Negotiating with Loved Ones: Lessons from FBI Techniques

Applying Chris Voss's Strategies to Family Dynamics

When I see spouses struggling to meet their needs and parents struggling to get their children to cooperate with educational, family, or other goals, I often think there is a great similarity between negotiations within the family and negotiations with terrorists.

One of the texts that greatly influenced me in this regard is the fascinating book "Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It," written by former FBI agent Chris Voss. For many years, Voss was engaged in mediation with kidnappers who demanded ransom in exchange for the return of hostages. In the book, he presents the method he used, which he claims is effective not only in conversations with criminals but also with spouses, family members, managers in the workplace, and essentially anyone else.

In both cases, one of the barriers to achieving cooperation is the refusal of one party to understand how things look to the other party. Sometimes we refuse because of the fear that such an understanding will lead to accepting the other person's position and giving up our needs (and again, we will find ourselves hosting the whole family for Pesach). Other times, this refusal stems from a deep opposition to what the other person is doing—whether they hijacked a plane or are a four-year-old child throwing food on the floor—and from the thought that acknowledging their actions will legitimize them.

An example is a girl who failed at school and is now not ready to study for the next exam. A desperate parent, full of good intentions, might try to encourage her to study by saying things like: "What's wrong with you? Even last time you thought you could pass the exam without studying, so now this nonsense again? Why aren't you willing to stop for once and think about the consequences of your actions? The next time you fail an exam, don't come whining."

This statement will not yield the desired results because it completely disregards the perspective of the reluctant girl. She behaves like a terrorist who hijacked a plane, and the requested cooperation—in this case, studying for the test—is the hostage we are trying to free. Imagine if we said to the terrorist: "What's wrong with you?! What did you think would happen when you got on that plane with a weapon? You're really screwed, man. You should have thought about the consequences of your actions, and the next time you hijack a plane, don't come whining."

Such an approach would only worsen the situation: the terrorist would become more stressed, unable to think rationally, and the hostages would be in even greater danger—just like the girl, who would dig in her heels even more, refuse to study, and perhaps not even take the test, dragging the family into continuous conflict. But there is another possibility.

I could say to the terrorist something like: "I know you are a good person who doesn't want to hurt anyone, and I'm sure you didn't mean to end up in this horrible situation. I understand that things weren't supposed to develop like this for you and that you're very stressed. Maybe you're afraid that your mother is watching the news and starting to suspect it's you, and thinking about what she's going through right now. You don't even know if you can believe me; it's possible that despite what I'm telling you now, as soon as you get off the plane, the police will shoot you, even if you put your hands up and surrender."

It is easy to imagine the difference in the effect on the terrorist: he feels more understood, and in response, his anxiety decreases. He is more open to hearing us, and we have a higher chance of rescuing the hostages safely. We did this without legitimizing the act of terrorism and without giving up the goal of rescuing the hostages.

Life is not a conversation with cruel kidnappers, but many years of negotiations within the family. The mother of the girl who refuses to study can change her approach and say: "I imagine it annoys you to study for the test, after all, last time you felt you knew the material and were sure you would succeed. Now it's even harder because you have to catch up on the material from the previous exam and prepare for this one. Added to this is the pressure to get a high grade to save the semester. The material isn't getting any more interesting, and the timing is bad because the weather is beautiful and you can finally go out with friends. You're really upset."

Such a statement has a much higher chance of bringing about cooperation from the daughter. This beneficial effect has several factors: first, it confuses the daughter, who is not used to receiving empathy in such a situation and has already prepared herself for a confrontation. Her automatic defense—that her mother doesn't understand her and therefore she has no reason to listen—is unnecessary now. This approach also creates a sense of acceptance from the mother, so the child feels greater closeness and ease, allowing her to consider the situation rationally.

Another advantage of the mother's approach is that her ability to correctly read the map from the daughter's point of view gives her credibility. She is not busy trying to make the girl do something she is not interested in but is helping her feel understood. This is important because once the mother manages to make her daughter feel understood, she also feels less helpless in front of her.

What is beautiful is that everything that works in negotiations with our children also applies to negotiations at work, arguments with neighbors in the building, and conversations with parents at school. As they say, "hard in training is easy in battle." It is worth trying this method—examining reality through the eyes of the other party in the conflict. In this way, it is easier to understand what motivates them and to find a solution that will be acceptable to them.