The Good

Chris Voss knows something that Screwtape does too:  when we don’t look out for our interests, all hell breaks loose.  Hence the title: Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if your life depended on it. 

The book is about negotiating in your own self-interest without being selfish.  You do this through understanding who you are negotiating with, and perceiving what they want. 

Each chapter is dedicated to developing and learning to use a specific tool that will definitely improve your communication skills, and potentially also your negotiation skills in the future.  Some of the skills are not new to those who have studied the field, and for some of us a few of them are already habits (like labelling, for instance).  There are lots of great techniques and skills that are easy to put into practice and that will surprise even seasoned conflict transformation practitioners.  As Voss says, they are game changers.  (See below on How to Master No) Each skill builds on the previous one. In theory, by the end of the book you should have a full tool-box that will turn you into a better negotiator in the home, work, school, community, and social settings.

Voss turns conventional wisdom about negotiating on its head through the stories he tells, and by referring to scientific studies in behavioural economics and psychology.  What I really appreciate about the book is the philosophical underpinning along with the core values espoused by the author.  This is not a winner takes all book about negotiation.  It is a profoundly humanising approach that values connection, creating relationship and getting people to talk and think together above all else.  The emphasis is on deeply empathising with the party you are negotiating with, even if you detest what they stand for.  Voss’s starting point is always the person sitting in front of you, and asks you to quiet your own mind and assumptions while you do that.   Then you can move from there to disagree when needed without being disagreeable.  I wonder if Malcolm Gladwell looks at all the “disagreeable” people he admires whether he will find that they know how to disagree without actually being disagreeable?  Although, just to be clear, Voss is not talking about saccharine niceness either.  He says this is disingenuous manipulation that won’t get you far.  That is why mastering the art of “No” is so important.

The Bad

I have at least two friends who struggled to get to the end of this book.  I did not have that problem.  Perhaps it is because I have a background, and therefore an interest, in conflict transformation.  I will say that the tone sometimes skates dangerously close to false modesty alternating with arrogance, which I find quite off-putting until I get into the nitty gritty of what he is saying, and then I concentrate on content rather than tone.

Like all of us, Voss has some blindspots… There are a number of assumptions and some background information that are glossed over:  

• He takes as a given that you understand and can practice empathy.  
• He assumes you know what you want and how to establish, as well as respect, boundaries.
• He assumes that you know the basic mediation and negotiation skills, like active listening.  He takes active listening to another level in his book.
• He promotes himself as just an ordinary guy who has found himself doing extraordinary things with the skills he has unlocked. We know he isn’t an ordinary guy from his dedication to his parents who unconditionally loved him.  How many of us can truly say that?  More than 50% of us, at least, have traumatised childhoods to talk about.  And that directly impacts on two of the points above – honed empathy skills, and being good at boundaries.
• Similarly, he glosses over how being a white male opens doors for him that it doesn’t for others.  There is limited if any power analysis or attention to negotiating off the back-foot.
• He works as part of a large (and elite) team whose job it is to do this.  Most of us have to go into these situations under-resourced, without a budget or exclusive time dedicated to negotiating the issue at hand.

Another issue I have is that he seems to approach every situation as if it is a negotiation and implies that almost all of life is just that.  This leads to the syndrome of “if you have a hammer, everything becomes a nail”.

There are a number of sweeping generalisations, such as  “I’ll try” always means “no” in practice, or what I just mentioned above.

Like other authors on mediation, negotiation and arbitration techniques, he doesn’t address what to do when the person you are negotiating with has also read the same book.  Essentially, they can see through what you are doing and have been inoculated against your technique.  He also doesn’t warn you about how these techniques can backfire when dealing with someone toxic who you have to see day in and day out.  Very different things are at stake in life and death negotiations with hostage takers who you will never see again and don’t have to live or work with daily.  Life and death, or any other, negotiations with narcissists who are part of your family, friendship or professional network are entirely a different story.

How To

Beware ‘Yes’ — Master ‘No’

Not all “Yeses” and “Noes” are created equal.  Usually we think of “Yes” as something positive, and by extension “No” must be negative because it is “Yes’s” opposite.  We instinctively jump to the conclusion that “No” is an act of rejection, a manifestation of stubbornness, or that it means the end of the discussion. Rather, Voss puts forward some powerful arguments for why we should seek a “No” in order to begin the discussions.  “No” protects the status quo while buying time to think and providing an oasis of control.  

You would have to read Chapter 5 of Never Split the Difference to follow all the arguments that lay out what “No” does. In summary, though, No

• allows the real issues to be brought forth,
• protects people from making ineffective decisions, or allows them to change them,
• slows the conversation down so that people can embrace their decisions
• helps people feel safe, secure, emotionally comfortable and in control of their decisions, and
• moves everyone’s efforts forward because it spurs people to action and gets creativity flowing.

He argues that if you want to negotiate a good outcome that everyone can feel good about, you have to learn to ask for “No”, then become comfortable hearing “No”, and train yourself to listen to what it actually means.  Potentially “No” means:

• I am not ready yet to agree;
• You are making me feel uncomfortable;
• I do not understand;
• I don’t think I can afford it;
• I want something else;
• I need more information; or 
• I want to talk it over with someone else.

While Voss puts this forward as a complete list of possible extended interpretations of the word “No”, I wonder if it is exhaustive.  Please feel free to add an interpretation that comes to your mind in the comments section below.

He also says that if you try every which way to get a “No” that is not forthcoming you should run.  It means that your counterpart is confused or indecisive or has a hidden agenda.  (This is one of those categorical statements that I mentioned may be problematic).

So, what’s wrong with “Yes”? Because as Fischer and Ury posit, Getting to Yes is what we want at the end of the day.  Again, the author explains how we conflate the positive value of that final “Yes” with a positive value of “Yes” in general.  Like “No”, “Yes” doesn’t always mean “Yes”.  We are told to listen carefully and identify which one we are being offered.  

• Are we being offered a counterfeit “Yes” designed as a polite way to get us off their back?
• Is it a confirmation “Yes”, a reflexive response to a black-and-white question? Or
• Is it a commitment “Yes”, a true agreement that leads to action?

To quote Voss, “Triggering “No” peels away the plastic falsehood of “Yes” and gets you to what’s really at stake.”

Conclusion

I liked this book.  It is very practical and I think that there are things that anyone from any background can use (like mirroring and labelling) that improve communication, understanding and connection in a conversation.  I value the affirmation that creating human relationship is the first goal of any negotiation.  However, the book is offered as a series of techniques for anyone to use in almost any circumstance.  It obviates the need for discernment, understanding what the consequences can be in on-going relationships, and that these skills are not built overnight. Practice, practice, practice is needed in order to see results.  What happens when it backfires?  And what happens if you are the woman in the room who puts a great suggestion on the table that everyone ignores, only for a man to put that same suggestion on the table later and it to be taken up whole-heartedly?  For “woman” add person of colour, a person with a disability, a person identifying as LGBTQ+, poor, with an accent, dressed differently (you get the picture) or any combination of all these things.

Back to top