Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
Expand Chris Voss negotiation MasterClass review more
  • Loading branch information
vipulnaik committed Nov 24, 2021
1 parent 187f9a7 commit b36ecf1
Showing 1 changed file with 118 additions and 1 deletion.
119 changes: 118 additions & 1 deletion lesswrong/chris-voss-negotiation-masterclass-review.md
Expand Up @@ -356,6 +356,33 @@ the rest of the interaction more relaxed.
I also agree with the importance of ending on a positive,
collaborative note.

### Focus less on being in control or being in charge, and more on having the upper hand

Voss says that people often fight to be in control or in charge, e.g.,
to be the ones speaking in the room or having more overt control of
the situation. By relinquishing one's own desire for control, and
letting the other person take charge -- while collaborating with them
in the process, you can acquire the upper hand by getting more
information. Several of the techniques discussed later, such as
mirroring, labeling, mislabeling, dynamic silence, and calibrated
questions help the other side feel more in control while also giving
you the upper hand by learning more.

#### My thoughts on control versus upper hand

While I do think being in control is overrated, and it's often more
important to learn more than to be in charge, some aspects of this framing
didn't resonate much with me. The "upper hand" framing is a little bit
in tension with the whole idea of negotiation as being helpful to both
sides.

As I discuss in a later section, it can be counterproductive if people
start competing to *not go first* -- just as it can be
counterproductive if people are competing to go first. So my main
takeaway from this point is that if you have a tendency to want to go
first and dominate a situation, rethink that. But don't be too
singularly focused on *not* going first in all situations.

## Negotiation techniques

### Tone of voice
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -785,7 +812,11 @@ basically point to the other side what thy lose by *not* doing the
deal.

Voss talks about loss aversion in [this
video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vW6gPjk5Sc).
video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vW6gPjk5Sc) where he cites the
academic field of [prospect
theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory). He says that
reframing a forgone gain as a loss can be so powerful that the term
*bending reality* can be used for it.

#### How "dark arts"y is tackling loss aversion?

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -825,6 +856,16 @@ great, but getting the other side to say "that's right" is
great. "That's right" is an acknowledgement by the other side that
you've understood the situation.

#### Trust-based influence

In the MasterClass and elsewhere, Voss uses the term "trust-based
influence" to describe the kind of influence that you can build
through the use of tactical empathy, supported by other methods
discussed earlier (mirroring, labeling, calibrated questions). With
trust-based influence, the other side understands that you understand
their situation and respect them, and therefore trusts that you'll be
able to collaborate with them to solve problems.

#### My personal experience with tactical empathy

I have not actively applied tactical empathy as a technique, but I
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -873,6 +914,37 @@ Absolutely! I think a lot of rational discourse is about discovering
new ideas, and some of the more novel ones could qualify as black
swans.

### Fairness and reciprocity

The related ideas of fairness and reciprocity come up a lot in
negotiation. Awareness of these can help.

Voss talks of a few ideas related to these:

* Avoid triggering reciprocity by e.g., making asks/demands, when
there are other alternative ways: For instance, the use of
legitimate calibrated questions can engage your counterpart to
collaboratively solve the problem with you, without triggering the
sense that they are doing you a favor.

* Rather than say things like "I only want what's fair" (that can be
read as an accusation of unfairness) reassure the other side that if
at any point they feel that they aren't being treated fairly, they
should speak up.

* Offer things to the other side (this could include goodies or
information) that aren't costly for you, but that are either
directly valuable to the other side, or at least signal that you are
there to help them and/or that they are squeezing out good value
from you. An example is mentioned in the final stage of Ackerman
bargaining: once you are at the limit of the budget you are willing
to pay, offer some non-monetary good that is cheap for you -- and
may even be something not valuable to the other side (if you can't
think of anything valuable to them) -- but that shows the other side
that you are stretched to the limit with the money side and they've
gotten a good deal.


## General concerns

This section goes into detail on general concerns that I've had or
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -916,6 +988,51 @@ asymmetric is true, they can be adapted easily to a symmetric world,
and that symmetric world is likely even better for both parties than
if only one side is applying negotiation techniques.

### How should awareness of the negotiation techniques affect your expectations of how others interact with you??

The bad, entitled way to use your knowledge of negotiation techniques
is to start expecting that people around you will start using the nice
parts of them on you. For instance, maybe you realize how great it is
to hear calibrated questions instead of "why" questions, or how much
better no-oriented questions sound (on the receiving end) than
yes-oriented questions. An entitled application of this enhanced
knowledge would be to start suggesting/demanding that the people
around you start using these techniques with you so that your lived
experience is nicer. However, you rarely have the level of control
over other people to do this in a big enough way, and it's entitled to
expect that they do. I do think it's worth sharing these ideas with
friends so that they can be more effective, just not primarily for the
purpose of them providing a better experience to *you*!

A better way to apply your knowledge of these is to come to situations
with more awareness of your own subconscious triggers. When somebody
asks a why question, and you feel defensive or irritated, notice that,
and think about how much of this is the "why" framing of the
question. In some cases, the other person's use of "why" might reflect
genuine irritation and hostility on their part. In other cases,
though, it may be an innocuous word choice. One thing I have found
useful is to notice my slight defensiveness at being asked why
questions, then pause, and then answer them instead as if I had been
asked a corresponding what/how question. In almost all cases, this
works really well. In rare cases where I detect extreme hostility in
the why question, or extreme lack of clarity in it, some other
methods such as mirroring, labeling, or asking calibrated questions
back can help.

The same goes with the use of yes-oriented questions: I now tend to
notice my sense of feeling pressured when somebody asks me a
yes-oriented question that I do not fully want to say yes to. In such
cases, I sidestep the use of a binary response and answer in the same
sort of way as if I'd been asked a no-oriented question.

In addition to helping me respond better to cases where others ask
questions or make remarks to which my initial response is negative,
this awareness also gives me a better lens when viewing interactions
(written or oral) as a third party. When an interaction that starts
off cordially becomes openly antagonistic, or when an interaction
seems to have undertones of hostility, I can often locate things like
why questions and yes-oriented questions in there.

### Insufficient self-expression

The outward focus of negotiation techniques counters a lot of advice
Expand Down

0 comments on commit b36ecf1

Please sign in to comment.