Why facts fail and how to influence without them

My mind was blown by the most recent book I read – Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss. Expecting a smarmy-feeling encyclopedia of manipulation tactics, my expectations were perfectly opposed to Voss's true thesis. It's not at all the book I thought it was.

As a hostage negotiator for the FBI, he built a deep understanding of why people say what they say (why they say "yes", or "no" or "you're right" or "that's right") and can map what outcomes each of those words usually lead to. More broadly, he can describe how they weaken or strengthen human connections. Many savvy business people resist the idea of "building connection" (which he terms "tactical empathy") in negotiations because it sounds soft. But Voss knows it's the only way to enact lasting change in another person's behaviour.

Facts and logic are easily torpedoed by negative emotions

Voss's main thesis is that humans are emotional beings, first and foremost. Yes, there are times when we make decisions based on logic, but emotions are always bubbling under the surface, ready to capsize your best-laid plans. Neutralizing negative emotions in a negotiation is critical step toward opening your counterpart's mind to new possibilities, including the outcomes you want. He suggests two powerful tactics – labeling and the accusation audit – that help neutralize negative situations.

It's easy to miss opportunities to neutralize emotions if you're not paying attention. I'm lucky enough to work with many analytically-minded people who like facts and numbers and are persuaded by data. However, in some charged scenarios, pure logic doesn’t work. I've learned that the hard way.

Case in point. A few months ago, I was sitting in a phone booth in my office, just out of a meeting where I’d helped align a group of colleagues around next steps for a project I was leading. I was feeling good, the meeting went well, everyone seemed to understand the goals and their next actions. Suddenly I got a message from a colleague who’d been in the meeting. “Celia, I disagree with your proposed direction. I think we should be considering X and it could be a more profitable product direction for us. We have some evidence from an expert that it could be valuable. How about I go investigate it on my own?”

In that moment, I felt angry. Why was this person bringing this up now? Why were they de-stabilizing the plan I’d just worked so hard to articulate and set in motion? Did they not realize how early on we were in planning – their pie-in-the-sky idea was fine to mention, but it was too early to invest resources in investigating. And if it turned out to be fruitful, executing that idea would still require all the pre-work we were doing on now. We needed to stay aligned and focused.

Obviously, this person felt emotional too. They felt I’d been steamrolling the project, not soliciting other ideas, and that I was charging in the wrong direction. They thought they could “help” by going against the grain, hedging against the bet I was making, and investigating an alternative path.

I hopped on a call with them and went right for the facts. There isn’t strong evidence for this idea, I said. The expert you cited is only one source. And anyway, it’s too far ahead of where we are. We’re on a tight timeline and if you’re not focused on the immediate next steps, we’re going to miss our timeline. Every day matters right now. My colleague shot right back: “You’re wrong. You’re viewing the problem too narrowly. You’re so focused on short term execution that you’re missing a big idea.” We were sparing with facts, sure, but it was a purely emotional disagreement.

How to de-escalate negative emotions: Labeling and the Accusation Audit

It took me some reflection to recognize the mistake I made. I thought that if I gave my colleague's idea the time of day, they would take that positive feedback and run with it. I would lose control of the team. But my fear was unfounded.

All my colleague wanted was to feel listened to. They felt they'd come up with a really insightful idea that took a keen eye to see. I had missed it, but they hadn't. They wanted recognition that the insight was valuable. In the moment, my own fears prevented me from giving my colleague positive validation. It’s true that in the early stages of product discovery, ideas are a dime a dozen. But this particular idea represented a shift in our thinking, and my colleague deserved a shout out for expanding our horizons.

This is what "tactical empathy" is about. Had I put my own emotions aside, I would have recognized that the way to move the conversation forward and disarm my colleague's negative emotions was to empathize with their feelings. Voss recommends summarizing, in your own words, what you believe the other person is feeling. Then close your mouth and let them talk. This is one form of "labeling". He suggests repeatedly calling out your counterpart's thoughts and feelings and summarizing their perspective until you have a deep understanding of where they're coming from. I could have told my colleague "I understand that you feel you had a unique and potentially valuable idea. It sounds like you have a great handle on how pursuing this idea could help us." Simply doing this can be enough to calm people down. Once they're calm, that's the time to turn the tide of the conversation.

Other times though, this isn't enough. Sometimes there's enough hostility in the scenario that simply acknowledging their feelings isn't enough. You need to acknowledge why they feel what they feel and bring it into the open. That's where an accusation audit comes in.

This means starting the conversation by calling yourself out on all the negative things the other person could say about you. This is incredible painful, but also incredibly effective. Phrasing like "I understand that you feel I've been unfair. You feel I've been bullying you and haven't properly compensated you for the work you've done. I acknowledge that you feel you were promised more. We brought you in with a shared goal of X and you may feel we haven't held up our end of the bargain." And again, letting the person talk is the next step. You can even invite more by asking "Is there anything else you feel is important to add?"

Bringing all the negative accusations into the light makes your counterpart feel heard. Remember, in these scenarios, your counterpart very likely already believes that you've wronged them in some way. Acknowledging that will help neutralize their negative feelings. They'll know that you're aware of how you've behaved. This implicitly makes them feel safe – you've brought yourself down a peg without them having to do it for you.  It makes them feel safer negotiating with you.

Emotions are everything in negotiation

The reason facts fail is because emotions will trump facts every time. Neutralizing negative emotions in your counterpart is a key step in successful negotiation. When people are calm, they are more open-minded and willing to try new things, take risks, and move in new directions. Labels and accusation audits are awesome tools to great ways to neutralize those emotions. But, once emotions are calm, how do you guide people toward your solution?

I'll cover that next!