The godfather of FBI hostage negotiation, Thomas Strenz, described his work as full of “the bad, the mad, and the sad.” But according to former FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator, Chris Voss, the bad, the mad, and the sad are all over the place. Bank robbers and terrorists don’t need to be the only people to benefit from the humanizing negotiation skills that the FBI uses to de-escalate conflicts and make people feel safe.

In the world of hostage negotiation, offenders are not always one-offs. There are plenty of repeat offenders. There was one hostage situation where a jumpy new FBI negotiator on the call was struggling to get the shake out of his voice. The fugitive on the other end coolly cut him off, “You’re not doing a good job. You’re supposed to be building rapport with me.”

 Clearly, he was in touch with the updated FBI protocol. Until the 1970s, the FBI would come in guns blazing and hope for the best. That didn’t always work out well for the hostages.

Beginning in the early 1980s, Cambridge, Massachusetts, became the epicenter for teasing out the best approaches to negotiation. Harvard created the Harvard Negotiation Center and the FBI was testing and developing its own best practices. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the research was pointing to two brains: the emotional brain: more primal, irrational, and unpredictable; and the rational brain, which is more reasonable and better at problem solving. For a long time, experts had advised handling negotiations by using the more rational, problem-solving tack.

The FBI and law enforcement tried that for a while, but there were several tragic hostage situations in the early 90s that exposed a glaring disconnect between theory and practice. How do you hold a rational conversation that moves a criminal toward compromise when he is convinced he’s the messiah and doesn’t have to compromise?

Veteran agents and police officers had not found rational problem-solving to be the most useful approach to resolving hostage situations. The most experienced officers said they’d been in situations full of uncertainty, irrationality, and high emotions, in which the kidnapper himself had no idea what he wanted, and thus no ability to hold a cool-headed bargaining session.

The emotional brain is indeed unpredictable and irrational, but this was grounds for understanding it and harnessing its power, not for avoiding it in favor of the rational brain. It was predictable, but far less accessible in crisis situations.

This reality created a schism between academics and law enforcement. While the academics continued pushing the rational, problem-solving method, folks at the FBI were getting in touch with their feelings—and getting far better results on the ground. They began implementing elements of counseling theory and psychotherapy in their crisis management practices. The starting assumption for negotiation procedure is that, at bottom, everyone is hoping to be understood—even terrorists and drug lords and bank robbers.

In hostage negotiations, you never split the difference. A negotiator can’t tell a terrorist, “I see you have six hostages. Release three, and we’ll call it even.” The skilled negotiator emotionally disarms his counterpart and dismantles the counterpart’s plan so that the counterpart is convinced that it’s his own idea to let the hostages go and turn himself in—all the while believing he has a great relationship with the negotiator. It’s worked for the FBI, and it can work for you, too. This matters not just for the FBI in high-stakes, life-or-death scenarios, but for more pedestrian affairs as well. From talking with customer service representatives, to bosses, spouses, and children, life is a long series of negotiations. It’s hard to have quality relationships or a satisfying life without learning to negotiate well. 

We’ve got it backwards with the words “yes” and “no.” Saying “yes” makes us uncomfortable because we don’t know what we’ve signed up for. When the other party answers with a “yes,” he or she may actually be angry about it—feeling like that “yes” is really conceded ground. “No” is associated with rejection, but saying the word is actually a relief and a starting point for the negotiator.

There’s more space between “yes” and “no” than most people would think. We think in too binary a fashion. “Yes” is commitment; “no” is protection. Getting people to say “yes” can create more resentment than rapport. Think of all the telemarketers who ask you questions you’ll inevitably answer with a “yes.” “Are you tired of x, y, and z?” “Do you ever wish you had more of a, b, or c?” They get you to concede a string of yeses, but you aren’t more inclined to purchase whatever they’re selling. In fact, you get more anxious the more you say yes, wondering what the catch is. 

In a negotiation, make the other side feel perfectly free to say “no” at any time. It respects their autonomy and provides them a sense of control over the outcome of the situation. They will be far more likely to let down their guard and communicate more honestly. If you can make someone feel safe and protected, it frees a person to think beyond the animal need for safety. Their thinking becomes clearer, quicker, and a more meaningful “yes” later down the line becomes far more likely.

Never attack. A person will clamp down and stop communicating openly. Keeping a pleasant, positive demeanor alone is enough to help your conversation partner become smarter.

Don’t ask, “Do you have a few minutes?” Ask, “Is this a bad time to talk?” The other person will say, “No, now’s fine” or, “It is, but let’s talk tomorrow at 11.” If you get a hard “no” from someone, the next best thing to try for is a “That’s right.” Summarize the situation as well as you understand it, even the parts that are against your own personal best interest, and ask if you’ve encapsulated the other person’s thoughts well. “If you get a ‘That’s right,’ you’ve established empathy and connection. The other person is telling you, “You get it.” It makes someone more likely to work with you in the future.

The FBI eventually learned to start factoring emotions into their negotiation style. And it’s a good thing, too! It turns out that emotions tend to flare up when hostages and fugitives have weapons trained on them.

A major tool in the negotiator’s kit is tactical empathy, or weapons-grade empathy. It’s emotional intelligence on steroids. FBI and Harvard’s Robert Mnookin have the same definitions of empathy. Empathy is the capacity to take an inventory of the adversary’s perspective–especially the parts we don’t like, and then describe back to the counterpart what you’re hearing. This should be done without denying or disagreeing, just calmly reflecting it back to the counterpart. This is different than liking or sympathizing. With an angry spouse, boss, or terrorist, the effect of a soothing late-night DJ voice, careful listening, and serene repetition of what they’ve said works wonders.

An example of this in the world of crime occurred in Harlem in 1998. There was a situation in which three gunmen had barricaded themselves in a corner room of the 27th floor of a Harlem apartment complex. There was no phone in the room, so for six hours, the author, along with two other negotiators, called out to them from the other end of the hallway. In his best late-night DJ voice, the author would repeatedly use the labeling technique.

“It seems like you really don’t want to come out.”

“Looks like you’re worried the police are ready to kick down the door.”

“I guess you don’t want to go back to prison.”

After six hours of this, the three fugitives came out silently with their hands up. When asked why they finally gave in, and so peaceably, each of them said that they didn’t want to get shot and that the negotiator’s voice had calmed them down.

Think about that. The negotiators didn’t bark orders, try to talk some sense into them, or raise the stakes and uncertainty with ultimatums. The statements showed tactical empathy. What the negotiators were using was a strategy called labeling. It’s thinking about what the other might be experiencing and validating that emotion by merely acknowledging it. 

Using bulldog tactics on another bulldog usually ends in tears, bloodshed, and more crisis than resolution. An inmate is far more likely to respond violently to a guard who is anxiously bracing for an altercation than a guard who exudes tranquility.

The domineering personality may not be the person who is actually controlling the conversation. Doing most of the talking does not necessarily put you in the driver’s seat. The person who’s talking is revealing important information about himself, his goals. The listener, if trained well, can harness the talker’s energy.

It’s important to remember that your goal is not to get your opponent to admit you’re right. It’s a victory that’s not a victory. If you get aggressive, you won’t get what you want.

Learn to ask the right questions. Avoid questions that can be answered with a “yes.” It doesn’t give you much information to work with or help you understand your counterpart. It also creates an expectation that you will give something in return. Stay the listener. Use calibrated questions that begin with “How” or “What.” These words make your counterpart the expert. They will make the counterpart feel like he’s calling the shots, and make questions open-ended, which encourages full, detail-rich responses.

Some of the author’s most frequently used questions in hostage negotiations are:

How do we move forward?

What about this is important to you?

How did we get here?

How am I supposed to do that? (This last one is actually a great way to say “no” without saying “no.”)

Avoid “Why” questions as much as possible. The word “Why” is always interpreted as an accusation, and your counterpart will adopt a more defensive, rigid stance. Even asking “What caused you to do it?” instead of “Why’d you do it?” removes the sting and keeps the conversation going.

Avoid getting angry. If the counterpart lashes out at you, don’t return the favor. Biologically, anger is crippling. It sets off stress hormones and blocks your ability to see situations clearly or respond to people effectively. It’s a temporary rush of counterfeit confidence. Keep your cool. Don’t be afraid to let a pause linger. Ask a calibrated question to keep the counterpart at the table. “Have you thrown in the towel on resolving this peaceably?” or “Are you under the impression that I’ve misled you?”  

These are all tools in the listener’s toolkit. There is a time and a place for driving a hard bargain, but the skills described here can’t be used to strong-arm opposition. You’re not using your own strength, but your counterpart’s. It’s negotiator judo.

Four hostage negotiators walk into a bar. (This isn’t a joke.) One of them, the author, is about to take a seat when a man threatens him.

“Don’t even think about,” the man says.

“I’m curious,” the author responds.

“If you take that seat, I’ll kick your ass.”

Instead of fighting or fleeing, the author extends his hand, “Hey, I’m Chris.” The other negotiators take up the challenge and amicably put their arms around the man and ask him what’s bothering him. They learn his name, that he’s a disillusioned Vietnam vet who’s down on his luck. They’re the first people he’d talked to instead of fought for a while.

The author and his colleagues flipped the script. Most people would take him up on the invitation to fight. Instead of fighting for some attention, someone learned his name and a bit of his story. There are plenty of opportunities where negotiation skills come in handy. When grandpa acts like a grouch at Thanksgiving dinner, it could be masking sadness, that he feels overlooked by his kids and grandkids. What would happen if you tried to address the underlying emotions head on, instead of quibbling over the presenting emotion of grumpiness? What if you labeled his sadness? What if you said something like, “We don’t see each other that often. It seems you feel like we don’t give you much attention. I hope you know we’re glad you’re here and want to hear what you have to say”?

The limbic system is the part of the brain that controls emotions. This part of the brain responds to situations way before the rational brain. Everyone has a limbic system, from cantankerous grandpas to terrorists. Hostage negotiators around the world now exploit this system and run negotiations in roughly the same manner. People act in accordance with their values. This makes their actions driven by emotion more than rationality, so that’s where you need to meet people in order to influence their decision-making.

These insights are just an introduction. If you're ready to dive deeper, pick up a copy of Never Split the Difference here. And since we get a commission on every sale, your purchase will help keep this newsletter free.

Find some middle ground. We tend to only read news sources we agree with, but that's like talking to yourself in the mirror. Get outside your bubble and hear from both sides with a free daily newsletter called The Flip Side. It's the best way regain your balance in a world of right and left extremes. Get on the list here.