By Prof. Guido Stein, Salva Badillo and Lucía Zelaya
Conflict negotiation saves lives and businesses. In crises, your most powerful weapon isn’t force. Instead, it’s mastering the psychological strategies that unlock cooperation and strike successful deals.
Negotiation in high-stakes situations—such as kidnappings or hostage crises—has evolved significantly. What was once a confrontation driven by physical force has shifted to a terrain where language, psychology, and strategy have emerged as the most powerful tools. In this delicate balance of wills, the motto of the NYPD’s1 Crisis Negotiation Unit rings clear: Pax per conloquium (“Resolution through dialogue”).
This transformation did not happen by chance, but is the result of an increasingly profound understanding of human nature and how people react under pressure. The approach adopted in police negotiation has extended beyond law enforcement, influencing fields as varied as business and international diplomacy. And while these arenas may appear different on the surface, they share a critical common denominator: the constant presence of risk and urgency.
At such times, negotiation becomes a struggle not only between interests but also between emotions that threaten to overflow, regardless of the context. The same obstacles emerge time and again, allowing us to identify a recurring pattern in situations of conflict. The first challenge lies in deciphering the other person, cutting through the layers of their discourse to uncover their true motivations. Drawing on the principles of police intelligence, this article explores strategies aimed at surfacing what is implicit, anticipating what remains unsaid, and transforming uncertainty into strategic insight.
Teachings from Neuroscience
Neuroscience research has shown that exposure to opposing viewpoints activates the same areas of the brain as exposure to physical danger.2 This biological response reduces our ability to listen, creating a barrier that hinders understanding. The negotiator often perceives the counterpart as irrational—even criminal—and unworthy of time, compassion, or any gesture of vulnerability.
In this context, a negotiator in extremis tends to adopt an individualistic stance. Their perception hardens into an instinctive resistance to embracing the other party’s perspective, reinforcing an attitude of rejection and entrenching a unilateral position, ultimately hindering the ability to understand alternative points of view. When this barrier is not broken down, negotiations devolve into a battle of wills: a clash of positions in which each side seeks to impose its own terms, leaving no room for compromise.
The danger of remaining trapped in our own perception is that it prevents us from accurately interpreting what we see or hear. Perspective then emerges as a conscious effort to see the situation from someone else’s point of view. This ability—known as external awareness or empathy—enables us to recognize, understand, and validate another person’s emotion (em-pathos). In essence, this means transforming negotiation into a space of shared vulnerability. While this shared vulnerability does not excuse criminal behavior, it allows us to see the counterpart as a person shaped by a particular environment.
Hostile or irrational behavior is often rooted in legitimate concerns, and only by understanding the factors driving conflict escalation can we broaden the range of strategies we employ to more effectively address the underlying issues. The need to understand opposing points of view is not an act of compassion, nor does it arise from an intention or interest in supporting the counterpart’s position; rather, it is a pragmatic strategy aimed at achieving better outcomes.
This idea aligns with philosophical views that emphasize human fallibility, which can be used to argue in favor of forbearance or understanding in complex situations. For example, in regions with limited resources and ongoing conflicts, people may resort to illicit actions as a means of survival. Recognizing human imperfections in this context can help us make sense of actions taken under duress or out of necessity.
Action-oriented listening
The empathic perspective recognizes that, from the other party’s point of view, their feelings are valid. However, accepting this premise is only the first step toward the ultimate goal: eliciting valuable information that can lead to a mutually beneficial agreement. In negotiations—whether in business, diplomatic, or law enforcement settings—the key lies in the ability to elicit disclosure without the other party perceiving the exchange as coercive or confrontational.
In negotiations—whether in business, diplomatic, or law enforcement settings—the key lies in the ability to elicit disclosure without the other party perceiving the exchange as coercive or confrontational.
Within this framework, listening can take two forms: negative and positive. The former stems from an impulsive desire to reduce uncertainty, seeking quick answers without thoughtfully processing the information we receive. The second, by contrast, is grounded in a genuine interest in understanding and exploring the other person’s reality. Positive listening not only promotes learning but also fosters an open mindset that is conducive to negotiation and the transformation of complex situations.
What is the real challenge to achieving positive listening? Overcoming mental distraction. On average, our minds wander 24% of the time during a conversation, which undermines both understanding and connection between speakers. In negotiation, maintaining attention is a constant challenge. In addition to focusing on the information they are receiving, the most effective negotiators actively work to make the interaction interesting for both themselves and the other person.
Within this framework of listening and action, the following tactical questioning strategies allow us to gather information subtly yet effectively—without triggering resistance:
- Projection questions. These prompt the other party to engage and share information, whether openly or in a more guarded manner.
Example: “If I told you my decision-maker was open to discussing delivery timelines, would you hear me out?”
- Confirmation questions. These check whether a key point has been accurately understood.
Example: “So, you want to make sure the police don’t get involved, right?”
- Controlled diversion questions. These redirect the hostage taker’s attention to prevent escalation or shift their focus.
Example: “When you woke up this morning, did you imagine you might end up here?”
- Collaborative questions. These encourage the hostage taker to participate in finding a solution.
Example: “How do you think I could do that without my boss replacing me?”
- Suggestive questions. These offer a solution without imposing it, prompting the counterpart to adopt it as their own.
Example: “If I brought in someone you trust to speak with you right now, would you be willing to talk?”
- Indirect questions. These allow the speaker to reframe or clarify a thought.
Example: “If I’ve understood you correctly, you’re saying that…”
- Reframing questions. These help steer the conversation back to a relevant point when the speaker veers off topic.
Example: “What were we talking about?”
- Clarification questions. These aim to confirm a point or decision to ensure mutual understanding.
Example: “Do we agree on that?”
Elicitation techniques complement tactical questioning by helping confirm assumptions, relying on trust and the strategic exploitation of psychological biases.
- Presumptive statements. These are assertions delivered with such confidence that they lead the interlocutor to believe the questioner already knows the truth, prompting them to confirm or correct the stated information. This technique draws on a deep psychological bias: the impulse to correct inaccurate statements.
Example: Asking “What medication have you taken?” instead of “Have you taken any medication?” increases the likelihood of receiving a truthful answer, as the interlocutor assumes the truth is already known and only needs to be clarified.
- Feigned disbelief. This strategy encourages the interlocutor to offer additional details to support a statement, often producing a wealth of valuable information.
Example: “You only have two hostages? That’s hard to believe—reports suggest more movement.”
- Erroneous attribution. This technique involves attributing unusual skills or knowledge to the other person, prompting them to correct or qualify the information, often revealing details that would otherwise remain hidden.
Example: “Someone with your experience surely had help planning this.”
- Reference to reported facts. This technique takes advantage of the human tendency to correct inaccurate information. It involves presenting partial data or suspicions as if they were established facts in order to provoke a clarifying response.
Example: “I read online that you’re having issues with the union.” Faced with such statements, the person being questioned often feels compelled to clarify, correct, or expand on the information, sometimes revealing details the questioner didn’t previously know.
- False alignment. This technique involves making the hostage taker feel that the negotiator is on their side or that they share a common enemy.
Example: “What we want is to make sure no one else complicates things, especially the press or certain officers.”
From Profiling to Persuasion
The goal of profiling, therefore, is to uncover the motivations behind the actions taken and to identify the most effective way to influence the individual’s behavior. This is a cognitive discipline that goes beyond simple data gathering, delving into the deeper recesses of the human psyche. All human behavior, to a greater or lesser extent, is driven by the need to satisfy fundamental needs, which can be summarized by the acronym VACA: validation, acceptance, control, and authority. Identifying which of these dimensions predominates in a given situation enables us to tailor communication precisely, paving the way for mutual understanding.
Throughout history, intelligence agencies have developed methods to uncover human motivations. One of the earliest models, developed by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), is known as MICE and identifies four key motivators: money, ideology, coercion, and ego. The CIA later reformulated the framework under the acronym RICE: reward, ideology, coercion, and ego.3 The order of importance and effectiveness of the key motivators is: ideology, ego, reward, and coercion.
- Ideology. Among all the forces that drive human behavior, ideology is perhaps the most profound and deeply rooted. The beliefs, values, and principles that define a person can lead them to act with unwavering determination. While other forms of persuasion may result in only temporary change, ideology shapes and transforms in enduring ways. Understanding an individual’s convictions is essential to aligning their goals with those of the negotiator.
- Ego. In extreme situations—such as negotiating with a hostage taker or hostile actor—appealing to their ego by acknowledging their experience or reinforcing their sense of competence often fosters a more cooperative attitude. Self-discrepancy theory posits that individuals hold three representations of the self: the actual self, the ideal self (who they want to be), and the ought self (who they believe they should be). Appealing to someone’s ego by offering help—even if only so they perceive it that way—in reaching their ideal self can be a powerful motivational tactic.
- Reward. Throughout history, incentives have played a fundamental role in shaping human behavior, guiding people toward certain actions by aligning their individual desires with expected outcomes.
Loss aversion is a cognitive bias that explains how people tend to fear loss more than they value gain.
- Coercion. Although effective in certain scenarios, coercion is a double-edged sword. Excessive pressure can trigger a phenomenon known as psychological reactance—the instinctive drive to reassert autonomy when one’s personal freedom is perceived to be under threat. However, coercion is not always overt. Subtle strategies, say, creating a sense of scarcity or urgency around a limited or time-sensitive offer, can prompt action without provoking overt resistance.
When we talk about ego, we are referring to how a person wants to be seen. If we can understand how a hostile actor wants to be perceived, we can apply psychological strategies to influence their behavior and willingness to engage in dialogue. One such strategy is to leverage cognitive dissonance—the discomfort a person experiences when their actions conflict with their beliefs. Suppose someone sees themselves as fair but is acting cruelly; highlighting that inconsistency may prompt them to reevaluate their position. Another tactic involves elevating or reducing status. Acknowledging someone’s expertise or leadership can predispose them to act in ways consistent with that positive image, while suggesting a lack of control may cause them to reassert themselves with a more receptive attitude.
Likewise, priming is a way to activate certain ideas or emotions before an interaction, influencing how a person processes information. For example, mentioning instances of peaceful resolution before entering into a negotiation can predispose someone to see that option as viable.
Profiling should not be confused with manipulation. While the latter aims to override the other party’s will, profiling is grounded in understanding, empathy, and respect for the individual’s autonomy.
Deepak Malhotra, professor at Harvard Business School, emphasizes the importance of allowing people to make rational decisions without feeling cornered or forced into a single option. The key lies in identifying the counterpart’s predominant need and offering them a path where cooperation is not only possible but also appealing.
Human beings—even in their most irrational or desperate moments—respond to stimuli that can be understood, redirected, and ultimately transformed. Mastering profiling and persuasion is not about bending the counterpart’s will or imposing external realities, but about finding the point of connection where resistance gives way to understanding and mistrust yields to influence. Effective negotiation entails moving beyond the immediacy of the demand and into the complexity of human desire, setting aside judgment to see in the counterpart not an obstacle, but a reflection of our own motivations—the door to deals.
About the Authors
Prof. Guido Stein – Professor of Managing People in Organizations and Director of the Negotiation Unit at IESE. PhD in Philosophy (Management), MBA from IESE. Partner at Inicia Corporate, specialized in M&A and Corporate Finance.
Salva Badillo – Professional negotiator in crisis situations. Certified HERMIONE® trainer in High-Intensity Negotiation. Director of The Trusted Agency in Spain, Latin America, and Eastern Europe.
