Great, you’ve gotten them to agree to your terms! You’ve used calibrated questions, tactical empathy, mirroring, labeling, and accusation audits to get your counterpart to reveal their true wants and needs, giving you the power to bring them around to your wants and needs.
There’s only one problem: how can you trust them to follow through?
As we’ve seen, people can easily give you a false “yes.” If there’s no way for your counterpart to actually follow through, this is useless: “yes” is nothing without “how.” The agreement isn’t enough: you need a path to implementation.
Asking calibrated questions keeps your counterpart engaged, but off-balance. It also forces them to consider your position.
The book shares the story of a woman with a consulting business. One of her clients refused to pay their bills on time, yet still insisted that the consultant keep doing work for them. They promised her lots of billable hours and favorable referrals to other clients if she would only keep working. Naturally, she was reluctant to keep doing working for this client for free. The consultant needed to resolve this issue, while still maintaining a good relationship with the client.
How did she do this? By using a mix of summaries and calibrated questions to steer the client toward her preferred solution (getting paid) and to show them that the only way they could get what they wanted (more work from her) was by satisfying her needs first.
First, the consultant summarized the situation: that she had done a lot of work for them without getting paid up to that point, and that they expected her to continue to work with no expectation of being paid. When the client responded to her summary with a “That’s right,” she knew she had the upper hand.
Then, she delivered the coup de grâce, her calibrated question: “How am I supposed to do that?” This was a powerful way of telling the client “no” without explicitly saying “no.”
This reshaped the negotiation environment. Now, the client understood her problem and was in the position of having to devise a solution to that problem. In effect, she had put the client to work for her.
The client’s response was exactly what the consultant wanted: “We know you can’t continue to work without being paid. We’ve been having some accounts payable problems on our end, but it’s unacceptable for you to not have been paid. We will send you a check within 48 hours.” And they did!
The consultant’s calibrated questions gave the client the illusion of control. The consultant wasn’t making demands or threats: she was simply asking the client to help her solve a problem.
It also offered no target for the client to counter-attack. She hadn’t accused them of anything. She educated the client about what was causing the conflict rather than telling them.
The client was the one who came up with the solution.
This is a far more effective way of guaranteeing implementation than imposing demands on a counterpart. Someone is always going to be more invested in implementing a solution because they’ve answered the “how” calibrated question: your counterpart will believe they came up with the solution. This is the power of the calibrated “how” question: you’re getting your counterpart to negotiate against themselves and work toward your solution.
Of course, most negotiations involve more parties than just the people at the table. Getting buy-in from your direct counterpart isn’t worth much if the people outside the room can block your counterpart from following through.
Find out the motivations of the people behind your direct counterpart. Ask how this will affect them. There are always dealmakers and deal-killers. When decisions are being made by committee, you need to know what that committee really wants. It only takes one of them to kill your deal.
Calibrated “how” questions you can ask to learn about their motivations are, “How does this affect everyone else?” or “How on board is the rest of your team?”
You can also observe your counterpart’s speech patterns to see how integral they really are to the decision-making process. Specifically, be on the lookout for their use of pronouns.
The person really in charge seldom says “I” or “me.” Instead, they deflect to third-party pronouns, saying things like, “We may not be able to commit to that” or “We have to assess our position before we can give a definitive answer.” This is because they don’t want to be tied down to a decision.
Conversely, you’re likely dealing with a low-level player if you hear them dropping a lot of first-person pronouns like “I” or “me.”
Be on the lookout for non-verbal language cues. The 7-38-55 Rule gives this breakdown for how people communicate:
Words alone tell you just a sliver of what your counterpart is really saying. Watch for inconsistencies between words, tone, and body language. We encounter this all the time.
Think of someone who’s saying pleasant things like “Good morning” or “How are you?” but with a blank expression or in a tone devoid of any warmth. This is why telemarketers are told to smile, even when they’re speaking to people on the phone: the customer can “hear” the friendly expression on the telemarketer’s face. The old maxim is true: “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.”
·
You can use labels to discover the incongruence. If they’re saying all the right things but you doubt their commitment, you can say, “I heard ‘yes,’ but it seems like there was some hesitation there. It’s important that we get this right and that you feel comfortable.” This will make them feel respected, and will make you a trustworthy partner in their eyes.
We’ve already discussed the perils of “yes.” But you can use the Rule of Three to see if the “yes” your counterpart is giving you is the real deal. Here’s how you do it.
Shortform Example
Here’s how it might go in a negotiation between a customer and car salesperson:
Customer: “So, do we have a deal?”
Salesperson: “Yep, we sure do! Congratulations!” (Yes #1)
Customer: “Great. So just to confirm, I’m getting this vehicle at $20,000, with financing coming in a 4.5 percent, with the extra leg room and with free oil changes and inspections every six months?”
Salesperson: “That’s right, that’s what we agreed to.” (Yes #2)
Customer: “Fantastic, I’m glad we’re on the same page. And what on your end would stand in the way of us being able to close on these terms?” (Calibrated question)
Salesperson: “No, there wouldn’t be. I’ve already confirmed this with my boss and with our financing people. I can’t foresee anything that would derail this. But even if we were to hit some sort of hurdle, I’ll personally make sure that we secure this vehicle for you on these terms.” (Yes #3).
Customer: “Great. Can’t wait to sign those papers!”)
Sometimes, you’re going to come up against a dishonest or unscrupulous counterpart. Cut off negotiations when you see that this is the case. There’s no deal to be had if the other person’s word is useless.
But what are the signs of a liar?
Liars tend to be more verbose and use more complicated, rambling sentences. They “baffle you with bullshit,” hoping to draw your attention away from the web of dishonesty they’re weaving around you.
They also use more distant, third-person pronouns like “they,” “them,” and “we.” They tend to avoid saying “I” or “me.” Psychologically, this helps the liar distance herself from the lie.
(Shortform note: This last point about liars relying heavily on third-person pronouns presents a dilemma, since we’ve also seen that this is something done by people in power to avoid being pinned down to a definite position. Unfortunately, Never Split the Difference doesn’t really tell you how to distinguish between the two. The best you can do is to keep asking calibrated questions, keep watching for tonal and nonverbal cues, and keep your ears open for key bits of information that your counterpart might reveal.)