Executive Summary

“Never Split the Difference” by Chris Voss, a former FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator, fundamentally challenges traditional negotiation theories, particularly those advocating for rational problem-solving and compromise. Drawing from decades of high-stakes experience, Voss argues that effective negotiation is deeply rooted in human psychology, emotional intelligence, and active listening. The book introduces a system of “tactical empathy” and practical psychological tactics designed to gain the upper hand by understanding and influencing the emotional, often irrational, drivers of counterparts. These methods, proven in life-or-death scenarios, are presented as universally applicable to business, career, and personal interactions, emphasizing that “Life is negotiation.”

Main Themes and Key Concepts

1. The Primacy of Emotion Over Logic

Traditional negotiation, often taught in business schools, emphasizes rational problem-solving and logical arguments. Voss, however, vehemently argues that this approach is flawed because humans are fundamentally “crazy, irrational, impulsive, emotionally driven animals.”

• Rejection of Pure Rationality: Voss contends that theories built on “intellectual power, logic, authoritative acronyms like BATNA and ZOPA, rational notions of value, and a moral concept of what was fair and what was not” are based on a “false edifice of rationality.”
• System 1 vs. System 2 Thinking: Drawing on Daniel Kahneman’s work, Voss highlights that our “animal mind” (System 1) is “fast, instinctive, and emotional” and “far more influential” than our “slow, deliberative, and logical” mind (System 2). To influence System 2 rationality, one must first affect System 1 feelings.
• Emotional Intelligence is Key: The FBI’s shift in negotiation strategy, after failures like Ruby Ridge and Waco, moved from problem-solving to focusing “on the animal, emotional, and irrational.” This made “Emotions and emotional intelligence… central to effective negotiation, not things to be overcome.”

2. Tactical Empathy: Listening as a Martial Art

Tactical Empathy is the cornerstone of Voss’s approach, described as “listening as a martial art.” It’s not about agreement or sympathy, but about profound understanding.

• Definition: Tactical empathy is “the ability to recognize the perspective of a counterpart, and the vocalization of that recognition.” It involves “understanding the feelings and mindset of another in the moment and also hearing what is behind those feelings so you increase your influence in all the moments that follow.”
• Core Premise: “It all starts with the universally applicable premise that people want to be understood and accepted. Listening is the cheapest, yet most effective concession we can make to get there.”
• Benefits of Feeling Understood: Psychotherapy research shows that “when individuals feel listened to, they tend to listen to themselves more carefully and to openly evaluate and clarify their own thoughts and feelings. In addition, they tend to become less defensive and oppositional and more willing to listen to other points of view.”
  

3. Key Tactical Empathy Tools

Voss introduces several practical techniques to implement tactical empathy:

• Mirroring: This is “the art of insinuating similarity.” It involves repeating the “last three words (or the critical one to three words) of what someone has just said.” This triggers a neurobehavioral instinct to copy, establishing rapport and encouraging the counterpart to elaborate, revealing more information.
• Example: In a bank robbery, Voss mirrored a kidnapper’s statement: “We chased your driver away?” which led the kidnapper to “vomit information.”
• Labeling: Giving a name to a counterpart’s emotions or perceptions. It almost always begins with “It seems like…”, “It sounds like…”, or “It looks like…”.
• Purpose: Labeling “disrupts its raw intensity” by applying “rational words to a fear.” It’s used to “neutralize the negative, reinforce the positive.”
• Accusation Audit: A proactive form of labeling where you “list every terrible thing your counterpart could say about you” and say them first. This disarms negative dynamics and can often lead the other person to deny the accusation, thus revealing common ground.
• Example: In a Harlem standoff, Voss repeatedly stated, “It looks like you don’t want to come out. It seems like you worry that if you open the door, we’ll come in with guns blazing. It looks like you don’t want to go back to jail,” leading to the fugitives’ surrender.

4. Mastering “No” and Striving for “That’s Right”

Voss radically redefines the significance of “Yes” and “No” in negotiation.

• “No” as an Asset: Contrary to common belief, “No” is “pure gold” because “it provides a temporary oasis of control” for the speaker. It often means “I am not yet ready to agree,” “I do not understand,” or “I need more information,” rather than outright rejection.
• Strategy: “Great negotiators seek ‘No’ because they know that’s often when the real negotiation begins.” It offers safety and control, making the environment more collaborative.
• Example: Asking “Is now a bad time to talk?” is preferable to “Do you have a few minutes to talk?” because it offers the counterpart an easy “No” or full focus.
• Beware of “Yes”: There are three types of “Yes”: Counterfeit (a polite dodge), Confirmation (a simple affirmation without commitment), and Commitment (the real deal). Most people give counterfeit “yes” to end an uncomfortable conversation.
• “That’s Right” as the Breakthrough: The “sweetest two words in any negotiation are actually ‘That’s right.'” This signifies that the counterpart feels truly understood, leading to a subtle epiphany and genuine behavioral change.
• How to Achieve: A good summary, combining paraphrasing and labeling, is the best way to trigger a “That’s right.”
• Contrast with “You’re Right”: “You’re right” is often a dismissive phrase meaning “just shut up and go away,” leading to no real change.

5. Bending Reality and Leveraging Cognitive Biases

Voss advocates for understanding and using predictable human irrationality, particularly cognitive biases like loss aversion and framing effects, to one’s advantage.

• Don’t Compromise: “Compromise is often a ‘bad deal'” because it satisfies neither side and can lead to absurd outcomes. “No deal is better than a bad deal.”
• Deadlines as Allies: Deadlines are “the bogeymen of negotiation, almost exclusively self-inflicted figments of our imagination.” They often make people rush into bad deals. By revealing your deadline, you reduce impasse risk and speed up concessions from the other side. Understanding the counterpart’s hidden deadlines (e.g., kidnappers wanting “party money” by Friday) provides significant leverage.
• “Fair” is a Weapon: The word “Fair” is “a tremendously powerful word that you need to use with care.” It’s often used defensively (“We just want what’s fair”) or manipulatively (“We’ve given you a fair offer”).
• Counter-Tactic: If accused of unfairness, ask, “Okay, I apologize. Let’s stop everything and go back to where I started treating you unfairly and we’ll fix it.” To preempt, state early, “I want you to feel like you are being treated fairly at all times. So please stop me at any time if you feel I’m being unfair, and we’ll address it.”
• Anchoring Emotions: Emotionally “anchor them by saying how bad it will be” (an accusation audit) to prepare them for a loss, then make your offer seem reasonable.
• Extreme Anchors & Ranges: When talking numbers, letting the other side anchor first can be beneficial. However, if you must anchor, set an extreme anchor to shift their perception or use a range where the low end is your desired price (“bolstering range”).
• Odd Numbers: Use “precise, nonround numbers like, say, $37,893 rather than $38,000” to give offers “credibility and weight.”
• Loss Aversion: “People will take more risks to avoid a loss than to achieve gains.” To gain leverage, “persuade them that they have something concrete to lose if the deal falls through.”

6. Calibrated Questions: The Illusion of Control

Calibrated questions are open-ended questions designed to subtly guide the conversation and encourage the counterpart to develop your desired solution.

• Mechanism: They “remove aggression from conversations by acknowledging the other side openly, without resistance.” They start with “What” or “How” (and sometimes “Why” strategically).
• “How am I supposed to do that?”: This is a powerful, gentle “No” that invites collaboration and forces the other side to “expend their energy on devising a solution” to your problem.
• “Art of letting someone else have your way”: These questions give the “illusion of control” to the counterpart while you “are framing the conversation.”
• Guaranteeing Execution: Asking “How will we know we’re on track?” and “How will we address things if we find we’re off track?” forces the counterpart to articulate implementation in their own words, making them more invested in the solution.
• Red Flags: Beware of “You’re right” and “I’ll try,” as they often signal a lack of buy-in or an intention to fail.

7. Finding Black Swans: Uncovering Unknown Unknowns

Black Swans are “hidden and unexpected pieces of information—those unknown unknowns—whose unearthing has game-changing effects on a negotiation dynamic.”

• Definition: Unlike “known knowns” (what we know) and “known unknowns” (what we know we don’t know), Black Swans are “pieces of information we’ve never imagined but that would be game changing if uncovered.”
• Leverage Multipliers: Black Swans provide the most potent forms of leverage:
• Positive Leverage: The ability to give (or withhold) something the counterpart wants.
• Negative Leverage: The ability to make the counterpart suffer (based on threats, but used carefully and subtly, e.g., “It seems like you strongly value the fact that you’ve always paid on time”).
• Normative Leverage: Using the other party’s “norms and standards to advance your position” by showing inconsistencies between their beliefs and actions.
• “Know Their Religion”: Delving into a counterpart’s “worldview, their reason for being, their religion” (their deeply held beliefs, values, and motivations). This provides normative leverage.
• Example: In the Dwight Watson standoff, uncovering his identity as a “devout Christian” allowed negotiators to use the concept of “the Dawn of the Third Day” to facilitate his surrender.
• Overcoming “They’re Crazy!”: What seems irrational is usually a clue. Counterparts might be “ill-informed,” “constrained” by unstated factors (e.g., internal politics), or have “other interests” (hidden agendas).
• Method: Get face time, observe unguarded moments (before/after meetings, during interruptions), and relentlessly ask questions to uncover these underlying realities.

8. The Negotiation One Sheet: Preparation for Agility

Voss proposes a simplified preparation tool, the “Negotiation One Sheet,” contrasting it with traditional methods that can lead to rigidity.

• Rejection of BATNA as a Primary Focus: While BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) is useful, obsessing over it “tricks negotiators into aiming low” and “sets the upper limit of what you will ask for.”
• Focus on High-End Goal: Instead, set an “optimistic but reasonable goal and define it clearly,” writing it down and discussing it to commit.
• Dynamic Preparation: The one-sheet includes sections for:
• Goal: Best-case scenario (optimistic but realistic).
• Summary: Known facts leading to the negotiation.
• Labels/Accusation Audit: Anticipated negative perceptions or accusations from the counterpart.
• Calibrated Questions: To reveal value, identify deal-killers, and influence behind-the-table players.
• Noncash Offers: Ideas for valuable non-monetary concessions.

Most Important Ideas/Facts

• Negotiation is primarily emotional, not rational. All decisions are ultimately governed by emotion (Kahneman’s System 1).
• Tactical Empathy is the core skill. It’s about profoundly understanding, not necessarily agreeing with, the other side.
• “That’s right” is the ultimate goal, not “Yes.” “That’s right” signals genuine understanding and buy-in, while “Yes” can be a counterfeit or confirmation without commitment.
• “No” is not a failure; it’s the start of the negotiation. It provides safety and control for the counterpart, opening up the dialogue.
• Calibrated Questions (starting with “How” or “What”) give the illusion of control. They subtly guide the counterpart to solve your problems, leading to solutions they “own.” “How am I supposed to do that?” is a powerful, gentle “No.”
• Compromise often leads to bad deals. Never “split the difference.”
• Loss aversion is a powerful motivator. People will take greater risks to avoid a loss than to achieve an equal gain.
• Black Swans are “unknown unknowns” that are leverage multipliers. Uncovering these hidden pieces of information—often related to underlying motivations, constraints, or “religion” (worldview)—can be game-changing.
• “Fair” is a highly emotional and manipulative word. Use it with caution or strategically to disarm or set boundaries.
• Preparation should focus on anticipating emotional responses and crafting flexible questions, rather than rigid scripts or aiming low (avoiding BATNA as a primary focus).
• It’s crucial to influence the “behind the table” players. Few negotiations are solo; many hidden individuals can be deal makers or deal killers.

This briefing highlights the transformative power of a psychological and empathetic approach to negotiation, emphasizing that by understanding and addressing the emotional landscape, one can achieve superior and lasting outcomes in any interaction.

Contact Factoring Specialist, Chris Lehnes

A Study Guide to Chris Voss’s Never Split the Difference

This study guide is designed to help you review and deepen your understanding of Chris Voss’s negotiation principles as outlined in Never Split the Difference.

I. Quiz: Short Answer Questions

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

1. What is the core difference between the FBI’s approach to negotiation and the traditional Harvard Law School approach, as described by Voss?
2. Explain the “Late-Night FM DJ Voice” and its primary purpose in a negotiation.
3. How does Voss define “Tactical Empathy” and what is its goal?
4. Why does Voss advocate for striving for “That’s right” instead of “Yes” in a negotiation?
5. Describe the concept of an “Accusation Audit” and why it is an effective negotiation tactic.
6. According to Voss, why is “No” often considered “pure gold” in a negotiation, rather than a negative outcome?
7. What are “Calibrated Questions” and how do they create the “illusion of control” for the counterpart?
8. Explain the “Rule of Three” and how it helps a negotiator guarantee execution.
9. What is an “extreme anchor” in the context of bargaining, and what psychological effect does it aim to achieve?
10. Define a “Black Swan” in negotiation and explain its significance.

II. Answer Key

1. What is the core difference between the FBI’s approach to negotiation and the traditional Harvard Law School approach, as described by Voss? The FBI’s approach, rooted in experiential learning from high-stakes crisis situations, emphasizes emotional intelligence, psychology, and crisis intervention to understand and influence irrational human behavior. In contrast, the traditional Harvard approach, exemplified by “Getting to Yes,” focuses on rational problem-solving, logic, and intellectual power to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.
2. Explain the “Late-Night FM DJ Voice” and its primary purpose in a negotiation. The “Late-Night FM DJ Voice” is characterized by a deep, soft, slow, and reassuring tone, often with a downward inflection. Its primary purpose is to convey calm, control, and authority without triggering defensiveness, thereby making the counterpart feel safe and encouraging them to open up.
3. How does Voss define “Tactical Empathy” and what is its goal? Tactical Empathy is defined as the ability to recognize and vocalize a counterpart’s perspective and underlying feelings in the moment, and to understand what drives those feelings. Its goal is to increase influence by acknowledging emotions, creating trust, and guiding the conversation toward a desired outcome.
4. Why does Voss advocate for striving for “That’s right” instead of “Yes” in a negotiation? Voss argues that “Yes” can often be superficial (“Counterfeit Yes” or “Confirmation Yes”) and doesn’t guarantee genuine agreement or action. “That’s right,” however, indicates that the counterpart feels truly understood and has assessed and confirmed the negotiator’s summary of their world, leading to a deeper level of buy-in and a breakthrough in the negotiation.
5. Describe the concept of an “Accusation Audit” and why it is an effective negotiation tactic. An “Accusation Audit” involves proactively listing and vocalizing all the negative things the counterpart could say about the negotiator or their position before the counterpart can voice them. This tactic disarms the counterpart by addressing their fears and potential criticisms head-on, reducing defensiveness and fostering a sense of empathy and trust.
6. According to Voss, why is “No” often considered “pure gold” in a negotiation, rather than a negative outcome? “No” is “pure gold” because it gives the speaker a feeling of safety, security, and control, allowing them to define their boundaries and true desires. It’s often a temporary decision to maintain the status quo, opening the door for clarification, reevaluation, and further negotiation, rather than ending the discussion.
7. What are “Calibrated Questions” and how do they create the “illusion of control” for the counterpart? Calibrated Questions are open-ended questions, typically starting with “How” or “What” (avoiding “Why”), that force the counterpart to think deeply about the problem and articulate solutions. They create the “illusion of control” because the counterpart feels they are providing the answers and driving the conversation, while the negotiator is subtly framing the discussion and guiding them toward the desired outcome.
8. Explain the “Rule of Three” and how it helps a negotiator guarantee execution. The “Rule of Three” is a tactic to ensure genuine commitment by getting the counterpart to agree to the same thing three different ways within the same conversation. This helps to uncover any hidden objections or insincerity, as it’s difficult to repeatedly lie or fake conviction, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.
9. What is an “extreme anchor” in the context of bargaining, and what psychological effect does it aim to achieve? An “extreme anchor” is a deliberately high or low initial offer made at the beginning of a monetary negotiation. Its psychological effect is to “bend the reality” of the counterpart, unconsciously adjusting their expectations and moving their perceived range of possible outcomes closer to the extreme anchor, making subsequent, more reasonable offers seem highly attractive.
10. Define a “Black Swan” in negotiation and explain its significance. A “Black Swan” is an unknown unknown—a piece of game-changing information that was previously unimagined or thought impossible, and whose discovery fundamentally alters the negotiation dynamic. Its significance lies in its power to unlock breakthroughs and provide immense leverage, transforming seemingly intractable situations.

III. Essay Format Questions (No Answers Provided)

1. Compare and contrast the influence of emotional intelligence and logical reasoning in negotiation, drawing on specific examples or theories presented in the text to support your argument.
2. Analyze how the different bargaining styles (Accommodator, Assertive, Analyst) impact negotiation dynamics and what strategies Voss suggests for effectively dealing with each type.
3. Discuss the critical role of “listening as a martial art” and “Tactical Empathy” in information gathering and relationship building. How do these concepts challenge traditional notions of negotiation?
4. Examine the psychological significance of “Yes” and “No” in negotiation according to Voss. How does understanding these words, particularly the power of “No,” transform a negotiator’s approach and potential outcomes?
5. Explain the concept of “bending their reality” through various tactics like anchoring, loss aversion, and the strategic use of numbers. How does this approach leverage human irrationality to achieve desired results?

IV. Glossary of Key Terms

• Accusation Audit: A proactive negotiation tactic where you list and verbalize all the negative things your counterpart could say about you or your position to disarm them and build trust.
• Accommodator (Bargaining Style): A negotiator type primarily focused on building and maintaining relationships, often prioritizing agreement and harmonious exchange of information over concrete outcomes.
• Ackerman Model: A structured, six-step offer-counteroffer bargaining system (65%, 85%, 95%, 100% of target price) that incorporates psychological tactics like extreme anchors, reciprocity, and diminishing increments to achieve a desired price.
• Active Listening: A core component of tactical empathy, involving intense focus on the other person, observing verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal cues, and demonstrating a sincere desire to understand their perspective.
• Analyst (Bargaining Style): A methodical, diligent negotiator type focused on minimizing mistakes, thorough preparation, and data. They are typically reserved, less emotional, and hypersensitive to reciprocity.
• Anchoring: The psychological tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. In negotiation, it refers to setting a strong initial offer or statement to influence the perceived value of a deal.
• Assertive (Bargaining Style): A negotiator type driven by winning and achieving results quickly. They are direct, candid, and often aggressive in their communication, focusing on their own goals rather than primarily on relationships.
• BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement): (Coined by Fisher and Ury) Your best option if a negotiation fails. Voss critiques its overuse as it can lead to aiming low by becoming the negotiator’s psychological target.
• Behavioral Change Stairway Model (BCSM): A five-stage model (active listening, empathy, rapport, influence, and behavioral change) developed by the FBI’s Crisis Negotiation Unit to guide negotiators from understanding to influencing behavior.
• Black Swan: An “unknown unknown”—a powerful, unexpected piece of information or event that, if discovered, fundamentally changes the entire negotiation dynamic and provides significant leverage.
• Calibrated Questions: Open-ended questions, usually starting with “How” or “What” (and generally avoiding “Why”), designed to make the counterpart think and articulate solutions, giving them the “illusion of control” while subtly guiding the conversation.
• Certainty Effect: A concept from Prospect Theory stating that people are drawn to sure things over probabilities, even when the probability is a statistically better choice.
• Commitment “Yes”: A genuine agreement from the counterpart that leads to action and a signed deal.
• Confirmation “Yes”: A simple, reflexive affirmation in response to a black-or-white question, without a promise of action.
• Counterfeit “Yes”: A “yes” given by the counterpart who intends to say “no” but uses “yes” as an easier escape route or to gather more information.
• “Chris Discount”: A personal tactic where the negotiator uses their own first name in a friendly, humanizing way to establish rapport and potentially secure a small concession.
• Deadlines: Time constraints that can create pressure and anxiety in negotiations. Voss argues many are arbitrary and negotiable, and revealing your deadline can lead to better deals.
• Extreme Anchor: A deliberately high or low initial offer intended to psychologically shift the counterpart’s perception of value and range of possible agreement.
• “Fair”: A highly emotional and often manipulative word in negotiation. Voss advises caution when using or encountering it, suggesting strategies to either preempt accusations of unfairness or deflect them.
• “Forced Empathy”: A dynamic created by calibrated “How” questions, where the counterpart is implicitly made to consider and understand the negotiator’s situation, often leading them to offer solutions.
• Framing Effect: A cognitive bias where people respond differently to the same choice depending on how it is presented or “framed.”
• “How Am I Supposed To Do That?”: A powerful calibrated question used as a gentle way to say “No” and force the counterpart to consider the negotiator’s constraints and propose solutions.
• “I” Messages: Statements using the first-person singular pronoun (“I feel X when you Y because Z”) to set boundaries or express a viewpoint without escalating confrontation.
• Isopraxism (Mirroring): The unconscious or conscious imitation of another person’s speech patterns, body language, vocabulary, tempo, or tone of voice. Consciously used as a negotiation tactic to build rapport and encourage elaboration.
• Labeling: A tactical empathy technique where you verbalize the emotions or assumptions you perceive in your counterpart (“It sounds like…”, “It seems like…”, “It looks like…”). This diffuses negative emotions and reinforces positive ones.
• Late-Night FM DJ Voice: A deep, soft, slow, and reassuring vocal tone used to project calm, control, and authority, making the counterpart feel safe and open.
• Loss Aversion: A psychological principle (from Prospect Theory) where people are statistically more motivated to avoid a loss than to achieve an equal gain. Effective negotiators leverage this by framing proposals in terms of what the counterpart stands to lose.
• Mirroring: The act of repeating the last one to three critical words your counterpart has just said to encourage them to elaborate and build rapport.
• Negative Leverage: The ability of a negotiator to make their counterpart suffer, often based on threats of negative consequences. Used with extreme caution.
• Negotiation One Sheet: A concise preparatory document used by negotiators to outline their goal, summarize known facts, prepare labels/accusation audits, formulate calibrated questions, and list noncash offers.
• “No”: Voss argues that “No” is a powerful word in negotiation, signifying autonomy, safety, and a desire to maintain the status quo. It often marks the beginning of true negotiation, clarifying boundaries and paving the way for creative solutions.
• Noncash Offers: Non-monetary items or terms that can be valuable to one party in a negotiation, offering a way to create value without directly adjusting the price.
• Nonround Numbers: Specific, precise numbers (e.g., $37,263) used in offers to convey thoughtfulness, credibility, and firmness, in contrast to rounded numbers (e.g., $38,000) which can feel like temporary placeholders.
• Normative Leverage: Using the other party’s norms, standards, or moral framework to advance your position, highlighting inconsistencies between their beliefs and actions.
• “Paradox of Power”: The phenomenon where the harder one pushes in a negotiation, the more likely they are to be met with resistance from the other party.
• Paraphrase: Restating what the other person has said in your own words to demonstrate understanding and clarify meaning.
• Pinocchio Effect: A linguistic indicator of deception, where liars tend to use more words and more third-person pronouns to distance themselves from the lie, and often more complex sentences.
• Positive Leverage: The ability of a negotiator to provide or withhold things that their counterpart wants.
• Positive/Playful Voice: The default voice tone recommended for negotiators, characterized by an easygoing, good-natured, and encouraging attitude, often accompanied by a smile, to promote collaboration and mental agility.
• Prospect Theory: A theory by Kahneman and Tversky describing how people choose between options involving risk, highlighting biases like Loss Aversion and the Certainty Effect.
• “Religion” (of your counterpart): A metaphor for your counterpart’s worldview, their reason for being, their core beliefs, values, and what truly matters to them. Understanding this helps uncover Black Swans and build influence.
• Rule of Three: A technique to ensure genuine commitment by getting the counterpart to affirm an agreement or idea three different ways in a conversation (e.g., “Yes,” “That’s right,” and a “How” question about implementation).
• 7-38-55 Percent Rule: Albert Mehrabian’s rule stating that in communication, 7% of a message is conveyed by words, 38% by tone of voice, and 55% by body language. It emphasizes the importance of nonverbal cues.
• “Sixty Seconds or She Dies”: An introductory exercise Voss uses in his negotiation classes to highlight the urgency and difficulty of high-stakes negotiations and the need for learned skills.
• Similarity Principle: The psychological tendency for people to trust and like those they perceive as similar or familiar to themselves. Negotiators can leverage this by finding common ground.
• “Slow. It. Down.”: A crucial negotiation principle advocating for deliberate pacing to calm the situation, allow for thorough listening, and prevent impulsive decisions.
• Strategic Umbrage: A well-timed expression of (real, controlled) anger directed at a proposal (not the person) to make a counterpart realize their offer is unreasonable and shift their perspective.
• Summarize: A powerful active listening technique combining paraphrasing and labeling to rearticulate the meaning of what was said and acknowledge the underlying emotions.
• System 1 Thinking: (From Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow) Our fast, instinctive, and emotional thought process.
• System 2 Thinking: (From Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow) Our slow, deliberative, and logical thought process. Voss argues System 1 often guides System 2.
• Tactical Empathy: The ability to understand and verbalize the feelings and mindset of another person in the moment, and to hear what is behind those feelings, to increase influence. It’s empathy as a deliberate tool.
• “That’s Right”: A powerful affirmation from the counterpart indicating that they feel truly understood and have embraced the negotiator’s summary of their perspective, signifying a breakthrough in the negotiation.
• Ultimatum Game: A game theory experiment demonstrating human irrationality and the powerful role of perceived fairness in decision-making, where responders often reject offers they deem unfair, even if it means getting nothing.
• Unconditional Positive Regard: A concept from Carl Rogers, suggesting that real change occurs when a person feels completely accepted and understood, without judgment or conditions. In negotiation, it fosters trust and openness.
• “Unbelief”: (From Kevin Dutton) Active resistance and complete rejection of what the other side is saying. The goal in negotiation is to suspend this unbelief to open the path to persuasion.
• “Wimp-Win” Mentality: A negotiation mindset where individuals set modest goals to protect their self-esteem, leading to easily claimed victories but ultimately mediocre outcomes.
• “You’re Right”: An affirmation from the counterpart that Voss identifies as generally ineffective, often used as a polite way to dismiss or shut down the negotiator without genuine agreement or commitment to action.
• ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement): (Coined by Fisher and Ury) The overlap between the buyer’s and seller’s acceptable price ranges in a negotiation. Voss downplays its importance in real-world “bare-knuckle bargaining.”