Bring Chris Voss & The Black Swan Group’s RAG into your AI through MCP.
Compiled takeaways with source references.
To identify a business counterpart’s priorities, listen for what they tell you and ask how things went wrong in the past. Voss presents this as a way to find what matters to them before a signed deal reaches terms and conditions, where the other side’s team may tear it apart.
When a counterpart focuses on a deal’s short-term cost, ask what happens if they do nothing. Voss explains that a system produces the outcome it has already produced, so leaving it unchanged means the losses continue. The question prompts consideration of that consequence alongside the immediate expense, when the counterpart may be more worried about short-term loss than long-term gain.
One reason a championship team may struggle to repeat a success is that people who feel they did not receive enough credit for the previous result may be less cooperative afterward. The principle is to recognize that prior success does not guarantee continued cooperation when contributors feel overlooked. The expert presents this as one reason, not the only explanation, and does not specify a particular way to resolve it.
Rather than asking someone how they are, Voss says he observes the person and offers a label based on his impression. He describes telling a quiet, thoughtful man, “You seem centered.” The man then shared that he had just come off the mountain. Voss explains that the observation opened him up because he felt seen, creating what Voss calls instant empathy. This is his account of how an observation worked with that person.
For someone who is a very deep thinker and says very little, Voss says a question should be six words. A preamble such as “Can I ask you a question?” uses four of those words before the question itself. The point is to keep the question short for a person who does not say much; the transcript does not explain this as a rule for every conversation.
In a hostage negotiation, get the other side to refer to the hostage by name. Voss says this is a real tactic: it becomes easier to hurt an anonymous “hostage” than a person called Ben, and once the hostage is referred to by name, the rest of the process can begin to take effect.
Voss says that getting past someone’s defenses can leave them feeling defenseless, which may prompt a counterattack. His suggested response is to acknowledge the reaction—“it sounds like I’ve upset you”—while maintaining a smooth, calm demeanor. He says calm and emotions are contagious, and that the sound of a voice can affect the other person’s brain unconsciously. He describes staying steady and occasionally smiling or reacting with “really?” as ways the other person may feel that calm.
Voss says that if you trigger oxytocin, the other person may bond with you and become more honest. He says it takes about six seconds for this response to work through the person’s system, so speaking sooner can disrupt the process. His application is to stay quiet after saying something intended to elicit that response, counting to yourself until you run out. The pause is tied to his account of this specific neurochemical effect.
Rather than making the other party feel that you drove a hard bargain, involve them in the process: ask them to think through each step and stay engaged. Voss explains that when someone has worked hard to reach the outcome, they are more likely to stick to it. He also describes a good deal as one where both parties feel they had to stretch to get there. The lesson concerns building participation and effort into reaching an agreement; the transcript does not specify a fixed method or guarantee that every negotiated outcome will hold.
Voss describes suicide hotline work as helping someone move from crisis to firm ground, make a positive decision, and take a step forward within 20 minutes or less. He says the work was effectively emotional intelligence: he wanted to guide the person through the crisis as quickly as possible while leaving them feeling that they had worked hard to reach the decision themselves.
Voss says that talking with someone long enough can help you recognize what they sound like when telling the truth. He frames this as a gut instinct built by first noticing whether they tell the truth and, if so, what it sounds like. He describes asking a simple, playful question and joking with the person because he believes joking is infectious and can make them drop their guard. The lesson is to build familiarity with the person’s own truthful manner of speaking; the transcript does not describe a reliable test or specify how to judge a particular answer.
In a tough negotiation, first work out the other side’s timeline, then gently move them away from it while letting them feel in control. Voss says that when they feel in control, they may lower their guard, creating room to gain slight advantages they do not notice. Sequence what you ask for as a path to what they want: for example, frame a request for proof of life as necessary to know how to pay. The principle is to connect your request to their objective while managing the timing.
When someone has not replied about something you have been working on, ask, “Have you given up on [the matter]?” Voss says the question can bring the issue back to the person’s attention when it has been buried in the chaos of their life, and that it often gets clarity: they may say they have not given up and that next steps matter. He describes the wording as effective, not as a guarantee of a reply.
Voss’s method is not a single catchphrase or trick that reliably changes a situation. Parmar describes it as an encompassing skill for dealing with different situations, personalities, and people, like learning a language. In his view, the useful task is to learn the broader method rather than look for one phrase that works everywhere.
Parmar says he used to focus on what he wanted from a meeting or deal and largely disregard the other party. Working with Black Swan shifted his first question to what the other person is looking for. He says that putting yourself in their shoes strengthens relationships and helps people get onto the same page in their interactions and deals. He applies this beyond business negotiations, asking what matters to the other person, how they see the world, and what they fear, with the aim of finding what could benefit both sides.
Parmar says that, in his experience, people sometimes keep feelings to themselves, leaving an unspoken issue that can disrupt communication. He says learning to talk about his own feelings and call out that unspoken issue has helped him have better relationships. He qualifies his broader observation about men and women, saying he can speak only for himself and is unsure whether the pattern differs by gender.
When someone asks you to do something difficult or impossible, ask, “How am I supposed to do that?” instead of calling the request unreasonable. Voss says this can make the other person think through the difficulty and see your situation—a form of “forced empathy.” He says it produced a shift eight times out of ten in his account, but an angry response can still be useful: it may show that the other person feels trapped or has no room to move. That information helps you understand their constraints; it does not mean the question failed.
Voss says the first move is to remove yourself as a threat. One way to do that is to invite the other person to say “no,” for example by asking, “Do you disagree?”, “Are you against it?”, or “Is this a bad idea?” He argues that saying no can make people feel safe and protected, and may let them agree to something they had been avoiding saying yes to. The decision they consider is the same, he says; changing the question gives them a way to express it without the pressure of an immediate yes.
When someone has stopped responding, ask, “Have you given up on [the matter]?” The expert explains that the wording combines several emotional triggers: people feel safe and protected when they can say no, while the idea of giving up may make them hesitate, and the question can raise a sense of possible loss. The expert describes loss as the most dominant factor in human decision-making, while clarifying that it is not the only factor. One negotiator in the transcript says a sponsor replied within two minutes after receiving this line; that is an anecdote, not a guaranteed result.
When giving a client bad news, say that you have heartbreaking news and pause for about three beats before explaining it. In that pause, the client may imagine the worst possible outcome. The actual news may match that expectation, make the warning feel useful, or come as a relief. Voss argues against softening the opening to “I have something you might not like”: the news may be much worse than the client imagines, and minimizing it can make them feel misled. His instruction is to go all in rather than deny that the news is bad.
Voss says agents should cut “I understand” from their vocabulary. People often say it just before making their own point, which can make it sound like a way to get the other person to stop talking. In his view, the phrase itself does not make someone feel understood.
When reconnecting with someone after a long silence because you want something, say that you may seem like a person who only reaches out when they need something. The expert’s small adjustment is to offer this as a possible observation rather than deny the impression. If you have correctly identified what the other person may be thinking, they may appreciate the candor and see you as straightforward. The point is to acknowledge the possible impression openly; the expert does not claim this guarantees a favorable response.
Voss’s lesson is that hope is not a strategy: a seller or buyer may create excitement around a potentially valuable deal, but that prospect alone does not show the deal will happen. In his example, an agent pursued a buyer’s discussion of a $9 million property for 18 months before concluding it would never happen. The practical point is to avoid letting the imagined payoff keep you invested when the deal remains unrealized; Voss gives no specific test or deadline for deciding when to stop.
Voss suggests asking a person, “What do you love about working here?” and then waiting for their answer. He explains that “what” prompts deeper thinking, while “love” brings in a positive emotion, which can encourage the person to talk and reveal what matters to them. In the cashier examples, answers focused on either benefits or enjoying conversations with people; Voss says the different answers showed who each person was.
The expert describes “why” questions as likely to trigger a defensive reaction across languages, generally with a negative effect. Even when asked innocently, “why” can harm the relationship. The lesson is to recognize that this wording may affect the other person emotionally, rather than assuming the question will be received neutrally.
When a negotiation feels strained—because of the timetable, a gut concern, or apparent reluctance—Voss says to find out what is holding the other side back without interfering with the relationship. Ask them to share what is going on without asking them to commit to moving forward. He says this can increase trust and the chances that they will begin taking steps forward. His emphasis is on understanding the source of delay in an emotionally intelligent way while maintaining the relationship.
Instead of asking for a yes, which can feel like pressure to agree, phrase the opening so the other person can comfortably answer no. For example, say “It’s now a bad time to talk” rather than “Have you got a few minutes to talk?”, or ask whether they disagree or think an idea is ridiculous. Voss’s stated reason is that exploring “no” preserves the other side’s autonomy. These examples illustrate the change in question framing; the transcript does not explain further steps for handling the answer.
Voss says to notice how the other side’s response changes: someone preparing to give in may show a lot of gratitude, while someone arguing may offer reasons, accusations and logic before refusing. He recommends changing that expected sequence by expressing legitimate gratitude, then saying what works and what does not. He says not to ask for things you do not want, because authenticity means your requests are sincere. You can value the person and still accept no deal if you do not get what you need. He says this can increase collaboration, though he is uncertain about describing the increase as exponential.
Voss presents apology as a useful tool because some people need to hear one, while others may be indifferent and it can still help. He says there is “almost never” a downside, but the apology has to be genuine: “I’m sorry you feel that way” or “I’m sorry you reacted badly” shifts blame and is not an apology. Even if your judgment was right, snapping at someone does not help, so you can apologize for how you spoke without retracting your judgment.
In a negotiation, make clear that the other person can say no at any time and that you will leave if they do. The point is not to get them to say no; it is to preserve their autonomy. Voss connects this to hostage negotiation: preserving a person's sense of control can help them choose to come out. The principle is to keep their right to veto explicit throughout the interaction.
Voss argues that asking “Do you disagree?” or “Does this look like a bad idea?” can make it easier for someone to respond candidly than asking whether they agree. If the person feels safe and protected, they may explain either how to implement the idea or what obstacles they see. The yes-or-no answer is only a decision; the useful part is the discussion that follows. For example, someone can say an idea is not bad and then lay out the obstacles genuinely.
Voss says people get farther when they collaborate positively, so children should be taught to experiment with collaboration and learn how people respond. If an attempt fails, he says that does not mean the skill failed: it may show that the other person does not want to collaborate. Listening to that person’s answers gives information about their reaction and helps identify who to keep around. The lesson is to use the interaction diagnostically, while recognizing that a failed attempt can reveal unwillingness in the other person rather than a failure of the skill.
Voss distinguishes empathy from approval, sympathy, agreement, and compassion, while describing it as a precursor to compassion. Understanding someone does not mean agreeing with them: disagreement need not prevent curiosity or understanding. This distinction matters when someone assumes that being understood means being agreed with; he says he can explicitly deny agreement while remaining curious.
Voss treats silence as a useful negotiating strategy because it lets a negotiator stop talking and gather data by watching the other person. He describes this as a strength. The point he makes is about observing and collecting information; he does not give further conditions or steps here.
Saying you are willing to walk away is appropriate only when you actually are. Voss says that claiming otherwise is lying, and that lying is not a good long-term strategy. The condition is whether you are genuinely willing to leave the negotiation; he does not say that negotiators should always walk away.
Voss prefers to gather information about the other side’s range before naming a number. If the first number is too low, the negotiator may get less than they could have; if it is too high, they may drive away a deal they should have made. He wants to get a feel for the other side’s range first, and says he cannot do that by throwing out the first number.
Voss says there is something to learn from anybody, but loving or hating a person can interfere with looking at them objectively. He presents emotional distance as important to being able to learn from people whose views or reputations may provoke a strong reaction.
Voss rejects the idea that Trump is using a “madman” strategy. He describes Trump instead as an economically focused president who is predictable and does not care which regime governs the other side. In Voss’s account, Trump wants Iran to collaborate economically—“just play ball economically.” He contrasts this with previous American presidents’ demands for democracy, which he says made Middle Eastern countries wary because they do not have democracies. Voss also says Trump expected Iran to fold after its main leadership was removed, and was surprised that it had not recognized his collaborative aim.
Calling someone unpredictable may reflect a mismatch with the patterns you prefer, rather than unclear intentions. Voss illustrates this with Democrats and Republicans: each side can describe the other as unpredictable even though, in his account, both are clear about what they want and one side simply opposes the other’s approach to government. The distinction is between not understanding or liking someone’s aims and those aims actually being unclear.
Reading or planning a negotiation does not provide the same practice as responding in a live exercise under pressure. Wayne describes an intense training exercise as the point when he began to see how practice could help; Chris explains that negotiation is a performance skill, like golf, and that being in the game with a coach’s instruction is what lets you improve. The lesson is about rehearsal that makes the experience concrete, rather than theory alone.
Wayne describes curiosity as putting yourself in the other side’s shoes: asking what their fears and incentives are and how those incentives align. Chris sharpens the distinction: the question is not what you wish the other person were thinking, but what they are really thinking. Wayne notes that in insurance, counterparts may focus more on avoiding downside than pursuing a large financial gain, so understanding their particular concerns matters.
Wayne says the usual pattern of asking questions and letting the counterpart talk does not always fit a business offering something unfamiliar. If people have no mental model for what the product does, they cannot readily judge its price, priority, or fairness. In that setting, he has found that he must explain more, use analogies the counterpart knows, and watch whether the explanation is absorbing so he can regain their attention when needed. His point is to adapt the skills to the business context, not to treat one communication pattern as universally applicable.
Wayne prepares a one sheet for every conversation in a deal, including routine conversations and ones where the deal is deteriorating, rather than only for the final negotiation. He sets a goal for what that particular conversation should accomplish and summarizes how the parties got there, mindful that the other people are busy and may be worried about taking a risk. He says he uses permission seeking and no oriented questions, then an accusation audit; with experience, he spends less time recapping and more time on the audit.
Chris defines an accusation audit as identifying potential accusations the other side could make, rather than deciding what they should or do accuse you of. He explains that people can already be imagining negative things, so naming those concerns can address them before they dominate the conversation. Wayne reports that, across thousands of uses, he encountered one unusual reaction: a counterpart asked whether Wayne was telling him what he should feel. The counterpart was confused, and the call remained successful; the deal itself was still ongoing. The example supports the technique’s use, while showing that a listener may misunderstand it.
Chris says negotiation skills cannot be used when communication has stopped; if the other side is still talking, there is a reason, and the conversation provides influence and data. Wayne says he has seen this in both sales and troubled deals, including negotiations where his company was much smaller than its counterpart. He also says the skills can be especially valuable when a deal goes bad, to avoid a disastrous escalation. This is a reason to treat ongoing communication as useful information and an opportunity to influence, not a promise that every negotiation will succeed.
Wayne describes using negotiation preparation with his team to talk through what the other side may say. After years of preparing alone, he found that team discussion made even small differences and diffused emotion on his side, helping him be better in the actual negotiation. He presents this as a substantial change for his business after bringing the team into the work; the transcript does not establish that every team or negotiation will have the same result.
Wayne says that when someone is heated and accusing him, he asks them to take him back to when the alleged event happened. He uses this to get specific information and buy time, because he knows an angry person may not be listening and the moment may not be right to work out the full accusation. Chris explains that a person’s anger can reflect a buildup of unrelated frustrations; tracing where it started helps them sort through that buildup while leaving room to acknowledge the part for which you are responsible. Wayne says quiet threats feel scarier to him than yelling.
Chris argues that spending much more time trying to work out a skill on your own has low return; use the skill and see what happens, because you will learn from the result. He says to follow the coaching instruction without watering down the skill. Wayne describes trusting the instruction and testing whether it works. The point is to learn through applying the skill, not to assume in advance that it will work in every situation.
An accusation audit should fit the situation rather than rely on one fixed phrase. Chris offers “I know you’ve got people breathing down your neck” as a broad example, reasoning that people in different roles answer to someone or face some pressure. He describes confidently recognizing what the other side is dealing with as an advanced use of empathy. The phrase is an example to adapt to the counterpart, not a claim that the same pressure applies in every case.
When your contact must carry your message to a decision maker, ask what you can do to help them look good when they present it. Chris says the contact may reveal what they still need, and in a rare best case may invite you to join the presentation. Supporting their success can help the deal without assuming whether they seek recognition or are trying to avoid trouble. Wayne adds that, in complex deals, a contact who says they have everything after a major first explanation can raise concern: they may not be the buyer or may lack a real deal. He presents this as a warning sign, not proof.
Wayne recounts answering a CFO’s threat of personal and public harm with “How am I supposed to do that?” He describes it as one of the few times in a decade that he used the line verbatim, and says he stayed with the skills, got paid, and survived. He presents this as a personally significant response to an unusually serious threat in a specific contract dispute, not as evidence that the same response will produce the same outcome in other negotiations.
When a child says something escalated, such as “I hate you,” mirror the words as a curious question: “You hate me?” Voss says this helps the parent protect their state of mind and regain a grip on the moment. If the parent becomes angry or offended, they can go down a difficult-to-recover-from path and be less useful to the child. He frames protecting the parent’s psyche as a prerequisite for being a great parent in that moment.
After signaling comprehension or curiosity, stay silent long enough for the other person to feel heard and react. Voss says the neurochemicals triggered by that feeling take at least six seconds to move through the person’s system, so the pause lets the response sink in. He emphasizes that even six seconds can feel long and that people often struggle to stop talking for one second.
Questions such as “How was your day?” and “What did you learn?” can show a parent’s good intentions, but asking them without listening to the answers can make a child stop talking. Voss says mirroring is an easy way to show that you caught what the child said. He reports that clients have told him their children began talking more after they used mirroring; these are client reports, not a guaranteed result for every family.
Voss argues that people may experience each “yes” as a small commitment that ties them down further. In that framing, saying “no” gives a person autonomy. He supports this point by arguing that people have been willing to risk survival to escape slavery, suggesting that autonomy can matter more than survival. The claim concerns how “yes” and “no” can feel to people; the excerpt does not specify when this response occurs or how to apply it in a particular conversation.
Voss says that saying “no” makes people feel safe and protected, while people may be wary of saying “yes” because they have been deceived by it. He connects this to how children learn: they watch adults model control, including through saying no, rather than learning only from what adults tell them. His explanation is that children pick up this behavior from what they see adults do.
Tactical empathy means learning about the other person’s side, even when you disagree, without judging it. Voss says this can be awkward but powerful because people often expect you to argue against them. When you do not attack or argue, that expectation is disrupted; the other person may become less defensive and more willing to talk about what is on their mind.
In a contentious negotiation, start by asking questions that help reveal what the other side needs, then stay quiet and take in the answers. Voss describes listening as analysis: it can surface concerns that were not being shared and provide information for building empathy and rapport. Once you understand the other side’s problem, you can use creativity to look for a solution that also addresses your own. Without that listening, the exchange can become people simply shouting at each other.
Sklar describes creative legal work as first avoiding harm, then seeing angles others may have missed so he can find a way through the problem. He connects that work to solving clients’ problems, rather than simply repeating a position. In his account, listening helps a lawyer understand the other side’s perspective; creativity can then be used to seek a solution that addresses both sides’ problems.
Sklar describes letting aggressive opposing counsel talk while he listened and noticed remarks that seemed useful to his side, even though counsel might not have realized what they had revealed. He presents this as a practical benefit of listening closely: it can expose information worth examining. The point is about what he observed in that meeting, not a guarantee that every negotiation will produce such disclosures.
When the other side makes a request that your client cannot accept, an immediate “no” can risk making them walk away, which may be costly when the overall deal matters. Sklar describes asking how the requested change could be made while also addressing his side’s concern. That puts the problem to solve into the conversation without rejecting the proposal outright; in his experience, this approach gravitates toward compromise on the issue nine times out of ten.
Sklar describes a negotiation where trust had evaporated and tension had developed between the lawyers. After he invited the other lawyer to lunch in person, the meeting quickly became the start of a constructive solution; he doubts they would have reached one without it. Voss says that, in his view, negotiating face to face is always best. The example supports the potential value of meeting in person when a negotiation is stuck, while the broad claim is Voss’s stated view.
When trust has evaporated and people are highly wound up, Sklar says an accusation audit can serve as a reset. He describes naming the negative impression the other person may have—for example, that you seem like a bully or are impossible to deal with—and then stopping to let them react. From there, he suggests asking how to change the dynamic and get back on track. The pause matters: the other side needs room to respond.
Sklar says these tools do not fix every situation: some counterparts are hard to engage, and litigation still happens. He also observes that parties sometimes need to incur some legal fees before they recognize that continuing to fight is wasteful. Even then, he sees his job as trying to add value, act creatively, avoid making the situation worse, and hopefully bring the dispute to an end sooner.
Voss argues that an all-out attacking style may feel satisfying in the short term, but repeatedly threatening to blow up deals drives people away and weakens the credibility of later arguments. A reputation for always attacking can mean others avoid you, deal with you only when they must, or never bring opportunities to the table. He frames collaboration as better over the long term because it can preserve the chance to make deals that a destructive reputation would put out of reach.
Sklar says a negotiation may not produce an agreement that day, and he would rather leave without accepting a bad deal. He describes his role as being in the “construction business,” helping deals get done rather than crushing the other side. Even without an immediate agreement, the parties may have exchanged information and laid groundwork that can help settlement later. Litigation, in his view, is a tool for solving a problem, and an opportunity to resolve it should be taken when it arises.
In a job interview negotiation, Sklar suggests first discussing what the employer wants the person to do and what value the person could provide. The appropriate number depends on the scope of the role, so leading with a number can leave the candidate having to justify why they are worth more. Voss adds that a number is only one term in a broader conversation and says he often asks for a range. The discussion can include other terms that matter to the overall deal.
A negotiating team needs a shared understanding of what it learns, even when different members speak with the other side. Sklar says information loses value if it stays with the person who heard it. A seemingly small comment, such as someone saying they would never accept a particular thing, may affect the negotiation’s direction. The team should listen carefully and pass such information along; Sklar says he does not use note takers or record negotiations, emphasizing focused awareness and listening instead.
A leader should understand each teammate’s strengths and style, then consider who is best suited to handle a particular matter. In Sklar’s legal work, that includes assessing the personality on the other side and the fit with the client and the lawyer’s own team. Some situations may call for a more aggressive lawyer; others may suit someone more balanced and soft-spoken. Sklar describes this as nuanced and more art than science, and says the general need is to know the team and what helps each person shine.
Communication and empathy can help a lawyer understand what the other side needs to resolve a case, including the minimum amount the plaintiff would realistically accept. Voss describes negotiation skills as diagnostic: first find out what kind of situation you are dealing with. He says confrontation or litigation may sometimes be necessary when the other side is unreasonable, but treating escalation as the first move is inefficient. In his framing, litigation is a last resort to use when diagnosis shows it is needed.
Sklar says a lawyer who believes a rate is within what the market will sustain may still feel uncomfortable or face pushback, but in his experience most clients will pay it. He suggests that clients who leave over the rate may be replaced by clients who will pay it, and says charging more can lead people to take the lawyer more seriously. He presents these as his experience and view, not as a guarantee; his condition is that the rate remain within what the market supports.
When a contentious negotiation clouds judgment and people rush to trade concessions just to finish, Voss says to return to the goals the client set and keep them as a guide. He repeatedly asks where the client is trying to get to. That reference point can show whether the negotiation is moving in the right direction, support firmness when needed, and also prompt moderation: if the client is already close to the stated goal, Voss may remind them and ask them to be more reasonable.
Voss says a company that wants to last must keep learning and adapting. The Black Swan Method retains what it already teaches while adding new ideas and insights, so learning builds on prior knowledge. He presents the ability to learn and find better ways within the work as a sustainable competitive advantage, and says that continued learning and adaptation can support longevity.
Voss suggests saying, “It seems like you got a reason for saying that.” His reasoning is that if someone says something, they have a reason for it. Rather than arguing or interrupting, this label acknowledges that reason and can prompt the person to explain further. He says it can almost always get someone to open up.
Voss argues that autonomy, rather than survival, is the most important human need. He challenges the view that survival must come first by pointing to the historical willingness of enslaved groups to risk death to regain freedom. In his account, that willingness shows how strongly people value control over their own lives.
Voss estimates that 30% to 50% of disagreements may go away once the other side feels understood and heard. He emphasizes that this does not resolve every disagreement; it can leave fewer issues to argue about and make room to discuss what the other side has to say. The percentage is his estimate, not a guaranteed outcome.
Voss’s lesson from the Jeff Schilling case is that applying empathy can disarm the other side and keep them from becoming angry with the negotiator. The deal was not made, yet the negotiator and the other party still had respect for each other. Voss says the other party, whom he describes as a sociopathic terrorist, later told the negotiator that he respected him and would deal with him again. The lesson concerns preserving the relationship through empathy even when the negotiation does not produce an agreement.
When preparing to walk away from a business discussion, Voss says to explain why you began talking in the first place and reconnect the ending to that original optimism. Reminding the other party of a contract if the discussion fails can come across as a threat. Instead, acknowledge that you did not reach agreement, restate the long-term relationship and mutual productivity you hoped for, and set a time to meet again. The point is to control the last impression by ending with the purpose of the relationship, even when the current meeting made no progress.
When someone makes a threat, a useful response may require more than knowing which question to ask: tone and the ability to stay composed while being shouted at matter too. Voss says to practice with someone shouting so the response becomes usable under that pressure; simply hearing the suggested wording is unlikely to make you able to deliver it the first time. The lesson is specifically about rehearsal for a threatening, high-pressure exchange.
Chris Voss argues that extreme anchors can cause negotiators to walk away from deals they should have made. He says the occasional large win may attract attention, while the value of deals driven away is overlooked. In his own response to an extreme anchor, he immediately ends the negotiation, reasoning that the other party’s extreme opening signals how they will behave throughout the conversation. This is his stated judgment about extreme anchoring; the transcript does not establish that every anchor has this effect.
In a workplace dispute, have each person summarize the other’s point of view until the other confirms, “That’s right.” Voss says that confirmation shows the person feels understood; then the summarizer is free to state their own view. Taking time to articulate the other person’s perspective can also begin to draw people together, enlighten the person doing the summarizing, and make the other more willing to listen. The example concerns two executives whose CEO needed them to resolve their conflict and keep working together.
Letting the other person speak first gives you more information and helps them feel heard. Listening, then repeating back what they said to show you understood, can begin to reduce their sense that you are a threat. As that barrier eases, they may become more willing to share closely held information. The expert describes this as a double benefit: you learn more while the other person feels heard and becomes more connected with you.
Voss describes a TEDx audience as one of the warmest audiences a speaker can encounter because people choose to attend. By comparison, he says many conference attendees are there because their boss sent them or because the event gives them a chance to leave the office. In his experience, that makes TEDx one of the most delightful places to speak.
Chris Voss compares negotiation tools to a knife: the same tool can cause harm or help save a life. In his account, using a tactic does not by itself make someone manipulative; the intention behind using it matters. He acknowledges that people equipped with these tools can manipulate others, and argues that the tools should be used for good. The principle concerns how the tools are used, not a claim that the tools cannot be misused.
Ray describes mirroring as a way to listen rather than speak over someone, so he can understand that person more deeply. He connects this to thoughtfulness: other people must experience your actions and words as thoughtful, and listening helps you understand them well enough to serve them. He also applies the idea to product work: product designers and engineers can listen to users’ pains, desired gains, and everyday friction before deciding what to build. The aim is to root products in an understanding of users’ daily lives.
Voss and Ray explain that words alone do not convey intent; tone matters too. An upward tone can sound uncertain, Ray says, but it can also signal genuine inquiry. The speaker has to use the tone that fits the situation and intended meaning. Voss adds that a person’s inner state can come through in their voice: a lack of confidence may be heard, while genuine curiosity can sound different. Listening empathetically, he says, calls for a different tone from trying to move the conversation along.
Voss argues that better organizational listening can affect more than sales: product teams that listen may create better products, and improved listening may reduce inefficiencies and increase bottom-line revenue even without increasing top-line revenue. He recounts a coach’s estimate that organizational listening capacity increased by 50%, but says he did not know what that figure meant; the revenue explanation that follows is his interpretation, not a measured result established in the discussion. The lesson he draws is that listening across functions can matter to organizational performance, not only to selling.
Ray says that when a company is adopting AI, leaders need empathy and precision listening as they navigate change with their people. Employees may not understand why rapid adoption is needed, and they may have fears, uncertainties, or apprehensions. He recommends open conversations and mirroring to help people share their organic, unfiltered thoughts, so leaders can support them through the change. He frames the intended reason for change as a way for the business and its people to benefit, including helping employees manage heavy workloads.
Voss says that getting someone to share an unfiltered thought can require less effort from them than questioning them. He argues that questioning can make people feel examined and fatigued, adding to decision fatigue; mirroring, in his account, helps draw out what someone is thinking without wearing them out in the same way. This is presented as his explanation of why the listening skills can be useful in conversation, not as a quantified comparison.
Ray connects team speed with moving as a coordinated unit and says he tries to reduce friction for frontline employees by connecting with them and hearing their stories. A leader’s proposed change can seem minor until the leader sees what it adds to an employee’s day; Ray gives the example of a CRM request that would add 400 clicks. He calls for leaders to spend time in employees’ working conditions and understand those effects before assuming a task is simple. He also says he demonstrates mirroring live and pairs new employees with experienced colleagues so they can see the skills used in practice.
Ray defines thoughtful urgency as combining careful attention to customers and products with a high tempo. He says thoughtfulness can take time and lead to inaction or indecision, so urgency is needed to keep it from bogging work down. At the same time, speed should not displace thoughtfulness. The principle is to give enough attention to make work thoughtful while continuing to move; he describes this balance as part of how his company serves customers and builds products.
Ray says he tries to remember that colleagues in a disagreement usually have good intentions and want the company to succeed. From that starting point, he asks what they see that he does not, listens to their perspective, and considers whether it reveals something he had overlooked. Combining perspectives may then produce a better solution. He acknowledges that this can be difficult in the heat of debate and says it helps to notice one’s own emotions and try to return to understanding the other person. He does not claim that everyone always has good intent.
Voss describes curiosity as an internal response that can help a person handle a combative colleague: instead of reacting only to the confrontation, ask whether there is something to learn from the other person’s point of view. He says this can help interrupt anger and that genuine curiosity may also affect the other person. Ray’s starting point is that colleagues usually want the company to win, but the speakers acknowledge that someone may have bad intent. They say listening can reveal self-serving reasoning, which can then be brought into the open. Voss also cautions that a combative approach can trigger a person, making preparation relevant.
Ray says you can end a conversation when it makes no sense, goes in circles, or has become a clear waste of time; you do not have to keep giving it your time. When possible, he suggests explaining that you have heard the other person but are not getting anywhere, then proposing a pause, a later discussion, or an end to the conversation. Voss adds that he will try once to end politely, but if the other person will not allow that, he may simply walk away or stop speaking. The boundary can be respectful while still being firm.
Voss argues that feeling obligated to preserve a relationship can leave you feeling trapped, and that manipulative people may shift between acting like a rescuer, a victim, or a prosecutor to destabilize you. He says to give yourself permission to cut loose people who are damaging you. He acknowledges that doing so can be hard, and describes trying to end things politely before walking away if the other person prevents a polite ending. Ray also says not to remain a doormat in a conversation that is wasting your time.
Ray says leaders need to model the expectations they set and make sure people across the company meet them. If a team tolerates someone who is not carrying their weight, others may conclude that the same low effort is acceptable. He argues that leaders need to recognize strong contributors and address mediocrity to keep high performers; he would rather leave a seat empty than fill it with the wrong person, because that person’s work can burden the rest of the team. Ray describes his own commitment to invest in people who give their all.
Voss says that when you want to learn something, seek training from people who know the subject. Teaching it to others is the next best way to learn. He connects this practice with his own experience teaching and speaking to audiences, and says he still works at it. For teaching, he adds a specific condition: make it entertaining, or it will be boring.
Voss says fear is an emotion that is best addressed by calling it out rather than ignoring or denying it. He describes paying attention to inner anxiety and saying “I’m scared” repeatedly; as he does this, he notices the fear diminish and eventually realizes he is no longer scared. He presents direct acknowledgment as more effective than denial.
Voss describes gratitude, curiosity, and playfulness as antidotes that can keep a person out of a fearful or otherwise negative mindset. He specifically says that being curious makes it impossible to be afraid. He offers these as additional mechanisms alongside directly naming fear.
An assertive person’s forceful manner can sound angry even when they are not mad, and they may speak that way toward someone they care about. Voss describes it as their passion coming through. That intensity can create a mismatch: analysts may avoid the interaction because they do not want to be yelled at, while accommodators may feel hurt. The tone alone, in this account, does not establish that the assertive person dislikes someone or is angry with them.
Voss says an assertive person wants to be heard, to feel in control, and to be respected. He describes respect as important enough that making the deal may matter less than receiving it. This is his characterization of what the assertive person wants; the transcript does not specify how to provide that respect or when this preference may vary.
Voss describes people as starting with the same basic emotional “original equipment,” including fear, anger, surprise, delight and disgust. Because four of the five emotions in the list he cites are negative, he says people are driven principally by negative emotions. Recognizing that even a terrorist began as a human with this shared emotional wiring makes emotional intelligence applicable to everyone. The lesson is to begin with that common emotional basis when dealing with people, rather than treating a category of person as outside its reach.
When repeating someone’s claim that you thought they were lying, convey curiosity through both words and posture: slightly drop your chin to show comprehension and curiosity, then turn and lift your head slightly. The expert also describes a small blink as potentially playful, and says playfulness can be useful in a tense moment. These are presented as ways to express curiosity or playfulness in that interaction.
Treat negotiation as a human performance skill, like athletic performance: nutrition, preparation, mindset, and sleep affect when you can do your best work. Voss says skill shifts a little each day, either improving or worsening. To improve, practice in small, low-stakes situations rather than relying on important negotiations as your practice; that preparation is intended to support performance when the stakes are high.
When a spouse insists on a real Christmas tree, labeling what may be behind that preference—“It seems like you had real trees growing up”—gives her room to explain its meaning: the scent recalls close family moments, and she wants that experience for their children. The negotiation then reveals what the preference represents, rather than staying with the husband’s practical arguments for an artificial tree. In this example, he is willing to be open to the better idea, and they choose the real tree.
Voss says tone of voice can affect someone positively as soon as you begin speaking, and that it can matter more than body language. He illustrates this with a bank robber at Chase Manhattan Bank: Voss says he used a calm, confident voice with a downward inflection, and the robber told him, “I trust you.” The example shows the tone he used and the response he recalls; it does not establish that the same response is guaranteed in other situations.
In a negotiation, ask a question that makes the other person think, “That’s legit.” Voss illustrates this with a kidnapping negotiation: asking “How do I even know she’s alive?” shifted the dynamic; the kidnapper offered to put her on the phone, and his voice changed. Voss describes this kind of question as a pattern interrupt that feels deferential. He says he coaches family members to ask, for example, “How do I know you have my son?”
Ray says that after becoming more skilled and comfortable with tactical empathy, he made more money collaborating than he had through cutthroat negotiation, which had also made him money. He says the collaborative work became fulfilling as well as successful, and that his company brings customers three to five times the value of the additional dollars it earns. This is his account of his own experience, not a guarantee of the same result for every negotiator.
Chris and Ray connect the ability to keep making deals with delivering on the promise made to the customer. Chris describes operational excellence and follow-through on the emotional connection built during negotiation as necessary: if the promised experience is not delivered, the connection can become manipulative and may be hard to recover. Ray says the principle also applies to transactional businesses, where word can get around. For them, integrity supports successful negotiation only when the business executes afterward.
Ray says he offers salespeople the chance to let him take the lead, then comes alongside them because customer-facing work can be difficult and important. When he sees a path forward that the salesperson cannot yet communicate, he may put his own standing on the line and handle the conversation together with them. He reports that in these cases they retained their customers and sometimes achieved more than either he or the salesperson expected. He wants customer-facing staff to represent the workers as well as the product.
Ray says a leader can initially help people experience the energy and results of a negotiation method by working alongside them. But people ultimately have to take the reins and face their own internal doubts by experiencing the negotiation themselves. The leader can smooth the early stages, but cannot remove this hurdle for them. His account distinguishes showing someone that a method can work from helping them gain their own experience using it.
Ray says difficult conversations still bring emotion, anxiety, and “butterflies”; experience has made him confident that he can manage through them, rather than unafraid. He notices physical signs of his emotional state, treats them as information, takes a breath, and works out what they may be telling him. Chris adds that fear cannot simply be beaten: it can be acknowledged and labeled. Ray says he is no longer petrified or running away from these conversations, but running toward them.
Ray says learning a script is only a starting point: the method is not a set of magic words that makes the other side grant your wishes. A negotiator must understand what the other person’s responses convey. He also found that he could stay in a rhetorical loop, waiting for the other side to provide a solution. Since a negotiation has a request or objective, he says there is a point when the negotiator must move the conversation forward and lead more assertively, without rushing there too soon.
Ray says his ego is often his biggest limitation. When a negotiation does not go as intended, his after-action review can show him that his ego shaped his response. He describes his ego’s instincts as favoring what feels good to him at the other side’s expense, and says he now tries to move in the opposite direction. He presents this as a personal lesson from his own reviews, and expects his understanding to keep developing.
Ray describes trial and error, followed by a debrief, as his way of improving: try a tactic or sequence, review what happened, and ask what was driving the choices. He values specific feedback, including being told plainly when something did not work, and says he uses these small adjustments to get better over time. He also says virtual practice can offer a smaller group, detailed feedback, and a safer space for trying things that might feel embarrassing in person, particularly for an introvert like him.
Ray says the Black Swan method allows multiple ways to reach the same outcome, including different combinations of skills. Understanding the other person’s personality can help a negotiator choose a tool that reaches the goal more effectively or quickly; he gives an assertive counterpart and an analyst as examples. He says he would not stress this distinction at the beginning levels, but sees it as more relevant as someone progresses. He also notes that instructors can give different recommendations and both can be right.
Ray says experienced instructors may recommend different ways to handle a counterpart, and that both can be right. Their differences show that negotiation is not a fixed, cookie-cutter process: as you become more comfortable with the work and your direction, you need to shape your own way of applying it. He describes hearing instructors disagree as a chance for their ideas to sharpen one another, and says you have to stay open to how the conversation unfolds.
Ray describes learning by seeking interactions with people in the organization, listening closely, gathering useful ideas from different places, and organizing them after an event. He then tries to implement what he learned and works out how to apply it, with help from the group when needed. He says there is no clear, efficient path that guarantees the greatest return on the investment: the learner has to invest and take responsibility for getting value from it.
Voss describes Colombia as a difficult kidnapping market because kidnapping had been practiced there for so long that an infrastructure had developed. In his explanation, that infrastructure made it possible to hold hostages longer; he cites a case in which rescued hostages had been held for six years. He says captivity could last weeks, months, or years, depending on how negotiations were going and what the hostage represented as a commodity. These are his observations about that market, not a fixed duration for every case.
A coyote kidnapping can be staged without the supposed kidnappers having the person. The example describes someone using a passed-out traveler’s wallet to identify and call family, then claiming the traveler will be killed unless they pay. When the family member calls and gets no answer, fear can make the threat seem real and prompt immediate payment. The apparent proof is that the person cannot be reached; the source explains that the caller may have only taken the person’s phone.
Voss says the real control in a negotiation lies in how it ends: the ending of each interaction shapes the next one. He contrasts this with the common focus on how a conversation starts, comparing it to sleep, whose quality is already being influenced by the previous afternoon. In his view, the previous interaction’s ending helps set the conditions for the next interaction.
Voss says people fear public speaking because they imagine standing before an audience with nothing to say and being embarrassed. He uses an exaggerated comparison to suggest that, in this scenario, the anticipated humiliation can feel worse than death. The point is about how intensely people may experience the fear; the brief passage gives no further explanation or practical method for addressing it.
Voss describes authenticity as a kind of currency and keeping his word as an operating principle. Because these are part of his values, he tries to connect with people consistently: he is interested in where they came from, what shaped them, and why they think as they do. He says this communication does not harm his personal relationships because, for him, it is about being genuine, and he does not turn it off.
Voss explains that people may feel anxious when asked to say yes, while saying no can make them feel safe and protected. That sense of safety can help them listen and think things through. He suggests using questions such as “Is this a bad idea?” or “Does this sound stupid to you?” when discussing a deal, and “Is now a bad time to talk?” instead of asking whether someone has a few minutes. The principle is to give the other person room to say no; the transcript does not specify that these questions work in every situation.
People often think negotiation is mainly about expressing their own perspective clearly and choosing their words carefully. Voss says the more important question is whether they have comprehended the other person: whether they heard what was said and read between the lines. He connects many instances of miscommunication to people not hearing, rather than to people speaking poorly.
Voss describes three negotiator types and associates each with a different way of misleading someone: an assertive negotiator may gaslight by making accusations that unsettle the other person; an analyst may give a literally true but incomplete answer, later defending it as technically not a lie; and an accommodator may talk at length in a cheerful, playful mood until the listener loses track of what was said. He presents these as patterns to watch for when they appear, not as proof that someone is lying.
Voss explains that people may feel anxious about saying yes because they have learned that saying no protects them. A no-oriented question can therefore help them feel safer, listen, and think the proposal through. He illustrates this with questions such as “Is this a bad idea?” and “Is now a bad time to talk?” instead of asking whether someone has a few minutes. The point is to make declining feel possible, not to assume that every no-oriented question will produce agreement.
Rather than asking “How are you today?”, notice how the person appears and label what you see, such as seeming tired or having something on their mind. The point is to identify their apparent state without trying to change how they feel.
Voss says to make yourself intentionally uncomfortable: establishing a habit is hard at first, and the first experience may feel horrifying or terrible. After several repetitions, he says, it can start to feel manageable and even fun. He describes anticipated discomfort as something that seems frightening while it waits in the dark; entering it reveals that it is not so bad.
Voss says he believes in long-term relationships built on trust. He applies this to meeting women when a lasting relationship is the goal, and to work: people who will stay on a team for the long haul need to trust you. He describes that kind of long-term orientation as more prosperous than focusing only on immediate gain.
Voss says people often lie because they fear that telling the truth will make someone angry or end the relationship. These “white lies” are meant to protect the relationship, rather than victimize the other person. The mismatch can create trouble: the person hearing the lie may perceive fear-driven self-protection as an attempt to exploit or take advantage of them.
The longer people have been close, the more likely one may have hurt the other without realizing it. The hurt person may also be angry that the harm went unnoticed, and longer relationships can bring higher expectations. Voss says to elevate empathy in these relationships, not abandon it; one can acknowledge the possibility of having caused hurt without knowing. He identifies this as especially relevant with spouses, siblings, colleagues, and family members.
Fear of embarrassment, losing, or being unprepared can keep people from negotiating. Voss says people may be able to trust the other side with a secret more than 70% of the time, yet focus on the possible 30% failure and its emotional cost. He also says people imagine losing 13 times for every two losses they would actually have experienced if they had not gotten in their own way. His point is to recognize this emotional reaction: anticipated losses can loom larger than the losses he says would occur.
Voss says that as more interaction moves online, people become more starved for human connection, so an actual conversation can feel refreshing. He compares negotiating by text or email to chess: make one move, let the other person respond, then make the next move. The lesson is to keep the exchange interactive instead of putting all your moves into one message; he says this turn-by-turn pacing gives you an advantage.
Voss argues that Trump does not want regime change and is not interested in triggering the kind of prolonged mess that follows an invasion. He contrasts this with the historical American approach of invading a country, becoming entangled in an unsettled conflict for 20 years, then leaving when America grows tired; the region may then descend into chaos, with uncertain consequences. The principle he presents is a preference against initiating that cycle. His claim is about Trump’s intentions and the consequences Voss associates with past interventions, not a guarantee about what will happen in any particular case.
The expert says women fall in love with what they hear, but notice when a man does not follow through on what he says. He also says they want him to be interested and funny, just as he wants them to be interesting. The point is to make those qualities real in how you act, rather than merely claim them.
The expert describes very good-looking men who dress casually and say they get women in T-shirts and jeans, suggesting they are trying to keep other men from competing. He contrasts this with the possibility that a man who has a sense of style may come across as interesting. The point is limited to this dating context; the transcript gives no broader claim about how much style matters.
The expert describes music as a universal influence: people respond to it across differences in gender, ethnicity, religion, geography, and diet. They also suggest that music may have existed before language. The point is that music’s reach, as they describe it, is not limited to a particular group or dependent on sharing those traits.
Voss recommends using everyday, low-stakes interactions to practice skills such as labeling and mirroring, so they become comfortable to use. Sales scripts can feel safe, but relying on them can cause a salesperson to miss opportunities to respond to the other person. When the other person does not feel listened to, Voss says this can offend them and damage the relationship, even if that was not the salesperson’s intent.
Voss sees a connection between charm and empathy: being charming means showing someone that you are deeply interesting to you. He also compares flirting through compliments to empathy when the compliments are genuine. The overlap he describes rests on communicating sincere interest, rather than on compliments alone.
An assertive negotiator can still be engaging in a one-on-one meeting. Voss says Trump learned to listen and attend to the other negotiator’s attributes in that setting. He supports the point with accounts from people who met Trump individually and described him as focused, charming, and an attentive listener, despite his public reputation for argument.
Voss identifies decision fatigue as a major human challenge in negotiations. He says a deal is best made around 10 a.m. local time, when people may have more mental energy, resilience, and a better mood. As fatigue and upsetting events accumulate, a person’s performance can drop and they may be more likely to snap at someone. He presents this as a human vulnerability that negotiators should account for; the timing is his approximate suggestion, not a guaranteed outcome.
Manipulation is trying to convince someone to take a course of action that may be against their interests, while deceiving them. Persuasion, as Voss describes it, is grounded in wanting to work with the other person: there is nothing to hide, and the aim is for them to do well and prosper without sacrificing who they are. The distinction rests on whether the intent is to hurt the other person or work with them.
Voss attributes much of the book’s success to co-writer Tal Roz’s writing skill and his in-depth study of the material. He contrasts this with co-writers who rely only on information the author gives them. In this account, a co-writer’s own deep dive helped produce a stronger business book.
In a negotiation, each side knows things the other does not, and there may also be possibilities neither side has identified yet. Rather than assuming compromise is the only way to resolve competing wants, stay open to discovering those possibilities. The expert cautions that something new may not emerge in every interaction or every day, but argues that life’s ongoing uncertainty means there will be things to discover if you remain open to them.
When a person does not get everything they wanted, the result can feel disappointing even if they received something valuable. Voss explains this through loss aversion: people feel a loss more strongly than an equivalent gain, describing a concession of five as feeling like a loss of ten. In a compromise, both sides may therefore feel they gave up more than they actually did, making the exchange a downward spiral of perceived loss. He also describes fairness as subjective, like beauty, but does not elaborate further on how that affects a negotiation.
Voss says “You’re right” can give you some space. He illustrates it by acknowledging that the other person had told you not to do something again, then recognizing that your actions showed you were not listening and seemed disrespectful. He presents this as fair game when the other person is a bad actor, while saying he does not advocate it in normal relationships. In a toxic relationship, the other person will also watch whether your actions match what you say.
Voss distinguishes a person’s core emotions—such as anger, fear, joy and disgust, which he says are present from birth—from the social expectations they learn through life experience. As an example, he describes a child who is severely punished for doing something wrong and then faces no punishment for repeating it a month later. He says this inconsistency can teach the child that there are no rules. The example explains one possible learned pattern; it does not establish that inconsistent punishment alone creates narcissism or sociopathy.
In a dangerous negotiation, Voss says they used empathy by summarizing the other person’s perspective. His instruction is to finish summarizing everything that person has said, then go silent and wait; he describes this as usually the most excruciating moment. In the hostage negotiation he recounts, the negotiator later said that something in their conversations had stopped him from killing the hostage several times. Voss presents empathy as part of that exchange, without identifying exactly what stopped the man.
Voss says he sees no difference between men and women among top negotiators. In his account, men are often conditioned to be assertive and women to be more emotionally intelligent, but each trait on its own is essential and inadequate. A negotiator who develops both qualities can be especially effective and, he predicts, go far personally and help their company do well.
Voss says that getting someone to say “no” can make them feel safe. By contrast, when someone is pushed toward “yes,” they may wonder where the catch is because they have been taught that a yes can come with one. He describes his company’s aim as reaching agreement, rather than simply getting a yes. The point is to treat agreement—not an affirmative answer by itself—as the goal of the negotiation.
In one call about a medical bill of about $3,500, Voss used a playful tone while asking what discount he could get if he paid the whole amount immediately. He says the person laughed, checked with her boss, and offered $700 off; he believed his playful manner made her feel like giving him a deal, while his sincerity and readiness to pay in full were also apparent. The example illustrates how warmth and a credible immediate payment offer coincided with a discount in this interaction; it does not establish that the same result will occur in other negotiations.
Voss describes listening as an underrated, underused skill that can provide an advantage in many areas of life. In the airline example, his assistant noticed the staff’s workload, acknowledged that it seemed hectic, and drew the employee into a conversation; the employee then checked the calendar and found an appointment that fit their needs. Voss presents this as an example of using listening skills and reading between the lines with someone.
Voss argues that every decision is emotional because people decide based on what they care about. Logic, by contrast, is subjective—“in the eye of the beholder.” To understand a decision, identify what matters to the person making it; Voss says some concerns are common across people, though he does not specify them here.
Voss says that when he articulates someone’s perspective, the person’s internal objection—“you don’t understand”—can quiet down. That creates room for an actual conversation, and, if the two sides draw closer together, they may be able to find outcomes. The point is to convey their perspective before expecting productive discussion; the transcript does not specify a script or guarantee an agreement.
Empathy means identifying how the other person sees the situation; it does not mean agreeing with that view. Voss illustrates this by describing how Putin might see Russia’s history of being invaded, while making clear that he was not endorsing that perspective. He says people can become so inflamed that they cannot even articulate the other side’s position, partly because they fear this means they are not defending their own. In his view, crossing over to express the other side’s perspective can make it easier to influence people.
When a seller’s expectations seem unrealistic, first ask what is behind them and where they got their data. Voss’s reasoning is that explaining their basis helps them feel heard, which makes them more amenable to guidance. If you have comparative data to share, present it as different data rather than telling the seller they are wrong; he says this avoids making the disagreement feel like a personal attack. He notes that what to do next can depend on how long the situation has gone on.
In a negotiation, asserting your position more strongly—even when it is true and sincere—can cause the other person to lock up. In the roleplay, Voss says his first question was derailed and that he felt fear rise; he connects this to a broader pattern he sees in legitimate negotiations.
Being effective at negotiation does not automatically make someone an effective negotiation coach. Voss distinguishes doing the work from teaching and coaching it, and says he focuses more on how to teach and coach negotiation. He compares this with professional athletes who were great players but poor coaches, and cites Phil Jackson as a coach who did not start on the team he played for. The point is that coaching requires a separate ability to teach, not simply personal skill at the activity.
Voss says highly analytical, data-oriented people may experience silence as connection: they can feel that sharing silence creates a bond and intimacy. He presents this as his view, supported by his observation of Lex Friedman discussing silence on his podcast; he does not claim that every analytical person responds this way.
Voss describes accommodators as people who are high on hope and low on detail. He says silence gets them talking and that they love to talk. The point is about how he characterizes this conflict type; the transcript does not specify how long to remain silent or what to do with what they say.
Voss says assertive people want to be heard and respected. Letting them talk helps them feel both, and summarizing back what they said makes them feel enormously respected. Agreement is not required: he says the aim is to show respect by listening and reflecting their words, not to agree with their position.
Chris Voss says “why” is often a triggering word in negotiations and other interactions. People commonly ask it when they think someone has made a mistake, and he explains that from childhood, being asked “Why did you do that?” can signal that an adult thinks you messed up. In his hostage-negotiation experience, people reacted angrily when asked why they were doing something. The lesson is that the question can be heard as an accusation, even if that is not the questioner’s intent. He describes this reaction as occurring across cultures; the transcript does not give an alternative wording.
When someone is overwhelmed, Voss says to reflect the situation and feelings they have described—for example, that their workload is heavier, they feel stretched, and the pressure is not letting up—then stop and let them respond. A “that’s right” response signals that they feel understood and that the emotional barrier has been cleared. He says this opens the conversation and creates trust-based influence, so do not rush past that moment. The example describes a signal to move forward, not a guarantee that every person will respond this way.
In a conversation, hearing “that’s right” can signal that the other person feels seen and understood, rather than merely agreeing with a point. Voss says that once someone feels fully understood, the interaction changes. The practical distinction is between understanding the person and making that understanding perceptible to them; accuracy alone is not enough. The transcript does not specify a technique for conveying that understanding or claim that the phrase guarantees a particular outcome.
Voss says people are six times more likely to make a deal with someone they like, and asks salespeople to consider whether their energy puts others off. Listening alone may not be enough: give people evidence that you heard them. Genuine interest also matters; as he puts it, interesting people are interested. He says this can help someone stand out among people who do not take the time to show that interest.
When an employer wants to pay you less because you are a woman, Voss advises looking for a workplace that values you rather than trying to fix that employer. He compares a bad employer to a bad partner and says moving on can lead to greater happiness, productivity, and a better life.
Voss distinguishes trust from liking: people may enjoy someone’s company without trusting them. In his example, detectives liked a sergeant because he was fun to be around, but questioned whether he would protect them after a mistake or instead bury them. For Voss, trust is about being able to predict how someone will act, especially when the stakes include whether they will look out for you.
Voss argues that negotiation is not about making your case or winning an argument. The negotiator should find out what is possible and draw out the other side’s thoughts so they feel involved in the process and want the deal to happen. Mirroring helps get them talking; that can create an opportunity for them to present a deal that serves your aims while feeling like their idea. The transcript presents this as a way to gather information and let the other side have your way.
Voss describes hostage negotiation as entering a siege where an armed person is surrounded by police and others may want to use physical objects to cause change. The negotiator instead uses words to untangle the situation. He says this can happen in a short time, and gives the example of a colleague resolving some sieges in 15 to 20 minutes after others had been there for hours. He presents this as an example of how satisfying it can be to use words effectively; it is not a claim that every siege can be resolved that quickly.
Mirroring means repeating one to three words the other person has said. It can make them feel listened to because the repetition shows that you heard their words. It also communicates that you still do not understand, which can prompt them to explain further, add information, or change their terms. The expert says that, once practiced, the repeated words can come from anywhere in the conversation. He describes the technique as simple, while noting that people may doubt it until they try it.
Voss says he was surprised by the power of empathy when he learned hotline calls could last less than 20 minutes if the work was done right; he had assumed that was impossible. He describes this as the accelerating ability of emotional intelligence: the person using it knows what they are doing, while the recipient may feel transformed without understanding where that change came from. He calls it an invisible skill.
In high stakes conversations, the expert says the useful signal is “that’s right,” not simply a yes or agreement. It indicates that the other person feels understood and that the conversation has become collaborative. Do not rush past that moment: the expert presents it as the point from which you can move forward with trust based influence, listening, and collaboration.
A useful summary captures what happened, how the person feels, and why it matters to them, in your own words. It is not a word for word repeat. When the person hears their meaning reflected clearly, they may say “that’s right,” which the expert treats as a sign of understanding and connection rather than mere agreement. If they correct the summary, that correction gives you another chance to understand them.
When someone is venting about a problem, the expert says they often want to feel understood before they are ready for solutions. Instead of immediately giving advice, summarize their effort and frustration, then pause and let them respond or fill in what is missing. If they say “that’s right,” the expert describes that as having earned the right to help.
When two people keep repeating the same arguments without progress, summarize the other person’s perspective instead of restating your own. For example, reflect that they see the issue as a pattern that has been building over time. The expert says that feeling seen and understood can stop the repetition, because the person no longer needs to keep making the same point, allowing the conversation to move forward.
When someone is hesitant about a plan, change, or decision, pushing harder can increase resistance. First summarize their position—for example, that they want to make the right move and avoid committing while important risks may remain. If they feel understood rather than pressured, the expert says they become more open to hearing your perspective.
Voss says a speaker’s tone of voice can trigger a neurochemical response in the listener. In his example, a slower tone can slow the listener’s whole system, while a different tone can affect it differently and trigger more neurochemicals. He adds that the listener may struggle against the response, but the speaker can start it. The transcript does not specify which tones produce which responses beyond these examples.
Being corrected can feel embarrassing to the person who was misread, even when the person correcting them means to help. The corrector may experience the correction as assistance, while the recipient may worry that the other person is angry or thinks they are stupid. Voss says empathy can still trigger side benefits even when the reading is wrong, so the attempt is not necessarily wasted.
Voss says people often focus on positives even though the brain is 75 to 80% negative. In his example, saying “I don’t want you to think I’m being greedy” denies a possible impression and can take away the other person’s autonomy. He recommends a small shift to recognizing it: “I’m probably going to seem greedy.” He says that recognition deactivates the concern if the person already had it in mind, and inoculates them against it if they did not. His explanation addresses this specific kind of negative impression; he does not claim that every concern will respond the same way.
The difference between influence and manipulation lies in where you are taking the other person. A genuine compliment is influence when you mean it and are trying to make the person feel better. By contrast, manipulation is trying to lead someone somewhere or get them to do something they would reject if they knew where you were taking them. Compliments used as flattery to change someone’s mind or avoid doing work illustrate that distinction.
When approaching someone who does not know you and appears to be gathering himself, Voss asked, “Would it offend you if I ask you a question?” He describes this as a “no more answer question.” O’Leary answered no and was talkative afterward. The account shows how Voss phrased this particular opening and what followed; it does not establish that the wording will produce the same response in other situations.
When you recognize that someone is upset or notice a difficult vibe, start by labeling what you observe rather than asking a routine “How are you?” Voss suggests wording it as “you seem upset,” “you seem like it’s been a tough day,” or “you seem like there’s a lot on your mind.” He describes this as an empathic observation that demonstrates comprehension; if it helps snap the person out of the difficult conversation, he says it can go a long way. The observation should not be phrased as an accusation.
Voss treats gaslighting as a sign of a deal he will never make or should not make, so once he recognizes it, his best move is to end the interaction respectfully. He first labels a couple of things to diagnose the other person’s response and see whether they can stop. If they can, perhaps because it is a bad habit or they are afraid of him, and trust can still be established, he will try two or three times. If those attempts do not get them out of gaslighting him, he moves on.
Voss says that deception is often defensive: people may be afraid of something, rather than trying to lead you somewhere harmful. When you suspect a lie, focus on what may be motivating it instead of centering the fact that they are lying. He suggests saying, “Seems like I haven’t earned your trust,” and making the person feel they can share information without being hurt for it. He distinguishes this from people who lie to take you somewhere you do not want to go.
Voss says a playful tone of voice can put a negotiator in a playful, positive frame of mind. He links that state to being able to hear more and notice patterns sooner, and describes playfulness as emotionally contagious. He also says that, for neuroscience reasons, this contagion makes everything go faster. The transcript presents these as his claims about the effects of playfulness; it does not specify when the effect may fail or provide further conditions.
Voss says volunteering on a suicide hotline showed him the power of emotional intelligence and empathy: they can help people in crisis level out and make better decisions. This experience sparked his interest in hostage negotiation; the transcript does not explain a specific technique or claim that empathy works in every crisis.
Money is not the only commodity at stake in a negotiation: information and cooperation matter too. In a grocery store, Voss needed help finding broccoli sprouts. Instead of asking a produce worker simply for directions, he acknowledged the worker’s importance, described himself as unable to find the item, and asked where it was. The worker walked him to it. The example shows cooperation as something sought in an ordinary interaction, though Voss does not spell out why this wording prompted the worker’s help.
Voss says gratitude can bring you back into the moment so you can perform for what is coming next. He illustrates this with a football player pacing and repeating “living a dream”; the point is to use gratitude to regain present focus when preparing to do the job.
Practice with people who know what they are doing, and imagine yourself handling a negotiation well. For example, picture someone shouting insults at you and rehearse answering in a calm voice instead of reacting angrily. Voss says that under pressure, people perform at the level of their preparation; repeated successful responses can also make that behavior familiar. The lesson is about preparing for pressure through practice and mental rehearsal, not a guarantee that every response will work.
Voss says a boss may see an employee asking for a raise without taking on additional responsibilities as wanting more pay for the same amount of work, which can look selfish from the boss’s perspective. He recommends asking for more important responsibilities because, in his account, that presents the employee as a team player and more valuable. Taking on greater responsibility can put the employee in a position to earn more or get a better job.
Chris Voss advises caution about touching someone during a negotiation. He says he relies more on certain body language movements that he finds especially endearing to the other side. If touch happens, he prefers it to arise organically rather than using it as a deliberate device to establish rapport.
A walk-away should be authentic: mean it when you say you will leave. Before doing so, explain why the current terms do not work for you and what a good deal would look like. This gives the other person a chance to understand what could work, so they cannot say they would have agreed if only they had known. If no deal is possible, make clear that you can part without hard feelings.
When bargaining over a car, Voss says he uses empathy. In his 4Runner purchase, he told the salesperson how beautiful and rare the truck was and how hard it had been to find, then asked, “How am I supposed to pay your price?” By voicing what he expected the salesperson to say before the salesperson said it, he felt he had left the other person nowhere to go while remaining non-threatening. He says the salesperson then bargained against himself; Voss did not counter-offer and got a low price. This is his account of one negotiation, not a promise of the same result in every deal.
When you suspect someone has prepared to deny an accusation, Voss says to look for a question or point they did not expect to deny, so you can observe how they respond when caught off guard. The aim is to learn what their genuine reactions look like and compare those with their other responses. He presents this as a way to assess whether someone is being genuine; the transcript does not specify particular questions or establish that a mismatch proves someone is lying.
People who have repeatedly been cheated through getting them to say yes may react negatively to another request for agreement, even when the person asking has no intention to deceive them. The request can resemble the behavior of the people who cheated them, so they may feel wary. Voss says yes creates anxiety in this situation. He explains that these people have learned that saying no protects them, helps them listen, and gives them time to think things through.
When Chris Voss wanted to order from the Cheesecake Factory with his partner, he changed “Are you ready to order?”—a question where he was looking for yes—to “Are you against ordering?” She answered no, and they ordered right away. In this example, asking whether she opposed the choice led to a quick decision; the transcript does not establish how reliably this works in other situations.
Voss describes humans as born with a basic set of emotions—fear, anger, surprise, disgust, and joy. On the hypothesis he presents, most of these emotions are negative. He says these reactions arise from being human, rather than from a person’s parents, food, religion, or gender.
The expert distinguishes the main purpose of two deferential questions: “what” is principally designed to uncover a problem or reveal something, while “how” is principally about implementation—creating a way to proceed. In this framing, “What keeps you up at night?” brings problems to light; “How do you want to proceed?” or “How am I supposed to do that?” turns attention to handling them. These questions are meant mostly to trigger thinking, not simply to obtain an answer. The distinction describes their principal design, not an exclusive use.
When you want to understand why someone is asking a question, ask what is behind it instead of asking why they asked. Voss says “why” can sound accusatory: the other person may feel they must have done something wrong or asked something wrong. Replacing “why” with “what” avoids triggering that response and helps reveal the underlying issue. His explanation addresses this conversational effect; it does not specify particular situations where the wording may differ.
Voss treats “that’s right” as a sign that you have hit a target and says it clears the deck. By contrast, hearing “you’re right” does not mean full agreement or compliance: he says a problem remains. The distinction he draws rests on the specific phrase the other person uses.
Voss says silence is necessary because it gives the other person time to put something on the table. Avoid interrupting and wait for their response; at a minimum, they will respect that you stayed quiet and waited. He describes these pauses as moments to use in your favor.
An accusation audit means identifying the negative things the other person may be thinking about you and saying them first. Voss argues that this does not plant new ideas: it acknowledges concerns that may already be present. Naming them can show that you understand the other person’s perspective and are not hiding or spinning the problem, which may lower defensiveness and make it easier for them to listen. The concerns should be the other person’s possible perceptions, not your own criticisms of them.
The audit is a strategic acknowledgement of the emotional obstacle in a conversation. Voss says it is not groveling, self-attack, or agreement with every criticism; it clears a path for your position to be heard. He suggests naming the possible perceptions in a short list when there is more than one, then letting the words breathe rather than immediately defending yourself. The silence gives the other person room to respond; they may clarify that your wording is not quite right, bringing the concern into discussion.
In the examples Voss gives, the audit comes before the explanation, plan, or ask. After a missed deadline, acknowledging that a boss may see carelessness or worry it will happen again can make them more ready to hear the repair plan. With a partner, naming that a topic may sound like criticism or an attempt to start a fight can lower the emotional temperature before making the ask. With a skeptical client or colleague, acknowledging doubts about your agenda or the return on cost can make the skepticism less forceful. The result is a better chance of conversation, not guaranteed agreement or approval.
Voss describes “I just want what’s fair” as an emotional trigger: it can imply that the other side is being unfair and destabilize them. He says some negotiators use the phrase for that effect. In response, you can say, “It sounds like you feel backed into a corner.” Voss’s stated way to read the response is that if the person says this resonates, they were cornered; if they try to ignore it, they were manipulating you.
An inexperienced and disorganized counterpart may fail to act in their own best interest. Voss links arrogance with inexperience and says an arrogant person can be hard to reach because they cannot imagine being wrong and will not believe what they are told. He describes this as a particularly difficult negotiation situation, since the counterpart’s certainty can lead things to go badly.
When a deal seems unlikely and lives are at stake, Voss says they will still try to find a way to get something positive out of the situation, even if that benefit comes in the long term rather than the short term.
Voss says Oprah can put people in their place and take them to task without provoking complaints because she does so with love, respect, and care. In his view, that manner makes the correction land; he describes it as a superpower. The lesson is about how he characterizes Oprah’s negotiating ability, not a claim that this outcome is guaranteed in every interaction.
Chris Voss says hearing “win-win” in the first five minutes of a negotiation is a red flag: cutthroat negotiators may use the phrase to make the other person drop their guard. He says that, in his experience, people who used it that early were trying to get him to do something for nothing.
Voss believes AI can be a great help, but will not outperform the human mind. He grounds this view in his belief that the brain has quantum physics capabilities that quantum computing will never rival, and concludes that the human mind will remain an indispensable thinking tool. This is his stated position, not a demonstrated result.
Voss identifies Trump’s ability to listen intently and acutely as a negotiating strength, citing repeated descriptions of him as a great listener. The point is about listening as a capability; the excerpt does not explain how that listening works or establish that it alone makes someone a better negotiator.
The expert says assertive people get over name-calling quickly. He points to a cordial Oval Office meeting after the mayor of New York had called Trump several names. The lesson is that, with an assertive person, name-calling may not prevent a cordial interaction afterward.
Voss presents genuine curiosity as a way to learn information someone is deliberately holding back. In a negotiation, respond to a claim with attentive questions such as “What’s behind that?” or “How does that work?” He says that a person trying to mislead you may not withstand this scrutiny: the questions prompt them to think through the claim, and it can break down quickly. The principle depends on actually listening and asking from curiosity; Voss also says that being listened to can lead someone to make a deal with you that they would not make with others.
Voss says curiosity, playfulness, and gratitude can bring a negotiator into a positive frame of mind, which he associates with faster information processing, quicker pattern recognition, and greater emotional endurance. He says these qualities also help people stay with what is happening now: comparing incoming events with the past can pull attention away from the present, while being more present can make a potential yellow flag appear clearly red. The lesson is about noticing what is in the moment; the transcript does not specify how to cultivate these qualities.
Voss says that being ghosted does not necessarily mean the other person has given up; they may simply have lost sight of you amid the chaos of life. He also says the communication may have been designed in a way that led to the silence, and that the middle 60% of prospects need nurturing. His practical distinction is to identify people who will decide immediately, those who will never make the deal, and those who need due diligence; knowing which group someone belongs to helps avoid spending time on people who will not proceed and directs nurturing toward those who need it.
Voss describes assistants changing their questions from yes-oriented to no-oriented, such as asking, “Is now a bad time to talk?” He says they adopted the pattern after hearing it used across his team, then experimented with it in their personal lives; over time, asking this way became natural and, in his account, made things move faster. The example presents the change as a listening skill that can be practiced in everyday interactions, with the reported effect applying to his assistants rather than establishing a universal result.
To help a negotiation progress, ask questions that let the other person answer “no,” such as “Is now a bad time to talk?” or “Do you disagree?” The expert contrasts these with questions that invite “yes,” like asking whether someone has a few minutes or whether they agree. His reasoning is that people may have been trapped by a sequence of yeses, where an initial agreement pressures them toward a larger one. He describes this yes momentum as a long-standing strategy used against people. The point is to make “no” a productive answer in the conversation.
At the Black Swan Group, employees are taught to open a conversation with “It’s now a bad time to talk” rather than asking whether someone has a few minutes. Voss says this invites an immediate “no,” which makes the other person feel safe and protected and, in his account, helps them focus faster. He contrasts it with an open-ended request that can prompt hesitation and calendar checking. This lesson is presented as the company’s standard way to begin conversations; the transcript gives no further conditions or limitations.
Voss says there is no difference between men and women when someone is coachable and performing at the top level. He adds that his own classes led him to think women may pick up negotiation faster: although women made up no more than a third of a class, they submitted the first paper more than half the time. He explicitly calls that impression unscientific, so it is a personal observation rather than evidence that women generally learn faster.
Voss says that teaching people to make an elevator speech or value proposition focuses on getting a point across quickly, not on listening to the other person. He also warns that some people mistake adding syllables for eloquence; the result, he says, is that the other side falls asleep. His point is that explaining your position with more elaborate language does not itself make communication effective and can cause listeners to tune out.
In negotiation, begin by listening instead of explaining your own position, because someone who feels heard is usually more willing to hear the other side. Then summarize what you understand their position to be. If the summary is accurate, they can confirm it; if it is not, they can correct you. Voss says that either response can feel good to them: confirming shows they were understood, while correcting can make them feel as though they are mentoring you. That mentoring feeling can shift the interaction from adversarial toward a mentor relationship.
In an elevator pitch, Voss says that speaking for longer than six seconds can prompt the listener to wonder whether the speaker is wasting their time. He recommends getting ahead of that possible reaction by naming it aloud. He calls this an “accusations audit”: identifying potential negative thoughts the other person might have. His explanation is that naming a negative in advance does not plant it; instead, a person who has been warned may be more resilient to the experience, much like a patient who is told an injection will hurt may find it less bad than expected.
Voss says logic comes after the emotional brain has decided, because decisions depend on what a person cares about—and caring is emotional. Building a brilliant argument that the other person “has to give in to” can therefore feel satisfying to the person making it, while making the other person feel talked down to. The point is to recognize that an argument presented as purely logical may also serve the speaker’s emotional investment and ego, and may land differently with its listener.
After a breakup, look back at problems you dismissed or minimized and identify what they can teach you. The speaker distinguishes “yellow flags” from obvious red flags: small concerns may have been ignored because your heart was in the right place and you hoped things would work out. He argues that hope is not a strategy and says the relationship ended for a reason, so returning without recognizing those concerns would miss the chance to learn from them.
Voss believes people are inherently good while the brain is largely negative or pessimistic, and that this combination explains most human behavior. He links the pessimistic tendency to ancestral survival: in his example, the cautious caveman avoided a saber-toothed tiger, while the optimistic one approached it and was eaten. He presents this as an explanation for human behavior, not as a claim that people are always good or that pessimism determines every action.
Voss says that as communication becomes more digital, people become more starved for human connection. He says that having a genuine conversation can therefore feel refreshing to them. This is his explanation for why personal connection matters when communicating in a digital world; the transcript does not specify a particular technique for creating that connection.
Treat a text or email negotiation like a chess game: make one move, let the other person respond, and use their response as information. Recalibrate after each move instead of putting all your moves into a single message. Voss says this way of thinking gives you an advantage because it lets you respond to what the other person actually does.
A written “no” can come across more harshly than intended: Voss says the recipient may read it as an emphatic rejection and feel hurt. He recommends doing what you can to improve the tone of the message. The transcript does not give a specific wording or method for doing so.
When Chris Voss is worried about how a statement will land during a business negotiation, he puts it in the form of a question. For example, when discussing a high service price, he raises the possibility that the client may see the company as greedy and then anticipates that the client may consider the price fair but unaffordable. He says this framing sets up the next conversation. The principle applies to a message he is especially concerned about delivering; the transcript does not specify what the next conversation should contain.
Voss’s point is that even someone known for being combative may recognize that collaboration is necessary to prosper. When another person is willing to collaborate, a trusted friend’s reference can make a meeting sensible, even if it would otherwise be unlikely. He presents this as recognizing the value of collaboration in the moment, not as a claim that every potential partner should be trusted or that collaboration always succeeds.
Voss disagrees with advice to enter every negotiation with several alternatives. He calls alternatives a “psychological crutch” and says he is comfortable negotiating without them: his experience as a hostage negotiator taught him that he cannot simply tell a bank robber he is leaving. He says he will not make himself a hostage by treating alternatives as necessary.
To tell whether you are being too pushy in a negotiation, pay close attention to how the other person reacts. Their voice and facial expressions can signal that your approach is too forceful. Voss describes this as listening with your eyes as well as your ears. When you notice those signals, respect them and adjust your approach.
Voss argues that giving in counts as a loss to some degree, even when it is well-intentioned. He therefore does not regard giving in as the game-theory optimum for life.
A question does not show genuine interest if the asker has already decided which of a few scripted replies to give. In Voss’s example, someone responded to each answer so quickly that Voss concluded the person had not had time to listen. He says a strong relationship requires listening: even a smart response can miss the mark, and without listening, you will not learn why. Let the other person’s answer inform what you say next.
In a job interview, ask how you can be guaranteed involvement in projects that are critical to the organization’s strategic future. Voss says this question presents you as someone who wants to take part in high-performance work and move the organization forward, rather than focusing only on personal advancement.
Voss says people ghost when the conversation is doing them no good: they are not being listened to, or they have no opportunity to influence the outcome. If you try to reengage them, he describes it as a one-shot reset: send the words “Have you given up on” followed by the specific thing at issue, word for word. The transcript does not explain further how to choose that thing or what response to expect.
Chris Voss says the idea that getting someone to say yes creates momentum they must continue is bad advice. People may strongly protect their right to say no because otherwise they feel coerced or held hostage. When someone says no, they can feel safe and protected, and be ready to move forward with you.
Voss calls “fair” a highly weaponized word in negotiation: someone who says they only want what is fair may be asking for an outcome that benefits them while making you feel bad for disagreeing. He suggests asking what happens if the problem remains unsolved, or how that would affect the other person’s team. These questions shift attention to the consequences of inaction. He says people act more to avoid pain than to gain pleasure, and recommends anchoring the discussion in a vision of those consequences and potential losses.
A better deal can come from changing its terms rather than its price. The same $13 hourly wage may be unattractive for flipping burgers but appealing for working as Warren Buffett’s personal assistant, showing that the terms around a price affect how the offer is received. In many cases, terms can make a deal more profitable without changing the price. Voss cautions that people get emotional about price and says that when he cut people’s throats over it, he always made that price “not so good.”
Voss argues that negotiations are rarely truly one-off. A customer who had pushed a home improvement store for an exceptionally low cabinet price later needed help with a problem; the store charged for every item and was slow to respond. Voss’s lesson is to negotiate with the intention of continuing to do business together, imagining a relationship that lasts 20 years. The example illustrates why the way someone negotiates can matter later when they need the other party’s cooperation.
Voss says that stopping the courtship puts a long-term relationship into a downward spiral. By courting, he means continuing behaviors such as setting aside time to compliment your partner, opening doors, and spontaneously bringing gifts or flowers outside birthdays. He says this can give someone an advantage with a beautiful, successful, attractive woman because, in his view, other men are not doing these things.
A yes can be a red flag, especially when it comes too quickly: the person may lack authority, be placating you, or be setting you up to fail with their team. Voss says no is safer, and suggests opening a conversation with questions that make no an available answer, such as “Is now a bad time to talk?” or “Would it be ridiculous for us to explore a better way forward?”
In his account of a roughly $3,000 medical bill that was about 60 days old, Voss called the collector, spoke playfully, and asked how much of a discount he could get if he paid the whole bill immediately. The collector offered to settle the entire debt for $700. This illustrates asking directly about a full-payment settlement; the transcript gives one example and does not establish that the same result is typical.
When someone names a price, repeat it back as a short question. Voss says their response can indicate whether the price is firm or a throwaway: a short, direct answer suggests it is solid, while a long, wavering answer suggests there may be room to raise it. He frames this as diagnosing the other party’s terms before responding.
Voss’s goal is to find a price both sides like. He explains that cutting the other party’s price too aggressively can make them unwilling to work together again, while overpaying can make him unwilling to return. Because he is thinking about a long-term business relationship, he says he does not need to make all his margins on a single deal.
Voss says that smiling at someone can cause a chemical change in their brain that improves their mood. He describes smiling at people who are frowning and observing them resist smiling back, which he attributes to emotions being contagious for neurochemical reasons. He presents the response as involuntary; the transcript does not specify when it may fail or how reliably it occurs.
Voss says that talking for longer than six seconds can make the other person wonder whether you are wasting their time. First make sure they feel heard, then go silent. He says that silence gives them a chance to step toward you in the negotiation; continuing to talk can spoil that moment. This is presented as a way to create an opening, not a guaranteed response.
Voss says the status quo is the biggest adversary in negotiations because people are more likely to do nothing. He links this to the greater risk of being fired for an overt mistake of commission than for failing to decide: inaction may eventually cost someone their job, but not immediately. The lesson is that a proposal competes with the pull of leaving things unchanged, which can feel safer in the short term.
In a negotiation, opening by explaining your own position can keep you from listening, while the other side may also be focused on explaining theirs. Voss’s point is to sequence the conversation: listen first so the other person feels heard; they are then usually willing to hear the other side. The explanation still has a place, just not as the opening move.
In a near-fight on an airplane, Voss says he apologized and introduced himself by name. The other man, who had seemed ready to hit him, turned away and left. Voss explains the effect as becoming harder to hurt once he was “Chris” rather than an anonymous opponent. His account supports a narrow lesson: a personal introduction can interrupt a confrontation by making the other person see an individual. He presents this as what happened in that incident, not as a guaranteed way to de-escalate every argument.
People can tolerate physical or emotional pain better when they are warned in advance. A warning sets expectations: after being told a shot will hurt, someone may find the pain less bad than expected, while denying that it will hurt can make the person feel misled, and an unannounced needle jab can cause anger because there was no warning. The principle is that preparing someone for pain helps them face it; the expert does not specify how much warning is needed or claim that warning removes the pain.
When Chris Voss saw Kevin O’Leary preparing for an unknown question, he wanted to disarm him. He asked, “Would it offend you if I ask you a question?” O’Leary replied, “No,” and began talking. The example illustrates Voss’s use of a question framed so the other person can answer no. The transcript gives this as a specific interaction; it does not explain broader conditions or establish that this wording will produce the same response in other situations.
Voss says he has repeatedly regretted losing his temper because it made things worse. Although an outburst can get attention and feel satisfying in the moment, he says its long-term damage is worse—even when the immediate problem is later fixed. He adds that assertive people may move on quickly, while analysts and accommodators can remain hurt. His warning is based on his own experience and the differences he describes between these interaction styles.
A meaningful compliment comes from noticing something the person chose to wear because it matters to them, then complimenting that item. The point is to make the praise genuine and personal, rather than offering a generic remark that could feel disconnected from what the person is actually wearing.
When deciding whose direction to follow, distinguish having observed an activity from having performed it. Riding in planes during storms does not mean someone has experience flying a plane through one; the expert uses that gap to argue against taking direction from people who have not been where you are going. The lesson is to look for experience doing the relevant work, rather than treating proximity to it as sufficient expertise.
Voss argues that advice is more likely to be accurate when it comes from someone who is doing what you want to do. People may care about you or be intelligent, but if they have not been where you are trying to go, their advice may not fit your situation. Being discerning about whose guidance you take—and listening to people who are actually giving you useful guidance—can make a difference.
Voss’s lesson is that being able to hold an interesting conversation can outweigh a physical advantage in attracting someone’s attention. He illustrates this with Neil Strauss turning from Jimmy Kimmel’s teasing to engage Jessica Alba; she then focused on talking with Strauss. Voss generalizes that an interesting conversationalist can beat better-looking men, though the transcript offers this as his claim rather than evidence of a guaranteed result.
Chris Voss says that a plain introduction—“Hi, I’m Chris”—can work as a pickup line because it avoids familiar compliments and scripted lines that people have already heard. Giving your name and then waiting lets the other person choose how to respond. In his explanation, the introduction also changes the interaction from approaching as an anonymous stranger to approaching as someone with a name.
When negotiators focus on what they want to say, they can miss insights into the other person. Voss says negotiating as a team adds another set of ears to notice details the person leading the conversation may overlook. In a bank robbery, a teammate heard that the person wanted to come out and passed Voss a note to ask him. Voss heard hesitation and an uncertain answer, which he understood as an indirect yes and a request for help with the steps. The person came out 90 minutes later. The lesson is to use a teammate’s listening to surface cues and possible openings; the example does not establish that every hesitation means agreement.
Voss says compromise is guaranteed to produce a lose-lose outcome. He illustrates this with two co-CEOs who disagreed about building a headquarters: one worried about the expense and reputational risk, while the other wanted to signal that the company was cutting edge. Their compromise was to do both, which became a disaster; both CEOs lost their jobs and the company wasted money. His stated lesson is to set ego aside and choose the best strategy to start with.
Voss says a positive frame of mind can make someone 31% smarter, and identifies curiosity as a highly positive state. When you are genuinely curious, he says, you process information faster and recognize patterns more quickly. He illustrates this with a trader on the floor who notices another trader’s reactions and connects them with earlier behavior while taking in surrounding information. He contrasts this with fear of losing one’s own money, which can make a person reluctant to trade. The transcript presents these as his claims and example; it does not specify how the 31% figure was measured or establish that the effect applies in every setting.
In a hostage negotiation, Voss says the most critical information is whether the person will interact with the negotiator. He opens with “Are you okay?” and means it as a real question: the response gives him a clue about whether he may be able to talk the person out. He notes that the same words can also signal “let’s move on,” so their meaning depends on how the question is asked.
Voss says the human brain is naturally about 75% negative because attention to danger helps people survive. He illustrates this with a caveman who knows someone entered a cave and never returned: optimism leads him to enter anyway, while the pessimist survives. The point is that negative thinking can reflect a protective bias toward noticing threats; the example does not establish that pessimism is always useful.
Voss argues that survival is not the most basic need: people first need autonomy—the ability to make their own choices—and then agency, the ability to act on those choices. He points to the lack of contentment with slavery across civilizations as evidence for autonomy’s importance, and treats “give me liberty or give me death” as expressing a broader human condition rather than an uniquely American idea. When trying to understand someone, he says he quickly asks about decisions they are making, how those decisions affect their autonomy, and whether they can do anything about the situation; those answers, in his view, reveal something deep about the person.
When negotiators cannot offer anything, Voss says to help the other person picture a future in which they are still alive, while hoping their survival instinct takes hold. In the bank incident, he repeatedly assured the hostage taker that he would be treated with dignity and respect when he came out; the man eventually asked to meet him face to face outside the bank. The principle is to offer a credible picture of what happens after surrender, rather than a concession. The account does not establish how broadly this approach works beyond that situation.
When closing a deal, Voss suggests asking whether the proposal is a bad idea or whether the other person disagrees, rather than asking for agreement. He explains that saying yes can feel like an obligation and make people worry that they are committing themselves further. Saying no can feel safer and more protective, so they may be more willing to lay out their thoughts and collaborate. This is the rationale he gives for using no-oriented questions in this context.
If an employer pays you less because you are a woman, Voss’s answer is to look elsewhere rather than try to negotiate better treatment from that employer. He compares it to being treated badly in a relationship and says to go someplace where you are valued.
When negotiating a salary, the stated role and its parameters may not reveal company changes already anticipated or budgeted for, such as a manager’s upcoming retirement or opportunities connected to the job. Voss calls information the employer has that the candidate lacks “black swans.” Finding out about those behind-the-scenes dynamics matters because they could make the job a wonderful or horrible place to work, independently of the current job description.
Voss says that someone seeking to exploit him may lead with “win-win” language while actually asking him to provide something for nothing. In his example, an event organizer promises access to a room of billionaires and $50 billion in buying power. His response is to ask who has previously addressed that room and monetized that opportunity. When the pitch produces no examples, the promised value remains unsupported. The lesson is to test a claimed opportunity by asking for evidence that someone has converted it into value; the example does not establish that every win-win proposal is exploitative.
Voss says airline staff are used to customers asking in the same way, so a routine opening can put the request into a familiar pattern. He describes opening with a self-deprecating remark—calling himself a jerk, or saying he is there to sign up for the “mistake of the day” award—and reports that his son’s approach made the agent smile and ask what he needed. His point is that an unexpected, disarming opening can change the tone of the interaction. It does not guarantee a different seat: the example shows that staff may have considerable ability to make changes when they feel like it.
Questions can prompt guarded answers. Voss recommends making a verbal observation, which he calls a label—for example, “Sounds like there’s something on your mind.” He says this can re-energize what the person was already thinking about and make them more likely to give a solid, less guarded account. The principle is to state an observation about the other person’s apparent thoughts rather than directly asking what is on their mind.
Simply naming a negative emotion can deactivate it, while naming a positive quality can reinforce it. In the hotline example, saying “you sound frantic” was followed by the caller calming down. Later, describing him as determined prompted him to affirm that quality and say he would be fine for the trip. The expert presents both effects as coming from observing and naming what the person is expressing.
To learn what a candidate values, ask them to name three people they admire and give three reasons for admiring each. The first person may reflect what the candidate thinks you want to hear; the expert says that continuing the exercise can lead to more genuine answers by the second person, revealing the candidate’s core values without their realizing it. The expert presents this as a way to quickly understand what a candidate is about.
When you name a salary expectation, your number may set the deal below what the employer would have agreed to. In the example, a candidate earning $85,000 asked for $110,000 and was told he had it; a colleague later suggested he might be earning more than $125,000. Voss’s lesson is to be careful about throwing out a number: what feels high to you may still be low. The example illustrates a risk, not a claim that every employer would have offered more.
Voss says that someone who is lying knows it and worries about it, so they may work harder to convince you. He points to added words, repeated efforts to establish that they are telling the truth, or a question like “Why would I lie?” as possible signs. In his account, the more effort someone puts into convincing you, the more likely they are lying; this is a likelihood, not certainty.
Voss says negotiation often starts by removing yourself as a threat. He explains that when someone hears a smile in your voice, it triggers a neurochemical reaction in their brain. They may resist the effect at first, but he says repeated attempts to calm them—sometimes by the third time—can lead them to smile back. His explanation presents a smile in the voice as a way to reduce tension; it does not specify that this response is guaranteed in every negotiation.
Voss presents telling the truth as the best long-term strategy, even when honesty costs an immediate deal. He describes a businessman who warned a government contact that a product they were buying would fail; the government canceled the $4 million contract, then returned three months later with a $12 million no-bid contract. Voss uses the case to contrast short-term success or fear with longer-term outcomes. He also says that discovering someone deceived you by omission can permanently destroy trust. The story illustrates his point but does not establish that honesty will produce the same result in every case.
When delivering painful news, Voss recommends naming the expected hurt before giving the news, then allowing one to three seconds for the person to brace themselves. He explains that physical and emotional pain involve largely the same brain regions, so people can respond to emotional pain much as they do to physical pain. In his account, the news will either be as bad as expected, meaning the person was prepared, or less bad than expected, leaving room to address it immediately.
Voss describes crying as stress relief for women, who may feel ready to move on after a good cry, while he says crying exhausts him and leaves him needing sleep. He suggests this difference can lead a man to expect a woman to be incapacitated for hours, even when she expects to feel better within minutes. This is his generalization, not a claim that every person responds the same way.
In the tower-building exercise, kindergarteners outperform the adult groups because they are less concerned about looking stupid or making mistakes. The expert’s lesson is that this freedom to try things without worrying about errors helps the children win the task. The claim is specific to the exercise described; the transcript does not explain further conditions or limits.
Voss describes asking for a larger discount in a friendly, joking way: he joked about a “Chris discount,” then asked for the employee discount with a smile. When the employee said he would have to pay for the item himself, Voss laughed and offered to pay him back; the employee then arranged a 30% discount. Voss presents this as an example of getting a discount by being nice. The transcript gives this one anecdote, so it does not establish that the same approach will work elsewhere.
Voss argues that people remember an experience by its most intense moment and how it ends, rather than by the sequence of events. Applied to email, he suggests moving warm statements—such as expressing care, belief in the recipient’s product, or interest in a deal—from the opening to the end. His reason is that the ending leaves the lasting impression.
A direct question about wrongdoing may invite an immediate denial. Voss describes instead making a casual observation that recognizes a possible human dynamic, then watching how the person reacts: when he told a witness, “you were there,” the witness agreed. He presents this as a way to gather information without asking a question. When a question is needed, he says “how” and “what” questions tend to feel less accusatory. The example illustrates his approach; it does not establish that an observation will always produce an admission.
When someone says something difficult or hostile, respond with “Seems like you had a reason for saying that.” Voss says this is disarming: it recognizes that the other person has a reason without arguing with their statement, and can encourage them to explain it. He says that encouraging the other side to talk makes it more likely that you will reach collaboration sooner.
Autonomy is a key driver of human nature. The expert illustrates this by comparing two situations with the same demanding conditions: being told to work another hour in the sun without water or a place to sit, while someone else doubles the previous hour’s earnings, feels like a loss of autonomy and is rejected. Without that instruction, a person working for themselves may continue happily under those conditions. The lesson is that people’s experience of work can depend on whether they feel they are choosing it for themselves or having the terms imposed on them.
When discussing a rent increase, the tenant first laid out the landlord’s reasons: bills, taxes, and utilities were going up. The expert says not to follow that with an argument for why the rent should stay the same; instead, stop talking and make sure the other person feels understood. In this example, the landlord responded, “That’s right,” and said he would not raise the rent if keeping the tenant meant doing so. The transcript presents this as one negotiation, not a guaranteed outcome.
When seeking help, ask, “How hard would it be?” rather than making a direct request. In the ticket example, the company first said the task was not hard, then admitted it had been difficult after getting the tickets. Voss contrasts this with asking how hard it is going to be: that wording led to a reply that they had tried, while prompting consideration of the difficulties in advance. He says those difficulties can then be overcome. The example illustrates a way to surface the challenge before proceeding; it does not establish that every request will succeed.
When someone asks for free extras after a deal is made, Voss says the request can make the other person resentful. He suggests responding with questions such as, “How can I give you free ties and continue to want to do business with you?” or “How can I be a great tailor for you if you ask me for free stuff and it cuts my margin?” This makes the request an obstacle to what the asker wants: continued business and good service.
Voss says to say “I’m sorry” before delivering bad news, as in “I’m sorry, I’m afraid I can’t do that.” The order prepares the listener for what is coming. If the bad news comes first and the apology follows, the listener may wonder why they were not warned. His lesson is about sequencing the apology and the news.
When someone says something you disagree with, avoid telling them they are wrong. Acknowledge that they seem to have a reason, then seek the data behind their reasoning. This keeps the exchange from feeling like a personal attack and helps the other person feel heard. Voss says people are more open to being guided after they feel heard. To share your own evaluation, he suggests asking whether it would be a ridiculous idea to explain how you reached it.
Voss describes gaining the upper hand in a negotiation as giving the other side the illusion of control, and says to make them feel safe and secure. The transcript states this principle but does not explain specific techniques or conditions for applying it.
A cold read is a brief observation about someone’s visible demeanor, facial expression, or posture, such as saying, “Seems like there’s a lot on your mind.” Voss says it does not have to be exactly right: making the observation can communicate that you see the person as a human being. He describes an airline employee’s mood brightening after he asked whether it was a tough day, and says people often shake off the observation. Those are his reported experiences, not a guarantee of how someone will respond.
A request for higher salary asks to be paid more for the same work, and how that sounds to a boss depends on the employee’s leverage. Voss suggests focusing instead on career development: ask how you can be guaranteed involvement in projects critical to the organization’s strategic future. His reasoning is that salary pays bills, while access to important projects can build a career. He notes that an irreplaceable employee may have leverage to make a firm demand, but frames career negotiation as the broader focus.
When asked for a price, Voss says it is “a lot,” “really expensive,” and more than the buyer has ever paid, then lets the buyer decide whether to continue. His explanation is that the buyer imagines a very high price and considers whether what they would receive could make it worthwhile. That shifts attention from negotiating the price itself to examining the package and its value to the buyer.
In the account, investigators first spoke with a detainee long enough to learn what he looked like when telling the truth. They then showed him a poor-quality picture of the suspected 9/11 organizer and asked who it was. He identified the person as Ramsey Youssef’s uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the investigators had not believed was involved with al-Qaeda. The lesson the speaker draws is that observing a person’s truth-telling behavior can help interpret an answer when they are asked about information they may know. The account does not specify what observable signs defined the baseline or how broadly this method applies.
Instead of asking “How are you?”, Voss says to read the other person’s apparent mood and offer it as an observation, such as “Looks like you’re having a tough day” or “It looks like you’re enjoying yourself today.” The read does not have to be accurate: when his guess at airport security was wrong, he adjusted to the person’s response and tried a different observation, which the person confirmed. His example supports treating the opening as a tentative read and adapting when it misses.
In a job interview, ask how you can be guaranteed involvement in projects critical to the organization’s strategic future. Voss says this signals that you want to contribute as a team player and take part in the organization’s most important work.
Ask, “What does it take to be successful here?” rather than asking what the employer wants in a candidate; Voss says these questions are substantially different. The answer can recruit the interviewer as an unofficial mentor: they may watch to see whether you follow their guidance, giving them a vested interest in your success.
In his account, Chris Voss began a medical-bill call by joking, “I owe you money,” in a playful voice. The representative responded playfully, and when he asked what discount he could get for paying the bill in full immediately, she offered to settle it for $700. He says he had been joking with her and unexpectedly got a great deal. This is his experience with one call; he does not claim that playful banter will produce the same result in other negotiations.
Voss says to use tactical empathy by acknowledging that something seems important to the other person. He explains that this can make them feel validated without requiring you to agree with what they are saying. He frames this as useful when dealing with people who seek control rather than compromise.
Voss advises against directly challenging the other person's self-image because, he says, doing so triggers defensiveness. His guidance is to avoid confronting that self-image head-on when handling the interaction.
Voss suggests asking, “How would you like us to resolve this?” He says this shifts the burden by making the other person work on a solution. He summarizes the idea as navigating around the other person's ego rather than negotiating with it.
Voss says that a reminder that a hostage’s mother was worried about him led a terrorist to ask whether she knew what was happening and to send reassurance that he was okay. From this, he draws the lesson that a thread of common humanity exists across circumstances, including among people others may regard as inhuman. He says this response recurred despite officials’ skepticism. The example supports looking for a human connection in a negotiation; it does not establish that this particular appeal will work in every case.
When shared routines or time together have faded, Chris Voss suggests asking, “How am I supposed to maintain my relationship with you?” He calls this “forced empathy”: the question makes the other person take stock of the position you are in. He says it changes the complexion of the conversation eight times out of ten. Their response—whether they change or seem indifferent—shows how they respond to your concern; he describes indifference as a preview of a slowly descending future.
In hostage negotiations, Voss says that getting a hostage taker to use the hostage’s name makes it much harder for them to hurt that person. He applies the same idea in a bar: when a man threatens him, Voss gives his name and offers his hand. He says that once he becomes “Chris” instead of a nameless stranger, everything changes. The lesson is that making someone personally identifiable can affect their willingness to harm them; the transcript offers this as Voss’s experience, not a guarantee.
When someone is already angry, asking whether they are okay can catch them off guard and briefly interrupt their combative response. In the parking lot, Voss says the other driver had seemed wound up before encountering him; after Voss repeated the question seriously, the driver explained that he was trying to park and felt blocked. Voss apologized, and the interaction softened enough for the driver to accept a later gesture of goodwill. Voss’s point is to take people’s behavior more easily when you recognize they may be struggling with something. This is an account of one encounter, not a claim that the question will always work.
A quick “yes” may be a way to end the conversation, may come from someone without authority, or may set you up to fail with their team. Voss argues that “no” can feel safer because it lets the other person feel protected and in control. He suggests using questions framed so that “no” is a comfortable answer, such as asking whether now is a bad time to talk. The aim is to invite real dialogue rather than to secure agreement as quickly as possible.
In tense or complex negotiations, finding a shared hobby or background may not help build trust. Voss says to show that you understand the other person’s pain through tactical empathy. One way he demonstrates this is to voice the other person’s likely concerns—for example, that the call may feel like another sales pitch or that the speaker may be pushing an agenda. He says this clears emotional landmines before proceeding.
Leading with a value proposition can make the other person feel they are being sold to, and Voss says that in high-stakes negotiations, more talking can increase distrust. Instead, ask calibrated questions beginning with “what” or “how,” such as what obstacle they face or how a proposal fits what they are trying to solve. This lets them describe their needs and the problem to be addressed, rather than hearing a pitch first.
Voss rejects the idea that control comes from dominating the conversation. He says the other person should have the feeling of control, while the negotiator gains influence through strategic silence and listening. After asking about the biggest roadblocks to a deal, pause: silence gives the other person space to think and feel heard without feeling pushed. Voss says people may fill that silence with useful information, and that people make smarter decisions when they feel heard.
Voss cautions that the word “fair” can be used to press for an outcome that benefits the speaker and to make disagreement feel wrong. He suggests shifting the discussion toward a shared vision and possible losses by asking what happens if the problem is not solved, or how the unresolved situation will affect the other person’s team. He says people act to avoid pain more than to gain pleasure.
Voss describes first voicing the salesperson’s likely reasons for the car’s price, while making clear that he liked the truck and that similar ones were scarce. He then asked, “How am I supposed to pay that price?” After the salesperson cut the price by $2,000, Voss called the concession generous and said he would hate himself if he did not buy the truck, then asked how he was supposed to pay again. In this account, repeating the affordability question after acknowledging the concession was followed by a still lower price and a prepared contract. The transcript presents this as one negotiation example; it does not establish that the tactic will produce the same result elsewhere.
Chris Voss warns that people may use apparent similarities to lower someone’s guard. He describes a person calling himself a “country boy like” Voss, though Voss says he is a small-town guy from Iowa. Voss took the mismatch as evidence that the person had not listened and was using supposed common ground to set up a hustle. In this example, the warning is about similarity presented as a tactic; it does not establish that every claim of shared background is dishonest.
To understand someone, look first for the emotion fueling their behavior. Two people may both attack or act competitively, but one may enjoy competition while the other is acting defensively out of fear of being hurt. The distinction matters for trust: Voss says a person who enjoys competition can make a great ally, while a fear-driven person may eventually feel they must undermine you before you undermine them, making them a poor long-term ally. Because these drivers can look almost exactly alike, attend to what is motivating the behavior rather than treating its outward appearance as enough to tell you which it is.
Agreement alone does not make a deal. The parties also need to work out how they will put it together. People who have not thought through the details can make promises they cannot keep without realizing it, which makes them difficult to work with over the long run.
Voss says that asking a question framed for a “no” can make the other person feel safe and protected. He contrasts asking whether his girlfriend would like to order from the Cheesecake Factory, which led to a 45-minute discussion, with asking whether she was against it; she said no, and they ordered five minutes later. He applies the same framing to conversations: say “Is now a bad time to talk?” rather than “Have you got a few minutes?”, or ask “Do you disagree?” rather than “Do you agree?”
Voss’s stated cue is the effort someone puts into convincing you they are telling the truth. He reasons that a person who is lying and worried about being believed may add more words and extra persuasion, such as asking, “Why would I lie?” In this account, the more effort they use to convince you, the more likely they are lying. He presents this as an indication of likelihood, not as certainty.
The speaker says they call each year to ask for a credit card fee waiver, and the issuer almost always grants it. If the representative says they cannot waive it, the speaker’s final move is to say, “It seems like there’s nothing you can do.” They report that the representative then puts them on hold and finds a way to help. This describes the speaker’s experience; the transcript does not establish that the tactic works for everyone.
Voss distinguishes being likable from needing to be liked. You cannot control whether another person likes you, since factors in their mind may be beyond your influence; what you can do is improve your odds. He connects likability to an intent to help: that intent, he says, carries through into everything you do.
Applicants need to be in reasonably good shape, including running a mile and a half in a reasonable time and completing a reasonable number of sit-ups, push-ups, and pull-ups. The expert says the interview is the most important part of the process: it checks whether the person matches the résumé. In his account, clearing the interview means the applicant is in.
When Eminem expects his adversary to attack him with personal accusations, he says those negative things first. The expert explains that doing so deactivates the negatives and makes him look invincible. The lesson is specifically about preemptively voicing the attacks he expects in that rap battle; the transcript does not explain how the tactic applies beyond that situation.
The analytical type of liar can deceive through omission or by stating a literal truth. In the auction example, the seller’s executive says the buyer is “the low bidder,” which is technically true because the buyer is the only bidder. The statement leaves out that crucial context and can make the buyer think it is competing against other bidders. Voss describes this as deception by omission and says analysts favor this kind of tactic.
When a family can raise ransom money, Voss says his role as an advisor is to keep them from putting every last dollar on the table. He gives two reasons: paying what the kidnappers demand now probably will not lead to the captive’s release, and the family should not be left financially devastated. He describes this as difficult when a relative insists that they do not care how much it costs and offers everything they have.
Voss says a polygraph is difficult to beat when the examiner is good. The examiner first asks baseline questions and records the person’s body movements after each answer. Voss says a truthful person will answer these questions in the same way; a change during a later question can then be noticed. He frames the result as depending on the polygrapher’s ability, adding that operators vary widely and that this is why polygraph results are generally not admissible in court.
Voss distinguishes a predatory lie, intended to take advantage of someone, from a defensive lie, intended to protect the person telling it. In the assertive style, he describes predatory deception as gaslighting: the liar tells you that your view of reality is wrong and insists that what you see is not what it is. His example is someone denying that an object is a horse and calling it a zebra while directing your attention to it.
Voss says the analytical type may deceive by leaving information out or by using statements that are literally true. He connects this to a belief in always telling the truth, or at least not lying. The lesson is that, in his account, deception from this style may come through omission or literal truth rather than an outright false statement.
Voss describes the accommodator’s make-friends style as answering a question with a great deal of pleasant, warm-sounding talk that leaves the listener unsure what was actually said. He calls this both offensive and defensive deception. His example is a colleague who responds pleasantly and smilingly, but whose explanation still leaves you unable to work out what is going on. The lesson is about the effect of this kind of answer, not proof that every accommodating person is lying.
Voss says that asking “What do you love about what you do for a living?” can open a more personal conversation than asking what someone does. The usual question, in his experience, tends to prompt a memorized response; asking what they love focuses their attention on what makes them feel alive and can lead them to talk about that instead. He describes this as a satisfying question in the party conversation he recounts.
Voss explains that people may learn from childhood experience to associate being asked “why” with having made a mistake: adults repeatedly asked it after something went wrong. That association can carry into adulthood. So even when the speaker genuinely wants to understand and is not accusing anyone, asking “why” can make the other person defensive. The expert says it is important to find out people’s reasons, but says not to ask them with that word; the transcript does not specify an alternative phrasing.
Voss says an email longer than five lines is probably too long. He also cautions that writers expect readers to process an email as it was written, even though that expectation may be misplaced. His point is to keep negotiation emails concise rather than relying on a long message to carry the intended meaning.
Voss compares negotiation by email to playing chess by email: putting several planned moves into one message reveals what you intend to do next. He uses this comparison to explain why email can be a poor medium for conducting a negotiation, where the sequence of moves matters.
Voss says email does not convey the writer’s tone reliably. He warns that a message is more likely to be read in a much more negative tone than the writer intended. This is a limitation of email in communication; he offers no specific method for correcting it in the supplied passage.
When cold calling, ask “Is now a bad time to talk?” instead of asking whether the person has a few minutes. Voss explains that saying no can make people feel safe and secure, while saying yes may make them worry about a hidden commitment and create anxiety. The question also gives them a clear way to say they are busy; they may instead say they have time to talk.
Voss explains that in sales, people are often prompted to say yes and then give a succession of yeses. He frames the flip side as “yes” signaling commitment and “no” providing protection. He illustrates this with minister Tim Ross, who changed his invitation from asking whether people wanted a closer relationship with Jesus to asking whether they were against having one. In Voss’s account, the revised question gives people a protected way to answer no; the transcript does not establish how broadly or reliably this works.
In the casino example, a player wins at least once in every 84 pulls, while failing on the other 83. The lights, bells and sirens turn each win into a major celebration, making it seductive and easy to forget how rarely it happens. Voss’s point is that the spectacle around a win can draw attention away from the much more frequent failures.
When a passenger’s bag was in his legroom, Voss said, “I guess that’s in my legroom” in a joking tone instead of stating it confrontationally or directly asking the passenger to move it. He says the tone got the passenger’s attention: the passenger recognized what he had done, picked up the bag, and moved it. The lesson he demonstrates is that a light observation can communicate a boundary and prompt someone to correct their behavior without an explicit demand. This is an account of one interaction; he does not claim it will work in every situation.
Voss says a lie detector detects how someone tells the truth, if they tell the truth. In conversation, he suggests first asking whether the person tells the truth at all, and says properly designed small talk can help reveal this. Simple questions about a drive, breakfast, or favorite things provide innocent topics to observe. A person may not tell the truth at all; learning that is useful information in itself.
When media reports turn a counterpart’s words into a specific demand, check the original statement before negotiating from the report. In the Jeffrey Schilling case, the kidnapper compared an American’s value with the reported ransom for Western Europeans; the media then reported a $10 million demand. Voss says that negotiating on the basis of that report would already signal that he was not listening. His team reviewed the report and started with what the kidnapper had actually said.
A disagreement may be driven by information one person does not yet have. In the Christmas tree example, asking whether his wife had grown up with real trees brought out the childhood memories that made them important to her. Once he understood her reason, he changed sides. Voss’s lesson is that letting a conversation reveal what is driving someone’s preference can change how the disagreement looks; the information that emerges can make a difference.
The speaker says that, according to a book by a concentration camp survivor, people who cultivated genuine curiosity in horrific circumstances came out psychologically the most intact. Rather than remain afraid of whether they would die, they expected they might and wondered what would happen next. This is presented as an observation about those survivors, not a guarantee that curiosity will protect everyone.
In one call about a medical bill he said was about $3,000 and roughly 60 days old, Voss openly acknowledged owing the money, joked with the collector, and kept a playful tone. He then asked how much of a discount she could give if he paid the whole bill immediately. The collector offered to settle the whole thing for $700. The example shows how he used humor and a direct, immediate-payment question in this conversation; it does not establish that the same tone or result will work in other collections calls.
Voss argued that agreeing to a daily rate the family could easily afford could make payments continue longer: the more easily the family paid, the longer the payments might go on. He used this reasoning while coaching the brother in the kidnapping negotiation. The point is specific to the leverage and payment structure in this case; the transcript does not establish it as a general rule about negotiations.
In the kidnapping case, Voss coached the victim’s brother to ask what would happen when the family ran out of money paying the daily rate. After a long pause, the kidnapper replied, “It’ll be all right.” Voss interpreted this as an implicit promise that the hostage would not be killed, while noting that the kidnapper did not know he had made that promise. The lesson is to use a question about a concrete future condition to draw out a response that may clarify the other party’s intentions; the transcript presents this as Voss’s interpretation of this exchange.
People often feel safe saying no, so a no alone does not show what they really think: it may be a denial they prepared in advance, or an immediate, honest response to an assumption that is wrong. Voss says to listen to how the no is delivered to tell which kind you received. He illustrates the distinction with asking whether someone did a particular thing versus saying, “You love baseball,” and hearing them reject that assumption.
In a conversation with an opponent, asking what and how questions can let the other person feel in control. Voss explains that someone who wants control may enjoy telling you what to do, while these questions require deep thinking and can exhaust them. Showing deference helps conceal that effect, so the other person feels in control while you guide the conversation.
When someone asks you to do something that will be difficult, asking “How am I supposed to do that?” can prompt them to consider your position. Voss says that in about eight out of ten interactions he describes, the other person shifts perspective, recognizes the difficulty, and moves toward collaboration by offering an alternative. The response also gives you information: if they instead say it is your problem, Voss says that may indicate they are generally uncollaborative or uncollaborative under those circumstances. The reported proportion describes his account; the question does not guarantee a collaborative response.
One theory discussed at MPI is that a child who is severely punished for doing something wrong at age five or six, then does the same thing a month later without being punished, may learn that there are no rules. The explanation is specifically about sharply inconsistent consequences; the transcript presents it as a theory, not an established account of how serial killers develop.
Voss says that even people he describes as narcissists or sociopaths are born with core emotions and have emotional vulnerabilities. He distinguishes feelings they may lack—such as guilt and sympathy—from emotions they still feel, including anger, fear, disgust, and happiness. His point is that lacking certain feelings does not mean lacking emotion altogether.
When you need someone to comply quickly and cannot spend time on negative pushback, label in advance how your request might make you seem. Voss describes telling a shop worker that he knew he would seem like a jerk before asking to swap the salmon. He says this preempted the negative reaction and let the worker make the swap quickly. His stated application is to go as deep as possible with a label for yourself to deactivate that reaction.
Voss says airline counter agents have considerable power through their reservation keyboards and can make surprising changes when they feel like doing so. His point is about the discretion those agents may have; he does not specify what changes are available or guarantee that an agent will make one.
For inappropriate sexual comments at work, construct the message in three parts: describe the behavior with “when you,” state your feeling with “I feel,” and explain the consequence with “because.” The expert says “I” centers the statement on the speaker and recommends “I feel” in this case. The consequence should cost the person making the remarks; the example is that the comments make you uncomfortable because they will stop you from supporting that person in the workplace.
When someone asks you to do something that will be tough, ask, “How am I supposed to do that?” Voss says this often shifts the other person’s perspective because it makes them consider you as a human being. He reports that seven to eight times out of ten, the response is recognition of the problem followed by an offer and collaboration. If the person instead says it is your problem, Voss says that reveals what you are dealing with.
When the captor demanded a daily payment to keep the hostage alive, Voss coached the hostage’s brother to ask what would happen when the family ran out of money paying that rate. The long pause was followed by “it’ll be all right.” Voss treated that answer as an implicit promise that the hostage would not be killed when payments stopped, even though the captor might not have realized he had made that commitment. In this exchange, the question exposed a possible limit to the threat and gave Voss grounds to believe the captor was under pressure. The transcript does not describe this as a guarantee or establish that the same question will work in other situations.
In a salary negotiation, the offered role and its stated parameters may not reveal the circumstances that will shape the job. A manager may be due to leave or retire, and the company may already have forecast and budgeted opportunities connected to the role. Those behind-the-scenes dynamics can make the position a much better or worse place to work, regardless of what the job description says at the time.
One hypothesis offered is that when a child is punished harshly for a mistake, then makes the same mistake three months later without consequence, the inconsistency may teach the child that there are no rules. The explanation is presented as a hypothesis about how someone might become a serial killer, not as a proven or universal account.
The expert says to compare how long deals take with good customers and annoying customers using your own data. In the data he describes, an annoying customer could take five times as long to close, reducing the effective pay to 20% of the usual amount—an 80% cut. He adds that these customers were not repeat buyers and suggests that the friction may go both ways. He frames the choice as pursuing repeat customers who pay full value or one-off customers seeking a steep discount; in his account, dropping the one-offs lets repeat business accelerate. The comparison is based on the expert’s data and is not presented as a universal result.
When faced with a demand, ask a genuine how or what question, such as “How am I supposed to do that?” Voss describes this as asking for help rather than resisting; the question prompts the other side to think through implementation. Their response can reveal where the interaction is going. He says to use these questions early to understand what you are dealing with, while phrasing them so the other person does not feel diagnosed.
Voss presents Jared’s deference toward Donald Trump as a source of influence: Jared is quiet, does not talk about power, and avoids doing things he knows will anger Trump. Voss says great negotiators learn that deference does not make people mad and can be more effective and powerful. The lesson is to use deference rather than displays of power when seeking influence; the transcript offers this as Voss’s observation about negotiators and Jared, not as a guarantee that it works in every situation.
When a hotel has no suite available, Voss describes asking whether it would be a ridiculous idea for the staff member to make it up to him at the bar. He emphasizes the absurdity: he is asking for something free even though he was never entitled to the upgrade. In his example, the employee responded by giving him five or six free drink tickets. The request can therefore open the door to a different accommodation when the original request cannot be met; Voss does not say that this outcome is guaranteed.
Voss says his success rate seeking a free suite upgrade is probably above 90%, but that it depends on inventory. If only one suite remains, he is staying one night, and it is after six in the evening, the hotel may be willing to use that suite because he will leave in the morning and staff can gamble that no one else will arrive for it. For a three-night stay, he says he would not get that suite. His account presents the upgrade as dependent on available inventory and the specifics of the stay, not as a result that happens every time.
Voss says loss has a particularly strong effect on human decision-making. The same odds can feel very different depending on whether they are framed as a 90% chance of failure or a 10% chance of success. In his acquisition example, a seller focused on losing a million dollars by accepting a lower price, while the buyer’s framing highlighted the hundred million dollars the seller might forgo over time. Voss’s point is that reframing what counts as a loss can change how someone evaluates a decision; the example does not establish that the buyer’s projection will occur.
Voss argues that “no” can make the other side feel safe because they do not feel obligated or already committed. That safety can make them more willing to explore options and tell you what they need honestly. He contrasts asking whether something looks like a bad idea, which leaves room to say no and then state needs, with asking whether it looks like a good deal: a yes may make the person feel on the hook and less candid about those needs.
In a negotiation, directly exposing a lie can damage the deal. Voss says people often lie because they fear losing leverage or expect the truth to make the other person say no; the lie reflects what they believe they stand to lose. Instead of accusing them of lying, use tactical empathy to name the possible fear—for example, “It seems like there’s something you’re worried about losing here.” He says this can open the door for them to explain what is really going on without shame. This describes a way to respond when fear may underlie the lie; the transcript does not claim that every lie has this cause.
In an adversarial negotiation, Voss noticed that focusing on the other side’s deception put him in a negative state. He reframed the situation by recognizing that they wanted to work with his company because its training was good, and treated the conversation as a byproduct of success. Finding gratitude helped him become more appreciative in the moment. He says people can use different methods to clear their natural negative survival response, such as a gratitude exercise first thing in the morning or meditation; he does not prescribe one method for everyone.
Voss distinguishes ambition from competitiveness: ambition leads you to innovate and keep improving, while competitiveness focuses on perfecting what you already do. Because he considers perfection a futile pursuit, he says this focus can leave you unhappy and limited by your competitors. A goal of becoming number one also has a stopping point: once you reach it, you have met the goal. Ambition, by contrast, has no such endpoint, and Voss describes enjoying the continued effort to get better.
Voss says anger and curiosity cannot coexist, and links curiosity and gratitude with a positive mental frame. He relates an observation in *Man’s Search for Meaning*: among people in Nazi concentration camps, those who survived psychologically the most were described as letting go of the horror and becoming curious about what would happen next. He presents this as a psychological lesson about curiosity’s potential to help someone endure extreme circumstances, not as a guarantee of survival.
Voss says people often lie in negotiations because they fear losing leverage, appearing weak, or hearing “no” if they disclose the truth. He describes fear of loss as the biggest driver of human decision-making, though not the only one. Direct accusations, interrogation, and ultimatums can trigger defensiveness and push the truth further out of reach. His alternative is tactical empathy: identify the concern beneath the lie with a label, a curious mirror, or an accusation about what the person may fear losing. The aim is to make it easier for them to explain what is happening without shame.
When a statement seems unreliable, Voss suggests asking how you are supposed to proceed if the stated number is inaccurate, rather than asking directly whether the person is lying. He says this makes the person think through the consequences and can reveal cracks in their account. The example concerns an inaccurate number; the transcript does not claim that the question proves deception or guarantees a truthful answer.
Voss says liars fear commitment, so a question that allows them to answer “no” can give them a safer opening to elaborate. His examples ask whether it would be ridiculous to say there is more to the story, or a bad idea to explain what is behind a number. He says that when people can say no, they relax and the truth may come out; this is presented as a way to invite disclosure, not as a guarantee.
If you sense dishonesty, Voss recommends summarizing what you know about the other person’s situation, such as pressure from a boss and a desire to avoid the deal falling apart. Pause for at least six seconds after the summary. He advises against follow-up questions such as “Have I got that right?” or “What did I leave out?” Instead, stay silent, and if the person says “That’s right,” pause for at least another six seconds to give them room to add more. He says people do not agree to a summary unless it feels accurate.
In a job interview, ask how you can be guaranteed involvement in projects critical to the organization’s strategic future. Voss says this shifts the conversation beyond your fit for one role: it presents you as someone who wants to contribute to the organization’s progress, work with high performers, and take on significant challenges. He says the question also signals willingness to learn and coachability. The transcript does not explain what to do if the interviewer cannot offer that guarantee.
In a hostage situation, Voss says that complying with what the captor wants while making yourself more human can increase your chance of survival. For example, if ordered into another room, you could say you will do as instructed and give your name. The reasoning is that a name can make you less faceless and harder to kill; Voss also says the captor may be less likely to harm you if they know your first name. He presents this as increasing the chances of survival, not as a guarantee.
Voss explains that captors may put bags over hostages’ heads as a way to dehumanize them. In his account, this makes it easier for the captors to shoot someone because they no longer see the person’s face. He connects the use of the bags in the Sacramento store siege with the captors preparing to execute hostages. The explanation is specific to the episode he recalls; the transcript does not establish that bags always signal an impending execution.
Voss says business and personal relationships succeed or fail based on alignment of core values. Partners need not share every value, but he estimates they need to share about 80%. When a requested behavior change is really a disguised request to change a value—or conflicts with the other person’s values—he says that change will not happen. The hard part is accepting this; otherwise, both people may remain miserable and spend five to seven years in a relationship that cannot meet the request.
Voss says tone can affect how quickly a listener’s thoughts move: he uses a downward inflection to slow the listener’s brain before he finishes a sentence. He also says humor and smiling can create a more positive state, which he associates with better thinking. These are his descriptions of the effects of tone and mood; he attributes the claim that people are 31 percent smarter in a positive frame of mind to a TED Talk by psychologist Shawn Achor.
Voss defines empathy as knowing where another person is coming from and saying that understanding aloud. It does not require agreement, disagreement, sympathy, or sharing the other person’s feelings. In his account, hearing their perspective reflected back can make people feel heard and draw closer, even when the listener does not accept their position. He distinguishes empathy as a way of communicating understanding from compassion, which he describes as a possible response to it.
Voss proposes that people are born with core emotions, while feelings develop as those emotions interact with life and experience. On that account, people can differ greatly while still responding to empathy through shared emotions, so understanding someone does not require expertise in their nationality or culture. He presents this as a hypothesis and says he does not know how to prove it rigorously; he also notes that researchers differ over the number and names of core emotions.
Voss suggests asking, “What do you love about…?” as a way to move beyond routine questions. He says answering a “what” question calls for deep, sometimes tiring thought, but focusing on something the person loves can energize them and lead them to share things they might not otherwise tell you. The subject can be where they are or what they do; if they do not love that, Voss says they may still love the reason they are there.
Voss says the answer to “What do you love about…?” can reveal a person’s priorities. In his example, a company leader’s answer showed Voss that they valued different things: Voss said he would put mission ahead of profit, while he understood the leader’s priorities differently. He drew no moral judgment from the difference; he concluded they would not be close or work well together. The question can therefore help surface values that matter to a relationship or work partnership.
When someone shares an opinion, Voss recommends responding, “It seems like you have a reason for saying that.” He says this lets the person explain themselves without the listener arguing with or lecturing them, regardless of which view they hold. In his account, people want to open up when they feel they can do so without being challenged, and feeling heard can create compassion even without agreement.
In a negotiation, Voss says to reflect the other person’s facts and account rather than respond with your own counterpoint. He describes coaching a negotiator to summarize a hostage taker’s view; after the negotiator did so, the hostage taker said, “That’s right,” and the ransom demand was no longer raised. The negotiations continued through other turns, and Voss says they kept using empathy. The account illustrates his emphasis on demonstrating that you understand the other person’s perspective.
Voss argues that approaching people with respect and empathy can preserve their willingness to talk with you, even when circumstances or the outcome are difficult. He illustrates this with a negotiator whom a former adversary later contacted, despite the conflict between them. Voss’s stated lesson is about keeping communication possible across disagreement and changing circumstances; he does not claim that empathy controls how events turn out.
For a job negotiation, Voss recommends discussing how you can make the best contribution, finding out what success requires, and expressing that you want to take on significant work. He frames an employer that pays talent less than it is worth as having a bad core value, and advises preparing to leave for a company that values your contribution. His point is that the problem may be the employer’s values, not something women are doing wrong in negotiation.
Voss argues that hostage takers are not fundamentally different from other people: everyone has patterns and is driven by emotions, and an upset person is more intensely themselves. Hostage negotiation tools are designed to handle intense emotions, and he says they work equally well when emotions are less intense. He connects this to everyday stress: worry about losing something can keep a person awake or make them feel as though they are taking themselves hostage. The point is that the same emotional dynamics appear in ordinary situations as well as crises.
Voss describes meeting halfway as usually a lazy approach that can leave money on the table. The transcript does not give a specific alternative procedure, but he says a negotiator should stay open to receiving something better than the outcome they initially had in mind. The point is not to assume that splitting the difference is the best available result.
Voss says people are more defensive than attacking, so he treats the situation as the adversary and partners with the person across the table. He engages in behaviors meant to make collaboration more likely, while remaining able to bargain hard if necessary. His aim is for the other person to feel good about the interaction, even when it involves serious bargaining. He also cautions against being so fixed on what you want that you reject something better.
A job negotiation is about building a future collaboratively. Past contributions may look settled to a boss: the work was agreed on and paid for. Instead, explain how you can help everyone succeed, including on work beyond routine responsibilities. This presents you as putting the team first while also seeking high-profile work, and shifts the discussion toward a prosperous future together.
Negotiation skills and tools are neutral, but people can sense whether someone is trying to collaborate or take advantage of them. Voss contrasts that with sales methods that treat the other person’s money as something to extract: he says this is not long-term collaboration, and that even charm cannot prevent the other person from noticing their resources diminish. An intention for the interaction to be enjoyable and beneficial to both sides offers a different basis for the negotiation, even if the other person is skeptical of familiar techniques such as labeling or mirroring.
Voss says that repeatedly allowing someone to rely on you in a way that takes advantage of you can make you a crutch, which does not help them become their best self. When ending that pattern or a relationship, he recommends communicating that you love and value the person, then parting company. His example from Oprah Winfrey is to make the boundary clear while also expressing ongoing support. He says to end positively because the last impression can last. The transcript presents this as his general guidance; it does not specify that every relationship can be ended in this way.
The expert distinguishes the two responses by what they express. “That’s right” is what someone says when they completely buy into what the other person has said; he links it to empathy and epiphany happening together and to feeling more connected with that person. “You’re right,” by contrast, can be a form of false agreement: when someone keeps pressing and you want to preserve the relationship but want them to stop, you may say it to end the exchange. The distinction is between genuine buy-in and agreement offered to make persistent pressure go away.
Voss points to Reagan’s series of questions about whether voters were better off than four years earlier. Reagan framed the choice so that a “yes” to any question meant the choice was clear, while a “no” led to a request to vote for him. Voss describes the questions as eliciting a succession of “no” answers and says Reagan was elected. The example illustrates how a sequence of pointed questions can lead into a direct choice; the transcript does not claim this was the sole reason for the election.
Voss cautions against treating every “yes” as a committed agreement. He distinguishes commitment, confirmation, and counterfeit yeses, and says people may give counterfeit yeses even while being pressed toward commitment through smaller confirmations. This challenges the assumption that getting someone to agree to small points makes a larger commitment more likely. The transcript does not explain how to distinguish the three kinds in practice, so the lesson is to avoid reading a bare “yes” as proof of commitment.
Voss says that when people say “no,” they feel protected and safe, and their brains clear up. He contrasts this with the effort to get someone to say “yes,” which can leave people open to giving a counterfeit response. As an example, he coaches some clients in job negotiations to ask their bosses, “Do you want me to fail?” The transcript supports “no” as a way to create a sense of protection, but does not specify how a boss’s answer should be interpreted or what should follow.
Asking “Have you got a few minutes to talk?” can leave the other person weighing several questions at once: whether they want to talk, whether they want to discuss your topic, how long it will take, and how to end the call. Voss says those unanswered questions can keep them from listening. He illustrates a more direct opening by asking Jack Welch, “Is it a ridiculous idea for you to come and speak to the negotiation course I teach at USC?” Welch then offered his assistant’s contact details and said he would visit if he was in Los Angeles in the fall. The example shows the wording and response; it does not establish that this phrasing always produces agreement.
In a kidnapping negotiation, Voss says he showed the father within seconds that he understood the situation and offered a small amount of insight into its dynamics. He made his help concrete by linking a possible release time to the kidnappers’ reported Saturday party, while making it conditional on the father following his instructions. The father then asked what to do. The lesson he draws is to demonstrate relevant understanding quickly and offer a specific, situation-based perspective; the transcript supports this in this particular negotiation, not as a guaranteed result in every case.
Instead of asking “How are you today?”, ask what the person loves about themselves or, in a work conversation, what they love about what they do. The expert says this can put them in a better place and prompt unusually candid answers that quickly show who they are. In one example, a CEO focused on leading teams and shareholder returns before mentioning the company’s clean-water mission; the expert took that response as a sign that the CEO was better suited to a corporate role than an entrepreneurial one.
Voss says that when someone needs to vent, they have been talking while others ignored them. He encourages letting them release the emotion without correcting them or giving advice, which he says deactivates anger more quickly. He connects this response to the basis of a crisis hotline.
Voss distinguishes frustration as being denied a goal in the future, while anger is upset about something that happened in the past. He describes them as different versions of negative emotion, distinguished by whether attention is on a blocked future goal or a past event.
Voss says he sometimes finds himself in an unexpected negotiation, so he regularly talks with Lyft drivers and airport TSA staff to stay loose and keep his mental muscles limber. He may offer an observation such as “seems like a tough day” or “seems like you’re in a good mood.” He describes doing this as a habit; in the Lyft incident, asking the driver what he loved about the job led him to share his personal struggles, while Voss was trying to avoid carrying his own bad mood into the ride.
In face-to-face negotiation, a speaker may provide more information and physical cues than the listener can process at once. If the listener stops to think about a thought-provoking remark, they may miss the other person’s cues. Voss explains that labels, mirrors, and open-ended questions can help revisit what was said: this may seem inefficient, but it lets the listener double-check their understanding without making the other person feel interrogated, so the person feels heard. The lesson applies to the information overload he describes in person; the excerpt does not specify a broader rule for when or how many times to revisit it.
Voss compares business negotiations to uncontained hostage situations: reaching agreement does not end the negotiation, because the deal still has to be implemented. If the other party agreed mainly because exhaustion made them give in, they may recover during implementation and then fail to follow the terms or deviate at the first opportunity. He therefore considers ego depletion a poor way to obtain a business deal that will stick.
Voss recommends firing someone on a Monday rather than a Friday. His reason is that a person told on Monday has the workweek to regain their footing and begin looking for a new job. Someone fired on Friday cannot take those steps over the weekend and may spend two days feeling miserable and powerless. The point is to consider what the timing allows the person receiving the news to do.
When you have bad news to give, Voss says to warn the person that it is coming. He suggests that people who struggle to do this are often trying to protect themselves rather than the person who will hear the news. His prompt is to ask yourself who you are really trying to save; the warning gives the recipient notice that difficult news is ahead.
In a negotiation, a change in someone’s tone, body language, words, or affect is a cue to pay attention, not proof of what they mean. Voss says to voice the observation—such as sensing hesitation or that something is in the way—and use it to revisit the conversation and double-check what is behind the shift instead of assuming its cause. He describes this as listening to his gut; the observation is a way to check, not a conclusion.
Voss says people who tell the truth tend to tell it the same way, while lies can take many forms. In negotiations, his team learned what their counterparts sounded like when telling the truth. When a counterpart was asked whether they would honor a promise, Voss says the important clue was not just the answer’s content but how it was given. This is a way to assess a response in negotiation, based on the team’s experience with kidnappers.
In a hostage exchange in Venezuela, Voss’s unit reasoned that the FARC would be unlikely to move the hostage a considerable distance to an agreed river crossing if they did not intend to release them, because doing so would take too much effort. The lesson he draws in this case is that carrying out a demanding action can indicate an intention to follow through. The transcript presents this as the unit’s reasoning about that specific exchange.
Voss says introverts will talk at length when someone listens to them, but may go quiet around extroverts who dominate the conversation. The point is that their silence in that interaction does not necessarily mean they have nothing to say; the expert links it to whether they are being heard.
When something is unclear or a person's voice changes, Voss recommends repeating their exact words. He explains that this takes the person back to the thought or moment, prompting them to expand on it in different words. He describes mirroring as a simple way to nudge someone toward giving more information.
Before complying with a request, ask what follow-through would look like if you did what the other side wants. Voss explains that someone who has considered carrying out their promise should already have a vision of what happens next and be open to answering. If they cannot answer and quickly turn the question back on you, he treats that reaction as a sign they may have no plan to comply. The response is a way to assess their stated intention; the transcript does not present it as certainty.
Voss says that someone who opens by asking for a “win-win” deal correlates extremely highly with someone trying to pick your pocket. The phrase can make collaboration sound assured and lower your guard; if you respond by simply asking what they want, you may find yourself giving away too much. He cautions people who value a win-win mindset to understand what the phrase may be doing in a negotiation. This is a stated correlation and warning, not a claim that every person who says “win-win” has dishonest intent.
Voss advises replacing questions about someone’s “why”—their motivation—with questions about “what” matters to them. He explains that “Why did you do that?” recalls the kind of question an adult asks a child after they have done something wrong, so it can sound accusatory. In business, instead of asking “Why do you want that?”, ask “What’s important to you?”
Voss says volunteer burnout is a central problem for crisis hotlines and links vulnerability to emotional burnout with going there primarily to help. He describes himself as less vulnerable because he volunteered to learn a skill while working toward becoming a hostage negotiator. In his account, treating the work as skill development changed his experience; he does not claim that this prevents burnout for volunteers generally.
A negotiation can occur even when you are simply ordering coffee: the other person still has to carry out what you asked. Voss calls the most dangerous negotiation the one you do not know you are in, and uses a reported Starbucks note about giving decaf to mean customers to illustrate that an ordinary transaction may involve an action you cannot see. The point is that a request can depend on another person’s implementation even when it does not look like a negotiation.
Voss describes asking for a different airplane seat and says the employee liked the way he asked, then moved other people so Voss could sit where he wanted. In this account, the employee’s response went beyond simply handling the seat request. Voss presents the way he asked as relevant to the employee’s willingness to help, though he does not specify the wording or claim that this result is guaranteed.
Voss says people can become accustomed to seeking “yes,” making it difficult to break the habit. He compares the awkwardness of following an unfamiliar hand instruction to creating a new neural pathway, while the existing yes habit is like a well-used road. In his account, getting out of that habitual way of thinking takes repetition; he gives 63 as the number. The lesson is that changing this pattern may feel awkward and requires repeated practice, rather than being complicated.
Voss distinguishes sympathy from empathy by what the listener does with another person’s distress. Sympathy joins them in the “emotional quicksand,” leaving both stuck; empathy recognizes that they are in it and helps them figure out a way out. He says people can learn the wrong model from movies and television, where responses such as sharing a similar loss or saying “we’ve all felt that way” are portrayed as welcome. In real life, those responses may not be appreciated; at most, someone may be in a state to appreciate that you tried.
In the neuroscience experiments he describes, people were shown images that evoked negative feelings and asked to label what they felt. Each time they labeled the feeling, electrical activity in the associated part of the brain diminished. The point is to name the feeling, not deny it; the reported effect was a reduction in negative emotion.
In a romantic relationship, listening should come from wanting things to improve, not merely from wanting your partner to stop talking. Voss says people can recognize insincere listening after it happens repeatedly. Genuine listening means showing that you care both about what happened and about how your partner feels about it, and being willing to understand and adjust. He describes caring about the other person’s feelings as a higher standard in a long-term romantic relationship.
Voss says people’s thoughts are most dominated by loss: they focus on what they fear losing and on a future they see as involving loss, which looms larger than gain. He says hotline and hostage negotiators are taught to look for the loss. In a hostage-taking case, he describes this as a loss of personal identity somewhere along the way, probably connected to a triggering event in the previous 24 to 48 hours.
When you know someone is doing badly, opening with “How are you?” can make you seem unaware of the situation. If you are about to deliver bad news, the person may wonder how you could have missed what they are going through. Voss says that trying to soften the moment this way can make it more torturous; instead, acknowledge what you see, for example: “I know things are rough for you right now.” That signals that you have noticed and are willing to say so.
When speaking with family members facing a frightening situation, Voss says he tried to anticipate how they felt before entering the room. He directly acknowledged their anger, sense of abandonment and isolation, and horror instead of tentatively suggesting that they sounded angry. He describes this as learning empathy through experience and says the family members then engaged with him about what to do next. He also identifies not deceiving them about possible outcomes as a hard part of the work.
People are wired to focus on survival, which the expert says makes them 75% negative and can keep them from thriving. The expert’s proposed way to deal with that negative part of the brain is to call it out: acknowledge what is present instead of denying it or telling yourself not to look at it. Naming the “elephant in the room” begins to diminish it and may make it go away entirely.
In a negotiation, why someone might refuse a deal can matter more than why they might accept it. Voss says labeling negatives diffuses them, and argues that denying an accusation can reinforce it: he points to Nixon saying “I’m not a crook” and to the phrase “I don’t want to sound disrespectful,” which led listeners to expect disrespect. His suggested shift is to acknowledge the likely negative impression directly—for example, “I’m sure it’s going to sound disrespectful”—then give the opinion. The lesson is to address the negative openly rather than try to deny or conceal it.
Voss argues that calling yourself a great negotiator can signal a closed mind: it suggests you believe you have learned all there is to know. He says people are either growing or stagnating, and even staying at the same level takes effort. In his view, treating yourself as fully accomplished leaves no room to learn and leads to mediocrity.
Voss’s method is to say, “I got bad news,” wait about one second, and then deliver the news. The brief warning gives the listener a moment to prepare and keeps them from being blindsided. He says that waiting longer can cause them to “spin down,” and rejects ominous lead-ins such as “You’re not going to like this” or “Are you sitting down?” In his view, people are remarkably resilient when given a second to brace themselves, regardless of how bad the news is.
The expert distinguishes empathy from sympathy, agreement, and compassion: empathy means genuinely understanding another person. Tactical empathy applies that understanding alongside knowledge of how the brain responds to emotional stimulation and what helps those responses dissipate, with the aim of communicating effectively. The expert presents neuroscience as a basis for applying empathy deliberately in communication.
Negotiability depends on the other side’s goal and the path they are pursuing. In hostage negotiations, Voss says negotiators had to recognize when the other side’s goal was to kill the hostage. In that case, the person is not interested in negotiation; if the best available way to disrupt that path is to withdraw, he says to do so. He gives an active shooter as an example of someone who is not seeking a negotiation.
In business, people who are so afraid of their environment that they insult others at the table may be driven by fear rather than simply being impossible to reason with. Voss says you can help them move out of that state, but first you must recognize what is driving them. Then gently help them see how their behavior relates to where they say they are trying to go.
Splitting the difference blends two proposals without resolving whether either is sound—like wearing one black shoe and one brown shoe. In the example of a company dispute, the board compromised between co-CEOs even though one was described as completely in the right and there were indications that the other's unmonitored expense account would be used for improper entertainment. The board removed both, and the company struggled to regain direction. Voss's lesson is that a compromise made to seem fair can water down both sides and lead to a bad decision; averaging positions does not ensure a good outcome.
Voss offers a practical way to assess whether a negotiation is going anywhere: ask what proceeding would look like, then listen to the answer. The other side may start describing an outcome that does not include you, then catch themselves and course-correct; he says that is a strong indicator they caught themselves lying. This reflects the saying he cites: failing to get a deal is not the sin; taking a long time to fail to get one is.
A good relationship with a counterpart may not be enough if their team is not aligned behind them. Voss says that in the Burnham Sabaro case, the counterpart negotiated in good faith, but his team was not aligned. The lesson he drew was to account for the people behind the counterpart and find a way to involve them; otherwise, they may undermine the counterpart’s position.
Splitting the difference blends parts of each side’s proposal, but the proposals may not be equally sound. Voss illustrates this with choosing one black shoe and one brown shoe: the midpoint is not a workable choice. In a company dispute, a board tried to be fair by removing both co-CEOs, even though one was completely in the right and there were indications that the other wanted an unmonitored expense account for questionable entertainment. Voss says compromise can water down both sides and lead to a bad idea; the example also shows that trying to treat both sides equally can leave a company struggling to regain direction.
Voss says that a counterpart may inflate the numbers they want and place their demand far out of line so that a later split brings the negotiation back to where they wanted to be all along. The midpoint can then seem fair to you even though the other side has steered you toward its preferred result. In this situation, agreeing to split the difference is a “sucker move.”
Voss argues that negotiation decisions are based on what people care about, making decision-making emotional by definition. He says relying on logic or compromise as the explanation for successful negotiations can cost you money, while tactically intelligent engagement with emotion is how he says negotiators make great deals and build long-term relationships.
Voss says that when hostage takers begin using a hostage’s name, it becomes much harder for them to hurt that person. In his bar story, he introduced himself by saying “I’m Chris” and offering his hand; he contrasts being “some nameless guy,” whom the other man was ready to hit, with becoming Chris, after which “everything changes.” The lesson is that a name can make someone personally identifiable rather than anonymous. The account illustrates the effect but does not establish that introducing yourself will always de-escalate a threat.
When someone appears distracted or is not making eye contact, Voss suggests acknowledging what you observe—for example, saying, “Tough day”—instead of asking a routine “How are you today?” He explains that the routine question can signal you are following your own agenda rather than paying attention. Phrases such as “Looks like it’s tough” leave room for the person to correct your impression; in his example, she denies it and smiles.
The speaker describes a minister changing his invitation from asking whether someone wants a closer relationship with Jesus to asking whether they are against having one. The explanation is that people feel safe and protected when they can say no: if yes signals commitment, no signals protection. The point is to frame the question so the other person can respond with a protective no, rather than treating yes as the only safe answer.
The expert recounts a theory about how a sociopath might develop: a child does something wrong and is severely punished, then does the same thing a month later and receives no punishment. The lesson the child is said to learn is that there are no rules. In this account, the person may lack guilt and sympathy while still experiencing basic emotions such as anger, fear, disgust, and joy. The transcript presents this as a theory, not as an established explanation or a claim that these experiences always produce the same outcome.
Voss distinguishes a prepared denial in response to a direct accusation from an unplanned denial to an ordinary statement—for example, saying “you love baseball” and hearing “I don’t love baseball.” He says that as conversation continues, small talk built around innocuous questions, such as asking about someone’s drive or breakfast, can help you notice how they tell the truth. The lesson is about observing answers over time, not treating one denial as proof of dishonesty.
Voss presents negotiation as a learned, neural skill: reading or watching a lesson once does not prepare someone to use tactical empathy under pressure. He recommends short daily practice and says new repetitions can feel awkward or like a struggle while a new behavioral groove is forming. He attributes the estimate of 63 to 64 repetitions to “some experts,” rather than presenting it as his own measured result. His central point is that practice helps make the responses more instinctive.
Voss’s practice routine includes taking a news story or trending topic and saying three labels aloud based on its emotional dynamics, such as noticing that people seem frustrated or betrayed. He also recommends choosing a difficult situation and rehearsing calibrated questions aloud, including what makes the situation difficult, how the other person would like it to look, and what the biggest risk is if it does not change. The routine is intended as repeated practice, not memorized scripts.
To practice mirroring, Voss suggests replaying a conversation from that day and imagining repeating the other person’s last three to five words. He emphasizes using a tone of curiosity. He also notes that tilting the head to the side and lifting it slightly can help produce that tone. This is an out-loud rehearsal exercise within his proposed daily practice routine.
Voss describes an accusations audit as listing negative things the other person could say or think, not things they have necessarily said. Before a future conversation, identify what you fear they might accuse you of and say it first—for example, that your position may sound selfish or as if you are dodging responsibility. He recommends anticipating these possibilities and practicing the wording aloud; the examples are conditional on the circumstances.
Voss recommends replaying a real conversation and spending three minutes journaling about what you missed, what you could have labeled, and what you did not hear. The review is one part of his daily micro-practice routine, alongside rehearsing negotiation techniques. He frames it as reflection on a conversation that has already happened, rather than memorizing a script for the next one.
Voss’s closing principle is to regard the unresolved issue, rather than the person across the table, as the problem. He frames negotiation as something the parties can work on together to solve that issue.
When you cannot agree to a request, ask, “How am I supposed to do that?” in a nice, gentle tone. The question presents the request as a problem while signaling that you want to work with the other person and keep talking. A sharp or contemptuous delivery changes the message: it can sound as though you think they are stupid. The expert says this can be used with people in varied relationships, including family, service providers, and at work.
When you are asking a question in which you want agreement, reframe it so the other person can answer “no.” For example, ask “Do you disagree?” instead of “Do you agree?” or “Is it ridiculous to think this would work for you?” instead of “Would this work for you?” The expert recommends practicing this switch and says it can produce better results; the transcript does not explain further conditions or limits.
People run into trouble when they put too much into one message. Voss compares this to revealing your next seven chess moves in one email: seeing the whole sequence could lead the other side to decide not to go along. He says to shorten digital communications and make one good move in each message; in his view, this makes communication more efficient and helps get answers.
Voss says that someone who is lying may work harder to convince you: they add words, worry you do not believe them, or ask why they would lie or hide the truth. In his account, the more effort they make to persuade you they are truthful, the more likely they may be lying. This is presented as a likelihood cue, not certainty.
Voss says negotiations are rarely truly one-off: if a buyer gets an exceptionally low price by “cutting their throat,” the seller may be less willing to help when a problem comes up later. He describes treating people as though he will have to live with his intentions and wants them to continue doing business with him. The lesson is to consider how the way you negotiate may affect future dealings, not just the immediate price.
In his account of transporting an arrested person, Voss says the person used heavy flattery on the way to the station, apparently expecting it might lead him to stop the car, remove the handcuffs, and let them go. Once at the station, the person became hostile. He generalizes that some people remain charming while they are trying to get what they want, then turn vindictive when they do not get it. The account describes a possible shift in behavior; it does not establish that flattery is always manipulative.
Voss says that asking for a discount because you are a good customer or a diamond member may get a result, but the discount could be only 10%. He calls that an “annoyance fee”: the seller gives a small concession despite being able to offer more. His lesson is not to be one of many customers making the same claim. The transcript gives no alternative wording or conditions for getting a larger discount.
When Chris Voss wanted to avoid a partygoer’s prepared pitch, he asked what the man loved about Los Angeles instead of what he did for a living. Voss says the question shifted the man away from a canned response and led him to reveal more about who he was. His reasoning is that talking about what you love also tells others a great deal about you.
Voss says that a liar may use many words and speak at length because they know they are lying and are trying hard to convince you. He contrasts this with a truthful speaker who, when doubted, may dismiss the listener instead of taking time to persuade them. This is presented as a way to spot a liar, not as a definitive test: the excerpt does not establish that lengthy explanations always indicate deception.
Voss says people ghost when a conversation no longer benefits them. He names two reasons: they are not being listened to, or they have no opportunity to influence what happens next. In that situation, they may give up on the conversation. He says that if you try to reengage them, you have one chance to reset it, but the supplied passage cuts off before he explains how to do that.
Voss says long-term relationships can enter a downward spiral when a partner stops courting the other. He recommends continuing behaviors from the first six months together, such as complimenting her, opening doors, giving spontaneous gifts or flowers outside of birthdays, and making time for a date night even when there are children. He presents this continued attention as an advantage, while claiming other men often stop giving it after six months.
When a concern is hanging over a conversation, pretending it is absent does not make it go away. Voss says to acknowledge it explicitly. He adds that emphasizing how fearsome it seems can prompt the other person to react in the opposite direction and see that it is not so bad. He presents calling out negatives as an effective way to communicate; the transcript gives no further conditions or limits for this claim.
Voss says questions such as “What’s on your mind?” can produce guarded answers. Instead, offer a label: a verbal observation such as “Sounds like there’s something on your mind.” He explains that this bypasses the prefrontal cortex and re-energizes the person’s original thoughts, making them more likely to give a solid, less guarded account of what is going on. The principle is to use an observation rather than a direct question when seeking a fuller account of what brought someone to the conversation.
Hard work, smart ideas, and commitment are essential, but Voss says they are not enough to move people to excel or help them reach the finish line. People are moved by how well you make them feel understood. He describes tactical empathy as deliberately getting inside another person’s perspective and saying it out loud. Done well, it builds trust-based influence and can elicit information they would not share otherwise.
Voss says leadership differs from high-stakes negotiation: protecting your self-image at the expense of a relationship can quickly cost you a team or a client. He connects unchecked ego with people quitting their bosses. His lesson is to keep ego from damaging the relationship; he does not describe a specific technique for doing so here.
The person across the table may not be the only decision maker, deal killer, or implementer. Voss says hidden deal killers can leave an agreement in the “agreement graveyard.” He urges preparing your counterpart for their internal negotiations and bringing hidden objections into view before they undermine the deal. He says everyone has a deal killer in their corner, so the negotiator’s job is to smoke them out before an agreement is buried.
Voss says people will take bigger risks to avoid a loss than to gain something. Based on that view, he says he would stop leading with benefits and clear fears first. He names accusations, audits, labels, and calibrated “how” and “what” questions as ways to do this, without detailing their individual steps in this excerpt.
In a sales pitch or a difficult team conversation, Voss says people remember the emotional peak and how they felt at the end. Leaving them feeling respected and understood helps set up the next interaction in your favor. The principle applies to both kinds of conversation he names; he offers no further conditions here.
Voss presents tactical empathy as actions that guide a conversation without making the other person feel controlled: label the emotion, mirror the person’s words, summarize the dynamics, and ask a calibrated question that makes the other side do the thinking. He says the real battle is against misunderstanding, not the other person, and advises being curious, listening longer, and raising what is unspoken before it causes trouble.
Voss rejects the idea that getting someone to say yes creates momentum that makes them keep saying yes. He explains that people may resist in order to preserve their right to refuse and avoid feeling coerced. Saying no can make them feel safe and protected, after which they may be ready to move forward with you.
Voss says he does not respond to a price question with a number or negotiate over price. Instead, he describes the price as “a lot” and more than the other person has ever paid. He says this prompts them to imagine a very high price and consider whether what they would receive is worth it. Once they have considered that tradeoff, they become curious about the package, shifting the conversation from price to what it includes.
When Paul Johnson’s employer asked whether a respectful appeal by Johnson’s wife in Arab media would save his life, Voss said that outcome was probably beyond reach. They made the appeal anyway, and Voss describes it as powerful: for the first time, Arab media criticized the kidnappers rather than the Americans. The episode shows that an intervention can have an effect even when its ability to secure the hoped-for outcome is uncertain; Voss does not claim that the appeal saved Johnson’s life.
In a job interview, Voss’s preferred question is: “How can I be guaranteed to be involved in projects that are critical to the strategic future of this organization?” He says it changes how the interviewer sees you by signaling that you want to contribute to the organization’s progress, take part in consequential work, and work alongside the company’s highest performers.
Voss says people trying to exploit him may open with “win-win” language while asking him to provide something for nothing, such as appearing before a room said to contain $50 billion in buying power. He responds by asking who has previously addressed that room and actually monetized it for the claimed amount. In his example, nobody can answer. The lesson is to test a promised opportunity against evidence of comparable past results, rather than accept the pitch’s claim at face value.
Voss says he guesses how someone is feeling from what he sees rather than asking, “How are you?” In his airport example, he notices a counter worker who appears worn out after dealing with demanding people and says it seems like she has had a tough day. He says this lets her know he is paying attention to her as a person, and that she helps him right away. The principle is to acknowledge the other person’s apparent experience; the example is Voss’s account of what happened in that interaction.
When someone asks whether you have a few minutes, asking “Is now a bad time to talk?” gives them an easy way to say no. Voss says that hearing “no” makes people feel safe and secure, while saying “yes” can create anxiety about a hidden commitment. In his experience, people either say they have time or suggest another time to talk.
Voss describes a team speaking with a detainee long enough to learn what he looked like when telling the truth, then showing him an unclear photograph and asking who it was. The detainee identified the person as Ramsay’s uncle, which pointed the team to Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the organizer of the 9/11 attack. The lesson is to first observe a person’s truthful behavior, then compare their response to the question under investigation against that baseline. The account presents this as the way the identification was made; it does not explain how to establish such a baseline in other settings.
Instead of asking, “Have you got a few minutes to talk?”, ask, “Is now a bad time to talk?” The first question can leave the person wondering how long the call will take, what it is about, and whether it conflicts with their next appointment. Voss says the alternative tends to prompt either a hesitation followed by permission to continue, giving you their focus, or an admission that it is a bad time paired with a suggested time to talk. That can secure an appointment for their attention.
Voss says it is harder for captors to harm a hostage once they know the person’s name. Negotiators therefore look for ways to get captors to use the hostage’s name. He says this increased survivability, affecting both whether hostages lived and how they were treated. He adds that this effect appears in many kinds of interactions around the world.
When plans change and a hotel is entitled under the contract to charge for another night, Voss describes apologizing and saying that the change is his problem, not the hotel’s. In his account, the staff then responds cooperatively and asks what they can do. He contrasts this with directly asking to leave without being charged, which he says can prompt the response that the mistake is the guest’s responsibility. The lesson is to acknowledge the other party’s position and your own responsibility when explaining the situation; the transcript does not establish that this removes the charge.
When someone is crowding another person, Voss describes tapping the man’s shoulder, introducing himself by name, and apologizing while explaining that they are trying to stand still and keep their space. He says the man then stops crowding her. Voss’s stated reasoning is that it is harder for “the bad guys” to harm a hostage once they know the hostage’s name; the transcript does not explain further how that idea applies to this bar encounter. This is a single anecdote, not a claim that the tactic will reliably work in other conflicts.
Voss says the interview is the most important part of the FBI application process. Its purpose is to see whether who you are matches what your résumé says. In his description, applicants who clear the interview move forward in the process.
Voss explains that when a stranger threatened him over an empty chair, he introduced himself and held out his hand. His reasoning was that people are less able to harm someone once they know the person’s name: the stranger had been ready to hit an unnamed intruder, but froze when Voss became “Chris.” The lesson is to use a personal introduction to interrupt that nameless, hostile framing; the transcript presents this as Voss’s reasoning in that encounter, not a guarantee that it will stop violence in every situation.
After several unanswered follow-ups, silence does not by itself prove the prospect has rejected the deal. Voss suggests it may instead reflect fear, confusion, or a busy calendar. His point is to avoid treating silence as a definite answer before asking directly.
Voss describes repeated check-ins, renewed pitches, and discounts after a prospect goes silent as chasing rather than negotiating. In his view, this behavior can smell of desperation and keeps the seller trying to sell instead of prompting the other person to make a decision. He presents the direct question about giving up on the deal as a way to shift toward getting that decision.
When a deal has gone quiet, Voss recommends asking, “Have you given up on our deal?” by itself, in person or by text. He says not to surround it with greetings, check-ins, explanations, or extra reassurance. In his account, the question may prompt the other party to say they are still engaged and discuss a solution, or to say they have moved on. Either response gives the seller clarity about whether to pursue the deal.
Voss explains the question’s effect through loss aversion: people, he says, are strongly motivated to avoid losing something. Asking whether they have given up lets the other person decide whether to relinquish the deal, rather than pressing them to agree to something that could feel trapping. He says this can create a sense of ownership, safety, and control; when people feel ownership, they fight to keep it. The question also signals that the seller is willing to walk away.
The expert explains that people may accept difficult conditions when they are working for themselves, yet reject the same conditions when someone else directs their work. In the example, a street vendor chooses a busy corner and works in the sun without water; being offered double earnings to continue under those conditions would still feel like a loss of autonomy. If nobody intervenes, the vendor may keep working because they are doing it for themselves. The expert identifies autonomy as one of the key drivers of human nature.
Voss says the conscious mind processes about 40 bits of information per second, while the subconscious mind that feeds intuition processes far more. He uses this contrast to explain why he asks himself what his gut is telling him, and says a supercomputer that works that fast will be pretty accurate. In this account, intuition is a signal worth consulting because it can reflect rapid subconscious processing; the transcript does not specify when to trust it or how to verify it.
When trying to re-engage someone who has stopped responding, Voss suggests asking, “Have you given up on…?” and naming what is at stake, such as the relationship, a future together, dating, or something else. He says that if the person does not answer, treat the silence as a yes: they have given up.
Check what the person actually said rather than relying on reports from others. Make predictions about how they see the situation, then seek a direct, in-person conversation. Voss says intermediaries may not accurately relay what was said, and that Trump dislikes dealing with them.
In a kidnapping negotiation, Voss says he tried to gain the family’s cooperation quickly by acknowledging what he expected them to feel: fear, anger, loneliness, and abandonment by the U.S. government. He also recognized that, as the first government representative they saw, they might blame him. He explains that naming these feelings cleared away the negativity enough for the conversation to proceed. This is his account of working with families in this specific setting; the transcript does not describe other applications or limits.
When sharing bad news, don’t soften it: say it as concisely and negatively as possible. Voss says that doing this well can make the news a relief. A brief warning can help the listener brace themselves, but don’t leave them waiting in that state for long—he gives about three seconds as a guide before stating the news. He describes people as resilient when they are sufficiently warned.
If someone is ghosting you, your communication may be contributing to it, so examine what is happening rather than assuming the cause. You may also want different things—for example, one person may seek a long-term relationship while the other wants to party. In that case, being a poor match does not make either person bad; even someone desirable may simply be unsuitable for you.
Voss’s principle is that no deal is better than a bad deal. He says you may be able to recognize a bad deal within the first 15 to 20 minutes if you listen. When walking away, do so politely and with respect and deference rather than in anger: leave the other party with a good impression, even if the negotiation left you feeling badly treated.
Voss says to avoid asking people “why” and to change “why” questions to “what” questions. He explains this through a childhood example: after an infant breaks something, an adult may ask, “Why did you do that?” The child may not have known the action was bad, so the question can echo a reprimand rather than invite an explanation. He says this experience is common across people, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or continent. The transcript does not give examples of how to rephrase particular questions.
When a child asks you to pay for something, asking “How am I supposed to do that?” instead of simply saying no can prompt the child to reconsider the request and offer another arrangement; in the example, the child offered to pay half. Voss’s stated point is that the answer matters less than getting the child to think. The example also shows a limit to repeating the question: after Mom asked several times, the child wondered whether the family was poor. The transcript presents this as an opportunity to shape a child’s thinking, not as a guaranteed result.
Voss describes recounting the bride’s exhausting wedding-day experience to her. The next night, she said she could not remember what he had told her, but remembered how good it made her feel. His lesson is that showing someone you understand what they have been through can matter even when they do not retain the specific words. This is an example he shares, not a claim that the same response is guaranteed in every conversation.
Voss says that, when a hostage taker gives an instruction, complying and making yourself a person to them can increase your chances of survival and of being treated better. For example, if ordered into a back room, he suggests saying you will do what they say and giving your name. His reasoning is that a person whose face is hidden is easier to shoot, while knowing your name can make you less faceless. He presents this as increasing the chances of survival, not guaranteeing safety.
In hostage negotiations, the first move is to make yourself less threatening by speaking in a calming, soothing voice, like a late-night FM DJ. The expert presents this as a way to remove yourself as a threat; the transcript does not describe other settings or claim a measured outcome.
Hostage negotiators may not meet the same person again, but another negotiator might. Voss says that if one negotiator lies, deceives, or fails to take time to understand the person, that experience can carry into the next encounter and things are probably going to go badly. The possibility of repeat contact makes the current negotiator’s conduct consequential beyond a single interaction.
When someone says something you do not fully understand, asking “What do you mean?” may prompt them to repeat the same words more loudly. Instead, repeat their exact words. Voss says this brings their thoughts back to the moment and encourages them to expand using different words. He calls this technique mirroring.
A candidate may believe a salary demand is ambitious and still ask below what the employer would pay. Voss illustrates this with a student earning $85,000 who demanded $110,000 for a new job and was quickly told he could have it; later, a colleague’s question suggested he might be earning more than $125,000. The lesson is to avoid assuming that a number feels high merely because it is a large increase from current pay. The story does not establish the student’s exact salary or explain how to determine the employer’s limit.
When someone pulls back from a relationship, Voss suggests describing what has changed and asking, “How am I supposed to maintain my relationship with you?” He calls this “forced empathy”: the question makes the other person take stock of the position you are in. He says the response shows how much they care; they may change, or they may respond indifferently. He describes indifference as a preview of a slowly declining future. Voss says the phrase “How am I supposed to do that?” changes the complexion of a conversation eight times out of ten.
In the scenario described, a teller gives a robber only a small amount of cash rather than access to the vault. The bills’ serial numbers are recorded, and a die pack may be included. If the pack activates, it marks the robber; if it does not, the recorded money can still be traced after the robber spends it. The speaker says tracing can lead to the robber’s associates as well. The account also describes the robber leaving without taking the teller hostage.
Calling an offer “fair” can influence how others perceive it even when the speaker has not shown the basis for that judgment. In the NFL strike example, the owners called their offer fair but would not open their books to the players. Voss argues that if the offer were justified by the books, the owners could open them to support their claim. As the phrase was repeated in the media, players began to wonder whether the offer might be fair. He describes “fair” as a powerful word that can be used or abused, especially when no criteria are offered to back it up.
Voss argues that lying is a trap and a poor long-term negotiation strategy. The other person may be a better liar and may test you to see whether you will lie; even without a test, a lie could backfire and affect how they feel about you. He allows that you may need to prepare the other person for the truth, but says to tell it. He describes truthfulness as the best strategy for winning over the long term.
Voss says people fear loss so strongly that they generally do not self-insure. He argues that what a person believes they stand to lose can affect a decision’s outcome more than anything else, whether in a hostage situation or a merger negotiation. As an illustration, he says that regularly setting aside the amount one would have paid for insurance could make losses less expensive than the amount saved. His point is about how fear of loss influences decisions; the transcript gives no further conditions for when setting that money aside would be suitable.
Voss says to switch from questions that invite a yes to questions framed for a no. For example, instead of asking whether someone has a few minutes to talk, ask whether it is a bad time; instead of asking whether they agree, ask whether they disagree. He explains that saying no makes a person feel safe and protected. He illustrates the shift with a question about ordering Cheesecake Factory: after being asked whether she was against it, his girlfriend said no and they ordered five minutes later.
A direct question such as “Is this a good idea?” can make someone reluctant to agree if they feel each “yes” commits them further. Asking “Is this a stupid idea?” gives them room to say “No, it’s not,” while still asking for more information. Voss’s point is that saying “no” can make the other person feel safe and protected; the example illustrates that effect rather than claiming it works in every situation.
Voss says people tend to remember an interaction’s most intense moment and how it ended, rather than how it began or the sequence of events. When disagreement occurs, he presents ending with reassurance and support as a way to leave the other person feeling respected, heard, appreciated, and loved. The principle applies to the close of any interaction, even when the people involved have not seen eye to eye.
When Chris Voss asked about paying a medical bill in full, he opened playfully by saying, “I owe you money.” The representative matched his playful tone, and he then asked how much of a discount he could get for paying the balance immediately. She offered a payoff amount that surprised him. Voss credits his playful approach with helping produce the exchange, but this is one example; the transcript does not establish that it will lead to a discount in other situations.
A motion label is a brief observation about someone’s apparent state, offered in place of a routine “How are you?” The expert’s example is “You seem centered,” which prompted the person to explain that he had just come off the mountain, where he meditates and works out, and had been there about a month. The expert says that listening to this response reveals much more about the person than the conventional exchange, which might produce only “Fine, you?”
In a performance review, Voss suggests showing empathy by naming the way your request might appear from your boss’s perspective: like another employee asking for more pay for the same work. He cautions that this may not describe what is actually happening. From there, contribute collaboratively by offering a way to pay you more. That can make you more valuable to the discussion and save your boss from having to work out the compensation option alone.
When a family member says they will pay everything they have to secure a loved one’s release, an advisor’s role is to keep the family from being financially devastated. Voss says paying the demanded amount may still not lead to the hostage’s release, so the advisor should push back on putting every last dime on the table, even when the family member says they do not care about the cost. The risk he describes is that the family is making this decision in an emotionally urgent moment; the source does not claim that payment never results in release.
In a hypothetical negotiation to recover a kidnapped dog, Voss describes starting at 65% of his $100,000 target and planning increases to 85%, 95%, and then 100%. After that, he would bring up his car as a nonmonetary item. He says this shift can make the other side feel he has no more money to offer; when they feel they have obtained the best deal available, they execute. This is the sequence he describes for that hypothetical, not a claim that it guarantees an agreement.
In a Republican donation call during the second Obama election, a student replaced “Would you like to see the Republicans back in the White House in November?” with “Have you given up on taking the White House back in November?” A split test found that the no-oriented questions had a 23% higher donation rate. The example supports a limited lesson: in that test, framing the question so the recipient could answer no was associated with higher donations than the original yes-oriented wording.
When evaluating a position, consider both what it pays and what you could learn. Voss says he would work as Warren Buffett’s assistant for $13 an hour because regular exposure to how Buffett works and speaks with people would make the learning valuable to him. He frames this as a question to ask about whatever position you are in: what are the earnings, and what is the learning?
A routine greeting such as “How are you today?” can signal that you are about to make the same kind of request as everyone else. Chris Voss contrasts this with his son’s playful, self-deprecating opening: “I’m here to sign up for the mistake of the day award, and I am the dumbest customer that you are going to see.” The airline employee smiled and invited him to explain what he needed. Voss’s example suggests that this kind of opener can make a seat-change request more engaging; he also notes that airline staff can make substantial changes when they choose to.
A common negotiation mistake is denying a dynamic that is already likely to be present instead of observing and naming it. For example, rather than saying, “I don’t want to sound like a typical whining, complaining female,” say, “I’m probably going to sound like a typical whining, complaining female.” Calling it out in advance braces the other person for what follows, so they can hear the points and may recognize them as legitimate. The shift is to acknowledge the anticipated impression directly; the expert does not claim it will guarantee agreement.
Showing up exactly on time may mean you are already late. The expert says people want to know when they can count on you, and arriving early can be a pleasant surprise because it gives them time back and takes pressure off. He connects this reliability with building trust among the people you work for.
If you know you will be late, give an estimate that allows for more time than you expect to need. The expert’s example is to say eight minutes when you expect to be five minutes late; arriving before the estimate then leaves the other person pleasantly surprised. The example concerns a short delay and does not establish a general formula for every situation.
Voss’s advice to women who ask how to negotiate with a company that pays women less is to move on rather than try to make the company treat them better. He compares the situation to asking how to improve an abusive relationship: his answer is “You don’t. You move on.” He presents the employer’s lower valuation based on a person’s demographic as a sign that the working relationship is coming to an end.