestheyfullyintendtoexploit.Astheloopholesstartedtocloseastheweek progressed, and did so over and over again in similar ways withdifferentkidnappings,thepatternemerged.

With this information in hand, I came to expect the kidnappings to beorderly,four-dayevents.Itdidn’tmaketheabductionsanymorepleasantforthe victim, but it certainly made them more predictable—and a whole lotcheaper—forthefamiliesontheotherend.

It’s not justwith hostage negotiations that deadlines can play into yourhands.Car dealers are prone to give you the best price near the end of themonth,whentheirtransactionsareassessed.Andcorporatesalespeopleworkonaquarterlybasisandaremostvulnerableasthequartercomestoaclose.

Now, knowinghownegotiators use their counterpart’s deadlines to gainleverage would seem to suggest that it’s best to keep your own deadlinessecret. And that’s the advice you’ll get from most old-school negotiationexperts.

In his bestselling 1980 book,YouCanNegotiate Anything,1 negotiationexpert Herb Cohen tells the story of his first big business deal, when hiscompanysenthimtoJapantonegotiatewithasupplier.

When he arrived, his counterparts asked him how long hewas staying,and Cohen said a week. For the next seven days, his hosts proceeded toentertainhimwithparties,tours,andoutings—everythingbutnegotiation.Infact, Cohen’s counterparts didn’t start serious talks until he was about toleave,andthetwosideshammeredoutthedeal’sfinaldetailsinthecartotheairport.

CohenlandedintheUnitedStateswiththesinkingfeelingthathe’dbeenplayed,andthathehadconcededtoomuchunderdeadlinepressure.Wouldhehave told themhis deadline in retrospect?No,Cohen says, because it gavethem a tool he didn’t have: “They knew my deadline, but I didn’t knowtheirs.”

Thatmentality is everywhere thesedays.Seeinga simple rule to followandassumingthatadeadlineisastrategicweakness,mostnegotiatorsfollowCohen’sadviceandhidetheirdrop-deaddate.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret: Cohen, and the herd ofnegotiation “experts” who follow his lead, are wrong. Deadlines cut bothways.CohenmaywellhavebeennervousaboutwhathisbosswouldsayifheleftJapanwithoutanagreement.But it’salsotruethatCohen’scounterpartswouldn’t have won if he’d left without a deal. That’s the key: When thenegotiationisoverforoneside,it’soverfortheothertoo.

Infact,DonA.Moore,aprofessorattheHaasSchoolofBusinessattheUniversity ofCalifornia,Berkeley, says that hiding a deadline actually putsthenegotiatorintheworstpossibleposition.Inhisresearch,he’sfoundthathiding your deadlines dramatically increases the risk of an impasse. That’sbecausehavingadeadlinepushesyoutospeedupyourconcessions,buttheotherside,thinkingthatithastime,willjustholdoutformore.

Imagine if when NBA owners set a lockout deadline during contractnegotiations they didn’t tell the players’ union. They would concede andconcede as the deadline approached, inciting the union to keep negotiatingpast the secret deadline. In that sense, hiding a deadline means you’renegotiatingwithyourself,andyoualwayslosewhenyoudoso.

Moorediscoveredthatwhennegotiatorstelltheircounterpartsabouttheirdeadline, they get better deals. It’s true. First, by revealing your cutoff youreduce the risk of impasse. And second, when an opponent knows yourdeadline,he’llgettotherealdeal-andconcession-makingmorequickly.

I’vegotonefinalpointtomakebeforewemoveon:Deadlinesarealmostneverironclad.What’smoreimportantisengagingintheprocessandhavinga feel for how long that will take. You may see that you have more toaccomplishthantimewillactuallyallowbeforetheclockrunsout.

NOSUCHTHINGASFAIR

Inthethirdweekofmynegotiationsclass,weplaymyfavoritetypeofgame,that is, the kind that shows my students how much they don’t understandthemselves(Iknow—I’mcruel).

It’scalled theUltimatumGame,and itgoes like this:After thestudentssplit intopairsofa“proposer”andan“accepter,”Igiveeachproposer$10.Theproposerthenhastooffertheaccepteraroundnumberofdollars.Iftheaccepteragreesheorshereceiveswhat’sbeenofferedandtheproposergetstherest.Iftheaccepterrefusestheoffer,though,theybothgetnothingandthe$10goesbacktome.

Whether they “win” and keep themoney or “lose” and have to give itback is irrelevant (except tomywallet).What’s important is the offer theymake.The truly shocking thing is that, almostwithout exception,whateverselection anyone makes, they find themselves in a minority. No matterwhethertheychose$6/$4,$5/$5,$7/$3,$8/$2,etc.,theylookaroundandareinevitably surprised to findno splitwas chosen farmore thananyother. Insomething as simple asmerely splitting $10 of “found”money, there is noconsensusofwhatconstitutesa“fair”or“rational”split.

Afterwe run this little experiment, I stand up in front of the class andmake a point they don’t like to hear: the reasoning each and every studentusedwas100percentirrationalandemotional.

“What?”theysay.“Imadearationaldecision.”Then I lay out how they’re wrong. First, how could they all be using

reasonifsomanyhavemadedifferentoffers?That’sthepoint:Theydidn’t.Theyassumedtheotherguywouldreasonjustlikethem.“Ifyouapproachanegotiationthinkingthattheotherguythinkslikeyou,you’rewrong,”Isay.“That’snotempathy;that’sprojection.”

And then I push it even further:Why, I ask, did none of the proposersoffer$1,which is thebest rationaloffer for themand logicallyunrejectablefortheaccepter?Andiftheydidandtheygotrejected—whichhappens—whydidtheaccepterturnthemdown?

“Anyonewhomadeanyofferotherthan$1madeanemotionalchoice”Isay. “And for you accepterswho turneddown$1, sincewhen is getting$0betterthangetting$1?Didtherulesoffinancesuddenlychange?”

Thisrocksmystudents’viewofthemselvesasrationalactors.Butthey’renot.Noneofusare.We’reallirrational,allemotional.Emotionisanecessaryelement to decisionmaking thatwe ignore at our own peril.Realizing thathitspeoplehardbetweentheeyes.

In Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain,2neuroscientist Antonio Damasio explained a groundbreaking discovery hemade. Studying people who had damage in the part of the brain whereemotions are generated, he found that they all had something peculiar incommon: They couldn’t make decisions. They could describe what theyshould do in logical terms, but they found it impossible to make even thesimplestchoice.

In other words, while we may use logic to reason ourselves toward adecision,theactualdecisionmakingisgovernedbyemotion.

THEF-WORD:WHYIT’SSOPOWERFUL,WHENTOUSEIT,ANDHOW

Themost powerfulword in negotiations is “Fair.”As humanbeings,we’remightily swayed by how much we feel we have been respected. Peoplecomplywithagreementsiftheyfeelthey’vebeentreatedfairlyandlashoutiftheydon’t.

Adecadeofbrain-imagingstudieshasshownthathumanneuralactivity,particularly in the emotion-regulating insular cortex, reflects the degree ofunfairness in social interactions.Even nonhuman primates are hardwired toreject unfairness. In one famous study, two capuchin monkeys were set toperform the same task, but onewas rewardedwith sweet grapeswhile theother received cucumbers. In response to such blatant unfairness, thecucumber-fedmonkeyliterallywentbananas.

In the Ultimatum Game, years of experience has shown me that mostaccepters will invariably reject any offer that is less than half of theproposer’smoney.Onceyougettoaquarteroftheproposer’smoneyyoucanforgetitandtheacceptersareinsulted.Mostpeoplemakeanirrationalchoicetoletthedollarslipthroughtheirfingersratherthantoacceptaderisoryoffer,because the negative emotional value of unfairness outweighs the positiverationalvalueofthemoney.

This irrational reaction to unfairness extends all the way to seriouseconomicdeals.

Remember Robin Williams’s great work as the voice of the genie inDisney’sAladdin?Becausehewanted to leavesomethingwonderfulbehindforhiskids,hesaid,hedidthevoiceforacut-ratefeeof$75,000,farbelowhisusual$8millionpayday.Butthensomethinghappened:themoviebecameahugehit,rakingin$504million.

AndWilliamswentballistic.Now look at this with the Ultimatum Game in mind. Williams wasn’t

angrybecauseofthemoney;itwastheperceivedunfairnessthatpissedhimoff. He didn’t complain about his contract until Aladdin became ablockbuster,andthenheandhisagentwentloudandlongabouthowtheygotrippedoff.

LuckyforWilliams,Disneywantedtokeepitsstarhappy.Afterinitiallypointing out the obvious—that he’d happily signed the deal—DisneymadethedramaticgestureofsendingthestaraPicassopaintingworthareported$1million.

ThenationofIranwasnotsolucky.Inrecentyears,Iranhasputupwithsanctionsthathavecostitwellover

$100 billion in foreign investment and oil revenue in order to defend auranium-enrichingnuclearprogramthatcanonlymeet2percentofitsenergyneeds.Inotherwords,likethestudentswhowon’ttakeafree$1becausethe

offerseemsinsulting,Iranhasscreweditselfoutofitschiefsourceofincome—oil and gas revenue—in order to pursue an energy project with littleexpectedpayoff.

Why?Again,fairness.ForIran,it’snotfairthattheglobalpowers—whichtogetherhaveseveral

thousand nuclear weapons—should be able to decide if it can use nuclearenergy. And why, Iran wonders, is it considered a pariah for enrichinguranium when India and Pakistan, which clandestinely acquired nuclearweapons,areacceptedmembersoftheinternationalcommunity?

In a TV interview, former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed HosseinMousavianhit thenailon thehead.“Thenuclear issue todayfor Iranians isnot nuclear,” he said, “it’s defending their integrity [as an] independentidentityagainstthepressureoftherest.”

You may not trust Iran, but its moves are pretty clear evidence thatrejecting perceived unfairness, even at substantial cost, is a powerfulmotivation.

Once you understand what a messy, emotional, and destructive dynamic“fairness”canbe,youcanseewhy“Fair” isa tremendouslypowerfulwordthatyouneedtousewithcare.

In fact, of the three ways that people drop this F-bomb, only one ispositive.

Themostcommonuseisajudo-likedefensivemovethatdestabilizestheotherside.Thismanipulationusuallytakestheformofsomethinglike,“Wejustwantwhat’sfair.”

Think back to the last time someone made this implicit accusation ofunfairnesstoyou,andIbetyou’llhavetoadmitthatitimmediatelytriggeredfeelings of defensiveness and discomfort. These feelings are oftensubconsciousandoftenleadtoanirrationalconcession.

A friend of mine was selling her Boston home in a bust market a fewyearsback.Theoffershegotwasmuch lower thanshewanted—itmeantabig loss for her—and out of frustration she dropped this F-bomb on theprospectivebuyer.

“Wejustwantwhat’sfair,”shesaid.Emotionally rattled by the implicit accusation, the guy raised his offer

immediately.Ifyou’reonthebusinessendof thisaccusation,youneedtorealize that

theother sidemightnotbe trying topickyourpocket; likemy friend, theymightjustbeoverwhelmedbycircumstance.Thebestresponseeitherwayistotakeadeepbreathandrestrainyourdesiretoconcede.Thensay,“Okay,I

apologize.Let’sstopeverythingandgoback towhereIstarted treatingyouunfairlyandwe’llfixit.”

The second use of the F-bomb is more nefarious. In this one, yourcounterpartwillbasicallyaccuseyouofbeingdenseordishonestbysaying,“We’vegivenyouafairoffer.”It’saterriblelittlejabmeanttodistractyourattentionandmanipulateyouintogivingin.

Wheneversomeonetriesthisonme,IthinkbacktothelastNFLlockout.Negotiations were getting down to the wire and the NFL Players

Association(NFLPA)saidthatbeforetheyagreedtoafinaldealtheywantedtheownerstoopentheirbooks.Theowners’answer?

“We’vegiventheplayersafairoffer.”Notice the horrible genius of this: instead of opening their books or

decliningtodoso,theownersshiftedthefocustotheNFLPA’ssupposedlackofunderstandingoffairness.

Ifyoufindyourselfinthissituation,thebestreactionistosimplymirrorthe“F”thathasjustbeenlobbedatyou.“Fair?”you’drespond,pausingtolettheword’spowerdotothemasitwasintendedtodotoyou.Followthatwitha label: “It seems like you’re ready to provide the evidence that supportsthat,” which alludes to opening their books or otherwise handing overinformationthatwilleithercontradicttheirclaimtofairnessorgiveyoumoredatatoworkwiththanyouhadpreviously.Rightaway,youdeclawtheattack.

The last use of the F-word is my favorite because it’s positive andconstructive.Itsetsthestageforhonestandempatheticnegotiation.

Here’showIuse it:Earlyoninanegotiation,Isay,“Iwantyoutofeellikeyouarebeingtreatedfairlyatalltimes.SopleasestopmeatanytimeifyoufeelI’mbeingunfair,andwe’lladdressit.”

It’s simple and clear and sets me up as an honest dealer. With thatstatement,Iletpeopleknowitisokaytousethatwordwithmeiftheyuseithonestly.Asanegotiator,youshouldstriveforareputationofbeingfair.Yourreputationprecedesyou.Letitprecedeyouinawaythatpavessuccess.

HOWTODISCOVERTHEEMOTIONALDRIVERSBEHINDWHATTHEOTHERPARTYVALUES

Afewyears ago, I stumbledupon thebookHow toBecomeaRainmaker,3and I like to review it occasionally to refresh my sense of the emotionaldriversthatfueldecisions.Thebookdoesagreatjobtoexplainthesalesjobnotasarationalargument,butasanemotionalframingjob.

Ifyoucanget theotherparty to reveal their problems,pain, andunmetobjectives—if you can get atwhat people are really buying—then you can

sell them a vision of their problem that leaves your proposal as the perfectsolution.

Lookatthisfromthemostbasiclevel.Whatdoesagoodbabysittersell,really? It’s not child care exactly, but a relaxed evening. A furnacesalesperson?Cozyroomsforfamilytime.Alocksmith?Afeelingofsecurity.

Knowtheemotionaldriversandyoucanframethebenefitsofanydealinlanguagethatwillresonate.

BENDTHEIRREALITY

Take the same person, change one or two variables, and $100 can be aglorious victory or a vicious insult. Recognizing this phenomenon lets youbendrealityfrominsulttovictory.

Letmegiveyouanexample.Ihavethiscoffeemug,redandwhitewiththeSwissflag.Nochips,butused.Whatwouldyoupayforit,deepdowninyourheartofhearts?

You’reprobablygoingtosaysomethinglike$3.50.Let’ssayit’syourmugnow.You’regoingtosellittome.Sotellmewhat

it’sworth.You’reprobablygoingtosaysomethingbetween$5and$7.Inbothcases,itwastheexactsamemug.AllIdidwasmovethemugin

relationtoyou,andItotallychangeditsvalue.OrimaginethatIofferyou$20torunathree-minuteerrandandgetmea

cupofcoffee.You’regoingtothinktoyourselfthat$20forthreeminutesis$400anhour.You’regoingtobethrilled.

WhatifthenyoufindoutthatbygettingyoutorunthaterrandImadeamillion dollars. You’d go from being ecstatic for making $400 an hour tobeingangrybecauseyougotrippedoff.

Thevalueofthe$20,justlikethevalueofthecoffeemug,didn’tchange.Butyourperspectiveofitdid.JustbyhowIpositionthe$20,Icanmakeyouhappyordisgustedbyit.

I tell you that not to expose our decision making as emotional andirrational. We’ve already seen that. What I am saying is that while ourdecisionsmaybelargelyirrational, thatdoesn’tmeantherearen’tconsistentpatterns,principles,andrulesbehindhowweact.Andonceyouknowthosementalpatterns,youstarttoseewaystoinfluencethem.

By far the best theory for describing the principles of our irrationaldecisions is something called Prospect Theory. Created in 1979 by thepsychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, prospect theorydescribes how people choose between options that involve risk, like in a

negotiation. The theory argues that people are drawn to sure things overprobabilities, evenwhen theprobability is abetter choice.That’s called theCertainty Effect. And peoplewill take greater risks to avoid losses than toachievegains.That’scalledLossAversion.

That’swhypeoplewhostatisticallyhavenoneedforinsurancebuyit.Orconsider this: a personwho’s told he has a 95 percent chance of receiving$10,000ora100percentchanceofgetting$9,499willusuallyavoidriskandtakethe100percentcertainsafechoice,whilethesamepersonwho’stoldhehasa95percentchanceoflosing$10,000ora100percentchanceoflosing$9,499willmaketheoppositechoice,riskingthebigger95percentoptiontoavoidtheloss.Thechanceforlossincitesmoreriskthanthepossibilityofanequalgain.

OverthenextfewpagesI’llexplainafewprospecttheorytacticsyoucanusetoyouradvantage.Butfirstletmeleaveyouwithacruciallessonaboutlossaversion:Inatoughnegotiation,it’snotenoughtoshowtheotherpartythatyoucandeliverthethingtheywant.

Togetrealleverage,youhavetopersuadethemthattheyhavesomethingconcretetoloseifthedealfallsthrough.

1.ANCHORTHEIREMOTIONSTo bend your counterpart’s reality, you have to start with the basics ofempathy. So start out with an accusation audit acknowledging all of theirfears.Byanchoringtheiremotionsinpreparationforaloss,youinflametheotherside’slossaversionsothatthey’lljumpatthechancetoavoidit.

OnmyfirstconsultingprojectafterleavingtheFBI,Ireceivedthehonorto train thenationalhostagenegotiation teamfor theUnitedArabEmirates.Unfortunately,theprestigeoftheassignmentwastemperedduringtheprojectby problems with the general contractor (I was a subcontractor). TheproblemsbecamesobadthatIwasgoingtohavetogobacktothecontractorsI’dsignedup,whonormallygot$2,000aday,andtellthemthatforseveralmonths,Icouldonlyoffer$500.

IknewexactlywhattheywoulddoifIjusttoldthemstraightout:they’dlaughmeoutoftown.SoIgoteachofthemonthephoneandhitthemhardwithanaccusationaudit.

“Igotalousypropositionforyou,”Isaid,andpauseduntileachaskedmetogoon.“Bythetimewegetoffthephone,you’regoingtothinkI’malousybusinessman.You’regoing to think I can’t budget or plan.You’re going tothinkChrisVoss isabig talker.Hisfirstbigprojecteveroutof theFBI,hescrews itupcompletely.Hedoesn’tknowhow to runanoperation.Andhemightevenhaveliedtome.”

And then, once I’d anchored their emotions in a minefield of lowexpectations,Iplayedontheirlossaversion.

“Still, I wanted to bring this opportunity to you before I took it tosomeoneelse,”Isaid.

Suddenly,theircallwasn’taboutbeingcutfrom$2,000to$500buthownottolose$500tosomeotherguy.

Everysingleoneofthemtookthedeal.Nocounteroffers,nocomplaints.Now,ifIhadn’tanchoredtheiremotionslow,theirperceptionof$500wouldhavebeen totallydifferent. If I’d justcalledandsaid,“Icangiveyou$500perday.Whatdoyouthink?”they’dhavetakenitasaninsultandslammeddownthephone.

2.LETTHEOTHERGUYGOFIRST...MOSTOFTHETIME.Now, it’s clear that the benefits of anchoring emotions are great when itcomestobendingyourcounterpart’sreality.Butgoingfirstisnotnecessarilythebestthingwhenitcomestonegotiatingprice.

When the famous film director Billy Wilder went to hire the famousdetective novelist Raymond Chandler to write the 1944 classic DoubleIndemnity,ChandlerwasnewtoHollywood.Buthecamereadytonegotiate,andinhismeetingwithWilderandthemovie’sproducer,Chandlermadethefirstsalaryoffer:heblufflydemanded$150perweekandwarnedWilderthatitmighttakehimthreeweekstofinishtheproject.

Wilder and the producer could barely stop from laughing, because theyhadbeenplanningtopayChandler$750perweekandtheyknewthatmoviescripts tookmonths towrite. Lucky forChandler,Wilder and the producervaluedtheir relationshipwithChandlermore thanafewhundreddollars,sothey took pity on him and called an agent to represent Chandler in thenegotiations.

Similarly,IhadastudentnamedJerrywhoroyallyscreweduphissalarynegotiation by going first (letme say that this happened before hewasmystudent).

InaninterviewataNewYorkfinancialfirm,hedemanded$110,000,inlargepartbecauseitrepresenteda30percentraise.Itwasonlyafterhestartedthat he realized that the firm had started everybody else in his program at$125,000.

That’swhyIsuggestyoulettheothersideanchormonetarynegotiations.The real issue is that neither side has perfect information going to the

table. This often means you don’t know enough to open with confidence.That’sespeciallytrueanytimeyoudon’tknowthemarketvalueofwhatyouarebuyingorselling,likewithJerryorChandler.

Bylettingthemanchoryoualsomightgetlucky:I’veexperiencedmanynegotiations when the other party’s first offer was higher than the closingfigure I had inmind. If I’d gone first theywouldhave agreed and Iwouldhave left with either the winner’s curse or buyer’s remorse, those gut-wrenchingfeelingsthatyou’veoverpaidorundersold.

Thatsaid,you’vegottobecarefulwhenyoulettheotherguyanchor.Youhave toprepareyourselfpsychically towithstand the firstoffer. If theotherguy’sapro,ashark,he’sgoingtogoforanextremeanchorinordertobendyour reality.Then,when they comebackwith amerely absurdoffer itwillseemreasonable, just likeanexpensive$400 iPhoneseemsreasonableaftertheymarkitdownfromacrazy$600.

Thetendencytobeanchoredbyextremenumbersisapsychologicalquirkknown as the “anchor and adjustment” effect. Researchers have discoveredthat we tend to make adjustments from our first reference points. Forexample,mostpeopleglimpsing8×7×6×5×4×3×2×1estimatethatityieldsahigherresultthanthesamestringinreverseorder.That’sbecausewefocusonthefirstnumbersandextrapolate.

That’snottosay,“Neveropen.”Ruleslikethatareeasytoremember,but,likemost simplistic approaches, they arenot alwaysgood advice. If you’redealingwitharookiecounterpart,youmightbetemptedtobethesharkandthrowout an extreme anchor.Or if you really know themarket and you’redealingwithanequallyinformedpro,youmightofferanumberjusttomakethenegotiationgofaster.

Here’smypersonaladviceonwhetherornotyouwanttobethesharkthateatsarookiecounterpart.Justremember,yourreputationprecedesyou.I’verun intoCEOswhose reputationwas to alwaysbadlybeat their counterpartandprettysoonnoonewoulddealwiththem.

3.ESTABLISHARANGEWhilegoingfirstrarelyhelps,thereisonewaytoseemtomakeanofferandbendtheirrealityintheprocess.Thatis,byalludingtoarange.

WhatImeanis this:Whenconfrontedwithnamingyour termsorprice,counterby recalling a similardealwhich establishesyour “ballpark,” albeitthe best possible ballpark youwish to be in. Instead of saying, “I’mworth$110,000,”Jerrymighthavesaid,“AttopplaceslikeXCorp.,peopleinthisjobgetbetween$130,000and$170,000.”

That gets your point across without moving the other party into adefensiveposition.Anditgetshimthinkingathigherlevels.Researchshowsthatpeoplewhohearextremeanchorsunconsciouslyadjusttheirexpectationsinthedirectionoftheopeningnumber.Manyevengodirectlytotheirprice

limit. If Jerry had given this range, the firm probably would have offered$130,000becauseitlookedsocheapnextto$170,000.

Inarecentstudy,4ColumbiaBusinessSchoolpsychologistsfoundthatjobapplicantswho named a range received significantly higher overall salariesthanthosewhoofferedanumber,especially if theirrangewasa“bolsteringrange,”inwhichthelownumberintherangewaswhattheyactuallywanted.

Understand, if you offer a range (and it’s a good idea to do so) expectthemtocomeinatthelowend.

4.PIVOTTONONMONETARYTERMSPeople get hung up on “How much?” But don’t deal with numbers inisolation. That leads to bargaining, a series of rigid positions defined byemotional views of fairness and pride. Negotiation is a more intricate andsubtledynamicthanthat.

Oneoftheeasiestwaystobendyourcounterpart’srealitytoyourpointofviewisbypivotingtononmonetaryterms.Afteryou’veanchoredthemhigh,you can make your offer seem reasonable by offering things that aren’timportanttoyoubutcouldbeimportanttothem.Oriftheirofferislowyoucould ask for things that matter more to you than them. Since this issometimes difficult, what we often do is throw out examples to start thebrainstormingprocess.

Not long ago I did some training for the Memphis Bar Association.Normally, for the training theywere looking for, I’d charge $25,000 a day.TheycameinwithamuchlowerofferthatIbalkedat.Theythenofferedtodoacoverstoryaboutmeintheirassociationmagazine.Formetobeonthecoverofamagazinethatwentouttowhoknowshowmanyofthecountry’stoplawyerswaspricelessadvertising.(Plusmymomisreallyproudofit!)

They had to put something on the cover anyway, so it had zero cost tothemandIgavethemasteepdiscountonmyfee.IconstantlyusethatasanexampleinmynegotiationsnowwhenInameaprice.Iwanttostimulatemycounterpart’s brainstorming to see what valuable nonmonetary gems theymighthavethatarecheaptothembutvaluabletome.

5.WHENYOUDOTALKNUMBERS,USEODDONESEvery number has a psychological significance that goes beyond its value.AndI’mnotjusttalkingabouthowyoulove17becauseyouthinkit’slucky.What I mean is that, in terms of negotiation, some numbers appear moreimmovablethanothers.

The biggest thing to remember is that numbers that end in 0 inevitablyfeel like temporary placeholders, guesstimates that you can easily be

negotiatedoffof.Butanythingyouthrowoutthatsoundslessrounded—say,$37,263—feels like a figure that you came to as a result of thoughtfulcalculation.Suchnumbersfeelseriousandpermanenttoyourcounterpart,sousethemtofortifyyouroffers.

6.SURPRISEWITHAGIFTYoucangetyourcounterpartintoamoodofgenerositybystakinganextremeanchorandthen,after their inevitablefirst rejection,offering themawhollyunrelatedsurprisegift.

Unexpected conciliatory gestures like this are hugely effective becausetheyintroduceadynamiccalledreciprocity;theotherpartyfeelstheneedtoansweryourgenerosityinkind.Theywillsuddenlycomeupontheiroffer,orthey’lllooktorepayyourkindnessinthefuture.Peoplefeelobligedtorepaydebtsofkindness.

Let’s look at it in terms of international politics. In 1977 EgyptianpresidentAnwarSadatdramaticallypushednegotiationson theEgypt-Israelpeace treaty forward bymaking a surprise address to the IsraeliKnesset, agenerousgesturethatdidnotinvolvemakinganyactualconcessionsbutdidsignifyabigsteptowardpeace.

BackinHaiti,afewhoursafterthekidnappershadsnatchedhisaunt,Iwasonthephonewiththepolitician’snephew.

Therewasnowaytheirfamilycouldcomeupwith$150,000,hetoldme,buttheycouldpaybetween$50,000and$85,000.Butsincelearningthattheransomwasjustpartymoney,Iwasaimingmuchlower:$5,000.Wewerenotgoingtocompromise.Itwasamatterofprofessionalpride.

Iadvisedhimtostartoffbyanchoringtheconversationintheideathathedidn’thavethemoney,buttodosowithoutsaying“No”soasnottohittheirpridehead-on.

“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”heaskedinthenextcall.The kidnapper made another general threat against the aunt and again

demandedthecash.That’swhenIhadthenephewsubtlyquestionthekidnapper’sfairness.“I’msorry,” thenephewresponded,“buthowarewesupposed topay if

you’regoingtohurther?”Thatbroughtuptheaunt’sdeath,whichwasthethingthekidnappersmost

wantedtoavoid.Theyneededtokeepherunharmediftheyhopedtogetanymoney.Theywerecommoditytraders,afterall.

Noticethat tothispoint thenephewhadn’tnamedaprice.Thisgameofattrition finally pushed the kidnappers to name a number first. Without

prodding,theydroppedto$50,000.Nowthat thekidnappers’ realityhadbeenbent toasmallernumber,my

colleaguesandItoldthenephewtostandhisground.“HowcanIcomeupwiththatkindofmoney?”wetoldhimtoask.Again,thekidnapperdroppedhisdemand,to$25,000.Now that we had him in our sights, we had the nephewmake his first

offer,anextremelowanchorof$3,000.Thelinewentsilentandthenephewbegantosweatprofusely,butwetold

him to hold tight. This always happened at the moment the kidnapper’seconomicrealitygottotallyrearranged.

Whenhespokeagain, thekidnapperseemedshell-shocked.Buthewenton.Hisnextofferwaslower,$10,000.Thenwehadthenephewanswerwitha strange number that seemed to come from deep calculation of what hisaunt’slifewasworth:$4,751.

Hisnewprice?$7,500. In response,wehad the cousin “spontaneously”say he’d throw in a new portable CD stereo and repeated the $4,751. Thekidnappers, who didn’t really want the CD stereo felt there was no moremoneytobehad,saidyes.

Six hours later, the family paid that sum and the aunt cameback homesafely.

HOWTONEGOTIATEABETTERSALARY

One of the critical factors in business school rankings is how well theirgraduatesarecompensated.SoItelleveryMBAclassIlecturethatmyfirstobjective is to single-handedly raise the rankingof their schoolby teachingthemhowtonegotiateabettersalary.

I break down the process into three parts that blend this chapter’sdynamicsinawaythatnotonlybringsyoubettermoney,butconvincesyourbosstofighttogetitforyou.

BEPLEASANTLYPERSISTENTONNONSALARYTERMSPleasant persistence is a kind of emotional anchoring that creates empathywiththebossandbuildstherightpsychologicalenvironmentforconstructivediscussion.Andthemoreyoutalkaboutnonsalaryterms,themorelikelyyouare tohear thefull rangeof theiroptions. If theycan’tmeetyournonsalaryrequests, they may even counter with more money, like they did with aFrench-bornAmericanformerstudentofmine.Shekeptasking—withabigsmile—for an extra week of vacation beyond what the company normallygave. She was “French,” she said, and that’s what French people did. The

hiringcompanywascompletelyhandcuffedonthevacationissue,butbecauseshe was so darned delightful, and because she introduced a nonmonetaryvariableintothenotionofhervalue,theycounteredbyincreasinghersalaryoffer.

SALARY TERMS WITHOUT SUCCESS TERMS IS RUSSIANROULETTEOnce you’ve negotiated a salary, make sure to define success for yourposition—aswell asmetrics for your next raise.That’smeaningful for youandfreeforyourboss,muchlikegivingmeamagazinecoverstorywasforthebarassociation.Itgetsyouaplannedraiseand,bydefiningyoursuccessinrelationtoyourboss’ssupervision,itleadsintothenextstep...

SPARK THEIR INTEREST IN YOUR SUCCESS AND GAIN ANUNOFFICIALMENTORRemember the idea of figuringwhat the other side is reallybuying? Well,whenyouaresellingyourselftoamanager,sellyourselfasmorethanabodyforajob;sellyourself,andyoursuccess,asawaytheycanvalidatetheirownintelligenceandbroadcastittotherestofthecompany.Makesuretheyknowyou’ll act as a flesh-and-blood argument for their importance.Once you’vebent their reality to includeyouas theirambassador, they’llhavea stake inyoursuccess.

Ask:“Whatdoesittaketobesuccessfulhere?”Pleasenotice that thisquestion issimilar toquestions thataresuggested

bymanyMBAcareercounselingcenters,yetnotexactly the same.And it’stheexactwordingofthisquestionthat’scritical.

Students from my MBA courses who have asked this question in jobinterviewshaveactuallyhadinterviewersleanforwardandsay,“Nooneeveraskedusthatbefore.”Theinterviewerthengaveagreatanddetailedanswer.

Thekeyissuehereisifsomeonegivesyouguidance,theywillwatchtoseeifyoufollowtheiradvice.Theywillhaveapersonalstakeinseeingyousucceed.You’vejustrecruitedyourfirstunofficialmentor.

To show how this can be done to near perfection, I can think of no betterexamplethanmyformerMBAstudentAngelPrado.

WhileAngelwasfinishinguphisMBA,hewenttohisbossandbegantolaythegroundworkforhisworkpost-MBA(whichthecompanywaspaying).Duringhis last semester, he set a nonspecific anchor—akindof range—bysuggesting to his boss that once he graduated and the company was doneinvestinginhisMBA(around$31,000peryear),thatmoneyshouldgotohim

assalary.Hisbossmadenocommitment,butAngelwaspleasantlypersistentabout

it,whichsettheideaasananchorinhisboss’smind.Upon graduation, Angel and his boss had their big sit-down. In an

assertiveandcalmmanner,Angelbroachedanonfinancialissuetomovethefocusawayfrom“Howmuch?”:heaskedforanewtitle.

Angel’sbossreadilyagreedthatanewrolewasano-brainerafterAngel’snewdegree.

At that point, Angel and his manager defined what his roles andresponsibilities would be in his new role, thereby setting success metrics.ThenAngel tookabreathandpaused so thathisbosswouldbe the first tothrowout anumber.At last, hedid.Curiously enough, thenumber showedthat Angel’s earlier efforts at anchoring had worked: he proposed to add$31,000toAngel’sbasesalary,almosta50percentraise.

ButAngelwasnorookienegotiator,notaftertakingmyclass.Soinsteadofcounteringandgettingstuckin“Howmuch?”hekepttalking,labelingtheboss’semotionsandempathizingwithhissituation(atthetimethecompanywasgoingthroughdifficultnegotiationswithitsinvestors).

AndthenAngelcourteouslyaskedforamomenttostepawayandprintuptheagreed-uponjobdescription.Thispausecreatedadynamicofpre-deadlineurgency in his boss, which Angel exploited when he returned with theprintout. On the bottom, he’d added his desired compensation: “$134.5k—$143k.”

In that one little move, Angel weaved together a bunch of the lessonsfrom this chapter. The odd numbers gave them the weight of thoughtfulcalculation. The numberswere high too,which exploited his boss’s naturaltendency togodirectly tohisprice limitwhen facedbyanextremeanchor.Andtheywerearange,whichmadeAngelseemlessaggressiveandthelowerendmorereasonableincomparison.

From his boss’s body language—raised eyebrows—it was clear that hewassurprisedbythecompensationrequest.Butithadthedesiredeffect:aftersomecommentsaboutthedescription,hecounteredwith$120,000.

Angel didn’t say “No”or “Yes,”but kept talking and creating empathy.Then,inthemiddleofasentence,seeminglyoutoftheblue,hisbossthrewout$127,000.Withhisbossobviouslynegotiatingwithhimself,Angelkepthimgoing.Finallyhisbosssaidheagreedwiththe$134,500andwouldpaythat salary starting in three months, contingent on the board of directors’approval.

As the icing on the cake, Angel worked in a positive use of the word“Fair”(“That’sfair,”hesaid),andthensoldtheraisetohisbossasamarriage

inwhichhisbosswouldbethementor.“I’maskingyou,nottheboard,forthepromotion,andallIneedisforyoutoagreewithit,”hesaid.

AndhowdidAngel’sbossreplytohisnewambassador?“I’llfighttogetyouthissalary.”SofollowAngel’sleadandmakeitrain!

KEYLESSONS

Compared to the tools discussed in previous chapters, the techniques hereseemconcreteandeasytouse.Butmanypeopleshyawayfromthembecausetheyseemmanipulative.Somethingthatbendsyourcounterpart’srealitymustbecheating,right?

In response, let me just say that these tools are used by all the bestnegotiatorsbecausetheysimplyrecognizethehumanpsycheasitis.Weareemotional, irrational beastswho are emotional and irrational in predictable,pattern-filledways.Usingthatknowledgeisonly,well,rational.

As you work these tools into your daily life, remember the followingpowerfullessons:

■ Allnegotiationsaredefinedbyanetworkofsubterraneandesiresandneeds.Don’tletyourselfbefooledbythesurface.OnceyouknowthattheHaitiankidnappersjustwantpartymoney,youwillbemilesbetterprepared.

■ Splittingthedifferenceiswearingoneblackandonebrownshoe,so don’t compromise.Meeting halfway often leads to bad dealsforbothsides.

■ Approaching deadlines entice people to rush the negotiatingprocess and do impulsive things that are against their bestinterests.

■ TheF-word—“Fair”—isanemotionaltermpeopleusuallyexploittoputtheothersideonthedefensiveandgainconcessions.Whenyour counterpart drops the F-bomb, don’t get suckered into aconcession. Instead, ask them to explainhowyou’remistreatingthem.

■ Youcanbendyourcounterpart’srealitybyanchoringhisstartingpoint. Before you make an offer, emotionally anchor them bysaying how bad it will be. When you get to numbers, set an

extremeanchortomakeyour“real”offerseemreasonable,orusea range to seem less aggressive. The real value of anythingdependsonwhatvantagepointyou’relookingatitfrom.

■ Peoplewilltakemoreriskstoavoidalossthantorealizeagain.Makesureyourcounterpartseesthatthereissomethingtolosebyinaction.

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER7

CREATETHEILLUSIONOFCONTROL

A month after I’d finished working the case of Jeffrey Schilling in May2001,Igotordersfromheadquarters toheadbacktoManila.Thesamebadguyswho’dtakenSchilling,abrutalgroupofradicalIslamistsnamedtheAbuSayyaf, had raided the Dos Palmas private diving resort and taken twentyhostages, including three Americans: Martin and Gracia Burnham, amissionarycouple fromWichita,Kansas;andGuillermoSobero,aguywhoranaCaliforniawaterproofingfirm.

DosPalmaswasanegotiator’snightmarefromthestart.Thedayafterthekidnappings, the recently elected Philippine president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,setupthemostconfrontational,nonconstructivedynamicpossiblebypubliclydeclaring“all-outwar”ontheAbuSayyaf.

Notexactlyempatheticdiscourse,right?Itgotalotworse.The Philippine army and marines had a turf war in the midst of the

negotiations,pissingoff thekidnapperswith severalbotched raids.BecauseAmerican hostages were involved, the CIA, the FBI, and U.S. militaryintelligencewereallcalled inandwetoosquabbledamongourselves.Thenthekidnappersrapedandkilledseveralhostages,9/11happened,andtheAbuSayyafwaslinkedtoAlQaeda.

BythetimethecrisisconcludedinanorgyofgunshotsinJune2002,DosPalmashadofficiallybecome thebiggest failure inmyprofessional life.Tocallitatrainwreckwouldbegenerous,ifyouknowwhatImean.

But failures plant the seeds of future success, and our failure in thePhilippineswasnoexception.

IftheDosPalmascalamityshowedmeanything,itwasthatweallwerestillsufferingunderthenotionthatnegotiationwasawrestlingmatchwherethepointistoexhaustyouropponentintosubmission,hopeforthebest,andneverbackdown.

Asmy disappointment with Dos Palmas forcedme to reckon with ourfailed techniques, I took adeep look into thenewest negotiating theories—somegreatandsomecompletelyharebrained—andIhadachanceencounter

with a case in Pittsburgh that completely changed how I looked at theinterpersonaldynamicsofnegotiationconversations.

From the ashes of Dos Palmas, then, we learned a lesson that wouldforever change how the FBI negotiated kidnappings. We learned thatnegotiation was coaxing, not overcoming; co-opting, not defeating. Mostimportant, we learned that successful negotiation involved getting yourcounterpart to do the work for you and suggest your solution himself. Itinvolvedgivinghim the illusionof controlwhileyou, in fact,were theonedefiningtheconversation.

ThetoolwedevelopedissomethingIcall thecalibrated,oropen-ended,question. What it does is remove aggression from conversations byacknowledging theother sideopenly,without resistance. Indoing so, it letsyou introduce ideas and requests without sounding pushy. It allows you tonudge.

I’llexplain it indepth lateron,but fornowletmesay that it’s reallyassimple as removing the hostility from the statement “You can’t leave” andturningitintoaquestion.

“Whatdoyouhopetoachievebygoing?”

DON’TTRYTONEGOTIATEINAFIREFIGHT

The moment I arrived in Manila on the Burnham-Sobero case I was sentdown to the Mindanao region, where the Philippine military was lobbingbullets and rockets into a hospital complexwhere theAbu Sayyaf and thehostageswereholedup.

This was no place for a negotiator, because it’s impossible to have adialogueinthemiddleofafirefight.Thenthingsgotworse:whenIwokeupthe nextmorning, I learned that during the night the kidnappers had takentheirhostagesandescaped.

The “escape” was the first sign that this operation was going to be arollingtrainwreckandthatthePhilippinemilitarywaslessthanatrustworthypartner.

During debriefings following the episode, it was revealed that during acease-fire a military guy had collected a suitcase from the thugs in thehospital, andnot longafter that all the soldierson the rearperimeterof thehospitalhadbeencalledawayfora“meeting.”Coincidentally—ornot—thebadguyschosethatmomenttoslipaway.

Thingsreallyblewuptwoweekslater,onthePhilippines’IndependenceDay,whenAbuSabayaannounced thathewasgoing tobehead“oneof thewhites” unless the government called off itsmanhunt bymidday.Weknew

this meant one of the Americans and anticipated it would be GuillermoSobero.

Wedidn’thaveanydirectcontactwiththekidnappersatthetimebecauseourpartners in thePhilippinemilitaryhadassignedusan intermediarywhoalways “forgot” tomake surewewere present for his phone callswith thekidnappers (andsimilarly“forgot” to tape them).Allwecoulddowassendtextmessagesofferingtoscheduleatimetospeak.

Whatendeduphappeningwasthatjustbeforethenoondeadline,SabayaandamemberofthePhilippinepresidentialcabinethadaconversationonaradiotalkshow,andthegovernmentconcededtoSabaya’sdemandtonameaMalaysian senator as a negotiator. In exchange,Sabaya agreednot to kill ahostage.

But itwas too late to fix this atmosphereof confrontation, distrust, andlies. That afternoon, the hostages heard Sabaya on the phone yelling, “Butthatwaspartoftheagreement!Thatwasapartoftheagreement!”Notlongafter, theAbuSayyafbeheadedGuillermoSoberoandforgoodmeasurethegrouptookfifteenmorehostages.

Withnoneoftheimportantmovingpartsanywherenearunderourcontroland the United States largely uninterested in spite of Sobero’s murder, IheadedbacktoWashington,D.C.Itseemedliketherewaslittlewecoulddo.

Then9/11changedeverything.Onceaminor terroristoutfit, theAbuSayyafwassuddenly linked toAl

Qaeda.AndthenaPhilippineTVreporternamedArlyndelaCruzgotintotheAbu Sayyaf camp and videotaped Sabaya as he taunted the AmericanmissionariesMartinandGraciaBurnham,whoweresoemaciatedtheylookedlike concentration camp survivors. The video hit theU.S. newsmedia likethunder.Suddenly,thecasebecameamajorU.S.governmentpriority.

THEREISALWAYSATEAMONTHEOTHERSIDE

TheFBIsentmebackin.NowIwassentintomakesureadealgotmade.Itwasallveryhighprofile,too.SomeofmycontactsreportedthatFBIdirectorRobert Mueller was personally briefing President George W. Bush everymorningonwhatweweredoing.WhenDirectorMueller showedup in theU.S.Embassy inManilaandIwas introduced tohim,a lookof recognitioncameoverhisface.Thatwasaveryheadymoment.

Butallthesupportintheworldwon’tworkifyourcounterpart’steamisdysfunctional. If your negotiation efforts don’t reach past your counterpartand into the team behind him, then you’ve got a “hope”-based deal—andhopeisnotastrategy.

OneofthethingsIfailedtofullyappreciatethenwasthatthekidnappershadchangednegotiatorsthemselves.Sabayahadbeenreplaced.

MybossGaryNoesnerhad,inapreviouskidnapping,pointedouttomethatachangeinnegotiatorsbytheothersidealmostalwayssignaledthattheymeanttotakeaharderline.WhatIdidn’trealizeatthetimewasthismeantSabayawasgoingtoplayaroleasadealbreakerifhewasn’taccountedfor.

OurnewtackwastobuytheBurnhamsback.AlthoughtheUnitedStatesofficiallydoesn’tpay ransoms,adonorhadbeen foundwhowouldprovide$300,000.ThenewAbuSayyafnegotiatoragreedtoarelease.

The ransom drop was a disaster. The kidnappers decided that theywouldn’t release the Burnhams: or, rather, Sabaya, who was physically inchargeofthehostages,refusedtoreleasethem.Hehadcuthisownside-deal—onewedidn’tknowabout—andithadfallenthrough.Thenewnegotiator,nowembarrassed and in a foulmood, coveredhimself by claiming that thepaymentwasshort$600.Wewerebaffled—“Sixhundreddollars?Youwon’tlethostagesgobecauseofsixhundreddollars?”—andwetriedtoarguethatifthemoneywasmissing, it must have been the courier who had stolen themoney.Butwehadnodynamicof trustandcooperationtobackusup.The$300,000wasgoneandwewerebacktorarelyansweredtextmessages.

Theslow-motionwreckculminatedabouttwomonthslaterwithabotched“rescue.”A teamofPhilippineScoutRangerswalkingaround in thewoodscameacross theAbuSayyaf camp,or so they said.Laterweheard anothergovernment agency had tipped them off. That other government agency(OGA)hadnot told us about their location because . . . because . . .why?That’ssomethingIwillneverunderstand.

TheScoutRangersformedaskirmishlinefromatreelineabovethecampand opened fire, indiscriminately pouring bullets into the area. Gracia andMartin were taking a nap in their hammocks when the fire started rainingdown.Theybothfelloutoftheirhammocksandstartedtorolldownthehilltoward safety. But as a sheet of bullets from their rescuers fell on them,Gracia felt a searing burn flare through her right thigh. And then, she feltMartingolimp.

Minutes later, after the last rebels fled, the squad of Philippine soldierstried to reassureGracia that her husbandwas fine, but she shookher head.After a year in captivity, she had no time for fantasies. Gracia knew herhusbandwasdead,andshewasright:he’dbeenhitinthechest,threetimes,by“friendly”fire.

In theend, thesupposedrescuemissionkilled twoof the threehostagestherethatday(aPhilippinenursenamedEdiborahYapalsodied),andthebigfish—Sabaya—escaped to livea fewmoremonths.Frombeginning toend,

the thirteen-month mission was a complete failure, a waste of lives andtreasure.AsIsatinthedarkathomeafewdayslater,dispiritedandspent,Iknewthatsomethinghadtochange.Wecouldn’tletthishappenagain.

Ifthehostages’deathsweregoingtomeansomething,wewouldhavetofindanewway tonegotiate, communicate, listen, and speak,bothwithourenemiesandwithourfriends.Notforcommunication’ssake,though.

No.Wehadtodoittowin.

AVOIDASHOWDOWN

Notwowaysaboutit,myreturntotheUnitedStateswasatimeofreckoning.I questioned—I evendoubted—someofwhatwewere doing at theFBI. Ifwhatweknewwasn’tenough,wehadtogetbetter.

The real kick in the pants came aftermy return,when Iwas reviewinginformationaboutthecase,alotofwhichwehadn’thadinthefield.Amongthepilesofinformationwasonefactthattotallyblewmymind.

Martin Burnham had been overheard on a phone call to someone. Iwonderedwhat inGod’snameourhostagewasdoing talkingon thephonewithoutusknowing.Andwithwhomwashetalking?There’sonlyonereasonahostageevergetsonaphone.It’stoprovideproofoflife.SomeoneelsehadbeentryingtoransomtheBurnhamsout.

It turnedout tobe someoneworking for a crookedPhilippinepoliticianwho’d been running a parallel negotiation for the Burnhams’ release. Hewanted to buy the hostages out himself in order to show up PhilippinepresidentArroyo.

But it wasn’t so much that this guy was going behind our backs thatbotheredme.Asisprettyclearalready,therewereawholelotofunderhandedthingsgoingon.Whatreallyateatmewasthatthisschmuck,whowasn’tanFBI-trained hostage negotiator, had pulled off something that I hadn’t beenableto.

He’dgottentospeaktoMartinBurnhamonthephone.Forfree.That’swhenIrealizedthatthiscrookedpol’ssuccesswherewehadfailed

was a kind of metaphor for everything that was wrong with our one-dimensionalmindset.

BeyondourproblemswiththePhilippinemilitary,thebigreasonwehadnoeffectiveinfluencewiththekidnappersandhostageswasthatwehadthisvery tit-for-tatmentality.Under thatmentality, ifwecalledup thebadguyswewereaskingforsomething,andiftheygaveittouswehadtogivethemsomethingback.Andso,becausewewerepositive that theBurnhamswerealive,we’dneverbotheredtocallandaskforproofoflife.Wewereafraidto

gointodebt.Ifwemadean“ask”andtheygrantedit,we’dowe.Notmakinggoodona

debt risked the accusation of bad-faith negotiation and bad faith inkidnappingsgetspeoplekilled.

Andofcoursewedidn’taskthekidnapperstotalkdirectlytothehostagebecauseweknewthey’dsay“no”andwewereafraidofbeingembarrassed.

That fear was a major flaw in our negotiating mindset. There is someinformation thatyoucanonlyget throughdirect,extended interactionswithyourcounterpart.

We also needed new ways to get things without asking for them. Weneeded to finessemaking an “ask”with somethingmore sophisticated thanclosed-endedquestionswiththeiryes-nodynamic.

That’s when I realized that what we had been doing wasn’tcommunication;itwasverbalflexing.Wewantedthemtoseethingsourwayandtheywantedustoseeittheirway.Ifyouletthisdynamiclooseintherealworld, negotiation breaks down and tensions flare. That whole ethospermeatedeverythingtheFBIwasdoing.Everythingwasashowdown.Anditdidn’twork.

Ourapproachtoproof-of-lifequestionsembodiedalltheseproblems.Atthetime,weprovedthatourhostageswerealivebydevisingquestions

thataskedforapieceofinformationonlythehostagecouldknow.Computer-security-style questions, like, “What’s the name of Martin’s first dog?” or“What’sMartin’sdad’smiddlename?”

This particular type of question had many failings, however. For onething,ithadsortofbecomeasignatureoflawenforcementinthekidnappingworld.Whenafamilystartsaskingaquestionofthattype,it’sanearcertaintythatthecopsarecoachingthem.Andthatmakeskidnappersverynervous.

Even beyond the nerves, you had the problem that answering questionslikethoserequiredlittle,ifany,effort.Thebadguysgoandgetthefactandgiveittoyourightaway,becauseit’ssoeasy.Bang,bang,bang!Ithappenssofast thatyoudidn’tgainanytacticaladvantage,anyusableinformation,anyefforton theirpart towardagoal that servesyou.Andallnegotiation,donewell,shouldbean information-gatheringprocess thatvestsyourcounterpartinanoutcomethatservesyou.

Worstofall,thebadguysknowthattheyhavejustgivenyousomething—aproofoflife—whichtriggersthiswholehumanreciprocitygene.Whetherwe like to recognize it or not, a universal rule of human nature, across allcultures,isthatwhensomebodygivesyousomething,theyexpectsomethinginreturn.Andtheywon’tgiveanythingelseuntilyoupaythemback.

Now,we didn’twant to trigger thiswhole reciprocity thing becausewe

didn’t want to give anything. So what happened? All of our conversationsbecame these paralyzed confrontations between two parties whowanted toextract something from each other but didn’t want to give. We didn’tcommunicate,outofprideandfear.

That’s why we failed, while numbskulls like this crooked Philippinepolitician just stumbled in andgotwhatwe so desperately needed.That is,communicationwithoutreciprocity.Isatbackandwonderedtomyself,Howthehelldowedothat?

SUSPENDUNBELIEF

WhileIwasrackingmybrainsoverhowthissleazypoliticianmanagedtogetMartinBurnhamon the phonewhilewe never could, FBIPittsburgh had akidnappingcase.

MypartnerChuckbroughtmethetapesfromthecasebecausehethoughtitwasfunny.Yousee,onePittsburghdrugdealerhadkidnappedthegirlfriendof another Pittsburgh drug dealer, and forwhatever reason the victim drugdealercametotheFBIforhelp.ComingtotheFBIseemedkindofcontraryto his best interests, being a drug dealer and all, but he did it because nomatterwhoyouare,whenyouneedhelpyougototheFBI.Right?

On the tapes, our hostage negotiators are riding around with this drugdealerwhilehe’snegotiatingwiththeotherdrugdealer.Normallywewouldhavehadtheguyaskabulletproofproof-of-lifequestion,like,“Whatwasthenameofthegirlfriend’steddybearwhenshewaslittle?”Butinthissituation,thisdrugdealerhadn’tyetbeencoachedonaskinga“correct”question.Sointhemiddleoftheconversationwiththekidnapper,hejustblurts,“Hey,dog,howdoIknowshe’sallright?”

And the funniest thinghappened.Thekidnapperactuallywentsilent forten seconds.Hewas completely taken aback.Then he said, in amuch lessconfrontationaltoneofvoice,“Well,I’llputheronthephone.”Iwasflooredbecausethisunsophisticateddrugdealerjustpulledoffaphenomenalvictoryinthenegotiation.Togetthekidnappertovolunteertoputthevictimonthephoneismassivelyhuge.

That’swhen Ihadmy“Holy shit!”moment and realized that this is thetechniqueI’dbeenwaitingfor.Insteadofaskingsomeclosed-endedquestionwith a single correct answer, he’d asked an open-ended, yet calibrated onethatforcedtheotherguytopauseandactuallythinkabouthowtosolve theproblem. I thought to myself, This is perfect! It’s a natural and normalquestion,notarequest forafact. It’sa“how”question,and“how”engagesbecause“how”asksforhelp.

Best of all, he doesn’t owe the kidnapper a damn thing. The guyvolunteerstoputthegirlfriendonthephone:hethinksit’shisidea.Theguywho justoffered toput thegirlfriendon the line thinkshe’s incontrol.Andthesecret togainingtheupperhandinanegotiationisgivingtheothersidetheillusionofcontrol.

Thegeniusofthistechniqueisreallywellexplainedbysomethingthatthepsychologist Kevin Dutton says in his book Split-Second Persuasion.1 Hetalks aboutwhat he calls “unbelief,”which is active resistance towhat theother side is saying, complete rejection. That’s where the two parties in anegotiationusuallystart.

Ifyoudon’tevergetoffthatdynamic,youenduphavingshowdowns,aseachside tries to impose itspointofview.Youget twohardskullsbangingagainst eachother, like inDosPalmas.But if youcanget theother side todroptheirunbelief,youcanslowlyworkthemtoyourpointofviewon thebackoftheirenergy,justlikethedrugdealer’squestiongotthekidnappertovolunteer to do what the drug dealer wanted. You don’t directly persuadethem to seeyour ideas. Instead,you ride them toyour ideas.As the sayinggoes,thebestwaytorideahorseisinthedirectioninwhichitisgoing.

Our job as persuaders is easier than we think. It’s not to get othersbelievingwhatwe say. It’s just to stop themunbelieving.Oncewe achievethat, thegame’shalf-won. “Unbelief is the friction thatkeepspersuasion incheck,”Duttonsays.“Withoutit,there’dbenolimits.”

Giving your counterpart the illusion of control by asking calibratedquestions—by asking for help—is one of the most powerful tools forsuspendingunbelief.Not longago, I read thisgreat article in theNewYorkTimes2byamedicalstudentwhowasfacedwithapatientwhohadrippedouthisIV,packedhisbags,andwasmakingamovetoleavebecausehisbiopsyresultsweredayslateandhewastiredofwaiting.

Just then a senior physician arrived.After calmly offering the patient aglass of water and asking if they could chat for a minute, he said heunderstoodwhythepatientwaspissedoffandpromisedtocallthelabtoseewhytheresultsweredelayed.

Butwhathedidnext iswhat really suspended thepatient’sunbelief:heaskedacalibratedquestion—whathe feltwasso importantabout leaving—andthenwhenthepatientsaidhehaderrandstohandle,thedoctorofferedtoconnect the patient with services that could help him get them done. And,boom,thepatientvolunteeredtostay.

What’s so powerful about the senior doctor’s technique is that he tookwhatwasashowdown—“I’mgoingtoleave”versus“Youcan’tleave”—andaskedquestionsthatledthepatienttosolvehisownproblem...intheway

thedoctorwanted.It was still a kind of showdown, of course, but the doctor took the

confrontation and bravado out of it by giving the patient the illusion ofcontrol.AsanoldWashingtonPosteditornamedRobertEstabrookoncesaid,“Hewhohas learned todisagreewithoutbeingdisagreeablehasdiscoveredthemostvaluablesecretofnegotiation.”

Thissametechniqueforsuspendingunbeliefthatyouusewithkidnappersandescapingpatientsworksforanything,evennegotiatingprices.Whenyougo into a store, instead of telling the salesclerk what you “need,” you candescribewhatyou’relookingforandaskforsuggestions.

Then,onceyou’vepickedoutwhatyouwant,insteadofhittingthemwithahardoffer,youcan justsay theprice isabitmore thanyoubudgetedandask for helpwithoneof thegreatest-of-all-time calibratedquestions: “HowamIsupposedtodothat?”Thecriticalpartofthisapproachisthatyoureallyareaskingforhelpandyourdeliverymustconveythat.Withthisnegotiatingscheme, instead of bullying the clerk, you’re asking for their advice andgivingthemtheillusionofcontrol.

Asking for help in thismanner, after you’ve already been engaged in adialogue, is an incredibly powerful negotiating technique for transformingencounters from confrontational showdowns into joint problem-solvingsessions.Andcalibratedquestionsarethebesttool.

CALIBRATEYOURQUESTIONS

Afewyearsago,Iwasconsultingwithaclientwhohadasmallfirmthatdidpublicrelationsforalargecorporation.Thefolksatthebigcompanywerenotpayingtheirbills,andastimewenton,theyowedmyclientmoreandmoremoney. They kept her on the hook by promising lots of repeat business,implying that shewouldgetapileof revenue if she justkeptworking.Shefelttrapped.

Myadviceforherwassimple:Itoldhertoengagetheminaconversationwhereshesummarizedthesituationandthenasked,“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”

Sheshookherhead.Noway.Theideaofhavingtoaskthisquestionjustterrifiedher.“IftheytellmeIhaveto,thenI’mtrapped!”washerreaction.

Shealsoheardthequestionas“You’rescrewingmeoutofmoneyandithas to stop.” That sounded like the first step to her getting fired as aconsultant.

Iexplainedtoherthatthisimplication,thoughreal,wasinhermind.Herclientwouldhearthewordsandnottheimplicationaslongasshekeptcalm

andavoidedmakingitsoundbyherdeliverylikeanaccusationorthreat.Aslongasshestayedcool,theywouldhearitasaproblemtobesolved.

Shedidn’tquitebelieveme.Wewalkedthroughthescriptseveraltimes,but shewas still afraid. Then a few days later she calledme, totally giddywithhappiness.Theclienthadcalledwithanotherrequestandshehadfinallygotten up the courage to summarize the situation, and ask, “How am Isupposedtodothat?”

And you knowwhat?The answer she gotwas “You’re right, you can’tand I apologize.” Her client explained that they were going through someinternalproblems,butshewasgivenanewaccountingcontactandtoldshe’dbepaidwithinforty-eighthours.Andshewas.

Now, think about how my client’s question worked: without accusingthemofanything,itpushedthebigcompanytounderstandherproblemandoffer thesolutionshewanted.That inanutshell is thewholepointofopen-endedquestionsthatarecalibratedforaspecificeffect.

Likethesofteningwordsandphrases“perhaps,”“maybe,”“Ithink,”and“itseems,” thecalibratedopen-endedquestion takes theaggressionoutofaconfrontational statementor close-ended request thatmightotherwise angeryour counterpart. What makes them work is that they are subject tointerpretationbyyourcounterpartinsteadofbeingrigidlydefined.Theyallowyoutointroduceideasandrequestswithoutsoundingoverbearingorpushy.

Andthat’sthedifferencebetween“You’rescrewingmeoutofmoney,andithastostop”and“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”

Therealbeautyofcalibratedquestionsisthefactthattheyoffernotargetforattacklikestatementsdo.Calibratedquestionshavethepowertoeducateyourcounterpartonwhattheproblemisratherthancausingconflictbytellingthemwhattheproblemis.

Butcalibratedquestionsarenotjustrandomrequestsforcomment.Theyhaveadirection:onceyou figureoutwhereyouwantaconversation togo,you have to design the questions that will ease the conversation in thatdirectionwhilelettingtheotherguythinkit’shischoicetotakeyouthere.

That’swhyIrefertothesequestionsascalibratedquestions.Youhavetocalibrate them carefully, just like you would calibrate a gun sight or ameasuringscale,totargetaspecificproblem.

Thegoodnewsisthattherearerulesforthat.Firstoff,calibratedquestionsavoidverbsorwordslike“can,”“is,”“are,”

“do,”or“does.”Theseareclosed-endedquestionsthatcanbeansweredwithasimple“yes”ora“no.”Instead,theystartwithalistofwordspeopleknowasreporter’squestions:“who,”“what,”“when,”“where,”“why,”and“how.”Thosewordsinspireyourcounterparttothinkandthenspeakexpansively.

Butletmecutthelistevenfurther:it’sbesttostartwith“what,”“how,”andsometimes“why.”Nothingelse.“Who,”“when,”and“where”willoftenjust get your counterpart to share a fact without thinking. And “why” canbackfire.Regardlessofwhatlanguagetheword“why”istranslatedinto,it’saccusatory.Thereareveryraremomentswhenthisistoyouradvantage.

Theonlytimeyoucanuse“why”successfullyiswhenthedefensivenessthat is created supports thechangeyouare trying toget them to see. “Whywouldyoueverchangefromthewayyou’vealwaysdonethingsandtrymyapproach?”isanexample.“Whywouldyourcompanyeverchangefromyourlong-standingvendorandchooseourcompany?”isanother.Asalways,toneofvoice,respectfulanddeferential,iscritical.

Otherwise,treat“why”likeaburneronahotstove—don’ttouchit.Having just two words to start with might not seem like a lot of

ammunition,buttrustme,youcanuse“what”and“how”tocalibratenearlyanyquestion. “Does this look like somethingyouwould like?”canbecome“Howdoesthislooktoyou?”or“Whataboutthisworksforyou?”Youcanevenask,“Whataboutthisdoesn’tworkforyou?”andyou’llprobablytriggerquiteabitofusefulinformationfromyourcounterpart.

Even something as harsh as “Why did you do it?” can be calibrated to“What caused you to do it?”which takes away the emotion andmakes thequestionlessaccusatory.

Youshouldusecalibratedquestionsearlyandoften,andthereareafewthat you will find that you will use in the beginning of nearly everynegotiation. “What is the biggest challenge you face?” is one of thosequestions.Itjustgetstheothersidetoteachyousomethingaboutthemselves,whichiscriticaltoanynegotiationbecauseallnegotiationisaninformation-gatheringprocess.

HerearesomeothergreatstandbysthatIuseinalmosteverynegotiation,dependingonthesituation:

■ Whataboutthisisimportanttoyou?

■ HowcanIhelptomakethisbetterforus?

■ Howwouldyoulikemetoproceed?

■ Whatisitthatbroughtusintothissituation?

■ Howcanwesolvethisproblem?

■ What’stheobjective?/Whatarewetryingtoaccomplishhere?

■ HowamIsupposedtodothat?

Theimplicationofanywell-designedcalibratedquestionisthatyouwantwhat the other guy wants but you need his intelligence to overcome theproblem.Thisreallyappealstoveryaggressiveoregotisticalcounterparts.

You’venot only implicitly asked for help—triggeringgoodwill and lessdefensiveness—but you’ve engineered a situation in which your formerlyrecalcitrant counterpart is nowusing hismental and emotional resources toovercomeyourchallenges.Itisthefirststepinyourcounterpartinternalizingyour way—and the obstacles in it—as his own. And that guides the otherpartytowarddesigningasolution.

Yoursolution.Thinkbacktohowthedoctorusedcalibratedquestionstogethispatient

tostay.Ashisstoryshowed,thekeytogettingpeopletoseethingsyourwayisnottoconfrontthemontheirideas(“Youcan’tleave”)buttoacknowledgetheirideasopenly(“Iunderstandwhyyou’repissedoff”)andthenguidethemtowardsolvingtheproblem(“Whatdoyouhopetoaccomplishbyleaving?”).

LikeIsaidbefore,thesecrettogainingtheupperhandinanegotiationisgiving theotherside the illusionofcontrol.That’swhycalibratedquestionsareingenious:Calibratedquestionsmakeyourcounterpartfeellikethey’reincharge,butit’sreallyyouwhoareframingtheconversation.Yourcounterpartwillhavenoideahowconstrainedtheyarebyyourquestions.

Once I was negotiating with one of my FBI bosses about attending aHarvardexecutiveprogram.Hehadalreadyapprovedtheexpenditureforthetravel, buton thedaybefore Iwas supposed to leavehe calledme intohisofficeandbegantoquestionthevalidityofthetrip.

Iknewhimwellenoughtoknowthathewastryingtoshowmethathewas in charge. So after we talked for a while, I looked at him and asked,“Whenyouoriginallyapprovedthistrip,whatdidyouhaveinmind?”

Hevisiblyrelaxedashesatback inhischairandbrought the topofhisfingersandthumbstogetherintheshapeofasteeple.Generallythisisabodylanguagethatmeansthepersonfeelssuperiorandincharge.

“Listen,”hesaid,“justmakesureyoubriefeveryonewhenyougetback.”Thatquestion,calibratedtoacknowledgehispowerandnudgehimtoward

explaininghimself,gavehimtheillusionofcontrol.AnditgotmejustwhatIwanted.

HOWNOTTOGETPAID

Let’spauseforaminutehere,becausethere’sonevitallyimportantthingyou

have to remember when you enter a negotiation armed with your list ofcalibratedquestions.Thatis,allofthisisgreat,butthere’sarub:withoutself-controlandemotionalregulation,itdoesn’twork.

TheveryfirstthingItalkaboutwhenI’mtrainingnewnegotiatorsisthecritical importance of self-control. If you can’t control your own emotions,howcanyouexpecttoinfluencetheemotionsofanotherparty?

ToshowyouwhatImean,letmetellyouastory.Notlongago,afreelancemarketingstrategistcametomewithaproblem.

OneofherclientshadhiredanewCEO,apennypincherwhosestrategywastocutcostsbyoffshoringeverythinghecould.Hewasalsoamalechauvinistwhodidn’tliketheassertivestyleinwhichthestrategist,awoman,conductedherself.

Immediately my client and the CEO started to go at each other onconference calls in that passive-aggressive way that is ever present incorporateAmerica.After a fewweeks of this,my client decided she’d hadenough and invoiced the CEO for the last bit of work she’d done (about$7,000)andpolitelysaidthatthearrangementwasn’tworkingout.TheCEOansweredbysayingthebillwastoohigh,thathe’dpayhalfofitandthattheywouldtalkabouttherest.

Afterthat,hestoppedansweringhercalls.Theunderlyingdynamicwasthatthisguydidn’tlikebeingquestionedby

anyone,especiallyawoman.SosheandIdevelopedastrategythatshowedhim she understood where she went wrong and acknowledged his power,whileatthesametimedirectinghisenergytowardsolvingherproblem.

Thescriptwecameupwithhitallthebestpracticesofnegotiationwe’vetalkedaboutsofar.Hereitisbysteps:

1. A “No”-oriented email question to reinitiate contact: “Have yougivenuponsettlingthisamicably?”

2. Astatementthatleavesonlytheanswerof“That’sright”toformadynamic of agreement: “It seems that you feel my bill is notjustified.”

3. Calibrated questions about the problem to get him to reveal histhinking:“Howdoesthisbillviolateouragreement?”

4. More“No”-orientedquestionstoremoveunspokenbarriers:“Areyou saying I misled you?” “Are you saying I didn’t do as youasked?” “Areyou saying I renegedonour agreement?”or “AreyousayingIfailedyou?”

5. Labelingandmirroringtheessenceofhisanswersiftheyarenotacceptable so he has to consider themagain: “It seems like youfeelmyworkwassubpar.”Or“...myworkwassubpar?”

6. Acalibratedquestioninreplytoanyofferotherthanfullpayment,in order to get him to offer a solution: “How am I supposed toacceptthat?”

7. Ifnoneofthisgetsanofferoffullpayment,alabelthatflattershissense of control and power: “It seems like you are the type ofperson who prides himself on the way he does business—rightfullyso—andhasaknackfornotonlyexpandingthepiebutmakingtheshiprunmoreefficiently.”

8. Alongpauseandthenonemore“No”-orientedquestion:“Doyouwanttobeknownassomeonewhodoesn’tfulfillagreements?”

From my long experience in negotiation, scripts like this have a 90percent success rate.That is, if the negotiator stays calm and rational.Andthat’sabigif.

Inthiscase,shedidn’t.The first step—themagic email—worked better than she imagined, and

theCEO calledwithin tenminutes, surprising her.Almost immediately herangerflaredatthesoundofhispatronizingvoice.Heronlydesirebecametoshow him how he was wrong, to impose her will, and the conversationbecameashowdownthatwentnowhere.

Youprobablydon’tneedmetotellyouthatshedidn’tevengethalf.Withthatinmind,Iwanttoendthischapterwithsomeadviceonhowto

remain rational in a negotiation. Even with all the best techniques andstrategy,youneedtoregulateyouremotionsifyouwanttohaveanyhopeofcomingoutontop.

The first andmost basic rule of keeping your emotional cool is to biteyourtongue.Notliterally,ofcourse.Butyouhavetokeepawayfromknee-jerk,passionatereactions.Pause.Think.Letthepassiondissipate.Thatallowsyoutocollectyourthoughtsandbemorecircumspectinwhatyousay.Italsolowersyourchanceofsayingmorethanyouwantto.

TheJapanesehavethisfiguredout.Whennegotiatingwithaforeigner,it’scommonpracticeforaJapanesebusinessmantouseatranslatorevenwhenheunderstandsperfectlywhat theotherside issaying.That’sbecausespeakingthrougha translator forceshim to stepback. It giveshim time to framehisresponse.

Another simple rule is, when you are verbally assaulted, do notcounterattack. Instead, disarm your counterpart by asking a calibratedquestion.Thenexttimeawaiterorsalesclerktriestoengageyouinaverbalskirmish, try this out. I promise you it will change the entire tenor of theconversation.

Thebasicissuehereisthatwhenpeoplefeelthattheyarenotincontrol,theyadoptwhatpsychologistscallahostagementality.Thatis,inmomentsofconflict they react to their lack of power by either becoming extremelydefensiveorlashingout.

Neurologically,insituationslikethisthefight-or-flightmechanisminthereptilianbrainor the emotions in the limbic systemoverwhelm the rationalpart of our mind, the neocortex, leading us to overreact in an impulsive,instinctiveway.

In a negotiation, like in the one between my client and the CEO, thisalways produces a negative outcome. Sowe have to train our neocortex tooverridetheemotionsfromtheothertwobrains.

Thatmeansbitingyourtongueandlearninghowtomindfullychangeyourstate to something more positive. And it means lowering the hostagementality in your counterpart by asking a question or even offering anapology.(“You’reright.Thatwasabitharsh.”)

Ifyouwereable to takeanarmedkidnapperwho’dbeensurroundedbypoliceandhookhimuptoacardiacmonitor,you’dfindthateverycalibratedquestion and apologywould lower his heart rate just a little bit.And that’showyougettoadynamicwheresolutionscanbefound.

KEYLESSONS

Whohascontrolinaconversation,theguylisteningortheguytalking?Thelistener,ofcourse.That’sbecausethetalkerisrevealinginformationwhilethelistener,ifhe’s

trained well, is directing the conversation toward his own goals. He’sharnessingthetalker’senergyforhisownends.

When you try to work the skills from this chapter into your daily life,remember that these are listener’s tools. They are not about strong-armingyouropponentintosubmission.Rather,they’reaboutusingthecounterpart’spowertogettoyourobjective.They’relistener’sjudo.

Asyouputlistener’sjudointopractice,rememberthefollowingpowerfullessons:

■ Don’t try to force your opponent to admit that you are right.

Aggressiveconfrontationistheenemyofconstructivenegotiation.

■ Avoidquestionsthatcanbeansweredwith“Yes”ortinypiecesofinformation. These require little thought and inspire the humanneedforreciprocity;youwillbeexpectedtogivesomethingback.

■ Ask calibrated questions that start with the words “How” or“What.” By implicitly asking the other party for help, thesequestionswillgiveyourcounterpartanillusionofcontrolandwillinspirethemtospeakatlength,revealingimportantinformation.

■ Don’taskquestions that startwith“Why”unlessyouwantyourcounterparttodefendagoalthatservesyou.“Why”isalwaysanaccusation,inanylanguage.

■ Calibrateyourquestionstopointyourcounterparttowardsolvingyourproblem.Thiswillencouragethemtoexpendtheirenergyondevisingasolution.

■ Bite your tongue.When you’re attacked in a negotiation, pauseandavoidangryemotionalreactions.Instead,askyourcounterpartacalibratedquestion.

■ There is always a team on the other side. If you are notinfluencingthosebehindthetable,youarevulnerable.

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER8

GUARANTEEEXECUTION

DuringadangerousandchaoticprisonsiegeinSt.MartinParish,Louisiana,a few years ago, a group of inmates armedwithmakeshift knives took thewarden and some of his staff hostage. The situation was especially nervybecausetheprisonerswerebothtenseanddisorganized,aworrisomemixthatmeantanythingcouldhappen.

Thenegotiatorssensedthat,beneaththebluster,theprisonersdidn’treallywanttohurtthestaff.Theyknewthattheyfeltbackedintoacornerand,morethananything,theywantedthesituationtoend.

But there was a stumbling block: the inmates were afraid that theprisoners who gave up after taking correctional officers hostage, not tomentionthewarden,wouldendupbeaten,andbadly.

So the negotiators delivered a pair ofwalkie-talkies to the inmates anddesigned this elaborate surrender ritual to get the hostage-takers to end thesiege.Theideawaselegantlysimple:

The inmateswould sendoutoneof their guyswith awalkie-talkie, andhe’d walk past the three perimeters of combined multiagency lawenforcementthatwerestationedoutsidetheprison.Oncehe’dwalkedpastthefinal perimeter, he’d get into the paddy wagon and be transferred to jail.There,he’dusethewalkie-talkietocalltheguysbackintheprisonandsay,essentially,“Theydidn’tkickmyass.”Andthey’dknowitwasokaytocomeoutjustlikehedid,oneatatime.

Aftersomehaggling,theinmatesagreedwiththeplanandthefirstinmatecomesout.Itstartsoffgreat.Hewalkspastthefederalzone,thentheSWATzone, and thenhemakes it to theouterperimeter.But just ashe’s about toclimbintothepaddywagon,someguyseesthewalkie-talkieandsays,“Whatthehellareyoudoingwith that?”andconfiscates itbeforesending theguyofftothejail.

The inmates back in the prison start to freak out because their buddyhasn’t called.Theonewith theotherwalkie-talkie calls thenegotiators andstartsyelling,“Whydidn’thecall?They’rekickinghisass.Wetoldyou!”Hestarts talking about cutting off a hostage’s finger, just to make sure the

negotiatorsknowtheinmatesareforreal.Nowit’sthenegotiatorswhoarefreakingout.Theysprinttotheperimeter

and start screaming at everyone. It’s life and death at stake. Or at least anamputatedfinger.

Finally,fifteennail-bitingminuteslater,thisSWATguycomesstridingup,allproudofhimself.“Someidiotgavethisdudearadio,”hesays,andsortofsmiles as he hands the negotiators thewalkie-talkie.The negotiators barelystopthemselvesfromsluggingtheguybeforetheytearofftothejailtohavethefirstinmatecallin.

Crisisaverted,butbarely.The point here is that your job as a negotiator isn’t just to get to an

agreement.It’sgettingtoonethatcanbeimplementedandmakingsurethathappens.Negotiatorshavetobedecisionarchitects:theyhavetodynamicallyandadaptivelydesigntheverbalandnonverbalelementsofthenegotiationtogainbothconsentandexecution.

“Yes”isnothingwithout“How.”Whileanagreementisnice,acontractisbetter, and a signed check is best. You don’t get your profits with theagreement.Theycomeuponimplementation.Successisn’tthehostage-takersaying, “Yes, we have a deal”; success comes afterward, when the freedhostagesaystoyourface,“Thankyou.”

In thischapter, I’llshowhowtodrive towardandachieveconsent,bothwiththoseatthenegotiatingtableandwiththeinvisibleforces“underneath”it; distinguish true buy-in from fake acquiescence; and guarantee executionusingtheRuleofThree.

“YES”ISNOTHINGWITHOUT“HOW”

AboutayearaftertheDosPalmascrisis,IwasteachingattheFBIAcademyinQuanticowhentheBureaugotanurgentcallfromtheStateDepartment:anAmericanhadbeenkidnappedintheEcuadoranjunglebyaColombia-basedrebelgroup.As theFBI’s lead internationalhostagenegotiator, thiswasmybaby,soIputateamtogetherandsetupoperationheadquartersinQuantico.

For a fewyears, José andhiswife, Julie, hadbeenguiding tour groupsthrough the jungle near the Colombian border. Born in Ecuador, José hadbecomeanAmericancitizenandwasworkingasaparamedic inNewYorkCitywhenheandJuliedecidedtosetupanecotourismbusinessinhisnativecountry.JosélovedtheEcuadoranjungle,andhe’dlongdreamedofteachingvisitorsaboutthemonkeysthatswungthroughthetreesandtheflowersthatperfumedthetrails.

Thebusinessgrewasecotourists fell for thepair’sobviouspassion,and

on August 20, 2003, José and Julie took eleven people on a white-waterraftingtripdowntheMiraRiver.Afteragreatdayonthewater,everyonewassmilingandsoakedastheypiledintoJeepsandpickupsfortheridetoaninninanearbyvillage.Josétoldtalltalesashedrovetheleadtruck,Julietohisrightwiththeireleven-month-oldbabyinherlap.

Theywerefiveminutesfromtheinnwhenthreemenjumpedintotheroadand aimed guns at the truck.A fourthman emerged and held a revolver toJulie’s head as the thugs pulled José from the car and forced him into thetruck bed. The kidnappers then ordered the caravan through several smalltownstoaforkintheroad,wheretheygotoutandwalkedJosépastJulie’sseatinthecab.

“Justremember,”Juliesaid,“nomatterwhathappens,Iloveyou.”“Don’tworry.I’llbefine,”Joséanswered.Andthenheandhiscaptorsdisappearedintothejungle.

Thecaptorswanted$5million.Wewantedtobuytime.Ever since the Dos Palmas debacle and the Pittsburgh epiphany, I had

beenraringtoemploythelessonswe’dlearnedaboutcalibratedquestions.SowhenJoséwaskidnapped,IsentmyguysdowntoEcuadorandtoldthemthatwehadanewstrategy.Thekidnappingwouldprovideanopportunitytoprovethisapproach.

“Allwe’regoingtosayis,‘Hey,howdoweknowJoséisokay?Howarewe supposed to pay untilwe know José is okay?’Again and again,” I toldthem.

Although they were queasy about untested techniques, my guys weregame.Thelocalcopswerelivid,though,becausetheyalwaysdidproofoflifethe old-fashioned way (which the FBI had taught them in the first place).Luckily Juliewaswith us 100 percent because she saw how the calibratedquestionswouldstallfortime,andshewasconvincedthatwithenoughtimeherhusbandwouldfindawaytogethome.

Thedayafterthekidnapping,therebelsmarchedJoséintothemountainsalong theColombianborderandsettled inacabinhigh in the jungle.ThereJosébuilta rapportwith thekidnappers tomakehimselfharder for themtokill.He impressed themwithhisknowledgeof the jungleand,withablackbeltinkarate,hefilledthetimebyteachingthemmartialarts.

MynegotiatorscoachedJulieeverydayaswewaitedforcontactfromtherebels.WelearnedlaterthatthedesignatednegotiatorfromJosé’scaptorshadtowalktotowntonegotiatebyphone.

MyguystoldJulietoanswereveryoneofthekidnappers’demandswithaquestion.Mystrategywastokeepthekidnappersengagedbutoffbalance.

“HowdoIknowJoséisalive?”sheaskedthefirsttimetheytalked.To their demand for $5 million, she said, “We don’t have that kind of

money.Howcanweraisethatmuch?”“HowcanwepayyouanythinguntilweknowJoséisokay?”Julieasked

thenexttimetheytalked.Questions,alwaysquestions.

Thekidnapperwhowas negotiatingwith Julie seemed extremelyperplexedbyherpersistentquestions,andhekeptaskingfortimetothink.Thatslowedeverything down, but he never got angry with Julie. Answering questionsgavehimtheillusionthathehadcontrolofthenegotiation.

Byconstantlyaskingquestionsandmakingminusculeoffers,Juliedrovetheransomdownto$16,500.Whentheycametothatnumber,thekidnappersdemandedshegetittothemimmediately.

“HowcanIdothatwhenIhavetosellmycarsandtrucks?”sheasked.Alwaysbuyingmoretime.Wewerestartingtogrinbecausesuccesswaswithinreach;wewerereally

closetoaransomthatthefamilycouldafford.And then I got a phone call in themiddle of the night fromoneofmy

deployedguysinEcuador,KevinRust.Kevinisaterrificnegotiatorandthesameguywho’dcalledtotellmeayearearlierthatMartinBurnhamhadbeenkilled.MystomachtiedintoaknotwhenIheardhisvoice.

“WejustgotacallfromJosé,”Kevinsaid.“He’sstillinguerrillaterritorybutheescapedandhe’sonabusandhe’smakinghiswayout.”

It tookmehalfaminute to respond,andwhenIdidall Icouldsaywas“Holyshit!That’sfantasticnews!”

What had happened, we learned later, was that with all the delays andquestions, some of the guerrillas peeled off and didn’t return. Pretty soontherewasonlyone teenagerguardingJoséatnight.Hesawanopening lateoneeveningwhenitbegantochuckdownrain.Poundingonthemetalroof,theraindrownedoutallothersoundastheloneguardslept.Knowingthewetleavesoutsidewouldabsorbthesoundofhisfootsteps,Joséclimbedthroughthewindow, randown junglepaths toadirt road, andworkedhisway toasmalltown.

Two days later he was back with Julie and their baby, just a few daysbeforehisdaughter’sfirstbirthday.

Juliewasright:withenoughtimehehadfoundawayhome.

Calibrated “How” questions are a surefire way to keep negotiations going.Theyput thepressureonyourcounterpart tocomeupwithanswers,and to

contemplateyourproblemswhenmakingtheirdemands.With enough of the right “How” questions you can read and shape the

negotiating environment in such a way that you’ll eventually get to theansweryouwanttohear.Youjusthavetohaveanideaofwhereyouwanttheconversationtogowhenyou’redevisingyourquestions.

The trick to“How”questions is that,correctlyused, theyaregentleandgraceful ways to say “No” and guide your counterpart to develop a bettersolution—your solution. A gentle How/No invites collaboration and leavesyourcounterpartwithafeelingofhavingbeentreatedwithrespect.

LookbackatwhatJuliedidwhentheColombianrebelkidnappersmadetheirfirstdemands.

“Howcanweraisethatmuch?”sheasked.Notice that she did not use the word “No.” But she still managed to

elegantlydenythekidnappers’$5milliondemand.AsJuliedid,thefirstandmostcommon“No”questionyou’lluseissome

versionof“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”(forexample,“Howcanweraisethatmuch?”).Yourtoneofvoiceiscriticalasthisphrasecanbedeliveredaseitheranaccusationorarequestforassistance.Sopayattentiontoyourvoice.

This question tends to have the positive effect ofmaking the other sidetakeagoodlookatyoursituation.ThispositivedynamiciswhatIrefertoas“forced empathy,” and it’s especially effective if leading up to it you’vealready been empathicwith your counterpart. This engages the dynamic ofreciprocity to lead them to do something for you. Starting with José’skidnapping,“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”becameourprimaryresponsetoakidnapperdemandingaransom.Andweneverhaditbackfire.

OnceIwasworkingwithanaccountingconsultantnamedKellywhowasowedapileofmoneybyacorporateclient.Shekeptconsultingbecauseshebelievedshewasdevelopingausefulcontact,andbecause thepromiseofafuturepaydayseemedtojustifycontinuingingoodfaith.

Butat acertainpointKellywas so farbehindonherownbills that shewasinabind.Shecouldn’tcontinuetoworkwithonlyavagueideaofwhenshe’dgetpaid,butsheworriedthat ifshepushedtoohardshewouldn’tgetpaidatall.

Itoldhertowaituntiltheclientaskedformorework,becauseifshemadeafirmpaymentdemandrightawayshewouldbevulnerableiftheyrefused.

LuckilyforKelly, theclientsooncalledtoaskherformorework.Oncehefinishedhisrequest,shecalmlyaskeda“How”question:

“I’dlovetohelp,”shesaid,“buthowamIsupposedtodothat?”Byindicatingherwillingnesstoworkbutaskingforhelpfindingawayto

do so, she left her deadbeat customer with no choice but to put her needs

aheadofeverythingelse.Andshegotpaid.

Besides saying “No,” the other key benefit of asking “How?” is, quiteliterally, that it forces your counterpart to consider and explain how a dealwill be implemented.A deal is nothingwithout good implementation. Poorimplementationisthecancerthateatsyourprofits.

By making your counterparts articulate implementation in their ownwords,yourcarefullycalibrated“How”questionswillconvincethemthatthefinalsolutionistheiridea.Andthat’scrucial.Peoplealwaysmakemoreeffortto implement a solution when they think it’s theirs. That is simply humannature.That’swhynegotiationisoftencalled“theartoflettingsomeoneelsehaveyourway.”

There are two key questions you can ask to push your counterparts tothink they are defining success their way: “How will we know we’re ontrack?”and“Howwillweaddressthingsifwefindwe’reofftrack?”Whentheyanswer,yousummarizetheiranswersuntilyougeta“That’sright.”Thenyou’llknowthey’veboughtin.

Ontheflipside,bewaryoftwotellingsignsthatyourcounterpartdoesn’tbelieve the idea is theirs.As I’ve noted,when they say, “You’re right,” it’soften a good indicator they are not vested inwhat is being discussed.Andwhenyoupushforimplementationandtheysay,“I’ll try,”youshouldgetasinkingfeelinginyourstomach.Becausethisreallymeans,“Iplantofail.”

When you hear either of these, dive back in with calibrated “How”questions until they define the terms of successful implementation in theirownvoice.Followupbysummarizingwhat theyhavesaid togeta“That’sright.”

Lettheothersidefeelvictory.Letthemthinkitwastheiridea.Subsumeyour ego. Remember: “Yes” is nothing without “How.” So keep asking“How?”Andsucceed.

INFLUENCINGTHOSEBEHINDTHETABLE

AfewweeksafterJoségotbacktotheUnitedStates,Idrovetohisfamily’splaceinupstateNewYork.

Iwas thrilledwhenJoséescaped,but thecase leftmewithonenaggingworry:Hadmynewstrategyfailed?Yousee,Joséhadgottenhomesafely,butnotbecausewe’dnegotiatedhisrelease.Iworriedthatourwinninghadlesstodowithourbrilliantstrategythanwithdumbluck.

AfterbeinggreetedwarmlybyJulieandherparents,JoséandIgrabbed

somecoffee and sat down. I’dgone there todowhatCNU referred to as ahostage survival debriefing. I was after insights into how to better advisepeoplefacingpotentialkidnappingshowbest tosurvive,not justphysically,butpsychologically.Iwasalsoburningtofindoutwhathadoccurredbehindthescenesbecauseitseemedasifmynewstrategyhadn’tworked.

Finallytheconversationcamearoundtoouruseofcalibratedquestions.“Youknowwhat?”hesaid.“Thecraziest thingwas that theirnegotiator

was supposed to stay in townandnegotiate thedeal but because Julie keptaskinghimquestionshedidn’t reallyknowforsurehowtoanswer,hekeptcoming out to the jungle. They all would get together and have a hugediscussion about how to respond. They even thought about takingme intotownandputtingmeonthephonebecauseJuliewassopersistentwithaskinghowdidsheknowifIwasokay.”

RightthenIknewwehadtherighttool.ItwasexactlytheoppositeoftheBurnham case,where our negotiator cut the dealwith one of the guys andthentherestofthemtookthe$300,000andsaid,“No,we’renotdoingthat.”Causing the other side to work that hard and forcing that much internalcoordinationinserviceofourowngoalswasunprecedented.

OurnegotiatingstrategyinEcuadorworkednotjustbecausethequestionscontributed to the environment that let José escape, but because theymadesurethekidnappers—ourcounterparts—wereallonthesamepage.

Yes,fewhostage-takers—andfewbusinessdealmakers—flysolo.Butforthemostpart, thereare almost alwaysotherplayers,peoplewhocanact asdealmakersordealkillers.Ifyoutrulywanttogetto“Yes”andgetyourdealimplemented,youhavetodiscoverhowtoaffecttheseindividuals.

When implementation happens by committee, the support of thatcommitteeiskey.Youalwayshavetoidentifyandunearththeirmotivations,evenifyouhaven’tyetidentifiedeachindividualonthatcommittee.Thatcanbeeasyasaskinga fewcalibratedquestions, like“Howdoes thisaffect therest of your team?” or “How on board are the people not on this call?” orsimply“Whatdoyourcolleaguesseeastheirmainchallengesinthisarea?”

ThelargerconceptI’mexplaininghereisthatinanynegotiationyouhavetoanalyzetheentirenegotiationspace.

Whenotherpeoplewillbeaffectedbywhat isnegotiatedandcanasserttheirrightsorpowerlateron,it’sjuststupidtoconsideronlytheinterestsofthose at the negotiation table.Youhave to beware of “behind the table” or“LevelII”players—thatis,partiesthatarenotdirectlyinvolvedbutwhocanhelp implement agreements they like and block ones they don’t. You can’tdisregard themevenwhenyou’re talking to aCEO.There could alwaysbesomeonewhisperingintohisear.Attheendoftheday,thedealkillersoften

aremoreimportantthanthedealmakers.Thinkbacktotheprisonsiege:itwasalmostruinedbecauseonebitplayer

on our side was not totally on board. That’s what our use of calibratedquestionsinEcuadoravoided,andthat’swhyJosé’scasewasahomerun.

Itonlytakesonebitplayertoscrewupadeal.

AfewyearsintoprivatepracticeI’dlostsightoftheimportanceofassessingandinfluencingthehiddennegotiationthathappens“behindthetable,”andIpaidasubstantialprice.

We were closing a deal with a big company in Florida that wantednegotiationtrainingforoneofitsdivisions.We’dbeenonthephoneabunchoftimeswiththeCEOandtheheadofHR,andtheywereboth100percentgunghoonouroffering.Wewereelated—wehadwhatwethoughtwastotalbuy-infromthetopdecisionmakersforanincrediblylucrativedeal.

And then, aswewere figuring out the small print, the deal fell off thetable.

Itturnsoutthattheheadofthedivisionthatneededthetrainingkilledthedeal. Maybe this guy felt threatened, slighted, or otherwise somehowpersonallyinjuredbythenotionthatheandhispeople“needed”anytrainingat all. (A surprisingly high percentage of negotiations hinge on somethingoutside dollars and cents, often havingmore to dowith self-esteem, status,andothernonfinancialneeds.)We’llneverknownow.

Thepointis,wedidn’tcareuntiltoolatebecauseweconvincedourselvesthatwewereonthephonewiththeonlydecisionmakersthatmattered.

Wecouldhaveavoidedallthathadweaskedafewcalibratedquestions,like:Howdoesthisaffecteverybodyelse?Howonboardistherestofyourteam?Howdowemake sure thatwedeliver the rightmaterial to the rightpeople?Howdoweensurethemanagersofthosewe’retrainingarefullyonboard?

Ifwehad askedquestions like that, theCEOandHRheadwouldhavecheckedwith thisguy,maybeevenbroughthim into the conversation.Andsavedusallalotofpain.

SPOTTINGLIARS,DEALINGWITHJERKS,ANDCHARMINGEVERYONEELSE

Asanegotiator,you’regoingtorunintoguyswholietoyourfaceandtrytoscareyou intoagreement.Aggressive jerksandserial fabricatorscomewiththeterritory,anddealingwiththemissomethingyouhavetodo.

Butlearninghowtohandleaggressionandidentifyfalsehoodisjustpart

ofa larger issue: that is, learninghowtospotand interpret thesubtletiesofcommunication—bothverbalandnonverbal—thatrevealthementalstatesofyourcounterparts.

Truly effective negotiators are conscious of the verbal, paraverbal (howit’ssaid),andnonverbalcommunicationsthatpervadenegotiationsandgroupdynamics. And they know how to employ those subtleties to their benefit.Evenchangingasinglewordwhenyoupresentoptions—likeusing“notlose”instead of “keep”—canunconsciously influence the conscious choices yourcounterpartmakes.

HereIwanttotalkaboutthetoolsyouneedtoIDliars,disarmjerks,andcharmeverybodyelse.Ofcourse, theopen-ended“How”question isoneofthem—maybethemostimportantone—buttherearemanymore.

Alastair Onglingswan was living in the Philippines when, one evening in2004, he hailed a taxi and settled in for a long ride home from Manila’sGreenhillsshoppingcenter.

Hedozedoff.Andhewokeupinchains.Unfortunately for Alastair, the cabbie had a second business as a

kidnapper.Hekeptabottleofether inhis front seat,andwhena target fellasleephewoulddrughim,imprisonhim,andaskforransom.

Withinhours,thekidnapperusedAlastair’sphonetocontacthisgirlfriendinNewYork.Hedemandedadailypaymentto“takecare”ofAlastairwhileheresearchedthefamily’swealth.

“It’sokayifyoudon’tpay,”hesaid.“IcanalwayssellhisorgansinSaudiArabia.”

Withintwenty-fourhours,I’dbeenchargedwithheadingthenegotiationfromQuantico.Alastair’sgirlfriendwastoonervoustohandlethefamilysideofthenegotiation,andhismother,wholivedinthePhilippines,justwantedtoacceptanydemandthekidnappermade.

ButAlastair’sbrotherAaron,inManila,wasdifferent:hejustgottheideaofnegotiationandheacceptedthatAlastairmightdie,whichwouldmakehimabetterandmoreeffectivenegotiator.AaronandIsetupanalways-onphonelineandIbecameAaron’sguruontheothersideoftheworld.

Through the kidnapper’s comments and demands, I saw that he wasexperiencedandpatient.Asatokenofhisintentions,heofferedtocutoffoneofAlastair’searsandsendittothefamilyalongwithavideoofhimseveringtheear.

Thedemandforthedailypaymentwasclearlyatricktoquicklydrainthefamily of asmuchmoney as possiblewhile at the same timegauging their

wealth.Wehad to figureoutwho thisguywas—Washea loneoperatororpartofagroup?DidheplanonkillingAlastairornot?—andwehad todothat before the familywent broke. To get there, wewere going to have toengage thekidnapper inaprotractednegotiation.Weweregoing tohave tosloweverythingdown.

FromQuantico,IloadedAaronupwithcalibratedquestions.Iinstructedhimtokeeppepperingtheviolentjerkwith“How?”HowamIsupposedto...?Howdoweknow...?Howcanwe...?Thereisgreatpowerintreatingjerkswithdeference.Itgivesyoutheabilitytobeextremelyassertive—tosay“No”—inahiddenfashion.

“Howdoweknow ifwepayyou that youwon’t hurtAlastair?”Aaronasked.

In theChinesemartial art of tai chi, the goal is to use your opponent’saggressivenessagainsthim—toturnhisoffenseintoyourwaytodefeathim.That’stheapproachwetookwithAlastair’skidnapper:wewantedtoabsorbhisthreatsandwearhimdown.Wemadesurethatevenschedulingacallwithuswascomplex.Wedelayedmakingemailresponses.

Through all these tactics, we gained the upper hand while giving thekidnapper the illusion of control. He thought he was solving Aaron’sproblemswhilewewerejustreadinghimandwastinghistime.Yousee,it’sbest not to go chin to chin with aggressiveness like that of Alastair’skidnapper; rather, default to using “what” and “how” questions to avoidmakingbidsoradjustingyourownnegotiatingposition.Dodgeandweave.

Finally, following days of back-and-forth bargaining on the daily rate,Aaron got the kidnapper down to a token amount and agreed to deposit aportionofthefundsinhisbankaccount.Afterthatpartialpaymentwasmade,Aaron came up with the perfect way to nonconfrontationally confront thecabbiewithacalibrated“When/What”question.

“Whenwerunoutofmoney,whatwillhappen?”Aaronasked.Thekidnapperpaused.“Itwillbeallright,”hefinallyresponded.Yes!Withoutrealizingwhathehadjustagreedto,ourkillerhadjustpromised

us he wouldn’t hurt Alastair. A repetitive series of “What” and “How”questions can help you overcome the aggressive tactics of a manipulativeadversary.

Asyoucanseeinthatlastexchange,thekidnapper’sprotractedchatswithAaron had turnedAaron almost into a friend.Over time the kidnapper hadbecome unguarded about spending time on the phone with his “friend.”Finally, the Philippine National Police investigators tracked the phone to a

house and raided it. The kidnapper and Alastair were not there, but thekidnapper’swifewas.She told the police about another house theyowned.The police quickly raided the other house, freed Alastair, and arrested thekidnapper.

Thereareplentyofother tactics, tools, andmethods forusing subtleverbalandnonverbalformsofcommunicationtounderstandandmodifythementalstatesofyourcounterpart.AsIrunthroughsomeofthemhere,Iwantyoutotakeamoment to internalizeeachone.These are thekindof tools that canhelpobservantnegotiatorshithomeruns.

THE7-38-55PERCENTRULE

In two famous studiesonwhatmakesus likeor dislike somebody,1 UCLApsychologyprofessorAlbertMehrabiancreatedthe7-38-55rule.Thatis,only7percentofamessageisbasedonthewordswhile38percentcomesfromthetoneofvoiceand55percentfromthespeaker’sbodylanguageandface.

While these figuresmainly relate to situationswhereweare forminganattitude about somebody, the rule nonetheless offers a useful ratio fornegotiators.Yousee,bodylanguageandtoneofvoice—notwords—areourmost powerful assessment tools.That’swhy I’ll often flygreat distances tomeet someone face-to-face, evenwhen I can saymuchofwhatneeds tobesaidoverthephone.

Sohowdoyouuse this rule?First,payverycloseattention to toneandbody language tomake sure theymatch upwith the literalmeaning of thewords. If they don’t align, it’s quite possible that the speaker is lying or atleastunconvinced.

Whensomeone’stoneofvoiceorbodylanguagedoesnotalignwiththemeaning of the words they say, use labels to discover the source of theincongruence.

Here’sanexample:You:“Sowe’reagreed?”Them:“Yes...”You: “I heard you say, ‘Yes,’ but it seemed like therewas hesitation in

yourvoice.”Them:“Oh,it’snothingreally.”You:“No,thisisimportant,let’smakesurewegetthisright.”Them:“Thanks,Iappreciateit.”This is theway tomakesureyouragreementgets implementedwithno

surprises.Andyourcounterpartwillbegrateful.Youractofrecognizingthe

incongruenceandgentlydealingwithit throughalabelwillmakethemfeelrespected.Consequently,yourrelationshipoftrustwillbeimproved.

THERULEOFTHREE

I’mpositivethatsometimeinyourlifeyou’vebeeninvolvedinanegotiationwhere yougot a “Yes” that later turnedout to be a “No.”Maybe the otherpartywaslyingtoyou,ormaybetheywerejustengagedinwishfulthinking.Eitherway,thisisnotanuncommonexperience.

This happens because there are actually three kinds of “Yes”:Commitment,Confirmation,andCounterfeit.

Aswediscussed inChapter5, somanypushysalesman try to trap theirclients into the Commitment “Yes” that many people get very good at theCounterfeit“Yes.“

OnegreattoolforavoidingthistrapistheRuleofThree.TheRule ofThree is simply getting the other guy to agree to the same

thing three times in the same conversation. It’s tripling the strength ofwhatever dynamic you’re trying to drill into at themoment. In doing so, ituncovers problems before they happen. It’s really hard to repeatedly lie orfakeconviction.

WhenIfirstlearnedthisskill,mybiggestfearwashowtoavoidsoundinglikeabrokenrecordorcomingoffasreallypushy.

Theanswer,Ilearned,istovaryyourtactics.Thefirst timetheyagreetosomethingorgiveyouacommitment, that’s

No.1.ForNo.2youmightlabelorsummarizewhattheysaidsotheyanswer,“That’s right.”AndNo.3 couldbe a calibrated “How”or “What”questionaboutimplementationthatasksthemtoexplainwhatwillconstitutesuccess,somethinglike“Whatdowedoifwegetofftrack?”

Or the three times might just be the same calibrated question phrasedthreedifferentways,like“What’sthebiggestchallengeyoufaced?Whatareweupagainsthere?Whatdoyouseeasbeingthemostdifficultthingtogetaround?”

Eitherway, going at the same issue three times uncovers falsehoods aswellastheincongruencesbetweenwordsandbodylanguagewementionedinthelastsection.Sonexttimeyou’renotsureyourcounterpartistruthfulandcommitted,tryit.

THEPINOCCHIOEFFECT

WithCarloCollodi’sfamouscharacterPinocchio,itwaseasytotellwhenhe

waslying:youjusthadtowatchthenose.ItturnsoutthatCollodiwasn’tfaroffreality.Mostpeopleofferobvious

telltalesignswhenthey’relying.Notagrowingnose,butcloseenough.In a study of the components of lying,2 Harvard Business School

professorDeepakMalhotraandhiscoauthorsfoundthat,onaverage,liarsusemorewords than truth tellersanduse farmore third-personpronouns.Theystart talkingabouthim,her, it,one, they,and their rather than I, inorder toputsomedistancebetweenthemselvesandthelie.

Andtheydiscoveredthatliarstendtospeakinmorecomplexsentencesinan attempt towinover their suspicious counterparts. It’swhatW.C.Fieldsmeantwhenhetalkedaboutbafflingsomeonewithbullshit.Theresearchersdubbed this the Pinocchio Effect because, just like Pinocchio’s nose, thenumber of words grew along with the lie. People who are lying are,understandably,moreworriedaboutbeingbelieved,sotheyworkharder—toohard,asitwere—atbeingbelievable.

PAYATTENTIONTOTHEIRUSAGEOFPRONOUNS

Theuseofpronounsbyacounterpartcanalsohelpgiveyouafeelfortheiractualimportanceinthedecisionandimplementationchainsontheothersideof the table. Themore in love they arewith “I,” “me,” and “my” the lessimportanttheyare.

Conversely, the harder it is to get a first person pronoun out of anegotiator’s mouth, the more important they are. Just like in theMalhotrastudywheretheliarisdistancinghimselffromthelie,inanegotiation,smartdecisionmakersdon’twanttobecorneredatthetableintomakingadecision.Theywilldefertothepeopleawayfromthetabletokeepfromgettingpinneddown.

OurcabdriverkidnapperinthePhilippinesofAlastairOnglingswanused“we,” “they,” and “them” so rigorously early on in the kidnapping I wasconvincedwewereengagedwiththeirleader.Ijustneverknewhowliterallytrue it was until the rescue. In the Chase Manhattan Bank robbery fromChapter2,thebankrobberChrisWattsconsistentlytalkedouthowdangerousthe“others”wereandhowlittleinfluencehehadonthem,allalie.

THECHRISDISCOUNT

People always talk about remembering and using (but not overusing) yourcounterpart’snameinanegotiation.Andthat’simportant.Therealitythoughispeopleareoftentiredofbeinghammeredwith theirownname.Theslick

salesmantryingtodrivethemto“Yes”willhitthemwithitoverandover.Instead,takeadifferenttackanduseyourownname.That’showIgetthe

Chrisdiscount.JustasusingAlastair’snamewiththekidnapperandgettinghimtouseit

back humanized the hostage and made it less likely he would be harmed,usingyourownnamecreatesthedynamicof“forcedempathy.”Itmakestheothersideseeyouasaperson.

A few years ago I was in a bar inKansaswith a bunch of fellow FBInegotiators.Thebarwaspacked,butIsawoneemptychair.ImovedtowarditbutjustasIgotreadytosittheguynexttoitsaid,“Don’teventhinkaboutit.”

“Why?”Iasked,andhesaid,“BecauseI’llkickyourass.”Hewas big, burly, and already drunk, but look, I’m a lifelong hostage

negotiator—I gravitate toward tense situations that need mediation like amothtotheflame.

Iheldoutmyhandtoshakehisandsaid,“MynameisChris.”Thedude froze, and in thepausemy fellowFBIguysmoved in, patted

himon the shoulders, andoffered tobuyhimadrink.TurnedouthewasaVietnamveteranataparticularlylowpoint.Hewasinapackedbarwheretheentireworldseemedtobecelebrating.Theonlythinghecouldthinkofwastofight.ButassoonasIbecame“Chris,”everythingchanged.

Nowtakethatmindsettoafinancialnegotiation.IwasinanoutletmallafewmonthsaftertheKansasexperienceandIpickedoutsomeshirtsinoneofthestores.At thefrontcounter theyoung ladyaskedme if Iwanted to jointheirfrequentbuyerprogram.

IaskedherifIgotadiscountforjoiningandshesaid,“No.”SoIdecidedtotryanotherangle.Isaidinafriendlymanner,“Mynameis

Chris.What’stheChrisdiscount?”Shelookedfromtheregister,metmyeyes,andgavealittlelaugh.“I’llhavetoaskmymanager,Kathy,”shesaidandturnedtothewoman

who’dbeenstandingnexttoher.Kathy,who’dheard thewholeexchange, said,“Thebest Icando is ten

percent.”Humanizeyourself.Useyournametointroduceyourself.Sayitinafun,

friendlyway.Let themenjoy the interaction, too.Andgetyourownspecialprice.

HOWTOGETYOURCOUNTERPARTSTOBIDAGAINSTTHEMSELVES

LikeyousawAaronandJuliedowith theirkidnappers, thebestwaytogetyour counterparts to lower their demands is to say “No” using “How”questions. These indirect ways of saying “No” won’t shut down yourcounterpart the way a blunt, pride-piercing “No” would. In fact, theseresponses will sound so much like counterbids that your counterparts willoftenkeepbiddingagainstthemselves.

We’vefoundthatyoucanusuallyexpress“No”fourtimesbeforeactuallysayingtheword.

Thefirststepinthe“No”seriesistheoldstandby:“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”You have to deliver it in a deferentialway, so it becomes a request for

help. Properly delivered, it invites the other side to participate in yourdilemmaandsolveitwithabetteroffer.

After that, someversionof“Youroffer isverygenerous, I’msorry, thatjustdoesn’tworkforme”isanelegantsecondwaytosay“No.”

This well-tested response avoidsmaking a counteroffer, and the use of“generous”nurturesyourcounterparttoliveuptotheword.The“I’msorry”also softens the “No” and builds empathy. (You can ignore the so-callednegotiatingexpertswhosayapologiesarealwayssignsofweakness.)

Thenyoucanusesomethinglike“I’msorrybutI’mafraidIjustcan’tdothat.”It’salittlemoredirect,andthe“can’tdothat”doesgreatdoubleduty.Byexpressinganinabilitytoperform,itcantriggertheotherside’sempathytowardyou.

“I’msorry,no”isaslightlymoresuccinctversionforthefourth“No.”Ifdeliveredgently,itbarelysoundsnegativeatall.

Ifyouhavetogofurther,ofcourse,“No”isthelastandmostdirectway.Verbally, it should be delivered with a downward inflection and a tone ofregard;it’snotmeanttobe“NO!”

Oneofmystudents,aguynamedJesusBueno,wrotemenotlongagototellme an amazing story about how he’d used themulti-step “No” to help hisbrotherJoaquinoutofastickybusinesssituation.

HisbrotherandtwofriendshadboughtacannabisgrowshopfranchiseinnorthernSpain,where thecultivationofmarijuana forpersonaluse is legal.Joaquinandhispartner,Bruno,eachinvested20,000eurosinthebusinessfora46percentstake(aminoritypartnerinvestedanother€3,500for8percent).

Fromthebeginning,JoaquinandBrunohadarockyrelationship.Joaquinis an excellent salesman, while Bruno was more of a bookkeeper. Theminoritypartnerwasalsoanexcellentsalesman,andheandJoaquinbelievedthatgrowingsaleswasthecorrectstrategy.Thatmeantofferingdiscountsfor

largeordersandrepeatcustomers,whichBrunodisagreedwith.TheirplannedspendingonlaunchingawebsiteandexpandinginventoryalsorubbedBrunothewrongway.

Then Bruno’s wife became a problem as she started nagging Joaquinabouthowheshouldnotspendsomuchonexpansionandinsteadtakemoreprofits.Oneday,Joaquinwasreviewinginventorypurchasesandnoticedthatsomeitemstheyhadorderedhadnotbeenplacedonthestore’sshelves.HebegansearchingforthemonlineandtohissurprisehefoundaneBaystoresetupwiththewife’sfirstnamethatwassellingexactlythosemissingproducts.

This started a huge argument between Bruno and Joaquin, and souredtheirrelationship.Intheheatofthemoment,BrunotoldJoaquinthathewasopentosellinghissharesbecausehefeltthebusinessriskstheyweretakingweretoolarge.SoJoaquinconsultedwithhisbrother:mystudentJesus.

Because they believed that pressure from Bruno’s wife was why hewanted to sell, Jesushelped Joaquincraft anempathymessagearound that:“Itseemslikeyouareundera lotofpressurefromyourwife.”Joaquinwasalsointhemiddleofadivorce,sotheydecidedtousethattorelatetothewifeissues,andtheypreparedanaccusationaudit—“IknowyouthinkIdon’tcareabout costs and taking profits from the company”—in order to diffuse thenegativeenergyandgetBrunotalking.

It worked like a charm. Bruno immediately agreed with the accusationaudit and began explaining why he thought Joaquin was careless withspending.Brunoalsonotedthathedidn’thavesomeonetobailhimoutlikeJoaquin did (Joaquin got a start-up loan from his mother). Joaquin usedmirrorstokeepBrunotalking,andhedid.

Finally,Joaquinsaid,“Iknowhowthepressurefromyourwifecanfeel,I’m going through a divorce myself and it really takes a lot out of you.”Brunothenwentonaten-minuterantabouthiswifeandletslipahugepieceof information: thewifewasveryupsetbecause thebankthat lent themthe€20,000hadreviewedtheir loanandhadgiven themtwooptions: repay theloaninfull,orpayamuchhigherinterestrate.

Bingo!Joaquin and Jesus huddled after learning that, and decided that Joaquin

could reasonably pay just above the loan price because Bruno had alreadytaken€14,000insalaryfromthebusiness.TheletterfromthebankputBrunoin a bad spot, and Joaquin figured he could bid low because there wasn’treallyamarketforBrunotosellhisshares.

Theydecidedthat€23,000wouldbethemagicnumber,with€11,000upfrontwiththeremaining€12,000overayearperiod.

Thenthingswentsideways.

InsteadofwaitingforBrunotonameaprice,Joaquinjumpedthegunandmadehisfulloffer,tellingBrunothathethoughtitwas“veryfair.”Ifthere’soneway to put off your counterpart, it’s by implying that disagreeingwithyouisunfair.

Whathappenednextprovedthat.BrunoangrilyhungupthephoneandtwodayslaterJoaquinreceivedan

email from a guy saying he’d been hired to representBruno. Theywanted€30,812:€20,000fortheloan,€4,000forsalary,€6,230forequity,and€582forinterest.

Nonroundfiguresthatseemedunchangeableintheirspecificity.Thisguywasapro.

Jesus told Joaquin that he’d truly screwed up. But they both knew thatBrunowasprettydesperatetosell.Sotheydecidedtousethemulti-step“No”strategy to get Bruno to bid against himself. Theworst-case scenario, theydecided,wasthatBrunowouldjustchangehismindaboutsellinghissharesandthestatusquowouldcontinue.Itwasariskthey’dhavetotake.

Theycraftedtheirfirst“No”message:

The price you offered is very fair, and I certainly wish that I couldafford it. Bruno has worked very hard for this business, and hedeserves tobecompensatedappropriately. Iamvery sorry,butwishyouthebestofluck.

Noticehow theymadenocounteroffer and said “No”withoutusing theword?

Joaquinwasshockedwhenthefollowingdayhereceivedanemailfromtheadvisorloweringthepriceto€28,346.

JoaquinandJesusthencraftedtheirsecondgentle“No”:

Thankyouforyouroffer.Youweregeneroustoreducetheprice,whichIgreatlyappreciate.IreallywishthatIcouldpayyouthisamount,butIamsincere in that I cannotafford thisamountat this time.Asyouknow,IaminthemiddleofadivorceandIjustcannotcomeupwiththattypeofmoney.Again,Iwishyouthebestofluck.

ThenextdayJoaquinreceivedaone-lineemailfromtheadvisordroppingthepriceto€25,000.JoaquinwantedtotakeitbutJesustoldhimthathehadsome“No”stepstogo.Joaquinfoughthim,butintheendherelented.

There’sacriticallessonthere:Theartofclosingadealisstayingfocusedtotheveryend.Therearecrucialpointsatthefinalewhenyoumustdrawonyourmentaldiscipline.Don’tthinkaboutwhattimethelastflightleaves,or

whatitwouldbeliketogethomeearlyandplaygolf.Donotletyourmindwander.Remainfocused.

Theywrote:

Thankyouagainforthegenerousoffer.Youhavereallycomedownonthe price and I have tried very hard to come up with that amount.Unfortunately, no one iswilling to lendme themoney, not evenmymother. I have tried various avenues but cannot come up with thefunding.Intheend,Icanofferyou€23,567,althoughIcanonlypay€15,321.37up front. I couldpayyou the remainderoveraone-yearperiod,butthatisreallythemostIcando.Iwishyouthebestinyourdecision.

Brilliantuseof specificnumbers, andwhat anempathy-buildingway tosay“No”withoutusingtheword!

Anditworked.Withinonehour,theadvisorrespondedtoaccept.Look at this closely: see how themixture ofmirroring and open-ended

questionsdraggedouttheinformationaboutBruno’sfinancialproblems,andthen the “No”method exploited his desperation? Itmight not have been agreat idea touse thismethodif there’dbeenanotherbuyer,butwithnooneelseitwasabrilliantwaytogetBrunotobidagainsthimself.

KEYLESSONS

Superstarnegotiators—realrainmakers—knowthatanegotiationisaplayingfieldbeneaththewords,wherereallygettingtoagooddealinvolvesdetectingandmanipulatingsubtle,nonobvioussignalsbeneaththesurface.Itisonlybyvisualizingandmodifying these subsurface issues thatyoucancraftagreatdealandmakesurethatitisimplemented.

As you put the following tools to use, remember this chapter’s mostimportantconcept.Thatis,“Yes”isnothingwithout“How.”Asking“How,”knowing“How,”anddefining“How”areallpartoftheeffectivenegotiator’sarsenal.Hewouldbeunarmedwithoutthem.

■ Askcalibrated “How”questions, and ask themagain and again.Asking“How”keepsyourcounterpartsengagedbutoffbalance.Answeringthequestionswillgivethemtheillusionofcontrol.Itwill also lead them to contemplate your problemswhenmakingtheirdemands.

■ Use“How”questionstoshapethenegotiatingenvironment.You

dothisbyusing“HowcanIdothat?”asagentleversionof“No.”This will subtly push your counterpart to search for othersolutions—yoursolutions.Andveryoftenitwillget themtobidagainstthemselves.

■ Don’t just pay attention to the people you’re negotiating withdirectly; always identify the motivations of the players “behindthe table.” You can do so by asking how a deal will affecteverybodyelseandhowonboardtheyare.

■ Followthe7-38-55PercentRulebypayingcloseattentiontotoneofvoiceandbodylanguage.Incongruencebetweenthewordsandnonverbal signs will show when your counterpart is lying oruncomfortablewithadeal.

■ Isthe“Yes”realorcounterfeit?TestitwiththeRuleofThree:usecalibrated questions, summaries, and labels to get yourcounterpart to reaffirm their agreement at least three times. It’sreallyhardtorepeatedlylieorfakeconviction.

■ A person’s use of pronouns offers deep insights into his or herrelativeauthority.Ifyou’rehearingalotof“I,”“me,”and“my,”therealpowertodecideprobablylieselsewhere.Pickingupalotof “we,” “they,” and “them,” it’s more likely you’re dealingdirectlywithasavvydecisionmakerkeepinghisoptionsopen.

■ Useyourownname tomakeyourself a realperson to theotherside and even get your own personal discount. Humor andhumanity are the best ways to break the ice and removeroadblocks.

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER9

BARGAINHARD

AfewyearsagoIfellinlovewitharedToyota4Runner.Actuallynotjust“red,”but“SalsaRedPearl.”Kindofasmolderingredthatseemedtoglowatnight. How sexy is that? I just had to have it; getting one became myobsession.

I searched the dealers in metropolitanWashington, D.C., and I quicklyrealized that I wasn’t the only one obsessed with getting that truck: thereweren’tanyinthatcolorintheentirearea,noneatall,saveatonedealer.

You know how they tell you not to shop for groceries when you’rehungry?Well, Iwashungry.Veryhungry.Actually, Iwas in love. . . . I satdown,centeredmyself,andstrategized.This lotwasmyonlyshot. Ihad tomakeitcount

IdrovetothedealeronasunnyFridayafternoon.Isatdownacrossfromthesalesman,aniceenoughguynamedStan,andtoldhimhowgorgeousthevehiclewas.

Heofferedme theusual smile—hehadme,he thought—andmentionedthestickerpriceon“thatbeautifulvehicle”:$36,000.

I gave him an understanding nod and pursed my lips. The key tobeginningahaggle is torattle theotherguyeversogently.Youdoit in thenicest way possible. If I could thread that needle, I had a good chance atgettingmyprice.

“Icanpay$30,000,”Isaid.“AndIcanpayitupfront,allcash.I’llwriteacheck today for the full amount. I’m sorry, I’m afraid I just can’t pay anymore.”

Hissmileflickeredalittlebitattheedges,asifitwerelosingfocus.Buthetighteneditdownandshookhishead.

“I’m sure you can understand we can’t do that. The sticker price is$36,000,afterall.”

“HowamIsupposedtodothat?”Iaskeddeferentially.“I’msure,”hesaid,thenpausedasifhewasn’tsurewhathe’dmeantto

say.“I’msurewecanfiguresomethingoutwithfinancingthe$36,000.”“It’sabeautifultruck.Reallyamazing.Ican’ttellyouhowmuchI’dlove

to have it. It’sworthmore thanwhat I’m offering. I’m sorry, this is reallyembarrassing.Ijustcan’tdothatprice.”

Hestaredatmeinsilence,alittlebefuddlednow.Thenhestoodandwentinto the back forwhat seemed like an eternity.Hewas gone so long that Iremember saying tomyself, “Damn! I shouldhave come in lower!They’regoing to come all the way down.” Any response that’s not an outrightrejectionofyouroffermeansyouhavetheedge.

HereturnedandtoldmelikeitwasChristmasthathisbosshadokayedanewprice:$34,000.

“Wow, your offer is very generous and this is the car ofmydreams,” Isaid. “I reallywish I could do that. I really do. This is so embarrassing. Isimplycan’t.”

HedroppedintosilenceandIdidn’ttakethebait.Iletthesilencelinger.Andthenwithasighhetrudgedoffagain.

Hereturnedafteranothereternity.“Youwin,”hesaid.“Mymanagerokayed$32,500.”He pushed a paper across the desk that even said “YOUWIN” in big

letters.Thewordswereevensurroundedwithsmileyfaces.“I am so grateful. You’ve been very generous, and I can’t thank you

enough.Thetruckisnodoubtworthmorethanmyprice,”Isaid.“I’msorry,Ijustcan’tdothat.”

Uphestoodagain.Nosmilenow.Stillbefuddled.Afterafewseconds,hewalkedbacktohismanagerandIleanedback.Icouldtastevictory.Aminutelater—noeternitythistime—hereturnedandsat.

“Wecandothat,”hesaid.Twodays later, Idroveoff inmySalsaRedPearlToyota4Runner—for

$30,000.GodIlovethattruck.Stilldriveittoday.

Most negotiations hit that inevitable point where the slightly loose andinformal interplay between two people turns to confrontation and theproverbial“brasstacks.”Youknowthemoment:you’vemirroredandlabeledyourwaytoadegreeofrapport;anaccusationaudithasclearedanylingeringmental or emotional obstacles, and you’ve identified and summarized theinterestsandpositionsatstake,elicitinga“That’sright,”and...

Nowit’stimetobargain.Hereitis:theclashforcash,anuneasydanceofoffersandcountersthat

send most people into a cold sweat. If you count yourself among thatmajority, regarding the inevitablemomentasnothingmore thananecessaryevil,there’sagoodchanceyouregularlygetyourclockcleanedbythosewho

havelearnedtoembraceit.Nopartofanegotiationinducesmoreanxietyandunfocusedaggression

than bargaining,which iswhy it’s the part that ismore often fumbled andmishandled than any other. It’s simply not a comfortable dynamic formostpeople.Evenwhenwehavethebest-laidplans,alotofuswimpoutwhenwegettothemomentofexchangingprices.

In this chapter, I’m going to explain the tactics that make up thebargainingprocess,andlookathowpsychologicaldynamicsdeterminewhichtacticsshouldbeusedandhowtheyshouldbeimplemented.

Now, bargaining is not rocket science, but it’s not simple intuition ormathematics, either. To bargain well, you need to shed your assumptionsabout the haggling process and learn to recognize the subtle psychologicalstrategies thatplayvital rolesat thebargaining table.Skilledbargainers seemorethanjustopeningoffers,counteroffers,andclosingmoves.Theyseethepsychologicalcurrentsthatrunbelowthesurface.

Once you’ve learned to identify these currents, you’ll be able to “read”bargaining situations more accurately and confidently answer the tacticalquestionsthatdogeventhebestnegotiators.

You’llbereadyforthe“bare-knucklebargaining.”Andthey’llneverseeitcoming.

WHATTYPEAREYOU?

Afewyears ago Iwasonmyboatwithoneofmyemployees, agreatguynamedKeenon;Iwassupposedtobegivinghimapeptalkandperformancereview.

“WhenIthinkofwhatwedo,Idescribeitas‘uncoveringtheriptide,’”Isaid.

“Uncoveringtheriptide,”Keenonsaid.“Yes,theideaisthatwe—youandIandeveryonehere—havetheskillsto

identifythepsychologicalforcesthatarepullingusawayfromshoreandusethemtogetsomewheremoreproductive.”

“Somewheremoreproductive,”Keenonsaid.“Exactly,”Isaid.“Toaplacewherewecan...”Wehad talked forabout forty-fiveminuteswhenmysonBrandon,who

runsoperationsforTheBlackSwanGroup,brokeoutlaughing.“Ican’ttakeitanymore!Don’tyousee?Really,Dad,don’tyousee?”Iblinked.DidIseewhat?Iaskedhim.“AllKeenonisdoingismirroringyou.Andhe’sbeendoingitforalmost

anhour.”

“Oh,”Isaid,myfacegoingredasKeenonbegantolaugh.Hewas totally right.Keenonhadbeenplayingwithme the entire time,

using thepsychological tool thatworksmosteffectivelywithassertiveguyslikeme:themirror.

Your personal negotiation style—and that of your counterpart—is formedthroughchildhood,schooling,family,culture,andamillionotherfactors;byrecognizing it you can identify your negotiating strengths and weaknesses(and those of your counterpart) and adjust your mindset and strategiesaccordingly.

Negotiation style is a crucial variable in bargaining. If you don’t knowwhat instinctwill tell you or the other side to do in various circumstances,you’llhavemassive troublegamingouteffective strategiesand tactics.Youandyourcounterparthavehabitsofmindandbehavior,andonceyouidentifythemyoucanleveragetheminastrategicmanner.

JustlikeKeenondid.There’s an entire library unto itself of research into the archetypes and

behavioral profiles of all the possible people you’re bound to meet at thenegotiating table. It’s flat-out overwhelming, so much so that it loses itsutility.Overthelastfewyears,inaneffortprimarilyledbymysonBrandon,we’veconsolidatedandsimplifiedall thatresearch,cross-referencingitwithour experiences in the field and the case studies of our business schoolstudents,andfoundthatpeoplefallintothreebroadcategories.SomepeopleareAccommodators; others—likeme—are basicallyAssertive; and the restaredata-lovingAnalysts.

Hollywoodnegotiationscenessuggest thatanAssertivestyle isrequiredforeffectivebargaining,buteachofthestylescanbeeffective.Andtotrulybeeffectiveyouneedelementsfromallthree.

A study of American lawyer-negotiators1 found that 65 percent ofattorneysfromtwomajorU.S.citiesusedacooperativestylewhileonly24percent were truly assertive. And when these lawyers were graded foreffectiveness, more than 75 percent of the effective group came from thecooperativetype;only12percentwereAssertive.Soifyou’renotAssertive,don’tdespair.Bluntassertionisactuallycounterproductivemostofthetime.

And remember, your personal negotiating style is not a straitjacket.Noone isexclusivelyonestyle.Mostofushave thecapacity to throttleupournondominantstylesshouldthesituationcallforit.Butthereisonebasictruthabout a successful bargaining style: To be good, you have to learn to beyourselfatthebargainingtable.Tobegreatyouhavetoaddtoyourstrengths,notreplacethem.

Here’s a quick guide to classifying the type of negotiator you’re facingandthetacticsthatwillbemostfittingforyou.

ANALYSTAnalystsaremethodicalanddiligent.Theyarenotinabigrush.Instead,theybelievethataslongastheyareworkingtowardthebestresultinathoroughandsystematicway,timeisoflittleconsequence.Theirself-imageislinkedtominimizingmistakes.Theirmotto:Asmuchtimeasittakestogetitright.

Classicanalystsprefertoworkontheirownandrarelydeviatefromtheirgoals.Theyrarelyshowemotion,andtheyoftenusewhatisveryclosetotheFM DJ Voice I talked about in Chapter 3, slow and measured with adownwardinflection.However,Analystsoftenspeakinawaythatisdistantandcold insteadof soothing.Thisputspeopleoffwithout themknowing itand actually limits them fromputting their counterpart at ease and openingthemup.

Analysts pride themselves on notmissing any details in their extensivepreparation. Theywill research for twoweeks to get data theymight havegotten in fifteen minutes at the negotiating table, just to keep from beingsurprised.Analystshatesurprises.

Theyarereservedproblemsolvers,andinformationaggregators,andarehypersensitivetoreciprocity.Theywillgiveyouapiece,butiftheydon’tgeta piece in return within a certain period of time, they lose trust and willdisengage.Thiscanoftenseemtocomeoutofnowhere,butremember,sincetheylikeworkingonthingsalonethefactthattheyaretalkingtoyouatallis,from their perspective, a concession. They will often view concessions bytheir counterpart as a new piece of information to be taken back andevaluated.Don’texpectimmediatecounterproposalsfromthem.

Peoplelikethisareskepticalbynature.Soaskingtoomanyquestionstostart is a bad idea, because they’re not going towant to answer until theyunderstandalltheimplications.Withthem,it’svitaltobeprepared.Usecleardatatodriveyourreason;don’tad-lib;usedatacomparisonstodisagreeandfocusonthefacts;warnthemofissuesearly;andavoidsurprises.

Silence to them is an opportunity to think.They’re notmad at you andthey’renottryingtogiveyouachancetotalkmore.Ifyoufeeltheydon’tseethingsthewayyoudo,givethemachancetothinkfirst.

Apologieshavelittlevaluetothemsincetheyseethenegotiationandtheirrelationship with you as a person largely as separate things. They respondfairlywell in themoment to labels.Theyarenotquick toanswercalibratedquestions, or closed-ended questions when the answer is “Yes.” Theymayneedafewdaystorespond.

Ifyou’reananalystyoushouldbeworriedaboutcuttingyourselfofffromanessentialsourceofdata,yourcounterpart.Thesinglebiggestthingyoucando is to smile when you speak. People will be more forthcoming withinformationtoyouasaresult.Smilingcanalsobecomeahabitthatmakesiteasyforyoutomaskanymomentsyou’vebeencaughtoffguard.

ACCOMMODATORThemostimportantthingtothistypeofnegotiatoristhetimespentbuildingthe relationship. Accommodators think as long as there is a free-flowingcontinuous exchange of information time is being well spent. As long asthey’recommunicating,they’rehappy.Theirgoalistobeongreattermswiththeircounterpart.Theylovethewin-win.

Of the three types, they are most likely to build great rapport withoutactuallyaccomplishinganything.

Accommodatorswanttoremainfriendswiththeircounterparteveniftheycan’t reachanagreement.Theyareveryeasy to talk to, extremely friendly,and have pleasant voices. They will yield a concession to appease oracquiesceandhopetheothersidereciprocates.

If your counterparts are sociable, peace-seeking, optimistic, distractible,andpoortimemanagers,they’reprobablyAccommodators.

If they’reyourcounterpart,besociableand friendly.Listen to themtalkabout their ideas and use calibrated questions focused specifically onimplementationtonudgethemalongandfindwaystotranslatetheirtalkintoaction.Duetotheir tendencytobethefirst toactivatethereciprocitycycle,theymayhaveagreedtogiveyousomethingtheycan’tactuallydeliver.

Their approach to preparation can be lacking as they are much morefocusedonthepersonbehindthetable.Theywanttogettoknowyou.Theyhaveatremendouspassionforthespiritofnegotiationandwhatittakesnotonlytomanageemotionsbutalsotosatisfythem.

While it is very easy to disagreewith anAccommodator, because theywant nothing more that to hear what you have to say, uncovering theirobjectionscanbedifficult.Theywillhaveidentifiedpotentialproblemareasbeforehandandwillleavethoseareasunaddressedoutoffearoftheconflicttheymaycause.

IfyouhaveidentifiedyourselfasanAccommodator,sticktoyourabilitytobeverylikable,butdonotsacrificeyourobjections.Notonlydotheothertwo types need to hear your point of view; if you are dealingwith anotherAccommodator theywillwelcome it.Alsobe consciousof excess chitchat:theother two typeshavenouse for it, and ifyou’re sitting across the tablefromsomeone likeyourselfyouwillbeprone to interactionswherenothing

getsdone.

ASSERTIVETheAssertivetypebelievestimeismoney;everywastedminuteisawasteddollar. Their self-image is linked to how many things they can getaccomplishedinaperiodoftime.Forthem,gettingthesolutionperfectisn’tasimportantasgettingitdone.

Assertivesarefierypeoplewholovewinningaboveallelse,oftenattheexpense of others. Their colleagues and counterparts never question wherethey stand because they are always direct and candid. They have anaggressive communication style and they don’t worry about futureinteractions.Theirviewofbusinessrelationshipsisbasedonrespect,nothingmoreandnothingless.

Mostofall,theAssertivewantstobeheard.Andnotonlydotheywanttobeheard, but theydon’t actuallyhave the ability to listen toyouuntil theyknow that you’ve heard them. They focus on their own goals rather thanpeople.Andtheytellratherthanask.

Whenyou’redealingwithAssertivetypes,it’sbesttofocusonwhattheyhavetosay,becauseoncetheyareconvincedyouunderstandthem,thenandonlythenwilltheylistenforyourpointofview.

To anAssertive, every silence is an opportunity to speakmore.Mirrorsare awonderful toolwith this type. So are calibrated questions, labels, andsummaries. The most important thing to get from an Assertive will be a“that’sright”thatmaycomeintheformofa“that’sitexactly”or“youhititonthehead.”

Whenitcomestoreciprocity,thistypeisofthe“giveaninch/takeamile”mentality.Theywillhavefiguredtheydeservewhateveryouhavegiventhemsotheywillbeoblivioustoexpectationsofowingsomethinginreturn.Theywill actually simplybe looking for theopportunity to receivemore. If theyhave given some kind of concession, they are surely counting the secondsuntiltheygetsomethinginreturn.

IfyouareanAssertive,beparticularlyconsciousofyour tone.Youwillnot intend to be overly harsh but you will often come off that way.Intentionally soften your tone and work to make it more pleasant. Usecalibratedquestionsandlabelswithyourcounterpartsincethatwillalsomakeyoumoreapproachableandincreasethechancesforcollaboration.

We’ve seen how each of these groups views the importance of timedifferently(time=preparation;time=relationship;time=money).Theyalsohavecompletelydifferentinterpretationsofsilence.

I’mdefinitelyanAssertive,andataconferencethisAccommodatortypetoldme that he blew up a deal. I thought,What did you do, scream at theotherguyandleave?Becausethat’smeblowingupadeal.

Butitturnedoutthathewentsilent;foranAccommodatortype,silenceisanger.

For Analysts, though, silencemeans theywant to think. AndAssertivetypes interpretyour silenceaseitheryoudon’thaveanything to sayoryouwantthemtotalk.I’mone,soIknow:theonlytimeI’msilentiswhenI’verunoutofthingstosay.

The funny thing is when these cross over.When an Analyst pauses tothink, their Accommodator counterpart gets nervous and an Assertive onestartstalking,therebyannoyingtheAnalyst,whothinkstoherself,EverytimeI try to thinkyou take thatasanopportunity to talksomemore.Won’tyouevershutup?

BeforewemoveonIwanttotalkaboutwhypeopleoftenfailtoidentifytheircounterpart’sstyle.

The greatest obstacle to accurately identifying someone else’s style iswhatIcallthe“Iamnormal”paradox.Thatis,ourhypothesisthattheworldshould look to others as it looks to us. After all, who wouldn’t make thatassumption?

Butwhileinnocentandunderstandable,thinkingyou’renormalisoneofthemost damaging assumptions in negotiations.With it, we unconsciouslyprojectourownstyleontheotherside.Butwiththreetypesofnegotiatorsintheworld, there’sa66percentchanceyourcounterparthasadifferent stylethanyours.Adifferent“normal.”

ACEOoncetoldmeheexpectednineoftennegotiationstofail.ThisCEOwas likely projecting his beliefs onto the other side. In reality, he probablyonlymatchedwith someone like-mindedoneof ten times. Ifheunderstoodthat his counterpart was different from him, he would most surely haveincreasedhissuccessrate.

Fromthewaytheypreparetothewaytheyengageindialogue,thethreetypes negotiate differently. So before you can even think about bargainingeffectively,youhavetounderstandyourcounterpart’s“normal.”Youhavetoidentify their type by opening yourself to their difference.Becausewhen itcomestonegotiating,theGoldenRuleiswrong.

TheBlackSwanruleisdon’ttreatothersthewayyouwanttobetreated;treatthemthewaytheyneedtobetreated.

(I’vegotacomplementaryPDFavailablethatwillhelpyouidentifyyour

type and that of those around you. Please visit http://info.blackswanltd.com/3-types.)

TAKINGAPUNCH

Negotiationacademicsliketotreatbargainingasarationalprocessdevoidofemotion.TheytalkabouttheZOPA—orZoneofPossibleAgreement—whichiswheretheseller’sandbuyer’szonescross.SayTonywantstosellhiscarandwon’t take less than$5,000 andSamanthawants to buybutwon’t paymorethan$6,000.TheZOPArunsfrom$5,000to$6,000.SomedealshaveZOPAsandsomedon’t.It’sallveryrational.

Orsothey’dhaveyouthink.Youneedtodisabuseyourselfofthatnotion.Inarealbargainingsession,

kick-assnegotiatorsdon’tuseZOPA.Experiencednegotiatorsoftenleadwitharidiculousoffer,anextremeanchor.Andifyou’renotpreparedtohandleit,you’llloseyourmooringsandimmediatelygotoyourmaximum.It’shumannature.Like thegreatear-bitingpugilistMikeTysononcesaid,“Everybodyhasaplanuntiltheygetpunchedinthemouth.”

As a well-prepared negotiator who seeks information and gathers itrelentlessly,you’reactuallygoingtowanttheotherguytonameapricefirst,because you want to see his hand. You’re going to welcome the extremeanchor.Butextremeanchoringispowerfulandyou’rehuman:youremotionsmaywellup.Iftheydotherearewaystoweatherthestormwithoutbiddingagainstyourselforrespondingwithanger.Onceyoulearnthesetactics,you’llbepreparedtowithstandthehitandcounterwithpanache.

First, deflect the punch in a way that opens up your counterpart.Successfulnegotiatorsoftensay“No”inoneofthemanywayswe’vetalkedabout (“How am I supposed to accept that?”) or deflect the anchor withquestionslike“Whatarewetryingtoaccomplishhere?”Responseslikethesearegreatwaystorefocusyourcounterpartwhenyoufeelyou’rebeingpulledintothecompromisetrap.

Youcanalsorespondtoapunch-in-the-faceanchorbysimplypivotingtoterms.WhatImeanbythisisthatwhenyoufeelyou’rebeingdraggedintoahaggleyoucandetourtheconversationtothenonmonetaryissuesthatmakeanyfinalpricework.

Youcandothisdirectlybysaying,inanencouragingtoneofvoice,“Let’sputpriceofftothesideforamomentandtalkaboutwhatwouldmakethisagooddeal.”Oryoucouldgoatitmoreobliquelybyasking,“Whatelsewouldyoubeabletooffertomakethatagoodpriceforme?”

Andiftheothersidepushesyoutogofirst,wrigglefromhisgrip.Instead

of naming a price, allude to an incredibly high number that someone elsemightcharge.Oncewhenahospitalchainwantedmetonameapricefirst,Isaid, “Well, if you go toHarvardBusiness School, they’re going to chargeyou$2,500adayperstudent.”

Nomatterwhathappens,thepointhereistospongeupinformationfromyour counterpart. Letting your counterpart anchor first will give you atremendousfeelforhim.Allyouneedtolearnishowtotakethefirstpunch.

OneofmyGeorgetownMBAstudents,aguynamedFarouq,showedhownottofoldafterbeingpunchedwhenhewenttohituptheMBAdeanforfundstohold a big alumni event inDubai. It was a desperate situation, because heneeded$600andshewashislaststop.

Atthemeeting,FarouqtoldthedeanabouthowexcitedthestudentswereaboutthetripandhowbeneficialitwouldbefortheGeorgetownMBAbrandintheregion.

Beforehecouldevenfinish,thedeanjumpedin.“Soundslikeagreattripyouguysareplanning,”shesaid.“Butmoneyis

tightandIcouldauthorizenomorethan$300.”Farouqhadn’texpectedthedeantogosoquickly.Butthingsdon’talways

goaccordingtoplan.“Thatisaverygenerousoffergivenyourbudgetlimits,butIamnotsure

howthatwouldhelpusachieveagreatreceptionforthealumsintheregion,”Farouqsaid,acknowledgingherlimitsbutsayingnowithoutusingtheword.Thenhedroppedanextremeanchor.“Ihaveaveryhighamountinmyhead:$1,000iswhatweneed.”

Asexpected,theextremeanchorquicklyknockedthedeanoffherlimit.“That is severely out ofmy range and I am sure I can’t authorize that.

However,Iwillgiveyou$500.”Farouqwashalf-temptedtofold—being$100shortwasn’tmake-or-break

—butherememberedthecurseofaiminglow.Hedecidedtopushforward.The $500 got him closer to the goal but not quite there, he said; $850

wouldwork.Thedean repliedby saying that shewasalreadygivingmore thanwhat

shewantedand$500wasreasonable.At thispoint, ifFarouqhadbeen lesspreparedhewouldhavegivenup,buthewasreadyforthepunches.

“I thinkyouroffer isveryreasonableandIunderstandyour restrictions,butIneedmoremoneytoputonagreatshowfortheschool,”hesaid.“Howabout$775?”

Thedeansmiled,andFarouqknewhehadher.“Youseemtohaveaspecificnumberinyourheadthatyouaretryingto

getto,”shesaid.“Justtellittome.”AtthatpointFarouqwashappytogiveherhisnumberashefeltshewas

sincere.“Ineed$737.50tomakethisworkandyouaremylaststop,”hesaid.Shelaughed.Thedean then praised him for knowingwhat hewanted and said she’d

check her budget. Two days later, Farouq got an email saying her officewouldputin$750.

PUNCHINGBACK:USINGASSERTIONWITHOUTGETTINGUSEDBYIT

Whenanegotiationisfarfromresolutionandgoingnowherefast,youneedtoshakethingsupandgetyourcounterpartoutoftheirrigidmindset.Intimeslike this, strong moves can be enormously effective tools. Sometimes asituationsimplycallsforyoutobetheaggressorandpunchtheothersideintheface.

Thatsaid,ifyouarebasicallyaniceperson,itwillbearealstretchtohittheotherguylikeMikeTyson.Youcan’tbewhatyou’renot.AstheDanishfolksayinggoes,“Youbakewiththeflouryouhave.”Butanyonecanlearnafewtools.

Hereareeffectivewaystoassertsmartly:

REAL ANGER, THREATS WITHOUT ANGER, AND STRATEGICUMBRAGEMarwan Sinaceur of INSEAD and Stanford University’s Larissa Tiedensfound that expressions of anger increase a negotiator’s advantage and finaltake.2Angershowspassionandconvictionthatcanhelpswaytheothersideto accept less. However, by heightening your counterpart’s sensitivity todanger and fear, your anger reduces the resources they have for othercognitive activity, setting themup tomake bad concessions thatwill likelyleadtoimplementationproblems,thusreducingyourgains.

Alsobeware: researchers have also found that disingenuous expressionsof unfelt anger—you know, faking it—backfire, leading to intractabledemandsanddestroyingtrust.Forangertobeeffective,ithastobereal,thekey for it is to be under control because anger also reduces our cognitiveability.

Andsowhensomeoneputsouta ridiculousoffer,one that reallypissesyouoff,takeadeepbreath,allowlittleanger,andchannelit—attheproposal,nottheperson—andsay,“Idon’tseehowthatwouldeverwork.”

Such well-timed offense-taking—known as “strategic umbrage”—canwake your counterpart to the problem. In studies by Columbia UniversityacademicsDanielAmesandAbbieWazlawek,peopleonthereceivingendofstrategicumbrageweremorelikelytoratethemselvesasoverassertive,evenwhenthecounterpartdidn’tthinkso.3Thereallessonhereisbeingawareofhowthismightbeusedonyou.Pleasedon’tallowyourself tofallvictimto“strategicumbrage.”

Threatsdeliveredwithoutangerbutwith“poise”—thatis,confidenceandself-control—are great tools. Saying, “I’m sorry that just doesn’t work forme,”withpoise,works.

“WHY”QUESTIONSBack in Chapter 7, I talked about the problems with “Why?” Across ourplanetandaroundtheuniverse,“Why?”makespeopledefensive.

Asanexperiment,thenexttimeyourbosswantssomethingdoneaskhimor her “Why?” and watch what happens. Then try it with a peer, asubordinate,andafriend.Observetheirreactionsandtellmeifyoudon’tfindsome level of defensiveness across the spectrum. Don’t do this too much,though,oryou’llloseyourjobandallyourfriends.

Theonly time I say, “Whydidyoudo that?” inanegotiation iswhen Iwant toknocksomeoneback. It’san iffy technique, though,and Iwouldn’tadvocateit.

Thereis,however,anotherwaytouse“Why?”effectively.Theideaistoemploy the defensiveness the question triggers to get your counterpart todefendyourposition.

I know it sounds weird, but it works. The basic format goes like this:Whenyouwant to flip adubiouscounterpart toyour side, ask them,“Whywouldyoudothat?”butinawaythatthe“that”favorsyou.Letmeexplain.If you areworking to lure a client away froma competitor, youmight say,“Whywould you ever do business withme?Whywould you ever changefromyourexistingsupplier?They’regreat!”

Inthesequestions,the“Why?”coaxesyourcounterpartintoworkingforyou.

“I”MESSAGESUsingthefirst-personsingularpronounisanothergreatwaytosetaboundarywithoutescalatingintoconfrontation.

When you say, “I’m sorry, that doesn’t work for me,” the word “I”strategically focuses your counterpart’s attention onto you long enough foryoutomakeapoint.

Thetraditional“I”messageistouse“I”tohitthepausebuttonandstepoutofabaddynamic.Whenyouwanttocounteractunproductivestatementsfromyourcounterpart,youcansay,“Ifeel___whenyou___because___,”andthatdemandsatime-outfromtheotherperson.

Butbecarefulwiththebig“I”:Youhavetobemindfulnottouseatonethatisaggressiveorcreatesanargument.It’sgottobecoolandlevel.

NONEEDINESS:HAVINGTHEREADY-TO-WALKMINDSETWe’vesaidpreviouslythatnodeal isbetter thanabaddeal.Ifyoufeelyoucan’tsay“No”thenyou’vetakenyourselfhostage.

Onceyou’reclearonwhatyourbottomlineis,youhavetobewillingtowalkaway.Neverbeneedyforadeal.

Beforewemoveon, Iwant to emphasizehow important it is tomaintain acollaborative relationship even when you’re setting boundaries. Yourresponsemustalwaysbeexpressedintheformofstrong,yetempathic,limit-settingboundaries—thatis,toughlove—notashatredorviolence.Angerandother strong emotions can on rare occasions be effective. But only ascalculated acts, never a personal attack. In any bare-knuckle bargainingsession, the most vital principle to keep in mind is never to look at yourcounterpartasanenemy.

Thepersonacross the table isnever theproblem.Theunsolved issue is.So focus on the issue. This is one of the most basic tactics for avoidingemotionalescalations.Ourculturedemonizespeople inmoviesandpolitics,which creates the mentality that if we only got rid of the person theneverythingwouldbeokay.Butthisdynamicistoxictoanynegotiation.

Punchingback isa last resort.Beforeyougo there, Ialwayssuggestanattempt at de-escalating the situation. Suggest a time-out. When yourcounterpartsstepbackandtakeabreath, they’llno longerfeel that theyarehostagetoabadsituation.They’llregainasenseofagencyandpower.Andthey’llappreciateyouforthat.

Think of punching back and boundary-setting tactics as a flattened S-curve:you’veaccelerateduptheslopeofanegotiationandhitaplateauthatrequiresyoutotemporarilystopanyprogress,escalateorde-escalatetheissueactingastheobstacle,andeventuallybringtherelationshipbacktoastateofrapportandgetbackontheslope.Takingapositive,constructiveapproachtoconflict involves understanding that the bond is fundamental to anyresolution.Nevercreateanenemy.

ACKERMANBARGAINING

I’ve spenta lotof time talkingabout thepsychological judo that I’vemademystockintrade:thecalibratedquestions,themirrors,thetoolsforknockingmycounterpartoffhisgameandgettinghimtobidagainsthimself.

Butnegotiationstillcomesdowntodeterminingwhogetswhichsliceofthepie,andfromtimetotimeyou’regoingtobeforcedintosomerealbare-knucklebargainingwithahard-asshaggler.

I faced bare-knuckle bargaining all the time in the hostage world. Ihaggledwith a lot of guyswho stuck to their game plan andwere used togettingtheirway.“Payorwe’llkill,”they’dsay,andtheymeantit.Youhadtohaveyourskillsdrum-tighttonegotiatethemdown.Youneedtools.

BackatFBInegotiationtraining,IlearnedthehagglingsystemthatIusetothisday.AndIswearbyit.

IcallthesystemtheAckermanmodelbecauseitcamefromthisguyMikeAckerman, an ex-CIA type who founded a kidnap-for-ransom consultingcompany based out of Miami. On many kidnappings we’d constantly bepairedwith“Ackermanguys”—neverMikehimself—whohelpeddesignthehaggle.

AfterIretiredfromtheFBI,IfinallymetMikeonatriptoMiami.WhenItoldhimIalsousedthesystemforbusinessnegotiations,helaughedandsaidhe’drunthesystembyHowardRaiffa,alegendaryHarvardnegotiationguy,andHowardhadsaiditwouldworkinanysituation.SoIfeltprettyjustifiedbythat.

The Ackerman model is an offer-counteroffer method, at least on thesurface. But it is a very effective system for beating the usual lacklusterbargaining dynamic, which has the predictable result of meeting in themiddle.

Thesystematizedandeasy-to-rememberprocesshasonlyfoursteps:

1. Setyourtargetprice(yourgoal).

2. Setyourfirstofferat65percentofyourtargetprice.

3. Calculatethreeraisesofdecreasingincrements(to85,95,and100percent).

4. Uselotsofempathyanddifferentwaysofsaying“No”togettheothersidetocounterbeforeyouincreaseyouroffer.

5. When calculating the final amount, use precise, nonroundnumbers like, say, $37,893 rather than $38,000. It gives thenumbercredibilityandweight.

6. On your final number, throw in a nonmonetary item (that theyprobablydon’twant)toshowyou’reatyourlimit.

Thegeniusofthissystemisthatitincorporatesthepsychologicaltacticswe’ve discussed—reciprocity, extreme anchors, loss aversion, and so on—withoutyouneedingtothinkaboutthem.

Ifyou’llbearwithmeforamoment,I’llgooverthestepssoyouseewhatImean.

First, the original offer of 65 percent of your target price will set anextremeanchor,abigslapinthefacethatmightbringyourcounterpartrightto their price limit.The shock of an extreme anchorwill induce a fight-or-flight reaction in all but the most experienced negotiators, limiting theircognitiveabilitiesandpushingthemintorashaction.

Nowlookattheprogressiveofferincreasesto85,95,and100percentofthetargetprice.You’regoingtodroptheseinsparingly:afterthecounterparthas made another offer on their end, and after you’ve thrown out a fewcalibrated questions to see if you can bait them into bidding againstthemselves.

Whenyoumaketheseoffers,theyworkonvariouslevels.First,theyplayon the norm of reciprocity; they inspire your counterpart to make aconcession, too. Just likepeoplearemore likely to sendChristmascards topeoplewhofirstsendcardstothem,theyaremorelikelytomakebargainingconcessionstothosewhohavemadecompromisesintheirdirection.

Second, thediminishingsizeof the increases—notice that theydecreasebyhalfeachtime—convincesyourcounterpartthathe’ssqueezingyoutothepointofbreaking.Bythetimetheygettothelastone,they’llfeelthatthey’vereallygotteneverylastdrop.

This really juices their self-esteem.Researchers have found that peoplegettingconcessionsoftenfeelbetterabout thebargainingprocessthanthosewhoaregivenasinglefirm,“fair”offer. Infact, theyfeelbetterevenwhentheyenduppayingmore—orreceivingless—thantheyotherwisemight.

Finally,thepowerofnonroundnumbersbearsreiterating.Back in Haiti, I used to use the Ackerman system ferociously. Over

eighteenmonthswegottwoorthreekidnappingsaweek,sofromexperience,we knew themarket priceswere $15,000 to $75,000 per victim.Because Iwasahard-ass,Imadeitmygoaltogetinunder$5,000ineverykidnappingthatIran.

One really stands out, the first one I mentioned in this book. I wentthroughtheAckermanprocess,knockingthemofftheirgamewithanextremeanchor,hittingthemwithcalibratedquestions,andslowlygaveprogressively

smallerconcessions.Finally,Idroppedtheweirdnumberthatclosedthedeal.I’llnever forget theheadof theMiamiFBIofficecallingmycolleague thenextdayandsaying,“Vossgotthisguyoutfor$4,751?Howdoes$1makeadifference?”

They were howling with laughter, and they had a point. That $1 isridiculous. But it works on our human nature. Notice that you can’t buyanythingfor$2,butyoucanbuyamillionthingsfor$1.99.Howdoesacentchangeanything?Itdoesn’t.Butitmakesadifferenceeverytime.Wejustlike$1.99morethan$2.00evenifweknowit’satrick.

NEGOTIATINGARENTCUTAFTERRECEIVINGNOTICEOFANINCREASE

Eight months after a Georgetown MBA student of mine named Misharysignedarentalcontractfor$1,850/month,hegotsomeunwelcomenews:hislandlordinformedhimthat ifhewantedtore-up, itwouldbe$2,100/monthfortenmonths,or$2,000/monthforayear.

Mishary loved theplace anddidn’t thinkhe’d find abetterone,but thepricewasalreadyhighandhecouldn’taffordmore.

Taking to heart our class slogan, “You fall to your highest level ofpreparation,” he dove into the real estate listings and found that prices forcomparableapartmentswere$1,800–$1,950/month,butnoneofthemwereinasgoodabuilding.Hethenexaminedhisownfinancesandfiguredtherenthewantedtopaywas$1,830.

Herequestedasit-downwithhisrentalagent.Thiswasgoingtobetough.At their meeting, Mishary laid out his situation. His experience in the

buildinghadbeenreallypositive,hesaid.And,hepointedout,healwayspaidontime.Itwouldbesadforhimtoleave,hesaid,andsadforthelandlordtoloseagoodtenant.Theagentnodded.

“Totallyinagreement,”hesaid.“That’swhyIthinkitwillbenefitbothofustoagreeonrenewingthelease.”

HereMisharypulledouthisresearch:buildingsaroundtheneighborhoodwere offering “much” lower prices, he said. “Even though your building isbetter in terms of location and services,howam I supposed topay $200extra?”

Thenegotiationwason.Theagentwentsilentforafewmomentsandthensaid,“Youmakeagood

point, but this is still a good price. And as you noted, we can charge apremium.”

Misharythendroppedanextremeanchor.“Ifullyunderstand,youdohaveabetterlocationandamenities.ButI’m

sorry,Ijustcan’t,”hesaid.“Would$1,730amonthforayearleasesoundfairtoyou?”

Theagentlaughedandwhenhefinishedsaidtherewasnowaytoacceptthatnumber,becauseitwaswaybelowmarketprice.

Instead of getting pulled into a haggle, Mishary smartly pivoted tocalibratedquestions.

“Okay,sopleasehelpmeunderstand:howdoyoupriceleaserenewals?”The agent didn’t say anything shocking—merely that they used factors

likeareapricesandsupply-and-demand—butthatgaveMisharytheopeningto argue that his leavingwould open the landlord to the risk of having anunrentedapartmentandthecostofrepainting.Onemonthunrentedwouldbea$2,000loss,hesaid.

Thenhemadeanotheroffer.Now,you’reprobablyshakingyourheadthathe’s making two offers without receiving one in return. And you’re right;normallythat’sverboten.Butyouhavetobeabletoimprovise.Ifyoufeelincontrolofanegotiation,youcandotwoor threemovesata time.Don’t lettherulesruintheflow.

“Let me try and move along with you: how about $1,790 for 12months?”

Theagentpaused.“Sir, I understand your concerns, and what you said makes sense,” he

said.“Yournumber,though,isverylow.However,givemetimetothinkthisoutandwecanmeetatanothertime.Howdoesthatsound?”

Remember,anyresponsethatisnotanoutrightrejectionmeansyouhavetheedge.

Fivedayslaterthetwometagain.“Iranthenumbers,andbelievemethisisagooddeal,”theagentstarted.

“Iamabletoofferyou$1,950amonthforayear.”Misharyknewhe’dwon.Theagentjustneededalittlepush.Sohepraised

the agent and said nowithout saying, “No.”And notice how he brilliantlymislabelsinordertogettheguytoopenup?

“Thatisgenerousofyou,buthowamIsupposedtoacceptitwhenIcanmoveafewblocksawayandstayfor$1,800?Ahundredandfiftydollarsamonthmeansa lot tome.YouknowIamastudent. Idon’tknow, itseemslikeyouwouldratherruntheriskofkeepingtheplaceunrented.”

“It’snotthat,”theagentanswered.“ButIcan’tgiveyouanumberlowerthanthemarket.”

Misharymadeadramaticpause,asiftheagentwasextractingeverycent

hehad.“ThenItellyouwhat,Iinitiallywentupfrom$1,730to$1,790,”hesaid,

sighing.“Iwillbringitupto$1,810.AndIthinkthisworkswellforboth.”Theagentshookhishead.“Thisisstilllowerthanthemarket,sir.AndIcannotdothat.”Mishary thenprepared togive the lastofhisAckermanoffers.Hewent

silent for a while and then asked the agent for a pen and paper. Then hestarteddoingfakecalculationstoseemlikehewasreallypushinghimself.

Finally,helookedupattheagentandsaid,“Ididsomenumbers,andthemaximumIcanaffordis$1,829.”

Theagentbobbedhisheadfromsidetoside,asifgettinghismindaroundtheoffer.Atlast,hespoke.

“Wow. $1,829,” he said. “You seem very precise. You must be anaccountant.[Misharywasnot.]Listen,IvalueyouwantingtorenewwithusandforthatIthinkwecanmakethisworkforatwelve-monthlease.”

Ka-ching! Notice this brilliant combination of decreasing Ackermanoffers, nonround numbers, deep research, smart labeling, and saying nowithoutsaying“No”?That’swhatgetsyoua rentdiscountwhena landlordwantedtoraisehismonthlytake.

KEYLESSONS

Whenpushcomestoshove—anditwill—you’regoingtofindyourselfsittingacrossthetablefromabare-knucklenegotiator.Afteryou’vefinishedallthepsychologicallynuancedstuff—thelabelingandmirroringandcalibrating—youaregoingtohavetohashoutthe“brasstacks.”

Formostofus,thatain’tfun.Top negotiators know, however, that conflict is often the path to great

deals.And the best findways to actually have fun engaging in it. Conflictbringsouttruth,creativity,andresolution.Sothenexttimeyoufindyourselfface-to-face with a bare-knuckle bargainer, remember the lessons in thischapter.

■ Identify your counterpart’s negotiating style. Once you knowwhether they are Accommodator, Assertive, or Analyst, you’llknowthecorrectwaytoapproachthem.

■ Prepare,prepare,prepare.Whenthepressureison,youdon’triseto theoccasion;you fall toyourhighest levelofpreparation.Sodesign an ambitious but legitimate goal and then game out the

labels,calibratedquestions,andresponsesyou’llusetogetthere.Thatway,onceyou’reatthebargainingtable,youwon’thavetowingit.

■ Getreadytotakeapunch.Kick-assnegotiatorsusuallyleadwithan extreme anchor to knock you off your game. If you’re notready, you’ll flee to yourmaximumwithout a fight. So prepareyourdodgingtacticstoavoidgettingsuckedintothecompromisetrap.

■ Setboundaries,andlearntotakeapunchorpunchback,withoutanger.Theguyacrossthetableisnottheproblem;thesituationis.

■ Prepare an Ackerman plan. Before you head into the weeds ofbargaining, you’ll need a plan of extreme anchor, calibratedquestions, and well-defined offers. Remember: 65, 85, 95, 100percent.Decreasingraisesandendingonnonroundnumberswillget your counterpart to believe that he’s squeezing you for allyou’reworthwhenyou’rereallygettingtothenumberyouwant.

OceanofPDF.com

CHAPTER10

FINDTHEBLACKSWAN

At 11:30 a.m. on June17, 1981, a beautiful 70-degree springdaywith aninsistent westerly breeze, thirty-seven-year-old William Griffin left thesecond-floor bedroomwhere he lived in his parent’sRochester,NewYork,homeandtroddowntheshoe-buffedstairsthatledtotheirmeticulouslivingroom.

Atthebottomhestopped,paused,andthen,withoutawordofwarning,shotoffthreeshotgunblaststhatkilledhismotherandahandymanwhowashanging wallpaper and critically wounded his stepfather. The soundreverberatedintheenclosedspace.

Griffinthenleftthehouseandshotaworkmanandtwobystandersashejogged two blocks to the Security Trust Company, a neighborhood bank.Seconds after he entered, people began sprinting from the bank as Griffintookninebankemployeeshostageandorderedthecustomerstoleave.

Forthenextthreeandahalfhours,GriffinledpoliceandFBIagentsinaviolent standoff inwhich he shot andwounded the first twopolice officerswhorespondedtothebank’ssilentalarm,andshotsixpeoplewhohappenedtobewalkingnearthebank.Griffinshotoffsomanyrounds—morethanonehundredinall—thatthepoliceusedagarbagetrucktoshieldoneofficerashewasbeingrescued.

Wavingtheninebankemployeesintoasmallofficeat2:30p.m.,Griffintoldthemanagertocallthepoliceanddeliveramessage.

Outside, FBI agent Clint Van Zandt stood by while Rochester policeofficerJimO’Brienpickedupthephone.

“Eitheryoucometothefrontentrancedoorsofthebankatthreeo’clockand have a shoot-out with him in the parking lot,” the manager blurtedthrough her tears, “or he’s going to start killing hostages and throwing outbodies.”

Thenthelinewentdead.Now,neverinthehistoryoftheUnitedStateshadahostage-takerkilleda

hostageondeadline.Thedeadlinewasalwaysawaytofocusthemind;whatthe badguys reallywantedwasmoney, respect, and a helicopter.Everyone

knewthat.Itwasapermanentandinalterableknownknown.Itwasthetruth.Butthatpermanentandinalterabletruthwasabouttochange.What came next showed the power of Black Swans, those hidden and

unexpected pieces of information—those unknown unknowns—whoseunearthinghasgame-changingeffectsonanegotiationdynamic.

Negotiation breakthroughs—when the game shifts inalterably in yourfavor—arecreatedbythosewhocanidentifyandutilizeBlackSwans.

Here’show.

FINDINGLEVERAGEINTHEPREDICTABLYUNPREDICTABLE

Atexactly3p.m.,Griffingesturedtowardoneofhishostages,atwenty-nine-year-oldtellernamedMargaretMoore,andtoldhertowalktotheglassbankdoors.Petrified,Mooredidasshewasordered,butfirstcriedoutthatshewasasingleparentwithayoungson.

Griffindidn’tseemtohearher,ortocare.OncetheweepingMooremadeittothevestibule,Griffinshotofftwoblastsfromhistwelve-gaugeshotgun.BothoftheheavyroundsstruckMooreinthemidsection,violentlyblowingherthroughtheglassdoorandalmostcuttingherbodyinhalf.

Outside, law enforcementwas stunned into silence. Itwas obvious thatGriffindidn’twantmoneyorrespectoranescaperoute.Theonlywayhewascomingoutwasinabodybag.

At thatmoment,Griffinwalked over to a full-length bankwindow andpressedhisbodyagainsttheglass.Hewasinfullviewofasniperstationedinthe church across the street. Griffin knew quite well the sniper was there;earlierinthedayhe’dshotathim.

Less than a second after Griffin’s silhouette appeared in his scope, thesniperpulledthetrigger.

Griffincrumpledtothefloor,dead.

BlackSwantheorytellsusthatthingshappenthatwerepreviouslythoughttobeimpossible—orneverthoughtofatall.Thisisnotthesameassayingthatsometimesthingshappenagainstone-in-a-millionodds,butratherthatthingsneverimagineddocometopass.

The idea of the Black Swan was popularized by risk analyst NassimNicholasTaleb inhisbestsellingbooksFooledbyRandomness (2001)1 andThe Black Swan (2007),2 but the term goes back much further. Until theseventeenth century, people could only imagine white swans because allswanseverseenhadpossessedwhitefeathers.Inseventeenth-centuryLondonitwascommontorefertoimpossiblethingsas“BlackSwans.”

But then the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh went to westernAustralia in 1697—and saw a black swan. Suddenly the unthinkable andunthoughtwasreal.Peoplehadalwayspredictedthatthenextswantheysawwouldbewhite,butthediscoveryofblackswansshatteredthisworldview.

BlackSwans are just ametaphor, of course.Think ofPearlHarbor, theriseoftheInternet,9/11,andtherecentbankingcrisis.

Noneof theevents abovewaspredicted—yeton reflection, themarkerswereallthere.It’sjustthatpeopleweren’tpayingattention.

As Taleb uses the term, the Black Swan symbolizes the uselessness ofpredictionsbasedonpreviousexperience.BlackSwansareeventsorpiecesofknowledgethatsitoutsideourregularexpectationsandthereforecannotbepredicted.

Thisisacrucialconceptinnegotiation.Ineverynegotiatingsession,therearedifferentkindsof information.Thereare those thingsweknow, likeourcounterpart’s name and their offer and our experiences from othernegotiations.Thoseareknownknowns.Therearethosethingswearecertainthatexistbutwedon’tknow,likethepossibilitythattheothersidemightgetsickand leaveuswithanothercounterpart.Thoseareknownunknowns andtheyarelikepokerwildcards;youknowthey’reouttherebutyoudon’tknowwhohas them.Butmost important are those thingswedon’t know thatwedon’t know, pieces of informationwe’ve never imagined but thatwould begame changing if uncovered.Maybe our counterpart wants the deal to failbecausehe’sleavingforacompetitor.

TheseunknownunknownsareBlackSwans.

With their known knowns and prior expectations so firmly guiding theirapproach,VanZandt,and really, theentireFBI,wereblind to thecluesandconnections that showed there was something outside of the predictable atplay.Theycouldn’tseetheBlackSwansinfrontofthem.

Idon’tmeantosingleoutVanZandthere.HedidalloflawenforcementaservicebyhighlightingthiseventandhetoldmeandaroomfullofagentsthestoryofthathorribleJunedayduringatrainingsessionatQuantico.Itwasanintroduction to the suicide-by-cop phenomenon—when an individualdeliberately creates a crisis situation to provoke a lethal response from lawenforcement—buttherewasanevengreaterlessonatstake:thepointofthestorythen,andnow,washowimportant it is torecognizetheunexpectedtomakesurethingslikeMoore’sdeathneverhappenagain.

OnthatdayinJune1981,O’Brienkeptcallingthebank,buteachtimethebankemployeewhoansweredquicklyhungup. Itwasat thatmoment theyshould have realized the situation was outside the known. Hostage-takers

always talkedbecause theyalways haddemands; theyalwayswanted tobeheard,respected,andpaid.

Butthisguydidn’t.Then,midwaythroughthestandoff,apoliceofficerenteredthecommand

post with the news that a double homicide with a third person criticallywoundedhadbeenreportedafewblocksaway.

“Doweneedtoknowthis?”VanZandtsaid.“Isthereaconnection?”Noonekneworfoundoutintime.Iftheyhad,theymighthaveuncovered

asecondBlackSwan: thatGriffinhadalreadykilledseveralpeoplewithoutmakingmonetarydemands.

Andthen,afewhoursin,thehostage-takerhadoneofthehostagesreadanotetothepoliceoverthephone.Curiously,therewerenodemands.Instead,itwasa ramblingdiatribeaboutGriffin’s lifeand thewrongshe’dendured.Thenotewassolongandunfocuseditwasneverreadinitsentirety.Becauseofthis,oneimportantline—anotherBlackSwan—wasn’tregistered:

“...afterthepolicetakemylife...”Because these Black Swans weren’t uncovered, Van Zandt and his

colleaguesneversawthesituationforwhatitwas:Griffinwantedtodie,andhewantedthepolicetodoitforhim.

Nothinglike this—ashootoutonadeadline?—hadeverhappenedto theFBI,so they tried tofit the information intowhathadhappened in thepast.Into the old templates.Theywondered,What does heactuallywant?Afterscaringthemforabit,theyexpectedGriffintopickupthephoneandstartadialogue.Noonegetskilledondeadline.

Orsotheythought.

UNCOVERINGUNKNOWNUNKNOWNS

Thelessonofwhathappenedat3p.m.onJune17,1981,inRochester,NewYork, was that when bits and pieces of a case don’t add up it’s usuallybecause our frames of reference are off; theywill never add up unless webreakfreeofourexpectations.

Every case is new.We must let what we know—our known knowns—guideusbutnotblindustowhatwedonotknow;wemustremainflexibleandadaptabletoanysituation;wemustalwaysretainabeginner’smind;andwemustneverovervalueourexperienceorundervaluetheinformationalandemotional realities served upmoment bymoment inwhatever situationweface.

But thosewerenot theonly important lessonsof that tragicevent. Ifanoverrelianceonknownknowns can shackle a negotiator to assumptions that

preventhimfromseeingandhearingallthatasituationpresents,thenperhapsan enhanced receptivity to the unknown unknowns can free that samenegotiatortoseeandhearthethingsthatcanproducedramaticbreakthroughs.

FromthemomentIheardthetaleofJune17,1981,IrealizedthatIhadtocompletelychangehowIapproachednegotiating.IbegantohypothesizethatineverynegotiationeachsideisinpossessionofatleastthreeBlackSwans,threepiecesofinformationthat,weretheytobediscoveredbytheotherside,wouldchangeeverything.

Myexperiencesincehasproventhistobetrue.Now,Ishouldnoteherethatthisisnotjustasmalltweaktonegotiation

technique. It isnotcoincidence that IembracedBlackSwanas thenameofmycompanyandthesymbolofourapproach.

FindingandactingonBlackSwansmandatesashift inyourmindset. Ittakesnegotiationfrombeingaone-dimensionalmove-countermovegameofcheckers to a three-dimensional game that’s more emotional, adaptive,intuitive...andtrulyeffective.

Finding Blacks Swans is no easy task, of course. We are all to somedegreeblind.Wedonotknowwhatisaroundthecorneruntilweturnit.Bydefinitionwedonotknowwhatwedon’tknow.

That’swhyIsay that findingandunderstandingBlackSwansrequiresachange of mindset. You have to open up your established pathways andembracemoreintuitiveandnuancedwaysoflistening.

This isvital topeopleofallwalksof life, fromnegotiators to inventorsandmarketers.Whatyoudon’tknowcankillyou,oryourdeal.Buttofinditoutisincrediblydifficult.Themostbasicchallengeisthatpeopledon’tknowthe questions to ask the customer, the user . . . the counterpart. Unlesscorrectly interrogated,most people aren’t able to articulate the informationyou want. The world didn’t tell Steve Jobs that it wanted an iPad: heuncovered our need, that Black Swan,without us knowing the informationwasthere.

Theproblemisthatconventionalquestioningandresearchtechniquesaredesigned to confirm known knowns and reduce uncertainty. They don’t digintotheunknown.

Negotiations will always suffer from limited predictability. Yourcounterpartmight tell you, “It’s a lovely plot of land,”withoutmentioningthat it isalsoaSuperfundsite.They’llsay,“Aretheneighborsnoisy?Well,everyonemakes a bit of noise, don’t they?” when the actual fact is that aheavymetalbandpracticestherenightly.

It is thepersonbestable tounearth,adapt to,andexploit theunknownsthatwillcomeoutontop.

Touncovertheseunknowns,wemustinterrogateourworld,mustputouta call, and intensely listen to the response. Ask lots of questions. Readnonverbalcluesandalwaysvoiceyourobservationswithyourcounterpart.

Thisisnothingbeyondwhatyou’vebeenlearninguptonow.Itismerelymore intense and intuitive. You have to feel for the truth behind thecamouflage; you have to note the small pauses that suggest discomfort andlies.Don’tlooktoverifywhatyouexpect.Ifyoudo,that’swhatyou’llfind.Instead,youmustopenyourselfuptothefactualrealitythatisinfrontofyou.

Thisiswhymycompanychangeditsformatforpreparingandengaginginanegotiation.Nomatterhowmuchresearchourteamhasdonepriortotheinteraction, we always ask ourselves, “Why are they communicating whatthey are communicating right now?” Remember, negotiation is more likewalking on a tightrope than competing against an opponent. Focusing somuchontheendobjectivewillonlydistractyoufromthenextstep,andthatcancauseyou to falloff the rope.Concentrateon thenextstepbecause theropewillleadyoutotheendaslongasallthestepsarecompleted.

Most people expect that Black Swans are highly proprietary or closelyguarded information, when in fact the information may seem completelyinnocuous.Either sidemaybecompletelyoblivious to its importance.Yourcounterpart always has pieces of information whose value they do notunderstand.

THETHREETYPESOFLEVERAGE

I’mgoingtocomebacktospecific techniquesforuncoveringBlackSwans,butfirstI’dliketoexaminewhatmakesthemsouseful.

Theanswerisleverage.BlackSwansareleveragemultipliers.Theygiveyoutheupperhand.

Now,“leverage”isthemagicword,butit’salsooneofthoseconceptsthatnegotiationexpertscasually throwaboutbut rarelydelve into,soI’d like todosohere.

Intheory, leverageis theability to inflict lossandwithholdgain.Wheredoesyour counterpartwant to gain andwhat do they fear losing?Discoverthesepieces of information,we are told, andyou’ll build leverageover theother side’s perceptions, actions, and decisions. In practice, where ourirrationalperceptionsareourreality,lossandgainareslipperynotions,anditoften doesn’t matter what leverage actually exists against you; what reallymattersistheleveragetheythinkyouhaveonthem.That’swhyIsaythere’salwaysleverage:asanessentiallyemotionalconcept,itcanbemanufacturedwhetheritexistsornot.

If they’re talking to you, you have leverage. Who has leverage in akidnapping? The kidnapper or the victim’s family? Most people think thekidnapperhasall the leverage.Sure, thekidnapperhassomethingyou love,but you have something they lust for.Which ismore powerful?Moreover,howmanybuyersdothekidnappershaveforthecommoditytheyaretryingtosell?Whatbusinessissuccessfulifthere’sonlyonebuyer?

Leveragehasa lotof inputs, like timeandnecessityandcompetition. Ifyouneed to sell your housenow, you have less leverage than if you don’thaveadeadline.Ifyouwanttosellitbutdon’thaveto,youhavemore.Andifvariouspeoplearebiddingonitatonce,goodonyou.

Ishouldnotethatleverageisn’tthesamethingaspower.DonaldTrumphastonsofpower,butifhe’sstrandedinadesertandtheowneroftheonlystoreformileshasthewaterhewants,thevendorhastheleverage.

One way to understand leverage is as a fluid that sloshes between theparties. As a negotiator you should always be aware ofwhich side, at anygivenmoment,feelstheyhavethemosttoloseifnegotiationscollapse.Thepartywhofeelstheyhavemoretoloseandarethemostafraidofthatlosshasless leverage, and vice versa. To get leverage, you have to persuade yourcounterpartthattheyhavesomethingrealtoloseifthedealfallsthrough.

At a taxonomic level, there are three kinds: Positive, Negative, andNormative.

POSITIVELEVERAGEPositive leverage isquite simplyyourabilityasanegotiator toprovide—orwithhold—thingsthatyourcounterpartwants.Whenevertheothersidesays,“Iwant...”asin,“Iwanttobuyyourcar,”youhavepositiveleverage.

When they say that, you have power: you can make their desire cometrue;youcanwithholditandtherebyinflictpain;oryoucanusetheirdesiretogetabetterdealwithanotherparty.

Here’sanexample:Threemonths after you’ve put your business on themarket, a potential

buyerfinallytellsyou,“Yes,I’dliketobuyit.”You’rethrilled,butafewdayslateryour joy turns todisappointmentwhenhedelivers anoffer so low it’sinsulting.Thisistheonlyofferyouhave,sowhatdoyoudo?

Now, hopefully you’ve had contactwith other buyers, even casually. Ifyouhave,youcanusetheoffertocreateasenseofcompetition,andtherebykickoffabiddingwar.Atleastyou’llforcethemtomakeachoice.

Butevenifyoudon’thaveotheroffersortheinterestedbuyerisyourfirstchoice, you have more power than before your counterpart revealed hisdesire.Youcontrolwhattheywant.That’swhyexperiencednegotiatorsdelay

makingoffers—theydon’twanttogiveupleverage.Positive leverage should improve your psychology during negotiation.

You’vegonefromasituationwhereyouwantsomethingfromtheinvestortoasituationwhereyoubothwantsomethingfromeachother.

Onceyouhaveit,youcanthenidentifyotherthingsyouropponentwants.Maybe he wants to buy your firm over time. Help him do that, if he’llincreasetheprice.Maybehisofferisallthemoneyhehas.Helphimgetwhathewants—yourbusiness—bysayingyoucanonlysellhim75percentforhisoffer.

NEGATIVELEVERAGENegative leverage is what most civilians picture when they hear the word“leverage.”It’sanegotiator’sabilitytomakehiscounterpartsuffer.Anditisbasedonthreats:youhavenegativeleverageifyoucantellyourcounterpart,“Ifyoudon’t fulfillyourcommitment/payyourbill/etc., Iwilldestroyyourreputation.”

Thissortof leveragegetspeople’sattentionbecauseofaconceptwe’vediscussed: loss aversion. As effective negotiators have long known andpsychologists have repeatedly proved, potential losses loom larger in thehumanmindthandosimilargains.Gettingagooddealmaypushustowardmaking a risky bet, but saving our reputation from destruction is a muchstrongermotivation.

So what kind of Black Swans do you look to be aware of as negativeleverage?Effectivenegotiatorslookforpiecesofinformation,oftenobliquelyrevealed, that show what is important to their counterpart: Who is theiraudience?What signifies status and reputation to them?Whatmostworriesthem?To find this information,onemethod is togooutside thenegotiatingtable and speak to a third party that knows your counterpart. The mosteffectivemethodistogatheritfrominteractionswithyourcounterpart.

Thatsaid,awordofwarning:Idonotbelieveinmakingdirectthreatsandam extremely careful with even subtle ones. Threats can be like nuclearbombs.Therewill be a toxic residue thatwill be difficult to clean up.Youhavetohandlethepotentialofnegativeconsequenceswithcare,oryouwillhurtyourselfandpoisonorblowupthewholeprocess.

If you shove your negative leverage down your counterpart’s throat, itmight be perceived as you taking away their autonomy. People will oftensoonerdie thangiveup their autonomy.They’ll at least act irrationally andshutoffthenegotiation.

Amore subtle technique is to label your negative leverage and therebymake it clearwithout attacking. Sentences like “It seems like you strongly

value the fact thatyou’vealwayspaidon time”or“It seems likeyoudon’tcarewhatpositionyouareleavingmein”canreallyopenupthenegotiationprocess.

NORMATIVELEVERAGEEverypersonhasasetofrulesandamoralframework.

Normative leverage is using the other party’s norms and standards toadvanceyourposition.Ifyoucanshowinconsistenciesbetweentheirbeliefsand their actions, youhavenormative leverage.Noone likes to look like ahypocrite.

Forexample,ifyourcounterpartletsslipthattheygenerallypayacertainmultipleofcashflowwhentheybuyacompany,youcanframeyourdesiredpriceinawaythatreflectsthatvaluation.

DiscoveringtheBlackSwansthatgiveyounormativevaluationcanbeaseasyasaskingwhatyourcounterpartbelievesandlisteningopenly.Youwanttoseewhatlanguagetheyspeak,andspeakitbacktothem.

KNOWTHEIRRELIGION

InMarch 2003 I led the negotiationwith a farmerwho became one of themostunlikelypost-9/11terroristsyoucanimagine.

The drama started when Dwight Watson, a North Carolina tobaccogrower, hooked up his jeep to a JohnDeere tractor festoonedwith bannersand an inverted U.S. flag and towed it to Washington, D.C., to protestgovernmentpolicieshethoughtwereputtingtobaccofarmersoutofbusiness.

WhenWatsongottothecapital,hepulledhistractorintoapondbetweenthe Washington Monument and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial andthreatenedtoblowitupwiththe“organophosphate”bombsheclaimedwereinside.

Thecapitalwent into lockdownas thepoliceblockedoffaneight-blockareafromtheLincolnMemorial totheWashingtonMonument.ComingjustmonthsaftertheBeltwaysniperattacksandalongsidethebuilduptotheIraqWar, the ease with which Watson threw the nation’s capital into turmoilfreakedpeopleout.

Talkingonhiscellphone,WatsontoldtheWashingtonPostthathewasona do-or-die mission to show how reduced subsidies were killing tobaccofarmers.HetoldthePostthatGodhadinstructedhimtostagehisprotestandhewasn’tgoingtoleave.

“IfthisisthewayAmericawillberun,thehellwithit,”hesaid.“Iwillnot surrender. They can blow [me] out of the water. I’m ready to go to

heaven.”TheFBIdeployedme to a convertedRVon theNationalMall,where I

was toguidea teamofFBIagentsandU.S.ParkPoliceaswe tried to talkWatsonoutofkillinghimselfandwhoknowshowmanyothers.

Andthenwegotdowntobusiness.Like you’d expect of a negotiationwith a guy threatening to destroy a

goodpartoftheU.S.capital,itwasrighteouslytense.Sharpshootershadtheirweapons trained onWatson, and they had the “green light” to shoot if hemadeanycrazymoves.

Inanynegotiation,butespeciallyinatenseonelikethis,it’snothowwellyou speak but how well you listen that determines your success.Understandingthe“other”isapreconditiontobeabletospeakpersuasivelyanddevelopoptions that resonate for them.There is the visible negotiationandthenallthethingsthatarehiddenunderthesurface(thesecretnegotiationspacewhereintheBlackSwansdwell).

Access to thishiddenspaceveryoftencomesthroughunderstandingtheotherside’sworldview,theirreasonforbeing,theirreligion.Indeed,diggingintoyourcounterpart’s“religion”(sometimesinvolvingGodbutnotalways)inherently implies moving beyond the negotiating table and into the life,emotionalandotherwise,ofyourcounterpart.

Once you’ve understood your counterpart’s worldview, you can buildinfluence.That’swhyaswetalkedwithWatsonIspentmyenergytryingtounearthwhohewasratherthanlogicallyarguinghimintosurrender.

FromthiswelearnedthatWatsonhadbeenfindingitincreasinglyhardtomakealivingonhis1,200-acretobaccofarm,whichhadbeeninhisfamilyforfivegenerations.Afterbeinghitbyadroughtandhavinghiscropquotacutbyhalf,Watsondecidedhecouldn’taffordthefarmanymoreanddrovetoWashington tomake his point. He wanted attention, and knowingwhat hewantedgaveuspositiveleverage.

Watsonalsotoldushewasaveteran,andveteranshadrules.Thisisthekindofmusicyouwanttohear,asitprovidesnormativeleverage.Hetoldusthathewouldbewillingtosurrender,butnotrightaway.Asamilitarypoliceofficerinthe82ndAirborneinthe1970s,he’dlearnedthatifhewastrappedbehind enemy lines, he couldwithdrawwith honor if reinforcements didn’tarrivewithinthreedays.Butnotbefore.

Now,wehad articulated ruleswecouldholdhim to, and the admissionthathecouldwithdrawalsoimpliedthat,despitehisblusteraboutdying,hewanted to live. One of the first things you try to decide in a hostagenegotiation iswhetheryourcounterpart’svisionof the future involves themliving.AndWatsonhadansweredyes.

Weusedthisinformation—apieceofnegativeleverage,aswecouldtakeaway something he wanted: life—and started working it alongside thepositiveleverageofhisdesiretobeheard.WeemphasizedtoWatsonthathehadalreadymadenationalnewsandifhewantedhismessagetosurvivehewasgoingtohavetolive.

Watsonwassmartenough tounderstand that therewasa realchancehewouldn’tmake it out alive, but he still had his rules ofmilitary honor.Hisowndesires and fearshelpedgenerate somepositiveandnegative leverage,buttheyweresecondarytothenormsbywhichhelivedhislife.

Itwastemptingtojustwaituntilthethirdday,butIdoubtedwe’dgetthatfar.Witheachpassinghour theatmospherewasgrowing tenser.Thecapitalwasundersiegeandwehadreasontobelievehemighthaveexplosives.Ifhemade one wrong move, one spastic freak-out, the snipers would kill him.He’d already had several angry outbursts, so every hour that passedendangeredhim.Hecouldstillgethimselfkilled.

Butwe couldn’t hit on that at all;we couldn’t threaten to kill him andexpectthattowork.Thereasonforthatissomethingcalledthe“paradoxofpower”—namely, theharderwepush themore likelyweare tobemetwithresistance.That’swhyyouhavetousenegativeleveragesparingly.

Still,timewasshortandwehadtospeedthingsup.Buthow?Whathappenednextwasoneof thosegloriousexamplesofhowdeeply

listeningtounderstandyourcounterpart’sworldviewcanrevealaBlackSwanthattransformsanegotiationdynamic.Watsondidn’tdirectlytelluswhatweneeded to know, but by close attention we uncovered a subtle truth thatinformedeverythinghesaid.

Aboutthirty-sixhoursin,WinnieMiller,anFBIagentonourteamwho’dbeenlisteningintentlytosubtlereferencesWatsonhadbeenmaking,turnedtome.

“He’sadevoutChristian,”shetoldme.“TellhimtomorrowistheDawnoftheThirdDay.That’sthedayChristiansbelieveJesusChristlefthistombandascended toHeaven. IfChristcameouton theDawnof theThirdDay,whynotWatson?”

It was a brilliant use of deep listening. By combining that subtext ofWatson’swordswithknowledgeofhisworldviewsheletusshowWatsonthatwenotonlywerelistening,butthatwehadalsoheardhim.

If we’d understood his subtext correctly, this would let him end thestandoffhonorablyandtodosowiththefeelingthathewassurrenderingtoanadversarythatrespectedhimandhisbeliefs.

Bypositioningyourdemandswithintheworldviewyourcounterpartuses

tomake decisions, you show them respect and that gets you attention andresults. Knowing your counterpart’s religion is more than just gainingnormative leverage per se. Rather, it’s gaining a holistic understanding ofyour counterpart’s worldview—in this case, literally a religion—and usingthatknowledgetoinformyournegotiatingmoves.

Using your counterpart’s religion is extremely effective in large partbecause it has authority over them. The other guy’s “religion” is what themarket, the experts, God, or society—whatever matters to him—hasdeterminedtobefairandjust.Andpeopledefertothatauthority.

InthenextconversationwithWatson,wementionedthatthenextmorningwastheDawnoftheThirdDay.Therewasalongmomentofsilenceontheother end of the line. Our Negotiation Operation Center was so quiet youcouldheartheheartbeatoftheguynexttoyou.

Watsoncoughed.“I’llcomeout,”hesaid.Andhedid,endingaforty-eight-hourstandoff,savinghimselffromharm,

andallowingthenation’scapitaltoresumeitsnormallife.Noexplosiveswerefound.

While the importance of “knowing their religion” should be clear fromWatson’sstory,herearetwotipsforreadingreligioncorrectly:

■ Revieweverythingyouhear.Youwillnotheareverythingthefirsttime, sodouble-check.Comparenoteswithyour teammembers.You will often discover new information that will help youadvancethenegotiation.

■ Usebackuplistenerswhoseonlyjobistolistenbetweenthelines.Theywillhearthingsyoumiss.

Inotherwords:listen,listenagain,andlistensomemore.We’ve seen how a holistic understanding of your counterpart’s

“religion”—ahugeBlackSwan—canprovidenormative leverage that leadsto negotiating results. But there are other ways in which learning yourcounterpart’s“religion”enablesyoutoachievebetteroutcomes.

THESIMILARITYPRINCIPLE

Research by social scientists has confirmed something effective negotiatorshaveknownforages:namely,we trustpeoplemorewhenweview themasbeingsimilarorfamiliar.

People trust those who are in their in-group. Belonging is a primalinstinct.Andifyoucantriggerthatinstinct,thatsensethat,“Oh,weseetheworldthesameway,”thenyouimmediatelygaininfluence.

When our counterpart displays attitudes, beliefs, ideas—evenmodes ofdress—that are similar to our own, we tend to like and trust them more.Similaritiesasshallowasclubmembershipsorcollegealumnistatusincreaserapport.

That’s why in many cultures negotiators spend large amounts of timebuilding rapport before they even think of offers.Both sides know that theinformation theygleancouldbevital to effectivedealmakingand leveragebuilding.It’sabitlikedogscirclingeachother,smellingeachother’sbehind.

Ionceworkedadeal forour serviceswith thisCEO inOhiowhere thesimilarityprincipleplayedamajorrole.

My counterpart was constantly making references that I recognized asbeingsortofborn-againChristianmaterial.Aswetalkedhekeptgoingbackandforthonwhetherheshouldbringinhisadvisors.Thewholeissueofhisadvisorsclearlypainedhim;atonepointheevensaid,“Nobodyunderstandsme.”

At that moment I began to rack my brain for the Christian word thatcapturedtheessenceofwhathewassaying.Andthenthetermcametomymind, a term people often used in church to describe the duty one had toadminister our own and our world’s—and therefore God’s—resources withhonesty,accountability,andresponsibility.

“Thisisreallystewardshipforyou,isn’tit?”Isaid.Hisvoiceimmediatelystrengthened.“Yes!You’retheonlyonewhounderstands,”hesaid.Andhehiredusatthatmoment.ByshowingthatIunderstoodhisdeeper

reasons for being and accessing a sense of similarity, of mutualbelongingness,Iwasabletobringhimtothedeal.TheminuteIestablishedakindofsharedidentitywiththisChristian,wewerein.Notsimplybecauseofsimilarityalone,butbecauseoftheunderstandingimpliedbythatmomentofsimilarity.

THEPOWEROFHOPESANDDREAMS

Once you knowyour counterpart’s religion and can visualizewhat he trulywants out of life, you can employ those aspirations as away to get him tofollowyou.

Everyengineer,everyexecutive,everychild—allofuswanttobelievewearecapableoftheextraordinary.Aschildren,ourdaydreamsfeatureourselves

asprimaryplayers ingreatmoments: anactorwinninganOscar, anathletehitting the game-winning shot. As we grow older, however, our parents,teachers,andfriendstalkmoreofwhatwecan’tandshouldn’tdothanwhatispossible.Webegintolosefaith.

Butwhensomeonedisplaysapassionforwhatwe’vealwayswantedandconveysapurposefulplanofhow toget there,weallowourperceptionsofwhat’s possible to change. We’re all hungry for a map to joy, and whensomeoneiscourageousenoughtodrawitforus,wenaturallyfollow.

Sowhenyou ascertain your counterpart’s unattainedgoals, invokeyourownpowerandfollow-abilitybyexpressingpassionfortheirgoals—andfortheirabilitytoachievethem.

Ted Leonsis is great at this. As the owner of theWashingtonWizardsprofessionalbasketballteamandtheWashingtonCapitalsprofessionalhockeyteam,heisalwaystalkingaboutcreatingtheimmortalmomentsinsportsthatpeoplewill tell their grandchildren about.Whodoesn’twant to come to anagreementwithsomeonewhoisgoingtomakethemimmortal?

RELIGIONASAREASON

Researchstudieshaveshownthatpeoplerespondfavorablytorequestsmadeinareasonabletoneofvoiceandfollowedwitha“because”reason.

In a famous study from the late 1970s,3 Harvard psychology professorEllen Langer and her colleagues approached people waiting for copymachinesandaskediftheycouldcuttheline.Sometimestheygaveareason;sometimes they didn’t. What she found was crazy: without her giving areason,60percentletherthrough,butwhenshedidgiveone,morethan90percent did.And it didn’tmatter if the reasonmade sense. (“Excuseme, Ihave fivepages.MayIcut in linebecause Ihave tomakecopies?”workedgreat.)Peoplejustrespondedpositivelytotheframework.

While idiotic reasonsworkedwith something simple likephotocopying,onmorecomplicated issuesyoucan increaseyoureffectivenessbyofferingreasons that reference your counterpart’s religion. Had that Christian CEOoffered me a lowball offer when he agreed to hire my firm, I might haveanswered,“I’dlovetobutItoohaveadutytobearesponsiblestewardofmyresources.”

IT’SNOTCRAZY,IT’SACLUE

It’s not human nature to embrace the unknown. It scares us.Whenwe areconfrontedbyit,weignoreit,werunaway,orwelabelitinwaysthatallow

us todismiss it. Innegotiations, that labelmostoften takes the formof thestatement,“They’recrazy!”

That’sonereasonI’vebeenhighlycriticalofsomeoftheimplementationof America’s hostage negotiation policy—which is that we don’t negotiatewiththosewereferbroadlytoas“theTerrorists,”includinggroupsfromtheTalibantoISIS.

TherationaleforthisnonengagementissummarizedwellbythejournalistPeterBergen,CNN’s national security analyst: “Negotiationswith religiousfanaticswhohavedelusionsofgrandeurgenerallydonotgowell.”

The alternative we’ve chosen is to not understand their religion, theirfanaticism,andtheirdelusions.Insteadofnegotiationsthatdon’tgowell,weshrugourshouldersandsay,“They’recrazy!”

Butthat’sabsolutelywrongheaded.Wemustunderstandthesethings.I’mnotsayingthatbecauseI’masoftheadedpacifist(theFBIdoesn’thireagentslike that) but because I know understanding such things is the bestway todiscovertheotherside’svulnerabilitiesandwantsandtherebygaininfluence.Youcan’tgetthatstuffunlessyoutalk.

Nooneis immuneto“They’recrazy!”Youcansee it rear itsheadineverykindofnegotiation,fromparentingtocongressionaldealmakingtocorporatebargaining.

But the moment when we’re most ready to throw our hands up anddeclare “They’re crazy!” is often the best moment for discovering BlackSwansthattransformanegotiation.Itiswhenwehearorseesomethingthatdoesn’tmake sense—something “crazy”—that a crucial fork in the road ispresented: push forward, evenmore forcefully, into that which we initiallycan’tprocess;or taketheotherpath, theonetoguaranteedfailure, inwhichwetellourselvesthatnegotiatingwasuselessanyway.

In their great book Negotiation Genius,4 Harvard Business Schoolprofessors Deepak Malhotra and Max H. Bazerman provide a look at thecommonreasonsnegotiatorsmistakenlycalltheircounterpartscrazy.I’dliketotalkthroughthemhere.

MISTAKE#1:THEYAREILL-INFORMED

Oftentheothersideisactingonbadinformation,andwhenpeoplehavebadinformation theymakebadchoices.There’s agreat computer industry termforthis:GIGO—GarbageIn,GarbageOut.

Asanexample,Malhotratalksaboutastudentofhiswhowasinadisputewithanex-employeewhoclaimedhewasowed$130,000incommissionsfor

workhehaddonebeforebeingfired;hewasthreateningalawsuit.Confused, the executive turned to the company’s accountants. There he

discovered the problem: the accounts had been amesswhen the employeewas firedbuthadsincebeenput intoorder.With theclean information, theaccountants assured the executive that in fact the employee owed thecompany$25,000.

Eagertoavoidalawsuit,theexecutivecalledtheemployee,explainedthesituation, andmade an offer: if the employee dropped the lawsuit he couldkeep the $25,000. To his surprise, the employee said that he was goingforwardwiththesuitanyway;heactedirrational,crazy.

Malhotratoldhisstudentthattheproblemwasnotcraziness,butalackofinformationandtrust.Sotheexecutivehadanoutsideaccountingfirmauditthenumbersandsendtheresultstotheemployee.

Theresult?Theemployeedroppedthesuit.Theclearpointhereisthatpeopleoperatingwithincompleteinformation

appear crazy to thosewhohavedifferent information.Your jobwhen facedwithsomeonelikethisinanegotiationistodiscoverwhattheydonotknowandsupplythatinformation.

MISTAKE#2:THEYARECONSTRAINED

In any negotiation where your counterpart is acting wobbly, there exists adistinct possibility that they have things they can’t do but aren’t eager toreveal.Suchconstraintscanmakethesanestcounterpartseemirrational.Theother side might not be able to do something because of legal advice, orbecauseofpromisesalreadymade,oreventoavoidsettingaprecedent.

Ortheymayjustnothavethepowertoclosethedeal.That last situation isone thataclientofmine facedashewas trying to

landCoca-Colaasaclientforhismarketingfirm.Theguyhadbeennegotiatingadealformonthsanditwasgettingonto

November.Hewaspetrifiedthatifhedidn’tcloseitbeforethecalendaryearendedhewouldhavetowaitforCoca-Colatosetanewbudgetandhemightlosetheclient.

Theproblemwasthathiscontacthadsuddenlystoppedresponding.Sowetoldhimtosendaversionofourclassicemailfornonresponders,theonethatalwaysworks:“Haveyougivenuponfinalizingthisdealthisyear?”

Thensomethingweirdhappened.TheCoca-Colacontactdidn’trespondtotheperfectemail.Whatwasup?

Thiswassuperficiallyquiteirrational,butthecontacthadbeenastraight-upguyuntilthen.Wetoldourclientthiscouldmeanonlyonething:thatthe

guyhad given up on closing the deal by the end of the year, but he didn’twanttoadmitit.Therehadtobesomeconstraint.

Withthisknowledgeinhand,wehadourclientdigdeep.Afterabatchofphonecallsandemailshetrackeddownsomeonewhoknewhiscontact.Andit turnedoutwehadbeenright: thecontact’sdivisionhadbeeninchaosforweeks, and in the midst of corporate infighting he had completely lostinfluence.Not surprisingly, hewas embarrassed to admit it. That’swhy hewasavoidingmyclient.

Toputitsimply,hehadmajorconstraints.

MISTAKE#3:THEYHAVEOTHERINTERESTS

ThinkbacktoWilliamGriffin,thefirstmanevertokillahostageondeadline.What theFBI and police negotiators on the scene simply did not know

was thathismain interestwasnotnegotiatingadeal torelease thehostagesformoney.Hewantedtobekilledbyacop.Hadtheybeenabletodigupthathidden interest, they might have been able to avoid some of that day’stragedy.

The presence of hidden interests isn’t as rare as youmight think.Yourcounterpartwill often reject offers for reasons that havenothing to dowiththeirmerits.

Aclientmayputoffbuyingyourproductsothattheircalendaryearclosesbefore the invoice hits, increasing his chance for a promotion. Or anemployee might quit in the middle of a career-making project, just beforebonusseason,becauseheorshehaslearnedthatcolleaguesaremakingmoremoney.Forthatemployee,fairnessisasmuchaninterestasmoney.

Whatever the specifics of the situation, these people are not actingirrationally.Theyaresimplycomplyingwithneedsanddesiresthatyoudon’tyetunderstand,what theworldlooksliketothembasedontheirownsetofrules.YourjobistobringtheseBlackSwanstolight.

Aswe’veseen,whenyourecognizethatyourcounterpartisnotirrational,butsimply ill-informed, constrained, or obeying interests that you do not yetknow, your field of movement greatly expands. And that allows you tonegotiatemuchmoreeffectively.

HereareafewwaystounearththesepowerfulBlackSwans:

GETFACETIMEBlackSwansareincrediblyhardtouncoverifyou’renotliterallyatthetable.

Nomatterhowmuchresearchyoudo,there’sjustsomeinformationthat

youarenotgoingtofindoutunlessyousitface-to-face.Today,alotofyoungerpeopledoalmosteverythingoveremail.It’sjust

howthingsaredone.Butit’sverydifficulttofindBlackSwanswithemailforthesimplereasonthat,evenifyouknockyourcounterpartofftheirmooringswithgreatlabelsandcalibratedquestions,emailgivesthemtoomuchtimetothinkandre-centerthemselvestoavoidrevealingtoomuch.

Inaddition,emaildoesn’tallowfortone-of-voiceeffects,anditdoesn’tletyoureadthenonverbalpartsofyourcounterpart’sresponse(remember7-38-55).

Let’sreturnnowtothetaleofmyclientwhowastryingtogetCoca-Colaas a client, only to learn that his contact at the company had been pushedaside.

IrealizedthattheonlywaymyclientwasgoingtogetadealwithCoca-Colawasbygettinghiscontacttoadmitthathewasuselessforthesituationandpassmyclientontothecorrectexecutive.Buttherewasnowaythisguywantedtodothat,becausehestillimaginedthathecouldbeimportant.

SoItoldmyclienttogethiscontactoutoftheCoca-Colacomplex.“Yougottogethimtodinner.You’regoingtosay,‘Woulditbeabadideaformetotakeyoutoyourfavoritesteakhouseandwejusthaveafewlaughs,andwedon’ttalkbusiness?’”

The idea was that no matter the reason—whether the contact wasembarrassed, or didn’t like my client, or just didn’t want to discuss thesituation—theonlywaytheprocesswasgoingtomoveforwardwasthroughdirecthumaninteraction.

Somyclientgotthisguyoutfordinnerandaspromisedhedidn’tbringupbusiness.But therewasnowaynot totalkabout it,andjustbecausemyclientcreatedpersonal, face-to-face interaction, thecontactadmittedhewasthewrong guy.He admitted that his divisionwas amess and he’d have tohandthingsofftosomebodyelsetogetthedealdone.

Andhedid.Ittookmorethanayeartogetthedealsigned,buttheydidit.

OBSERVEUNGUARDEDMOMENTSWhile you have to get face time, formal business meetings, structuredencounters, and planned negotiating sessions are often the least revealingkinds of face timebecause these are themomentswhen people are at theirmostguarded.

HuntingforBlackSwans isalsoeffectiveduringunguardedmomentsatthefringes,whetheratmealslikemyclienthadwithhisCoca-Colacontact,orthebriefmomentsofrelaxationbeforeorafterformalinteractions.

During a typical business meeting, the first few minutes, before you

actually get down to business, and the last few moments, as everyone isleaving, often tell youmore about the other side than anything in between.That’s why reporters have a credo to never turn off their recorders: youalwaysgetthebeststuffatthebeginningandtheendofaninterview.

Also pay close attention to your counterpart during interruptions, oddexchanges,oranythingthatinterruptstheflow.Whensomeonebreaksranks,people’s façades crack just a little. Simply noticingwhose cracks and howothersrespondverballyandnonverballycanrevealagoldmine.

WHENITDOESN’TMAKESENSE,THERE’SCENTSTOBEMADE

StudentsoftenaskmewhetherBlackSwansarespecifickindsofinformationoranykindthathelps.Ialwaysanswerthattheyareanythingthatyoudon’tknowthatchangesthings.

Todrivethishome,here’sthestoryofoneofmyMBAstudentswhowasinterning for a private equity real estate firm in Washington. Faced withactions from his counterpart that didn’t pass the sense test, he innocentlyturneduponeofthegreatestBlackSwansI’veseeninyearsbyusingalabel.

Mystudenthadbeenperformingduediligenceonpotentialtargetswhenaprincipalatthefirmaskedhimtolookintoamixed-usepropertyintheheartof Charleston, South Carolina. He had no experience in the Charlestonmarket, so he called the broker selling the property and requested themarketingpackage.

Afterdiscussingthedealandthemarket,mystudentandhisbossdecidedthat the asking price of $4.3millionwas about $450,000 too high.At thatpoint,mystudentcalledthebrokeragaintodiscusspricingandnextsteps.

Afterinitialpleasantries,thebrokeraskedmystudentwhathethoughtoftheproperty.

“It looks likean interestingproperty,”he said. “Unfortunately,wedon’tknow the market fundamentals. We like downtown and King Street inparticular,butwehavealotofquestions.”

The broker then told him that he had been in themarket formore thanfifteenyears, sohewaswell informed.At thispoint,mystudentpivoted tocalibrated“How”and“What”questionsinordertogatherinformationandjudgethebroker’sskills.

“Great,”mystudent said. “First and foremost,howhasCharlestonbeenaffectedbytheeconomicdownturn?”

The broker replied with a detailed answer, citing specific examples ofmarketimprovement.Intheprocess,heshowedmystudentthathewasveryknowledgeable.

“It sounds like I’m in good hands!” he said, using a label to buildempathy.“Nextquestion:Whatsortofcapratecanbeexpectedinthistypeofbuilding?”

Through the ensuing back-and-forth, my student learned that ownerscouldexpectratesof6to7percentbecausebuildingslikethiswerepopularwithstudentsatthelocaluniversity,agrowingschoolwhere60percentofthestudentbodylivedoffcampus.

He also learned that it would be prohibitively expensive—if notphysicallyimpossible—tobuylandnearbyandbuildasimilarbuilding.Inthelastfiveyearsnoonehadbuiltonthestreetbecauseofhistoricpreservationrules.Even if theycouldbuy land, thebrokersaidasimilarbuildingwouldcost$2.5millionjustinconstruction.

“Thebuildingisingreatshape,especiallycomparedtotheotheroptionsavailabletostudents,”thebrokersaid.

“Itseemslikethisbuildingfunctionsmoreasaglorifieddormitorythanaclassicmultifamilybuilding,”mystudentsaid,usingalabeltoextractmoreinformation.

Andhegotit.“Fortunatelyandunfortunately,yes,”thebrokersaid.“Theoccupancyhas

historicallybeenonehundredpercentanditisacashcow,butthestudentsactlikecollegestudents...”

A lightbulbwent on inmy student’s head: therewas something strangeafoot. If itwere such a cash cow,whywould someone sell a 100percentoccupiedbuildinglocatednexttoagrowingcampusinanaffluentcity?That was irrational by any measure. A little befuddled but still in thenegotiation mindset, my student constructed a label. Inadvertently hemislabeled the situation, triggering the broker to correct him and reveal aBlackSwan.

“Ifheorsheissellingsuchacashcow,itseemslikethesellermusthavedoubtsaboutfuturemarketfundamentals,”hesaid.

“Well,” he said, “the seller has some tougher properties in Atlanta andSavannah, so he has to get out of this property to pay back the othermortgages.”

Bingo!Withthat,mystudenthadunearthedafantasticBlackSwan.Thesellerwassufferingconstraintsthat,untilthatmoment,hadbeenunknown.

Mystudentput thebrokeronmuteashedescribedotherpropertiesandusedthemomenttodiscusspricingwithhisboss.Hequicklygavehimthegreenlighttomakealowballoffer—anextremeanchor—totrytoyankthebrokertohisminimum.

Afterquizzing thebroker if thesellerwouldbewilling toclosequickly,

andgettinga“yes,”mystudentsethisanchor.“I think I have heard enough,” he said. “We are willing to offer $3.4

million.”“Okay,” the broker answered. “That is well below the asking price.

However,Icanbringtheoffertothesellerandseewhathethinks.”Later thatday, thebrokercamebackwithacounteroffer.Thesellerhad

toldhimthatthenumberwastoolow,buthewaswillingtotake$3.7million.Mystudentcouldbarelykeepfromfallingoffhischair;thecounterofferwaslower than his goal. But rather than jump at the amount—and risk leavingvalue on the table with awimp-win deal—my student pushed further.Hesaid“No”withoutusingtheword.

“That is closer to what we believe the value to be,” he said, “but wecannotingoodconsciencepaymorethan$3.55million.”

(Later,my student toldme—and I agreed—that he should have used alabelorcalibratedquestionheretopushthebrokertobidagainsthimself.Buthewassosurprisedbyhowfar thepricehaddropped thathestumbledintoold-schoolhaggling.)

“Iamonlyauthorizedtogodownto$3.6million,”thebrokeranswered,clearly showing that he’d never taken a negotiation class that taught theAckermanmodelandhowtopivottotermstoavoidthehaggle.

Mystudent’sbosssignaledtohimthat$3.6millionworkedandheagreedtotheprice.

I’ve teased several of the techniques my student used to effectivelynegotiate a great deal for his firm, from the use of labels and calibratedquestions to the probing of constraints to unearth a beautiful BlackSwan. ItalsobearsnotingthatmystudentdidtonsofworkbeforehandandhadpreparedlabelsandquestionssothathewasreadytojumpontheBlackSwanwhenthebrokerofferedit.

Onceheknewthatthesellerwastryingtogetmoneyoutofthisbuildingtopayoffmortgagesontheunderperformingones,heknewthattimingwasimportant.

Of course, there’s always room for improvement.Afterwardmy studenttoldmehewishedhehadn’tlowballedtheoffersoquicklyandinsteadusedthe opportunity to discuss the other properties. Hemight have foundmoreinvestmentopportunitieswithintheseller’sportfolio.

Inaddition,hecouldhavepotentiallybuiltmoreempathyandteasedoutmore unknown unknowns with labels or calibrated questions like “Whatmarkets areyou findingdifficult rightnow?”Maybeevengotten face timewiththesellerdirectly.

Still,welldone!

OVERCOMINGFEARANDLEARNINGTOGETWHATYOUWANTOUTOFLIFE

Peoplegenerallyfearconflict,sotheyavoidusefulargumentsoutoffearthatthetonewillescalateintopersonalattackstheycannothandle.Peopleincloserelationships often avoid making their own interests known and insteadcompromise across the board to avoid being perceived as greedy or self-interested.Theyfold,theygrowbitter,andtheygrowapart.We’veallheardofmarriagesthatendedindivorceandthecoupleneverfought.

Families are just an extreme version of all parts of humanity, fromgovernmenttobusiness.Exceptforafewnaturals,everyonehatesnegotiationat first. Your hands sweat, your fight-or-flight kicks in (with a strongemphasisonflight),andyourthoughtstripdrunkenlyoverthemselves.

The natural first impulse formost of us is to chicken out, throw in thetowel, run. The mere idea of tossing out an extreme anchor is traumatic.That’swhywimp-windealsarethenorminthekitchenandintheboardroom.

Butstopandthinkaboutthat.Arewereallyafraidof theguyacross thetable? I can promise you that, with very few exceptions, he’s not going toreachacrossandslugyou.

No,oursweatypalmsarejustanexpressionofphysiologicalfear,afewtrigger-happy neurons firing because of something more base: our innatehumandesire toget alongwithothermembersof the tribe. It’snot theguyacrossthetablewhoscaresus:it’sconflictitself.

Ifthisbookaccomplishesonlyonething,Ihopeitgetsyouoverthatfearofconflictandencouragesyoutonavigateitwithempathy.Ifyou’regoingtobegreatatanything—agreatnegotiator,agreatmanager,agreathusband,agreatwife—you’regoingtohavetodothat.You’regoingtohaveto ignorethatlittlegeniewho’stellingyoutogiveup,tojustgetalong—aswellasthatothergeniewho’stellingyoutolashoutandyell.

You’regoingtohavetoembraceregular, thoughtfulconflictasthebasisof effective negotiation—and of life. Please remember that our emphasisthroughoutthebookisthattheadversaryisthesituationandthatthepersonthatyouappeartobeinconflictwithisactuallyyourpartner.

More than a little research has shown that genuine, honest conflictbetweenpeopleover theirgoalsactuallyhelpsenergize theproblem-solvingprocess in a collaborative way. Skilled negotiators have a talent for usingconflict to keep the negotiation going without stumbling into a personalbattle.

Remember, pushing hard for what you believe is not selfish. It is notbullying.Itisnotjusthelpingyou.Youramygdala,thepartofthebrainthat

processesfear,willtrytoconvinceyoutogiveup,toflee,becausetheotherguyisright,oryou’rebeingcruel.

Butifyouareanhonest,decentpersonlookingforareasonableoutcome,youcanignoretheamygdala.

With the style of negotiation taught in the book—an information-obsessed, empathic search for the best possible deal—you are trying touncovervalue,period.Nottostrong-armortohumiliate.

Whenyouaskcalibratedquestions,yes,youareleadingyourcounterparttoyourgoals.Butyouarealsoleadingthemtoexamineandarticulatewhattheywantandwhyandhowtheycanachieveit.Youaredemandingcreativityofthem,andthereforepushingthemtowardacollaborativesolution.

WhenIboughtmyred4Runner,nodoubtIdisappointedthesalesmanbygivinghimasmallerpaydaythanhewouldhaveliked.ButIhelpedhimreachhis quota, andnodoubt I paidmore for the truck than the car lot hadpaidToyota.IfallI’dwantedwasto“win,”tohumiliate,Iwouldhavestolenthething.

AndsoI’mgoingtoleaveyouwithonerequest:Whetherit’sintheofficeoraroundthefamilydinnertable,don’tavoidhonest,clearconflict.Itwillgetyouthebestcarprice,thehighersalary,andthelargestdonation.Itwillalsosaveyourmarriage,yourfriendship,andyourfamily.

One can only be an exceptional negotiator, and a great person, by bothlisteningandspeakingclearlyandempathetically;bytreatingcounterparts—andoneself—withdignityandrespect;andmostofallbybeinghonestaboutwhatonewantsandwhatonecan—andcannot—do.Everynegotiation,everyconversation, every moment of life, is a series of small conflicts that,managedwell,canrisetocreativebeauty.

Embracethem.

KEYLESSONS

Whatwedon’tknowcankill usorourdeals.Butuncovering it can totallychangethecourseofanegotiationandbringusunexpectedsuccess.

Finding the Black Swans—those powerful unknown unknowns—isintrinsicallydifficult,however,forthesimplereasonthatwedon’tknowthequestionstoask.Becausewedon’tknowwhatthetreasureis,wedon’tknowwheretodig.

HerearesomeofthebesttechniquesforflushingouttheBlackSwans—andexploitingthem.Remember,yourcounterpartmightnotevenknowhowimportant the information is, or even that they shouldn’t reveal it. So keeppushing,probing,andgatheringinformation.

■ Let what you know—your known knowns—guide you but notblind you. Every case is new, so remain flexible and adaptable.Remember theGriffin bank crisis: no hostage-taker hadkilled ahostageondeadline,untilhedid.

■ BlackSwansare leveragemultipliers.Remember the three typesofleverage:positive(theabilitytogivesomeonewhattheywant);negative(theabilitytohurtsomeone);andnormative(usingyourcounterpart’snormstobringthemaround).

■ Work to understand the other side’s “religion.” Digging intoworldviews inherently implies moving beyond the negotiatingtable and into the life, emotional and otherwise, of yourcounterpart.That’swhereBlackSwanslive.

■ Revieweverythingyouhearfromyourcounterpart.Youwillnothear everything the first time, so double-check. Compare noteswith teammembers.Use backup listenerswhose job is to listenbetweenthelines.Theywillhearthingsyoumiss.

■ Exploitthesimilarityprinciple.Peoplearemoreapttoconcedetosomeone they share a cultural similarity with, so dig for whatmakesthemtickandshowthatyousharecommonground.

■ Whensomeoneseemsirrationalorcrazy,theymostlikelyaren’t.Faced with this situation, search for constraints, hidden desires,andbadinformation.

■ Get face time with your counterpart. Ten minutes of face timeoftenrevealsmorethandaysofresearch.Payspecialattentiontoyour counterpart’s verbal and nonverbal communication atunguardedmoments—atthebeginningandtheendofthesessionorwhensomeonesayssomethingoutofline.

OceanofPDF.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This bookwould not have been possiblewithoutmy son Brandon’s help.BrandonhasbeeninvolvedinhelpingmeshapeandcreatetheseideassinceIfirstbegan teachingatGeorgetownUniversity.Hewas initially just there tovideo-record the classes but he also provided me feedback on how it wasgoingandwhatwasworking.Tobefair,heactuallyhasbeennegotiatingwithmesincehewastwoyearsold.IthinkI’veknownthateversinceIfoundouthewas using empathy to get out of troublewith his vice-principal in highschool.Inmyfirstmeetingwithmybrilliantcowriter,TahlRaz,Brandonwasthere to keep the information flow going as Tahl soaked it up. In the firstprogress conference call with my amazing publisher, Hollis Heimbouch,HollisaskedaboutBrandon’sroleandTahlsaidhavingBrandonaroundwaslikehavinganotherChrisintheroom.Brandonhasbeenindispensable.

TahlRazisaflat-outgenius.Anyonewhowritesabusinessbookwithouthimhasn’tgottenas far as theycouldhave. It’s that simple. I can’tbelievehowsmartheisorhowquicklyhegetsit.Heisatruebusiness-writingartist.He’sagreatpersonaswell.

SteveRoss,myagent,isamanofintegrityandwasperfectforthisbook.Hehasgreatindustryknowledgeandmadethisbookhappen.Iamgratefultoknowhim.

HollisHeimbouchrocks!IamthrilledthatsheledtheHarperCollinsteamandbelievedenoughinthisbooktobuyit.Thankyou,Hollis.

Thankyou,MayaStevenson,forcomingonto theBlackSwanteamandholdingustogether.Wearegoingfartherbecauseofyou.

SheilaHeenandJohnRichardsonare twoamazingpeople.Theyare theoneswhoreallypaved theway toshowthat thesehostagenegotiation ideasbelonginthebusinessworld.SheilawasmyteacheratHarvardLawSchool.Sheinspiredmewithhowshetaughtandwhosheis.Sheaskedmetoteachalongsidehertwoyearslater.JohnaskedmetoteachInternationalBusinessNegotiationatHarvardalongsidehimayearafterthat.Heguidedmethroughthat process, which led to the opportunity to become an adjunct atGeorgetown.Whennothingwashappeningforme,bothJohnandSheilawere

there.WithoutthemIdon’tknowwhereI’dbe.Thankyouboth.Gary Noesner was mymentor at the FBI. He inspired and remade the

hostagenegotiationworld(withthehelpofhisteamattheCrisisNegotiationUnit—CNU).HesupportedmeinwhateverIwantedtodo.HemademetheFBI’sleadinternationalkidnappingnegotiator.IcouldcallGaryatfivea.m.andtellhimIwasgettingonaplaneinthreehourstogotoakidnappingandhewouldsay,“Go.”Hissupportneverwavered.AtCNUhepulledtogetherthemost talentedcollectionofhostagenegotiatorseverassembled.CNUhitits zenithwhenwewere there.Noneofusknewhow luckywewere. JohnFlood,VinceDalfonzo,ChuckRegini,WinnieMiller,MannySuarez,DennisBraiden,NeilPurtell,andSteveRomanowereall rockstars. I learnedfromyou all. I can’t believe what Chuck put up with from me as my partner.Denniswas amentor and great friend. I constantly clashedwithVince andgrewbecauseofhistalent.

AllthosewhowereontheFBICriticalIncidentNegotiationTeamduringthattimetaughtmeaswell.Thankyou.

TommyCorriganandJohnLiguoriweremybrotherswhenIwasinNewYorkCity.Thethreeofusdidextraordinarythingstogether.IaminspiredbythememoryofTommyCorrigantothisday.Iwasprivilegedtobeamemberof the Joint Terrorist Task Force. We fought evil. Richie DeFilippo andCharlieBeaudoinwereexceptionalwingmenontheCrisisNegotiationTeam.Thankyoubothforallyoutaughtme.

HughMcGowanandBobLoudenfromtheNYPD’sHostageNegotiationTeam shared their wisdom with me. Both of you have been indispensableassetstothehostagenegotiationworld.Thankyou.

Derek Gaunt has been a great wingman in the Washington, D.C.,metropolitanarea.Derekgets it.Thankyou,Derek.KathyEllingsworthandherlatehusband,Bill,havebeendearfriendsandasoundingboardforyears.Iamgratefulforyoursupportandfriendship.

Tom Strentz is the godfather of the FBI’s hostage/crisis negotiationprogramandhasbeenanunwaveringfriend.Ican’tbelievehestilltakesmycalls.

My students atGeorgetown andUSChave constantly proved that theseideasworkeverywhere.MorethanonestudenthasstoppedbreathingwhenIlookedatthemandsaid,“Ineedacarinsixtysecondsorshedies.”Thanksfor coming along for the ride. Georgetown and USC have both beenphenomenalplaces to teach.Bothare trulydedicated tohigher learning, thehighestacademicstandards,andthesuccessoftheirstudents.

Thehostages and their familieswhoallowedme induring their darkesthours to try tohelpareallblessedpeople. I amgrateful to stillbe in touch

with someofyou today.Whatwisdom there is in theuniverse thatdecidedyourpathswerenecessary,Idon’tunderstand.Iwasblessedbyyourgrace.(IneedallthehelpIcanget.)

OceanofPDF.com

APPENDIX

PREPAREANEGOTIATIONONESHEET

Negotiation is a psychological investigation. You can gain a measure ofconfidence going into such an investigation with a simple preparatoryexercisewe advise all our clients to do.Basically, it’s a list of the primarytoolsyouanticipateusing,suchaslabelsandcalibratedquestions,customizedtotheparticularnegotiation.

Whenthepressureison,youdon’trisetotheoccasion—youfalltoyourhighestlevelofpreparation.

Onenoteofcautionbeforegoingintogreaterdepthonthisexercise:somenegotiation experts fetishize preparation to such a degree that they advisepeople to create the equivalent of preordained scripts for exactly how thenegotiationwillunfoldandtheexactformandsubstancetheagreementwilltakeon.Bynow,afterreadingthisfar,you’llunderstandwhythat’safool’serrand.Notonlywillsuchanapproachmakeyoulessagileandcreativeatthetable,itwillmakeyoumoresusceptibletothosewhoare.

Based on my company’s experiences, I believe that good initialpreparation for each negotiation yields at least a 7:1 rate of return on timesavedrenegotiatingdealsorclarifyingimplementation.

In the entertainment industry, they have a single document thatsummarizes a product for publicity and sales that they call a “one sheet.”Along the same lines, we want to produce a negotiation “one sheet” thatsummarizesthetoolswearegoingtouse.

Itwillhavefiveshortsections

SECTIONI:THEGOAL

Thinkthroughbest/worst-casescenariosbutonlywritedownaspecificgoalthatrepresentsthebestcase.

Typically, negotiation experts will tell you to prepare bymaking a list:yourbottomline;whatyoureallywant;howyou’regoingtotrytogetthere;andcounterstoyourcounterpart’sarguments.

But this typical preparation fails in many ways. It’s unimaginative and

leadstothepredictablebargainingdynamicofoffer/counteroffer/meetinthemiddle.Inotherwords,itgetsresults,butthey’reoftenmediocre.

The centerpiece of the traditional preparation dynamic—and its greatestAchilles’heel—issomethingcalledtheBATNA.

Roger Fisher andWilliamUry coined the term in their 1981 bestseller,GettingtoYes,anditstandsforBestAlternativeToaNegotiatedAgreement.Basically,it’sthebestpossibleoptionyouhaveifnegotiationsfail.Yourlastresort.Sayyou’reonacar lot trying tosellyouroldBMW3-series. Ifyoualready have another dealer who’s given you a written offer for $10,000,that’syourBATNA.

The problem is that BATNA tricks negotiators into aiming low.Researchers have found that humans have a limited capacity for keepingfocus in complex, stressful situations like negotiations. And so, once anegotiationisunderway,wetendtogravitatetowardthefocuspointthathasthemostpsychologicalsignificanceforus.

In that context, obsessing over a BATNA turns it into your target, andtherebysetstheupperlimitofwhatyouwillaskfor.Afteryou’vespenthoursonaBATNA,youmentallyconcedeeverythingbeyondit.

God knows aiming low is seductive. Self-esteem is a huge factor innegotiation, and many people set modest goals to protect it. It’s easier toclaim victorywhen you aim low. That’swhy some negotiation experts saythatmanypeoplewhothinktheyhave“win-win”goalsreallyhavea“wimp-win”mentality.The“wimp-win”negotiatorfocusesonhisorherbottomline,andthat’swheretheyendup.

SoifBATNAisn’tyourcenterpiece,whatshouldbe?I tellmyclients thataspartof theirpreparation theyshould thinkabout

theoutcomeextremes:bestandworst.Ifyou’vegotbothendscovered,you’llbe ready for anything. So knowwhat you cannot accept and have an ideaaboutthebest-caseoutcome,butkeepinmindthatsincethere’sinformationyettobeacquiredfromtheotherside,it’squitepossiblethatbestcasemightbeevenbetterthanyouknow.

Remember, never be so sure of what you want that you wouldn’t takesomething better.Once you’ve got flexibility in the forefront of yourmindyoucomeintoanegotiationwithawinningmindset.

Let’ssayyou’resellingoldspeakersbecauseyouneed$100toputtowardanewset. Ifyouconcentrateon the$100minimum,you’ll relaxwhenyouhearthatnumberandthat’swhatyou’llget.Butifyouknowthattheyareforsale in used audio stores for $140, you could set a high-end goal of $150,whileremainingopentobetterthings.

Now,whileIcounselthinkingaboutabest/worstrangetogivemyclientsthesecurityofsomestructure,whenitcomestowhatactuallygoesonyouronesheet,myadviceistojuststickwiththehigh-endgoal,asitwillmotivateandfocusyourpsychologicalpowers,primingyoutothinkyouarefacinga“loss”foranytermthatfallsshort.Decadesofgoal-settingresearchisclearthat peoplewho set specific, challenging, but realistic goals end up gettingbetterdealsthanthosewhodon’tsetgoalsorsimplystrivetodotheirbest.

Bottomline:Peoplewhoexpectmore(andarticulateit)getmore.Herearethefourstepsforsettingyourgoal:

■ Setanoptimisticbutreasonablegoalanddefineitclearly.

■ Writeitdown.

■ Discussyourgoalwithacolleague(thismakesithardertowimpout).

■ Carrythewrittengoalintothenegotiation.

SECTIONII:SUMMARY

Summarizeandwriteout in justa coupleof sentences the known facts thathaveleduptothenegotiation.

You’re going to have to have something to talk about beyond a self-servingassessmentofwhatyouwant.Andyouhadbetterbereadytorespondwith tactical empathy to your counterpart’s arguments; unless they’reincompetent,theotherpartywillcomepreparedtoargueaninterpretationofthefactsthatfavorsthem.

Getonthesamepageattheoutset.Youhavetoclearlydescribethelayofthelandbeforeyoucanthinkabout

actinginitsconfines.Whyareyouthere?Whatdoyouwant?Whatdotheywant?Why?

Youmustbeabletosummarizeasituationinawaythatyourcounterpartwillrespondwitha“That’sright.”Iftheydon’t,youhaven’tdoneitright.

SECTIONIII:LABELS/ACCUSATIONAUDIT

Preparethreetofivelabelstoperformanaccusationaudit.Anticipate how your counterpart feels about these facts you’ve just

summarized.Make a concise list of any accusations theymight make—nomatterhowunfairorridiculoustheymightbe.Thenturneachaccusationinto

alistofnomorethanfivelabelsandspendalittletimerole-playingit.Therearefill-in-the-blanklabelsthatcanbeusedinnearlyeverysituation

toextractinformationfromyourcounterpart,ordefuseanaccusation:Itseemslike_________isvaluabletoyou.Itseemslikeyoudon’tlike_________.Itseemslikeyouvalue__________.Itseemslike_________makesiteasier.Itseemslikeyou’rereluctantto_________.Asanexample,ifyou’retryingtorenegotiateanapartmentleasetoallow

sublettersandyouknowthelandlordisopposedtothem,yourpreparedlabelswouldbeonthelinesof“Itseemsasthoughyou’renotafanofsubletters”or“Itseemslikeyouwantstabilitywithyourtenants.”

SECTIONIV:CALIBRATEDQUESTIONS

Prepare three to five calibrated questions to reveal value to you and yourcounterpartandidentifyandovercomepotentialdealkillers.

Effective negotiators look past their counterparts’ stated positions (whatthe party demands) and delve into their underlying motivations (what ismaking themwantwhat theywant).Motivations arewhat they areworriedaboutandwhattheyhopefor,evenlustfor.

Figuringoutwhattheotherpartyisworriedaboutsoundssimple,butourbasichumanexpectationsaboutnegotiationoftengetintheway.Mostofustendtoassumethattheneedsoftheothersideconflictwithourown.Wetendto limit our field of vision to our issues and problems, and forget that theother side has its own unique issues based on its own unique worldview.Greatnegotiatorsgetpast theseblindersbybeing relentlesslycuriousaboutwhatisreallymotivatingtheotherside.

Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling has a great quote that sums up thisconcept:“Youmustaccepttherealityofotherpeople.Youthinkthatrealityisupfornegotiation,thatwethinkit’swhateveryousayitis.Youmustacceptthatweareasrealasyouare;youmustacceptthatyouarenotGod.”

Therewillbeasmallgroupof“What”and“How”questionsthatyouwillfindyourselfusinginnearlyeverysituation.Hereareafewofthem:

Whatarewetryingtoaccomplish?Howisthatworthwhile?What’sthecoreissuehere?Howdoesthataffectthings?What’sthebiggestchallengeyouface?Howdoesthisfitintowhattheobjectiveis?

QUESTIONSTOIDENTIFYBEHIND-THE-TABLEDEALKILLERSWhenimplementationhappensbycommittee,thesupportofthatcommitteeiskey.You’llwanttotailoryourcalibratedquestionstoidentifyandunearththemotivationsofthosebehindthetable,including:

Howdoesthisaffecttherestofyourteam?Howonboardarethepeoplenotonthiscall?Whatdoyourcolleaguesseeastheirmainchallengesinthisarea?

QUESTIONSTOIDENTIFYANDDIFFUSEDEAL-KILLINGISSUESInternal negotiating influence often sits with the people who are mostcomfortablewiththingsastheyare.Changemaymakethemlookasif theyhaven’tbeendoing their job.Yourdilemma insuchanegotiation ishow tomakethemlookgoodinthefaceofthatchange.

You’llbetemptedtoconcentrateonmoney,butputthatasidefornow.Asurprisingly high percentage of negotiations hinge on something outsidedollars and cents. Often they have more to do with self-esteem, status,autonomy,andothernonfinancialneeds.

Thinkabouttheirperceivedlosses.Neverforgetthatalossstingsatleasttwiceasmuchasanequivalentgain.

Forexample,theguyacrossthetablemaybehesitatingtoinstallthenewaccountingsystemheneeds(andyouareselling)becausehedoesn’twanttoscrewanythingupbeforehisannualreviewinfourmonths’time.Insteadofloweringyourprice,youcanoffertohelpimpresshisboss,anddoitsafely,bypromisingtofinishtheinstallationinninetydays,guaranteed.

QUESTIONSTOUSETOUNEARTHTHEDEAL-KILLINGISSUESWhatareweupagainsthere?

Whatisthebiggestchallengeyouface?Howdoesmakingadealwithusaffectthings?Whathappensifyoudonothing?Whatdoesdoingnothingcostyou?Howdoesmakingthisdealresonatewithwhatyourcompanypridesitself

on?It’softenveryeffectivetoasktheseingroupsoftwoorthreeastheyare

similar enough that they help your counterpart think about the same thingfromdifferentangles.

Everysituation isunique,ofcourse,butchoosing the rightmixof thesequestions will lead your counterpart to reveal information about what theywantandneed—andsimultaneouslypushthemtoseethingsfromyourpointofview.

Beready toexecute follow-up labels to theiranswers toyourcalibratedquestions.

Havinglabelspreparedwillallowyoutoquicklyturnyourcounterpart’sresponses back to them, which will keep them feeding you new andexpandinginformation.Again, thesearefill-in-the-blanklabels thatyoucanusequicklywithouttonsofthought:

Itseemslike__________isimportant.Itseemsyoufeellikemycompanyisinauniquepositionto__________.Itseemslikeyouareworriedthat__________.

SECTIONV:NONCASHOFFERS

Preparealistofnoncashitemspossessedbyyourcounterpartthatwouldbevaluable.

Askyourself:“Whatcouldtheygivethatwouldalmostgetustodoitforfree?”ThinkoftheanecdoteItoldafewchaptersagoaboutmyworkforthelawyers’association:Mycounterpart’sinterestwastopaymeaslittlecashaspossibleinordertolookgoodinfrontofhisboard.Wecameupontheideathattheypayinpartbypublishingacoverstoryaboutmeintheirmagazine.Thatwaslow-costforthemanditadvancedmyinterestsconsiderably.

For more information on my company, The Black Swan Group, anyadditional information or guidance we can give you on negotiation, or forcontactingme about speaking to your company, please visit ourwebsite atwww.blackswanltd.com.

OceanofPDF.com

NOTES

Thepaginationofthiselectroniceditiondoesnotmatchtheeditionfromwhichitwasmade.Tolocateaspecificpassage,pleaseusethesearchfeatureonyoure-bookreader

CHAPTER1:THENEWRULES1. RobertMnookin,BargainingwiththeDevil:WhentoNegotiate,WhentoFight(NewYork:Simon

&Schuster,2010).2. RogerFisherandWilliamUry,Getting toYes:NegotiatingAgreementWithoutGivingIn(Boston:

HoughtonMifflin,1981).3. DanielKahneman,Thinking,FastandSlow(NewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2011).4. PhilipB.HeymannandUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice,LessonsofWaco:ProposedChangesin

FederalLawEnforcement(Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,1993).

CHAPTER2:BEAMIRROR1. GeorgeA.Miller,“TheMagicalNumberSeven,PlusorMinusTwo:SomeLimitsonOurCapacity

forProcessingInformation,”PsychologicalReview63,no.2(1956):81–97.

CHAPTER3:DON’TFEELTHEIRPAIN,LABELIT1. GregJ.Stephens,LaurenJ.Silbert,andUriHasson,“Speaker–ListenerNeuralCouplingUnderlies

SuccessfulCommunication,”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUSA107,no.32(August10,2010):14425–30.

2. MatthewD. Lieberman et al., “Putting Feelings intoWords:Affect LabelingDisruptsAmygdalaActivityinResponsetoAffectiveStimuli,”PsychologicalScience18,no.5(May2007):421–28.

CHAPTER4:BEWARE“YES”—MASTER“NO”1. JimCamp,StartwithNO:TheNegotiatingToolsThattheProsDon‘tWantYoutoKnow(NewYork:

CrownBusiness,2002).

CHAPTER6:BENDTHEIRREALITY1. HerbCohen,YouCanNegotiateAnything(Secaucus,NJ:LyleStuart,1980).2. AntonioR.Damasio,Descartes’Error:Emotion,Reason,andtheHumanBrain(NewYork:Quill,

2000).3. JeffreyJ.Fox,HowtoBecomeaRainmaker:ThePeopleWhoGetandKeepCustomers(NewYork:

Hyperion,2000).4. DanielAmesandMaliaMason,“TandemAnchoring:InformationalandPolitenessEffectsofRange

Offers in Social Exchange,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108, no. 2 (February2015):254–74.

CHAPTER7:CREATETHEILLUSIONOFCONTROL1. Kevin Dutton, Split-Second Persuasion: The Ancient Art and New Science of Changing Minds

(Boston:HoughtonMifflinHarcourt,2011).2. Dhruv Khullar, “Teaching Doctors the Art of Negotiation,”New York Times, January 23, 2014,

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com /2014/01/23/teaching-doctors-the-art-of-negotiation/, accessedSeptember4,2015.

CHAPTER8:GUARANTEEEXECUTION1. AlbertMehrabian, Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes, 2nd ed.

(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1981), and Albert Mehrabian,Nonverbal Communication (Chicago:Aldine-Atherton,1972).

2. LynM.VanSwol,MichaelT.Braun, andDeepakMalhotra, “Evidence for thePinocchioEffect:LinguisticDifferencesBetweenLies,DeceptionbyOmissions, andTruths,”DiscourseProcesses49,no.2(2012):79–106.

CHAPTER9:BARGAINHARD1. GeraldR.Williams,LegalNegotiationsandSettlement(St.Paul,MN:West,1983).2. MarwanSinaceurandLarissaTiedens,“GetMadandGetMorethanEven:TheBenefitsofAnger

ExpressionsinNegotiations,”JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology42,no.3(2006):314–22.3. DanielR.AmesandAbbieWazlawek,“PushingintheDark:CausesandConsequencesofLimited

Self-AwarenessforInterpersonalAssertiveness,”PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin40,no.6(2014):1–16.

CHAPTER10:FINDTHEBLACKSWAN1. NassimNicholas Taleb,Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the

Markets(NewYork:RandomHouse,2001).2. NassimNicholasTaleb,TheBlackSwan:TheImpactoftheHighlyImprobable(NewYork:Random

House,2007).3. Ellen J. Langer, Arthur Blank, and Benzion Chanowitz, “The Mindlessness of Ostensibly

Thoughtful Action: The Role of ‘Placebic’ Information in Interpersonal Interaction,” Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology36,no.6(1978):635–42.

4. DeepakMalhotra andMax H. Bazerman,Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles andAchieveBrilliantResultsattheBargainingTableandBeyond(NewYork:BantamBooks,2007).

OceanofPDF.com

INDEX

Thepaginationofthiselectroniceditiondoesnotmatchtheeditionfromwhichitwascreated.Tolocateaspecificentry,pleaseuseyoure-bookreader’ssearchtools.

AbuSayyaf(militantIslamicgroup),96,99,100,140,142–44Accommodators(bargainingstyle),192,194–96accusationaudit,19,64–68,73,128,182–83,254–55example,contractnegotiation,65–68Ackerman,Mike,205–6Ackermanmodel,21,205–8,212,240example,gettingarentcut,208–11fourstepsof,206Haitiankidnappingsand,207–8activelistening,16,19,53.SeealsotacticalempathyBCSMand,97crisisnegotiationsand,225difficultyoflistening,27–28effectivepauses,103focusingontheotherperson,28,47labelingand,103minimalencouragers,103mirroringand,19,103paraphrasingand,103Schillingkidnappingcaseand,102–4silences,19,103summaries,103uncoveringBlackSwansand,228,244–45aggressiveness,155,160,172,173,175removing,141,152agreement,20,52,84,143,163,195,231best/worstrange,253clearingbarriersto,72commitment“yes”and,81dynamicof,157executionof,163,171,177fairnessand,122liarsand,172“no”and,89RuleofThreeand,177–78,186Aladdin(film),123AlQaeda,140,143Ames,Daniel,202Analysts(bargainingstyle),192,193–94

“anchorandadjustment”effect,130anchoringbendingrealitywith,139emotionsand,20,128–29establishingarange,131–32,139extreme,199,200,206–7,212,240inkidnappingcase,133–35monetarynegotiations,129–30anger,57–58,158,161,202,204apologizing,3,58–59,125,152,159,181,194Aristide,Jean-Bertrand,113Assertive(bargainingstyle),192,193,196–97realanger,threatswithoutanger,andstrategicumbrage,202assumptions,19,24–26,44,47,191bargainingstylesand,197–98ofFisherandUry,11knownknownsand,218

bargaininghard,20–21,188–212Accommodators,192,194–96Ackermanmodeland,205–8,212Analysts,192,193–94Assertivestyle,192,193,196–97BlackSwanrule,198effectivewaystoassertsmartly,201–5example,MBAstudentsolicitingfunds,200–201“falltoyourhighestlevelofpreparation,”208,211,251identifyingyourcounterpart’sstyle,197–98,211informationgatheringand,199–200,211–12keylessonsof,211–12lawyer-negotiators,192–93nodealisbetterthanabaddeal,115,117,204outcomegoalsand,253personalnegotiationstyles,192–98pivotingtononcashterms,199,206,258psychologicalcurrentsand,191punchingback(usingassertion),201–5,212takingapunch,198–201,212Vossandbuyingatruck,188–90BargainingwiththeDevil:WhentoNegotiate,WhentoFight(Mnookin),2BATNA(BestAlternativeToaNegotiatedAgreement),8,13,252Bazerman,MaxH.,233Beaudoin,Charlie,24BehavioralChangeStairwayModel(BCSM),97behavioraleconomics,11behaviorchangeBCSMand,97healthissuesand,97lessonsthatlaythefoundationfor,112psychologicalenvironmentnecessaryfor,97–98“that’sright”and,98,101–5,107“you’reright”asineffective,105–7behindthetableorLevelIIplayers,171–72,186pronounusageand,179,187

questionstoidentify,256bendingreality,126–35.Seealsoprospecttheorykeylessonsof,138–39Bergen,Peter,232BlackSwan,The(Taleb),215BlackSwanGroup,The,3,21,191,220complementaryPDFform,bargainingtypes,198websiteandmoreinformation,258BlackSwans,19,21,213–45ascertainingcounterpart’sunattainedgoals,231askingquestionstoreveal,110“crazy”vs.aclue,232–33,245example,Griffinhostagecase,213–14,216–17,235,244example,MBAstudentuncoversseller’sconstraints,238–41example,Watsonstandoff,WashingtonDC,224–28gettingfacetimetounearthhiddenfactors,236–37keylessonsof,244–45knowingacounterpart’s“religion”and,225,228–29,244asleveragemultipliers,220–24,244listeninganduncovering,228,244–45mistakingactingonbadinformationforcraziness,233–34mistakingconstrainedforactingcrazy,234–35mistakinghavingotherinterestsforactingcrazy,235observingunguardedmomentstounearthhiddenfactors,237Taleb’suseofterm,216theoryof,215tipsforreadingreligioncorrectly,228uncoveringunknownunknowns,218–20whattheyare,238Blum,Gabriella,2–4,5bodylanguage.SeenonverbalcommunicationBonderow,Amy,76–77,81,85BranchDavidiansiege,Waco,Texas,13Bueno,Jesus,182–85Burnham,MartinandGracia,140,143,144,145,146,166Burnham-Soberocase,DosPalmas,140–41,142–48,170Bush,GeorgeW.,143

calibrated,oropen-ended,questions,20,141,149,150,151–56,243Ackermanmodeland,207toanalyzenegotiationteamandbehindthetable/LevelIIplayers,171,172Assertive(bargainingstyle)and,196cautionaboutusing“why,”153–54,160,203Ecuadorkidnappingand,160,165,166,167toelicitinformation,185example,doctorandunhappypatient,150,155examplestouse,154,256“forcedempathy”and,168greatest-of-all-timequestion,151,168“How”questions,167–69,181,186keylessonsof,160–61NegotiationOneSheetand,255–58questionstoidentifyanddiffusedeal-killingissues,256–57questionstoidentifythebehind-the-tabledealkillers,256

responsestoaggressivenessand,141,152,159,175RuleofThreeand,177–78scriptfor,157–58toneofvoicefor,167–68whentouse,154wordstoavoidin,153wordstobeginwith,153,160Camp,Jim,78,90car-buyingnegotiations,119,188–90,243certaintyeffect,127Chandler,Raymond,129Chrisdiscount,179–80clearingthebarrierstoagreement,61–63,72Clinton,Hillary,53cognitivebias,12Cohen,Herb,119collaboration,21How/Noquestionsand,167–68nevercreateanenemy,204–5Collodi,Carlo,178ColumbiaBusinessSchool,131communication.Seealsoactivelistening;calibrated,oropen-ended,question;voicetonescalibrated,oropen-ended,question,20,141,149,150,151–56,165,166,167–69,170,174–75,255–

58Chineseexpressionabout,111controlin,160,166empathyas“soft”skill,53hiddenaspectsof,77“I”messages,203–4literalinterpretations,mistakeof,77lyingand,178“no”and,75–80pronounusageandperson’simportance,179,1877-38-55PercentRule,176–77,186subtleties,spottingandinterpreting,173–76uncoveringlying,176usingyourownname(Chrisdiscount),179–80,187“yes”and,80–81“yes”and“no,”valuesinherentin,86compromise,18–19,115–16,139reasonsfor,116win-winand,115,253control,140–61calibrated,oropen-ended,questionand,141,149,150,151–56incommunication,160creatingtheillusionof,149–61,166,174–75influencevs.,84keylessonsof,160–61lackof,andhostagementality,159late-nightFMDJvoiceand,33asprimalurge,84saying“no”and,78–79,86–92,94self-control,156–59,161,202,204

crisisnegotiations,4–5,9–10,13–16,18–19,54.SeealsokidnappingorhostagenegotiationsHarlemstandoff,49–51,54–55Vossand,76Watsonstandoff,224–28CrisisNegotiationUnit(CNU),96–97BehavioralChangeStairwayModel(BCSM),97Cruz,Arlyndela,143Cuban,Mark,91

Damasio,Antonio,122deadlines,20,116–20,139mistakeofhidingadeadline,120decision-makingdiscoveringemotionaldriversof,126emotionand,122,123prospecttheoryand,127–35Descartes’Error:Emotion,Reason,andtheHumanBrain(Damasio),122directorassertivevoice,32–33,48DoubleIndemnity(film),129Downsv.UnitedStates,10Dutton,Kevin,149,150

Ecuadorkidnapping,164–67,169–70Egypt-Israelpeacetreaty,133emailtechnique,20,92–93,95emotionamygdalaandfear,55,61,62anchoringemotions,20,128–29avoidingescalations,204carefuluseof,204communicationderailedby,49contractforRobinWilliamsinAladdinand,123decision-makingand,122,123detectingtheotherperson’s,55–56Harlemstand-offnegotiation,49–51,54–55intentionallymislabeling,reasonfor,91,94Iraniansanctionsand,123–24Japaneseregulatingtechnique,159labeling,50,54–73negativeemotions,57–61“presenting”behaviorand“underlying”feeling,57primalneedsand,84regulating,duringnegotiation,156–59,161replacingnegativewithpositive,59,73responsestoverbalassaults,159roleinnegotiation,49–50UltimatumGameand,121–22emotionalintelligence,19,33,50,52.Seealsotacticalempathyempathy,15,53–54,72,128.SeealsotacticalempathyBCSMand,97definition,51–52FBIcrisisnegotiationtechniquesand,16“forcedempathy,”168,180HillaryClintonand,53

labelingand,68asamoodenhancer,62negotiationand,16,53–54,61,70–71neuralresonanceand,53projectionversus,120rapportbasedon,70as“soft”communicationskill,53usinganempathymessageinnegotiations,182usinglabelingtocreate,239usingyourownname(Chrisdiscount)and,179–80,187verbalandnonverballanguagetosignal,46encouragers,103Estabrook,Robert,150–51Evelsizer,Marti,86–87,88executionofagreements,20,162–87articulationofimplementation,169HowasnecessarywithYes,164–69Howquestionandimplementation,168–69,186prisonsiege,St.MartinParish,Louisiana,162–63RuleofThreeand,177–78

fairness,20,139compromiseasabaddeal,115–16,139contractforRobinWilliamsinAladdinand,123errorinusing,183Iraniansanctionsand,123–24NFLlockoutand,125UltimatumGame,120–23Voss’suseof,125–26whenandhowtouseinnegotiation,124–26whyit’spowerful,122–24falsehoodsandliars,172,173,176numberofwordsused,178Pinocchioeffect,178RuleofThreeand,177–78,186useofpronouns,178fearamygdalaand,55,61,62,243labelingandcalming,61,63,64,67,73ofnegotiating,242FederalBureauofInvestigation(FBI)Ackermansystem,21“countryclearance,”58CrisisNegotiationTeams,49–51,76–77,86–87crisisnegotiationtechniques,4–5,13–16,141,149,165,166,167,170,174CrisisNegotiationUnit(CNU),96–97,170CriticalIncidentResponseGroup(CIRG),14Giffehijackinghostages,mishandlingof,9–10HostageRescueTeam(HRT),96JointTerrorismTaskForce(JTTF),24,76,77–78,98kidnappingnegotiations,141numberofagents,1Quantico,96,164,173,216RubyRidge,Waco,andnegotiationapproach,13–14

SupervisorySpecialAgent(SSA),96SWATteams,49,76VossasaSSAwiththeCNU,96Vossasinternationalkidnappingnegotiator,1,98,164Vossbeginscareerwith,76Vossbeginsnegotiatorcareerat,85VossontheJTTF,NewYork,76,77–78,98Fields,W.C.,178financialnegotiations.Seealsobargainingcar-buying,119,188–90,243Chrisdiscount,180gettingarentcut,208–11gettingyourcounterpartstobidagainstthemselvesand,181–85MBAstudentandsolicitingfunds,200–201Fisher,Roger,10–11,252FooledbyRandomness(Taleb),215framingeffect,12,20Freeh,Louis,14fundraising,89–91

Gaddafi,Muammar,99–100GettingtoYes(FisherandUry),11,13,14,16,20,80,98,252Giffe,George,Jr.,9–10goals/outcomegoals,12,52,81,95,112,160,170,174,201,211,240,242,243Ackermanmodeland,206,208agreementor“yes”as,94ascertainingcounterpart’s,28,231bargainingstylesand,193,195,196BATNAand,252best/worstrange,69,253extractinginformationas,25,47,110,147fourstepsforsetting,253–54humanconnectionas,72NegotiationOneSheet,252–54win-winorcompromise,115,116,253Griffin,William,213–14,216–17,235,244

Haitiaskidnapcapital,113–14kidnappingcase,113–15,133–35,207–8HarvardNegotiationResearchProject,2,10–11HarvardUniversity,4executivenegotiatingcourse,1,5–8Heen,Sheila,5–6,7HelpLine,81“CareFronting,”82,84Vossansweringphonesfor,81–84,85Heymann,PhilipB.,14hostagementality,159hostagenegotiation.SeekidnappingorhostagenegotiationsHowtoBecomeaRainmaker,126humor,187

“I”messages,203–4

influence,16,20BCSMand,97,98demeanor,delivery,and,32FBI’spsychologicaltacticsand,43identifyingandinfluencingemotions,50negative,clearingout,72negotiationand,18persuadingfromother’sperspectiveand,84,225,227–29Iran,123–24ISIS,232IsraelDefenseForces(IDF),2IsraeliNationalSecurityCouncil,2

Jobs,Steve,219Kahneman,Daniel,11,12,13,127kidnappingorhostagenegotiations,9–10,21,78airplanehijacking,9–10America’shostagenegotiationpolicy,232Atticaprisonriots,9bankrobbery,Brooklyn,23–43,179Burnham-Soberocase,140–48calibrated,oropen-ended,questions,useof,141,149,165,166,167,170compromiseasabaddeal,115,133Ecuadorkidnapping,164–67,169–70exercisecalled“sixtysecondsorshedies,”64FBIand,1,141,147,170FBIPittsburghcase,148–49gaugingthelevelofathreatin,118Griffincase,213–14,216–17,235,244Haitiankidnapping113–15,133–35hostagesurvivaldebriefing,170late-nightFMDJvoiceand,33–34,38leveragein,114,118MunichOlympics,9NegotiationOperationCenter(NOC),27negotiatorteams,27neversplitthedifferencein,18–19Onglingswankidnapping,173–75,179prisonsiege,St.MartinParish,Louisiana,162–63,171“proofoflife”and,34,147,148–49,165,170Schillingcase,96,98–105terroristsand,232“that’sright”and,101–5“knowingtheirreligion,”225,228–29,244offeringreasonsthatreferencecounterpart’sreligion,231powerofhopesanddreamsand,230–31similarityprincipleand,229–30Koresh,David,13

labeling,19,50,54–73,112accusationaudit,64–68,73,254–55Assertive(bargainingstyle)and,196avoiding“I,”56crankygrandfatherexample,59

deescalatingangryconfrontationswith,58–59todiscoversourceofincongruence,176empathyasamoodenhancer,62empathybuildingand,239toextractinformation,239,257–58offears,61–62fill-in-the-blankexamples,255,258GirlScoutfundraiserand,62–63intentionallymislabelinganemotion,91,94keylessonsof,71–73labelingandcalmingfear,61,63,64,67,73lawyersand“takingthestingout”technique,65Liebermanbrainimagingstudy,55negativityand,57–61,64–68,70phrasingthelabel,56RuleofThreeand,177rulesaboutformanddelivery,55Schillingkidnappingcaseand,103silencesand,56–57,71,72stepone:detectingtheotherperson’semotionalstate,55–56steptwo:labelingitaloud,56astransformative,63WashingtonRedskinsticketholderscript,60–61“words,music,anddance”and,55Lanceley,Fred,14–15Langer,Ellen,231late-nightFMDJvoice,19,31–33,47contractdiscussionand,34downward-inflectingstatement,32,33generaldemeanoranddelivery,32Harlemfugitivestand-offnegotiationand,51hostagenegotiationand,33–34,38lawyer-negotiators,192–93Leonsis,Ted,231“LessonsofWaco:ProposedChangesinFederalLawEnforcement”(Heymann),14leverage,220–24BlackSwansasleveragemultipliers,220–21,224,244inakidnapping,221lossaversionand,128negative,222–23,226,227,244normative,224,226,244personalnegotiationstylesand,192positive,221–22,226,244whatitis,220liars.SeefalsehoodsandliarsLieberman,Matthew,55listening.Seeactivelisteninglossaversion,12,127–28,139,223,257

Macapagal-Arroyo,Gloria,140Malhotra,Deepak,178,179,233Mehrabian,Albert,176MemphisBarAssociation,132MiddleEasternmerchants,33

Miller,GeorgeA.,28Miller,Winnie,227mindsetfindingandactingonBlackSwansand,218,219askeytosuccessfulnegotiation,43multiplehypothesesapproach,25positive,33,47ready-to-walk,204–5win-win,115mirroring(isopraxism),19,35–36,44,48,70,71,183activelisteningand,103bodylanguageand,36toelicitinformation,185fourstepprocessforworkplacenegotiation,44–46reactiontouseof“fair”innegotiations,125silencesand,37,44,72usewithAssertivebargainers,196usewithassertivepeople,191–92verbal,36Wisemanwaiterstudy,36Misino,Dominick,41–42Mnookin,Robert,2–4,5Moore,DonA.,120Moore,Margaret,214–15,217Mousavian,SeyedHossein,124MSU(makingshitup)approach,30Mueller,Robert,143

negotiation.Seealsobargaininghard;specificsituations;specifictechniquesclearingthebarrierstoagreement,61–63,72confrontationalshowdownsorjointproblem-solvingsessions,151creatingbreakthroughsbyuncoveringunknowns,213–45example,Annaandcontractnegotiation,65–68example,gettinganairlineticketandupgrade,68–71example,gettingarentcut,208–11extremeanchortobegin,199gainingpermissiontopersuade,96–112gettingyourcounterpartstobidagainstthemselvesand,181–85guaranteeingexecutionofadeal,162–81howtogetyourprice(bargaininghard),188–212asinformation-gatheringprocess,147,154labelingandtacticalempathy,49–73lifeas,17limitedpredictabilityand,219mantrafor,115,117,204mirroringtoestablishrapport,23–48neversplitthedifference,18–19,115,116,139“no”andgeneratingmomentum,74–95preparationfor,211,251–58(seealsoNegotiationOneSheet)problem-solvingapproach,8,11,14,15psychologicaltacticsandstrategies,15–16,18questionstotransformconflictintocollaboration,140–61researchonandstudyof,10–13shapingwhat’sfair,113–39

sweetesttwowordsfor,98System1and2conceptsand,13timingandsuccessof,119VossinHarvardcourse,5–8negotiationerrors.Seealsospecificnegotiationsaiminglow,252–53compromising,18–19,115–16,139deadlinesand,116–20gettingtoYestooquickly,86,94,112goingtoofast,30,47hidingadeadline,120lackofrealcommunication,145–48notfocusingontheotherperson,28NegotiationGenius(MalhotraandBazerman),233NegotiationOneSheet,21,251–58SectionI:TheGoal,252–54SectionII:Summary,254SectionIII:Labels/AccusationAudit,254–55SectionIV:CalibratedQuestions,255–58SectionV:NoncashOffers,258neuralresonance,53NewYorkCityPoliceDepartment(NYPD),10,24,27,30,31,38TechnicalAssistanceResponseUnit(TARU),41NFLPlayersAssociation(NFLPA),125niceness,85,939/11terroristattacks,140,143,216,224Nixon,Jim,98“No,”74–95askingfor,20,85demystifying,88emailtechnique,92–93,95fearof,88forcingaresponse,91fundraisingscriptusing,89–91asgatewayto“Yes,”77gettingyourcounterpartstobidagainstthemselvesand,181–85“How”questionsasgentlewaystosay“no,”167–68,174,181,186MarkCubanon,91meaningsof,79,94multi-step(forgettingcounterpartstobidagainstthemselves),182–85powerfullessonsof,94–95asprotection,78–79,86–92,93,94skillsof,89asstartofnegotiation,75–80voicetonesanddownwardinflection,181waystorespondto,79–80whentowalkaway,92Noesner,Gary,14–15,144nonmonetaryissues,132,134,135,199,206,257preparingnoncashoffers,258nonroundnumbers,132–33,134,137,183–84,185,201,206,207,211,212Ackermansystemand,206,212Haitiankidnappingsand,207–8

nonverbalcommunication,173matchingbodylanguagewithvoicetone,176mirroringbodylanguage,367-38-55PercentRuleand,176,186smiling,33,47

O’Brien,Jim,214,217Onglingswan,Aaron,174–75Onglingswan,Alastair,173–75,179Ottenhoff,Ben,89–91

“paradoxofpower,”227paraphrasing,20,103,112Peale,NormanVincent,81persuasionstrategy:negotiatingintheother’sworld,80–85,94–95Philippines,96,98–104,140–41,142–48,173–75Pinocchioeffect,178PittsburghPoliceDepartment’sHostageNegotiationTeam,87positive/playfulvoice,32,33,48positivereinforcement,36smilingand,32,33,46,47Prado,Angel,136–38preparationfornegotiation,211,251–58(seealsoNegotiationOneSheet)“falltoyourhighestlevelofpreparation,”208,211,251primalneeds,84PrincetonUniversity,fMRIbrain-scanexperimentonneuralresonance,53prisonsiege,St.MartinParish,Louisiana,162–63,171prospecttheory,12,127–35anchoringemotions,128–29establishingarange,131–32lettingtheotherguygofirst,129–31pivotingtononmonetaryterms,132surprisingwithagift,133usingoddnumberstofortifyyouroffers,107,132–33,134,137,183–84,185,206,211,212ProspectTheory(KahnemanandTversky),127psychics,56

Raiffa,Howard,206rapport,30,47,83,84,165.SeealsomirroringAccommodatorsand,195basedonempathy,70BCSMand,97crisisnegotiationsamd,15mirroringtobuild,35negotiationand,46Schillingkidnappingcaseand,101usedforsales,108“rationalactors,”12reciprocity,133,148,160,168,193,196,206,207Regini,Chuck,98Rogers,Carl,97Rowling,J.K.,256RubyRidgesiege,Idaho,13RuleofThree,177–78,186

Rust,Kevin,166

Sabaya,Abu,98–105,142–43,144,145Sadat,Anwar,133“safeandsecure,”84,86,94salarynegotiations,129–30,135–38“bolsteringrange,”131establishingarange,131–32example,AngelPrado,136–38pleasantpersistenceonnonsalaryterms,135,137recruitingamentorwithaspecificquestion,136–37settingsuccessmetrics,135–36,137sales,30openingline,86,94using“that’sright”and,107–8Schilling,Jeffrey,96,98–105,140scripts,8,251forfundraising,89–91fornegotiatinggettingpaid,157–58telemarketerand,74WashingtonRedskinsticketholderscript,60–61self-esteem,253,2577-38-55PercentRule,176–77,186silencesbargainingstylesand,194,196,197closingadealand,189lastruleoflabelingand,56–57pausesforactivelistening,19,103pausingafterlabelingabarrierormirroringastatement,37,44,71,72similarityprinciple,229–30,245Sinaceur,Marwan,202smiling,46Analysts(bargainingstyle)and,194creatingpositivitywith,32,33,46,47toestablishrapport,70nicenessandfeigned,74,85,93positive/playfulvoiceand,48Snyder,Phillip,113–14Sobero,Guillermo,140,142,143Split-SecondPersuasion(Dutton),149StartwithNO(Camp),78,90“strategicumbrage,”202St.ThomasMoreSchool,106,107summaries,20Assertive(bargainingstyle)and,196buildingblocksof,112forimplementationofadeal,169NegotiationOneSheetand,254RuleofThreeand,177triggeringa“that’sright”with,108,112usedforsales,108whatagoodsummaryis,103SunTzu,53–54“thesupremeartofwar,”54

System1and2thinkingmodel,12–13negotiationusing,13tacticalempathy,16,19,50–54accusationaudit,19airlinecounterand,70,71keylessonsof,71–73labeling,19WashingtonRedskinsticketholderscript,60–61whatitis,52taichi,174Taleb,NassimNicholas,215telemarketers,74–75,86terrorism“BlindSheikh,”24thwartedattempts,NewYorkCity,24“that’sright,”98,101–2,112Assertive(bargainingstyle)and,196“How”questionandimplementationofadeal,169howtotrigger,102–5,108,112usedforcareersuccess,109–11usedinapricenegotiation,111usingtomakeasale,107–8“you’reright”asineffective,105–7,169Thinking,FastandSlow(Kahneman),12threats,202,222–23Tiedens,Larissa,202time-out,204Trump,Donald,221trustfakeangeranddestroying,202losing,194similarityand,229–30,245Tversky,Amos,11,12Tyson,Mike

UltimatumGame,120–23“unbelief,”149–50,151unconditionalpositiveregard,97,98,112UnitedArabEmirates,128UniversityofCalifornia,BerkeleyHaasSchoolofBusiness,120UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles(UCLA),55,176UniversityofChicago,11Ury,William,10–11,252

VanZandt,Clint,214,216Vlamingh,Willemde,215voicetonescontractdiscussionand,34directorassertivevoice,32–33,48,197forHowquestions,167–68late-nightFMDJvoice,19,31–33,47,51matchingwithbodylanguage,176positive/playfulvoice,32,48

7-38-55PercentRuleand,176,186Voss,Brandon,105–7,191,192

WashingtonCapitals,231WashingtonRedskins,60WashingtonWizards,231Watson,Dwight,224–28Watts,Chris,31–35,37–39,41–43,179Wazlawek,Abbie,202Weaver,Randy,13Wilder,Billy,129Williams,Robin,123wimp-windeal,240,242,253Winfrey,Oprah,46win-wingoals,115,253Wiseman,Richard,36workplacenegotiationsfourstepprocess,usingmirroring,44–46“How”questiontocollectfundsowed,168salarynegotiations,129–30,131–32,135–38scriptforgettingpaid,157–58“that’sright”usedforcareersuccess,109–11WorldTradeCenterbombing(1993),99

Yap,Ediborah,145“Yes”achievingconsent,164analyzingtheentirenegotiationspace(theteam),170–71commitment,80,81,83,177confirmation,80,81,177counterfeit,80–81,84,85,177defensivenessand,86,94discomfortand,86“How”necessarywith,164–69,186RuleofThreeand,177–78,186usingtooearly,86,94,112YouCanNegotiateAnything(Cohen),119

ZOPA(ZoneofPossibleAgreement),8,198,199

OceanofPDF.com

ABOUTTHEAUTHORS

CHRIS VOSS is one of the preeminent practitioners and professors ofnegotiatingskillsintheworld.HecurrentlyteachesatboththeUniversityofSouthern California’s Marshall School of Business and GeorgetownUniversity’s McDonough School of Business. Chris has lectured at manyother preeminent universities, including Harvard Law School, the SloanSchoolofManagement,andtheKelloggSchoolofManagement.HelivesinLosAngeles,California.

TAHL RAZ uncovers big ideas and great stories that ignite change andgrowth in people and organizations.He is an award-winning journalist andcoauthor of the New York Times bestseller Never Eat Alone. When notresearchingorwriting,he coaches executives, lectureswidelyon the forcestransformingthenewworldofwork,andservesasaneditorialconsultantforseveralnationalfirms.Heinvitesreaderstoe-mailhimattr@tahlraz.comandtovisithiswebsiteatwww.tahlraz.com.

Discovergreatauthors,exclusiveoffers,andmoreathc.com.

OceanofPDF.com

OceanofPDF.com

CREDITS

COVERDESIGNBYJARRODTAYLOR

OceanofPDF.com

COPYRIGHT

Theopinionsexpressedinthisbookaresolelythoseoftheauthor,andnotoftheFBI.

NEVER SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE. Copyright © 2016 by Christopher Voss. All rights reserved underInternational and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you havebeen granted the nonexclusive, nontransferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse-engineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans,whetherelectronicormechanical,nowknownorhereafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofHarperCollinse-books.

FIRSTEDITION

ISBN:978-0-06-240780-1

EPubEditionMAY2016ISBN9780062407818

1617181920OV/RRD10987654321

OceanofPDF.com

ABOUTTHEPUBLISHER

AustraliaHarperCollinsPublishersAustraliaPty.Ltd.

Level13,201ElizabethStreetSydney,NSW2000,Australiawww.harpercollins.com.au

CanadaHarperCollinsCanada

2BloorStreetEast-20thFloorToronto,ONM4W1A8,Canada

www.harpercollins.ca

NewZealandHarperCollinsPublishersNewZealand

UnitD1,63ApolloDriveRosedale0632

Auckland,NewZealandwww.harpercollins.co.nz

UnitedKingdomHarperCollinsPublishersLtd.

1LondonBridgeStreetLondonSE19GF,UKwww.harpercollins.co.uk

UnitedStatesHarperCollinsPublishersInc.

195BroadwayNewYork,NY10007www.harpercollins.com

OceanofPDF.com