Never Split the Difference

Chris Voss spent decades as the FBI’s lead international kidnapping negotiator, and this book distills that experience into a negotiation system built on psychology.

It’s practical and well-structured, though some stories run longer than they need to.

Negotiation is emotional, not rational

The book opens by dismantling Getting to Yes, the classic negotiation textbook. Fisher and Ury’s framework was rational problem-solving: separate the person from the problem, focus on interests not positions, generate win-win options.

The FBI tried it. It didn’t work.

Have you ever tried to devise a mutually beneficial win-win solution with a guy who thinks he’s the messiah?

What did work came from behavioral economics. Kahneman and Tversky showed that humans are irrational in predictable, patterned ways. Cognitive biases like the framing effect, loss aversion, and prospect theory distort how we see the world.
System 1 (fast, instinctive, emotional) steers System 2 (slow, deliberative, logical), not the other way around. If you know how to influence System 1, you can shape what System 2 concludes.

This is the book’s premise. Negotiation isn’t a battle of arguments or a logic puzzle. It’s applied psychology. People are emotional and irrational in pattern-filled ways, and using that knowledge is rational.

At its most basic, every negotiation comes down to “I want.” And the question from the other side is always “Why should I give it to you?” There should be a clear answer to that, whether implicit or explicit.

Listen first, listen more

Most people enter negotiations so preoccupied with their own arguments that they can’t listen. Voss calls it a “state of schizophrenia.” Four people talking at once, two of them the voices in each negotiator’s head.

Stop thinking about what you’re going to say. Make your entire focus the other person.
When you do, two things happen:

• You disarm them, because people who feel listened to become less defensive and more willing to hear your side.
• You gather information, which is the actual currency of negotiation.

Every negotiation is an information-gathering process. The person who goes in thinking they know everything has already lost. Smart people are often bad at this because they assume there’s nothing left to discover.

Wants and needs are different things. Wants are easy to talk about. They’re aspirational, they let people feel in control. Needs imply survival, the minimum required to make someone act, and that makes people vulnerable. You don’t start by asking about needs. You get people talking about their wants, and through that you discover the needs underneath.

Slow down. If you’re rushing, people feel unheard and you miss things. Time is one of a negotiator’s most important tools.

Voice and mirroring

Voss identifies three voices for negotiation.

The positive/playful voice should be your default. Relaxed, encouraging, with a smile. People think faster and collaborate more when they’re in a positive frame.

The late-night FM DJ voice is for making a point. Slow, calm, downward inflection. It signals control without triggering defensiveness.

The assertive voice should almost never be used. It signals dominance and makes people push back.

Mirroring is the simplest technique in the book and one of the most effective. Repeat the last one to three critical words of what someone just said. That’s it.
A study with waiters found that those who mirrored customers’ orders received 70% higher tips than those who used positive reinforcement like “great” and “sure.”

Mirroring works because we’re drawn to what’s similar. It triggers an instinct to elaborate and keep talking.

For confrontation without aggression, Voss gives a five-step loop: use the FM DJ voice, start with “I’m sorry…”, mirror, wait at least four seconds in silence, and repeat.

Tactical empathy and labeling

Empathy here isn’t sympathy. It isn’t agreeing with someone or giving them a hug. It’s paying attention to what another person is feeling and vocalizing that recognition.

Tactical empathy goes further. It’s understanding the feelings and mindset behind what someone says, then using that understanding to increase your influence.

The main tool is labeling: giving someone’s emotion a name. “It seems like you’re frustrated with the timeline.” “It sounds like this isn’t what you expected.”

Always start with “It seems like” or “It sounds like,” never “I’m hearing that.” The word “I” makes people defensive. After the label, shut up. The silence is where the work happens.

Labeling negatives diffuses them. Labeling positives reinforces them.

Presenting behavior and underlying emotion are different things. A grandfather who’s grumpy at holiday dinner might just be lonely because no one visits. Trying to find those underlying causes rather than reacting to what’s on the surface has broader applications beyond negotiation. It changes how you understand and talk to people in general.

The accusation audit is labeling taken preemptive. Before a negotiation, list every terrible thing the other side could say about you. Then say it first. “You’re probably thinking we’re the bad guys here.” “This is going to seem unfair.”
Defense lawyers call this “taking the sting out.” By surfacing the negatives first, you defuse them. The instinct is to deny negatives (“I don’t want this to sound harsh…”), but denial gives them credibility. Acknowledging them takes their power away.

Master “No,” beware “Yes”

Most people think getting to “yes” is the goal. Voss flips this.

There are three kinds of “yes,” and two are garbage. A counterfeit yes is what someone says to get you to shut up and go away. A confirmation yes is a reflexive response to a simple question. Neither leads to action.
Only a commitment yes, a true agreement that results in implementation, matters.

“No,” on the other hand, is gold. It gives people a feeling of safety and control. It’s rarely “I reject this forever.”
It’s usually “I’m not ready,” “I need more information,” or “I want something else.”

“Is now a bad time to talk?” beats “Do you have a few minutes to talk?” because the first invites a “No” (which means “it’s fine, go ahead”) and the second pushes for a “Yes” (which triggers defensiveness).

For ghosting, Voss’s email trick is a one-liner: “Have you given up on this project?” It plays on loss aversion and the aversion to being seen as a quitter. Forces engagement.

You can also force a “No” by intentionally mislabeling an emotion: “So it seems like you really want to leave your job” when they clearly don’t. It makes them correct you, which means they’re talking and engaged.

If despite everything the other party won’t say “No,” you’re dealing with someone who’s indecisive, confused, or has a hidden agenda. Walk away.

”That’s right” vs “You’re right”

The two words that transform a negotiation are “that’s right.”

The FBI’s framework for getting there is the Behavioral Change Stairway Model: active listening → empathy → rapport → influence → behavioral change.
You can’t skip steps. You have to earn each stage before the next one opens up.

The model traces back to Carl Rogers, who argued that real change only happens when you accept someone as they are, what Rogers called unconditional positive regard.
Most of us grow up learning that love and approval are conditional on saying the right things, so we hide what we actually think and calibrate our words to gain approval.
Getting someone to “that’s right” reverses that. It means they feel understood without conditions, and that opens the door to actual change.

I think the “magic” here is the feeling of being understood. It creates an openness that no amount of logical argument produces.

The practical toolkit for getting there combines everything from the earlier chapters.

• Effective pauses (silence for emphasis, to drain emotion).
• Minimal encouragers (“Yes,” “OK,” “Uh-huh,” signaling full attention).
• Mirroring (repeat back what they said).
• Labeling (name their feelings).
• Paraphrasing (repeat their meaning in your own words, proving you actually understood and aren’t just parroting).
• And finally, a summary, which is paraphrasing plus labeling combined.

When you nail the summary, they have a small epiphany. You actually get them.

“You’re right” is the opposite. It’s what people say to make you stop talking. Someone won’t let up, won’t listen to anything you have to say. You tell them “you’re right,” they get a happy smile and leave you alone for twenty-four hours. But you haven’t agreed with a word they said.

Bending reality

Never split the difference. Compromise is wearing one black shoe and one brown shoe.

I’m here to call bullshit on compromise right now. We don’t compromise because it’s right; we compromise because it is easy and because it saves face.

Most people are driven by fear or the desire to avoid pain. Too few are driven by their actual goals. Good deals require some degree of risk and conflict. The great deals live in the hard stuff.

“No deal is better than a bad deal.” If you can truly internalize that, patience becomes a weapon.

Deadlines make people impulsive, but they’re almost always more flexible than they appear.
Voss learned this from kidnapping negotiations. The threats followed predictable patterns. As deadlines approached, threats got more specific, answering more of the four questions (What? Who? When? How?). Early-stage threats are vague.

Research by Don Moore at Berkeley shows that revealing your deadline gets you better deals. Hiding it increases the risk of impasse because you rush your concessions while the other side, thinking they have time, just holds out.

“Fair” is the most powerful and dangerous word in negotiation.

“We just want what’s fair” is a defensive manipulation that triggers guilt and irrational concessions. “We’ve given you a fair offer” is an aggressive jab meant to shut you up.
Mirror it back: “Fair?” Then label: “It seems like you’re ready to provide the evidence that supports that.”

The constructive move is to say it early: “I want you to feel like you’re being treated fairly at all times. Stop me if you feel I’m being unfair.” This takes the word off the table as a weapon.

Anchoring works because our brains adjust from whatever reference point they encounter first (the anchor and adjustment effect). Numbers ending in 0 feel like placeholders. Precise numbers like $37,263 feel calculated and immovable.

When negotiating salary, let the other side anchor first; you might be surprised at how high they start. If you must go first, use a range. “At top places like X Corp., people in this role get between 170,000.”
Research from Columbia Business School found that applicants who named a range received significantly higher salaries, especially when the low end was their actual target.

Pivot to non-monetary terms. After anchoring high, offer things that aren’t important to you but could be important to them. You can also use a surprise gift, an unexpected conciliatory gesture after their first rejection of your extreme anchor. It triggers reciprocity. People feel obliged to repay debts of kindness, so they’ll either come up on their offer or look to repay the generosity later.

Once you’ve negotiated salary, define success metrics and your path to the next raise.
Ask “What does it take to be successful here?” Whoever gives you guidance will have a stake in seeing you succeed. You’ve just recruited an unofficial mentor.

Calibrated questions

Calibrated questions start with “How” or “What” and give the other side the illusion of control while you steer the conversation.

“How am I supposed to do that?” is the most versatile. It’s a gentle “no” that invites the other side to solve your problem for you. It works because it implicitly asks for help, which triggers goodwill and appeals to ego.

Avoid “Why.” It’s accusatory in every language. The one exception is when the defensiveness it creates serves you: “Why would you ever change from your current supplier?” forces them to argue for changing.

Avoid closed questions (“Can you…?”, “Do you…?”) because they require little thought and create an obligation of reciprocity; you’ll be expected to give something back.

Some standbys Voss uses in nearly every negotiation:

• What is the biggest challenge you face?
• How can I help make this better for us?
• What are we trying to accomplish here?
• How am I supposed to do that?

The person talking feels in control. But the listener is the one directing the conversation.

Self-control is the prerequisite for all of this. If you can’t manage your own emotions, you can’t influence anyone else’s.
When attacked, don’t counterattack. Pause. Ask a calibrated question. Bite your tongue, let the passion dissipate, then respond.

Guaranteeing execution

“Yes” is nothing without “How.” Getting to an agreement doesn’t matter if it doesn’t get implemented.

The Rule of Three is getting the other person to agree to the same thing three times in the same conversation. Vary your approach: first a direct commitment, then a label or summary to get “that’s right,” then a calibrated “How” question about implementation. It’s hard to fake conviction three times.

Watch for “You’re right” (they’re not invested) and “I’ll try” (they plan to fail). When you hear either, go back to calibrated “How” questions until they define success in their own words.

Always ask who else is affected. Behind-the-table players can kill agreements they weren’t part of. “How does this affect the rest of your team?” and “How on board are the people not on this call?” flush out hidden stakeholders.

The 7-38-55 rule says only 7% of a message is the words, 38% is tone of voice, 55% is body language. When someone says “yes” but their tone or posture says otherwise, trust the nonverbal. That incongruence is how you spot lies and discomfort with a deal.

Pronouns reveal power. Someone who says “I,” “me,” and “my” a lot is probably not the decision maker. The harder it is to get first-person pronouns out of someone, the more authority they likely have.

Use your own name to make yourself a real person. Voss calls it the “Chris discount,” introducing yourself by name and using it to humanize the interaction. People find it harder to be ruthless with someone they see as a person rather than a counterpart.

Negotiating styles

Analysts are methodical, hate surprises, and need time to process. They prize accuracy over speed. Silence from an analyst means they’re thinking, not that they’re angry. Give them data, warn them about issues early, don’t expect quick counterproposals. If you’re an analyst, smile when you speak. People will be more forthcoming.

Accommodators care most about the relationship. They’re friendly and communicative, and will yield concessions hoping for reciprocity. They’re the most likely to agree to things they can’t deliver. Use calibrated questions about implementation to turn their talk into action. Their objections are hidden because they fear conflict.

Assertives value time above all. They need to feel heard before they’ll listen. Mirrors, labels, and calibrated questions work well with them. The win condition is getting a “that’s right” or “that’s it exactly.”

Voss calls this the Black Swan rule. Don’t treat others the way you want to be treated. Treat them the way they need to be treated.

The Ackerman model

For price negotiations, Voss swears by the Ackerman system (from ex-CIA kidnap-for-ransom consulting):

1. Set your target price
2. Open at 65% of target
3. Make three raises: to 85%, 95%, and 100%
4. Between each raise, use empathy and different ways of saying “No” to get them to counter first
5. Use precise, non-round numbers (38,000) because they feel calculated
6. On your final number, throw in a non-monetary item they probably don’t want, signaling you’re at your limit

The decreasing increments convince the other side they’re squeezing you to the breaking point. People feel better about bargaining when they’ve extracted concessions, even when they end up paying more than they otherwise would have.

There are four ways to say “No” before actually using the word:

• “How am I supposed to do that?” (deferential request for help),
• “Your offer is very generous, I’m sorry, that just doesn’t work for me” (nurtures them to live up to “generous”),
• “I’m sorry but I’m afraid I just can’t do that” (triggers empathy), and
• “I’m sorry, no” (gentle and barely negative).

When someone throws out a ridiculous offer, strategic umbrage can wake them up.
Channel a flash of anger at the proposal, not the person: “I don’t see how that would ever work.”
In a study by Daniel Ames and Abbie Wazlawek at Columbia, people on the receiving end of well-timed offense-taking rated themselves as overassertive, even when the counterpart didn’t think so. The flip side is to watch for this being used on you.

For setting boundaries without escalating, “I” messages work well. “I feel ___ when you ___ because ___” forces a pause without making it an attack. Keep the tone level. An aggressive “I” message just starts a fight.

Black Swans and leverage

Black Swans are unknown unknowns, things you don’t know you don’t know that would change everything if uncovered. Maybe the other side wants the deal to fail. Maybe they’re constrained by something they can’t reveal.

Voss breaks leverage into three types.

Positive. You have something they want. Once they say “I want to buy,” you have power. This is why experienced negotiators delay making offers.

Negative. The ability to cause pain. Loss Aversion makes this powerful, but direct threats are toxic. Label the negative instead: “It seems like you strongly value the fact that you’ve always paid on time.” The implication is clear without the confrontation. If you shove negative leverage down someone’s throat, you threaten their autonomy, and people will sooner act irrationally than give that up.

Normative. Using someone’s own standards against them. If they’ve said they always pay a certain multiple for acquisitions, hold them to it. No one wants to look like a hypocrite.

Normative leverage connects to a broader idea Voss calls “knowing their religion,” understanding the other side’s worldview, norms, and belief system. Every person operates within a moral framework, and if you can spot inconsistencies between their stated beliefs and their actions, you have leverage. Discovering this can be as simple as asking what they believe and listening openly. You want to understand what language they speak, then speak it back to them.

The similarity principle amplifies this. People trust those in their in-group. If you can trigger the instinct of “we see the world the same way,” you gain influence almost immediately. Dig for what makes them tick. Show common ground.

When someone seems irrational, they usually aren’t. Check three things: Are they misinformed? Are they constrained by something they can’t reveal? Do they have interests you haven’t discovered?

Get face time. Email gives people too much time to re-center and hide things. The best information comes from unguarded moments, the few minutes before and after formal meetings, during interruptions, when someone breaks ranks. Reporters never turn off their recorders because the best material comes at the beginning and end of an interview.

Conflict isn’t the enemy

Most people avoid negotiation because they’re afraid of conflict. Not of the person across the table. Of conflict itself. The primal desire to get along with the tribe.

But pushing for what you want isn’t selfish. When you ask calibrated questions, you’re leading people toward examining what they actually want and how they can get it. You’re pushing toward a collaborative solution, not strong-arming.

Whether it’s in the office or around the family dinner table, don’t avoid honest, clear conflict. It will get you the best car price, the higher salary, and the largest donation. It will also save your marriage, your friendship, and your family.

The person across the table is never the problem. The unsolved issue is.