Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All (21 page)

Concise

Concentrate on the matter at hand—don’t recite facts that both sides are familiar with or that are uncontested. Don’t bring extraneous matters like personal issues or criticisms into the discussion. You can easily lose the attention of the other party if you are insulting or demeaning, or if you take too long to present your side.

Sincere

While a negotiation is not a plea to a jury, or to a group of voters, it is important that the other side see, and hear, your sincerity. If you become emotional in presenting your case, as long as it’s genuine and not contrived, and it’s within the bounds of social decorum (uncontrolled sobbing isn’t likely to further your aims), don’t be concerned. It can serve to authenticate your sincerity.

Finally, bear in mind that in order to effectively persuade the other party, it’s essential to remain fully engaged throughout the entire encounter. Both parties need to feel confident that they have the attention of the other, and that everything they’re saying is being heard. To that end, avoid all distractions and interruptions. Turn off your phone, and keep your laptop out of reach. And insist that the other party do the same.

OH, TO BE LIKED!

“I like Foelandians,” Lee said to Phil, explaining why he had been persuaded to work for the FIS. There is such potency, and such a lesson, in those simple words. It’s the power of “liking.”

Throughout this book, you’ll notice a recurring theme: the importance of not making yourself an unlikable person. The “good cop, bad cop” routine is best left in Hollywood, for the reasons we’ve outlined. It all boils down to this: In an interview, an interrogation, a negotiation, a trial proceeding, a political campaign, or an everyday sales call, people learn that being liked—or, at the very least, not being
disliked
—is of paramount importance.

There is tremendous personal and societal pressure to say “yes” to, or do things for, people we like. Charities, businesses, intelligence operatives, and yes, even lawyers—all the good ones know the powerful force of a word, a smile, a kind gesture, a phone call.

As a lawyer, I learned early on from an attorney friend of mine, Jim Billings, to think of the world as a courtroom, and everyone in it as a potential juror—so winning over a jury began when I left my house in the morning. Jim taught me that wherever I went, I could potentially be seen by jurors in the case. The driver I cut off to grab the final parking space, the guy I let the door swing shut on, the woman who saw me ignore or be rude to a bailiff—in any of those situations, it could be a juror, or potential juror, who saw it, and that could torpedo my case. It was not that I wanted the jurors to like me, not that it wouldn’t be a wonderful bonus if they did. It was just vitally important that I not be
disliked
by them.

I recall taking a deposition at the office of an opposing lawyer who was exceedingly frustrated with having to litigate our case. The deposition was being videotaped (back when we actually used videotape). The lawyer was becoming more and more exasperated, and kept interrupting my questions with a dramatic “Objection!” After this had happened several times, I asked him if he wouldn’t mind waiting until I had completed my questions before objecting. His response to me was swift: “Listen, I’ll object any goddamn time I feel like it!” I quickly replied, “Sir, please. There is no need for such vulgarity and profanity.”

At the end of the deposition, when we were all packed up and about to leave, the opposing lawyer came up to me and apologized profusely for swearing.

“Peter, I’m really sorry,” he said. “I didn’t realize you’d be so offended.”

“I wasn’t at all offended,” I replied. “I just don’t do my swearing on the damn video.” The point was simple: We were in the South, in the heart of the Bible Belt. Which one of us was more likely to be disliked by a judge or jury if they were to see the video?

On another occasion, just a week before Christmas one year, I was in probation court—the court where people appear when they’re accused of violating the terms of their probation. If a violation is found, the penalty can run the gamut from a verbal rebuke from the judge to activation of a custodial sentence—that is, doing the time.

The judge on that day was Cliff Everett, a wonderful man who was known for his great sense of humor. As he came onto the bench, he said to all of the defendants assembled in the courtroom, “Ladies and gentlemen, it is one week before Christmas. Today, depending upon the circumstances of your case, you will be singing one of two songs: song one, “Blue Christmas,” or song two, “I’ll Be Home for Christmas.”

Several defendants came through, pleading their cases and making their excuses. After a short while a middle-aged woman was brought up before the bench.

“Ma’am, what do you have to say for yourself?” Judge Everett asked.

“No excuse, Judge,” replied the woman, who had clearly been through some hard times. “You go on and play that first song.”

Laughter erupted from everyone in the courtroom, including Judge Everett. The woman had manufactured no excuse, and she made a joke at her own expense. After a short exchange, Judge Everett let her off with a stern warning, and she was indeed home for Christmas. The power of liking, and of honesty, had triumphed.

To fully appreciate the power of liking, we should also look at the case of Aldrich Ames, the most damaging Soviet mole in the CIA’s history. Ames attributed his ability to deceive the Agency for so many years partially to the liking factor, which helped him pass polygraph examinations even when they indicated deception. In his book
The Spy Who Stayed Out in the Cold
, Adrian Havill wrote that Ames explained his success this way: “Confidence is what does it. Confidence and a friendly rapport with the examiner. You need rapport, where you smile and you make him think that you like him.”

There are any number of factors that have an effect on the degree to which someone is liked. Saying nice things to or about people goes a long way toward getting someone to like you. And you should be thankful that you’re so good-looking. Research has shown that physically attractive people are more likely to be liked, and that people view them as having such likable traits as honesty, talent, and kindness. It speaks to the importance of being well-groomed and putting your best sartorial foot forward when engaging in any professional interaction.

The use of a person’s name, especially the first name, can also positively influence familiarity and liking. Telemarketers and other salespeople routinely use this tactic. Once I caught on to it, I began to play a game with my wife, whenever we were making a major purchase, to count the number of times the salesperson used her first name, or mine. Like anything else, when it’s overdone, it can appear fake, and it can backfire. But the subtle use of a person’s first name can make him feel more relaxed, at ease, and cooperative.

I saw the positive effect of using a person’s name from time to time in my law practice when I represented criminal defendants. On one occasion, I was representing a burglar I’ll call “Jim Thomas.” Though very prolific, Mr. Thomas was hopelessly inept, because he kept getting caught. When his day of judgment arrived, we were in court waiting to enter guilty pleas before a judge who, fortunately for Mr. Thomas, tended to be lenient. In the next courtroom was another judge, now a very well-known politician, who was known for genuinely being fair, kind, thoughtful, and courteous. However, when presented with guilty verdicts or guilty pleas in serious cases, he knew exactly how to throw the book, and he tended to throw it hard.

As luck would have it—all bad, it seemed, in my client’s case—we were taken next door to appear before the other judge. Seeing that my client was in shackles, the judge instructed the bailiff to “remove Mr. Thomas’s cuffs,” because he was “presumed innocent and will be accorded that respect.” The judge then ordered that the doors of the courtroom, which had been locked, be unlocked because these were the “people’s courts to which access should not be restricted, and Mr. Thomas must know that justice can be seen to be done.” By this point, my client had warmed tremendously to this judge, who had referred to him by name, and accorded him every respect.

We entered a guilty plea to two of four counts of burglary. The judge then read through the plea transcript, which involved asking my client a series of questions to ensure that his pleas were free and voluntary. With every question, the judge spoke in a calm, measured tone, often referring to my client as “Mr. Thomas,” or “Jim.”

The effect that had on my client was extraordinary. Although the judge imposed the well-deserved maximum sentence, my client’s response was to thank the judge for treating him with dignity and respect. He walked out of the courtroom with a smile on his face.

“People don’t often talk to me,” my client said afterward. “Even in court, they just talk
about
me, and call me ‘the defendant.’” It was clear he genuinely liked the judge who had just sentenced him.

Another behavior that can affect liking is unconscious familiarity. For example, a brief arm touch, as the research of Nicolas Guéguen and several other social psychologists has shown, can make the recipient like you more. Here, I urge caution, however. It can also appear strange, creepy, or downright assaultive if you linger too long in the touch. Touching someone’s upper arm when you shake hands before a deposition or an interview can create a personal connection that can get things started in just the right way. The use of this technique by politicians was satirized in the movie
Primary Colors
.

Unconscious familiarity can also be leveraged through what’s known in the field of negotiation and interviewing as
mirroring
. We tend to like people who are like us—those who are similar to us in background, opinion, lifestyle, or personality. This extends to similarities in movements and in behaviors—the crossing of one’s legs, for example. But it obviously has to be done with extreme subtlety and discretion, so as not to come across as fake, or worse, mocking. Done effectively, it can be tremendously powerful.

When I would take depositions or conduct settlement negotiations in my office, I would always have done my homework on the background of the other parties. I would take the time to introduce myself and my office staff, perhaps give them a tour of the office, ask about their interests, and share a little of my own background and my likes, especially if there were any similarities between us. By the time we sat down for the deposition or negotiation, that bit of familiarity set the tone for a positive encounter. After all, think how connected you feel with someone you find, in the course of an interview, has a similar interest in a sports team or a travel destination, or who shares your views on politics or literature. This is a form of mirroring, and it can easily have an impact on you.

Have you noticed that every car salesperson you’ve ever purchased a vehicle from seems to love the same sports teams you do? I recently accompanied my wife when she set out to buy a new car. I noticed in a couple of dealerships that the offices of the salespeople were pretty bare. There were no posters or memorabilia that denoted a love of any particular team or sport. Why might that be? Could it be that a professed attachment to some college, some team, or some sport might make them less likable to us if we had attended a different college, or were fans of a team that was a fierce rival of the one they followed?

I once overheard a college fundraiser, whom we’ll call “Henry,” speaking with a wealthy male alumnus about sports. The alumnus, whom we’ll call “Leonard,” appeared to be an avid basketball fan, because the hat and shirt he was wearing promoted the college’s basketball program. Henry mentioned how much he loved basketball, and that he followed the team with enthusiasm.

“Do you follow the girls team?” Leonard asked. Henry deduced from Leonard’s use of the word “girls” that Leonard probably wasn’t a huge fan of women’s basketball.

“No,” Henry replied. “I just don’t think there is anywhere near the excitement in watching them play.” It was a critical error in judgment. And it showed that Henry hadn’t done his homework on this wealthy potential donor.

“Then you don’t know my daughter,” Leonard replied. “She plays on the team, and I think their games are even more exciting than the boys!”

The awkward backtracking that followed was excruciatingly entertaining. It was the face-to-face equivalent of trying to recall an embarrassing email that has already been sent. Henry fumbled his way through a horribly unconvincing response that he actually agreed that the women’s team was indeed far more exciting and fun to watch than the men’s. That only made matters worse, because it was so obvious that he was just sucking up to a wealthy alumnus. It wasn’t a particularly effective way for Henry to boost his likability.

TURNING “US AND THEM” INTO “WE”

In many countries around the world, there are serious concerns about the legality of interrogation techniques that, on their face, are noncoercive, but that are viewed by courts as overreaching, or that could elicit false confessions. This is where there is a great utility and benefit in the methodology we utilize.

We talk elsewhere about the power of liking, and the impact of reciprocity on having people cooperate with you. Here, it’s important to reiterate that our methodology involves the delivery of questions, and the monologue, in a very low-key, nonconfrontational manner. We are working with the subject, understanding his perspective, evincing that understanding, and guiding him to a point where he feels comfortable sharing information with us. There is never anything to be gained by coercing people in a way that can compel them to make false statements or confessions. That does nothing to further our aim of getting the truth, and it carries the serious risk of implicating the innocent, while allowing the guilty to walk free.

In a negotiation setting, working with the other party, avoiding judgmental statements, and reflecting an understanding of their perspective, is what William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project, in his book
Getting Past No
, calls “stepping to their side.” We want those on the other side of the table to view the negotiation as a situation in which they are working
with
us, rather than
against
us, to create a lasting resolution to the problem. As negotiators, we want to come away with the best result possible, and that often entails preserving a long-term relationship so that no bridges are burned, and our reputation as an ethical, effective negotiator is maintained.