Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All (23 page)

Governor Palin had committed herself when she made that initial, off-the-cuff remark, and she refused to back down from it. The fear of appearing inconsistent in her statements trumped any concern of being shown to be wrong. Those who defended her had, in large part, backed her as a spokesperson for them and their values, and were committed to the consistency of their support despite the factual errors in her account.

The Irish writer and poet Oscar Wilde once said, “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” This wonderful reflection on our innate desire to conserve intellectual energy might help explain the psychology of commitment/consistency. Once someone commits to something, it’s as if he goes on autopilot, following a course that can be viewed as consistent with that commitment. This has a huge potential impact on the way in which others can influence us, take advantage of us, and even use us for their own ends. Of course, it follows that it also has useful applicability in enabling us to influence others.

I focus heavily on this theory in negotiation classes as an example of why position-based bargaining is counterproductive. If you allow people to commit, especially repeatedly, to a particular position, they will become entrenched and will proceed to maintain, often unreasonably, a stand that’s consistent with that position. The same is true when interviewing or examining a witness. The greater the extent to which someone is allowed to articulate a position, the more entrenched he becomes, and the more difficult it will be to sway him. Instead, it’s best to identify an
interest
held by the other person that conforms to your own interests and purpose, allow him to openly acknowledge and commit to that interest, and then encourage him to act consistently in accordance with his interest-based commitment.

I recall once appearing before a judge with whom I had, to put it mildly, a frosty relationship. I was before him defending a motion, the loss of which would cost my client a considerable sum of money. There were two factors in my favor. First, the judge was running for a higher judicial office, and had made a campaign promise that was set in stone: He would not be an activist judge, one who “legislates from the bench.” Second, to rule against my client, the judge would have to apply a novel, though not inconceivable, interpretation of the law.

I was fortunate in that the motion was the first matter of the day to be heard, and the courtroom was filled with lawyers, their clients, and the jury panel for that day. After the opposing counsel had finished his argument, I stood up, recited the rule to be interpreted, and made a statement that went something like this: “Your Honor, this is the rule, this is the plain English reading of the rule. To hold against my client, your Honor is being asked to rewrite this rule and to legislate from the bench. I am in your hands.” I noticed the judge glance around the filled courtroom. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I won. My sense was that the judge’s blood pressure was the loser that day.

No question, it is socially and politically desirable to be seen as consistent. What politician ever wants to hear the term “flip-flopper” applied to her? The charge, in fact, can be a scathing insult. Cialdini cites a quote attributed to the nineteenth-century English chemist and natural philosopher Michael Faraday. When asked whether a rival chemist, whom he despised, was “always wrong,” Faraday replied, “He’s not that consistent.” Indeed, being seen as inconsistent is sometimes more of an affront than being seen as wrong.

Keeping the commitment/consistency principle at the top of your mind can be very helpful in avoiding the trap of falling prey to those who would be inclined to use it against you. Have you ever noticed that highly effective salespeople have
you
fill out the contract or purchase order, especially when there is a cooling-off period that would allow you to cancel the contract? This approach is routinely taught in sales seminars, especially in states where cooling-off statutes have been enacted.

Similarly, in the legal realm, lawyers routinely have their clients fill out retainer contracts, writing in the prices and terms, initialing here, signing there. Is all of that really necessary? Yes, if you want them to be committed to the contract.

At the beginning of depositions, lawyers will ask deponents to agree that they will work with the lawyer to provide full and truthful responses, and to commit that if they are unclear about anything, they will stop the attorney and ask for clarification. The purpose is twofold.

First, asking for those commitments makes it very difficult for the deponent to come back later, when the deposition is over, and say that he gave a particular answer only because he didn’t understand the question. If he does decide to give that a shot, it’s very difficult for him to come up with a good response to the lawyer’s next question: “But, Mr. Smith, don’t you remember at the beginning of the deposition that you agreed that if you did not understand my question, you would ask me, then and there, for clarification?”

Second, the deponent has committed to be truthful and cooperative. If, during the course of the deposition, he becomes in any way obstructive or defensive, we remind him of his commitment, and simply ask him to act in a manner that is consistent with it.

I’ve also found this to be a tremendously useful tool in negotiation and mediation. At the outset, I ask the other side to commit to work with me honestly and constructively. In some cases I have even written up short agreements that we all sign, stipulating that we all agree to be fair and truthful. The results that I’ve seen this small gesture yield are amazing.

In the classroom, too, I have utilized this commitment strategy to encourage students to complete all work assigned for a course. One course I taught required students to watch a series of video lectures online. I had the students sign an agreement that they would watch all of the lectures, and that if they didn’t do so, they would fail the course, regardless of how well they performed on the tests. After the final exam, one student, who had aced the exam, came up to me and said, “Look, I did really well on the tests. Is it okay if I don’t watch the last lecture?” I took out his “contract” and showed it to him. He nodded, and left to watch the lecture.

It’s essential, then, to stay on the offensive side of the commitment/consistency line. In depositions, in negotiation, in mediation, even when buying a house or a car, your aim should be for the person on the other side of the table to commit that he will act fairly and abide by the rules. If the circumstances allow for it, get him to agree to having you both sign a written statement to that effect. Then, if he strays from that path, you can politely remind him of the commitment you both made at the outset.

SLOW AND STEADY ACROSS THE GOLDEN BRIDGE

The admonition to check your progress as part of a structured approach to an elicitation situation is just as applicable to business and personal negotiation scenarios. It’s essential to allow the person on the other side of the table to work with you in a manner that enables you to gather the information you need in order to assess his position at any point in the negotiation process.

Recall in my Chapter 5 commentary the case of Andrew and Dorothy, where we built Sun Tzu’s “golden bridge” by using a proposal by Andrew as the foundation in the equitable distribution proceeding. Just as a guilty suspect doesn’t necessarily plan to confess when he steps into the interrogation room, what Andrew had envisaged when he sat down at the negotiation table was likely a far cry from what he eventually agreed to. Getting there required patience and a systematic means of reading the situation.

Imagine what might have happened if, as soon as Andrew had committed to negotiate fairly as a demonstration of love for his wife and child, I had said, “Okay, then give them the house, sign a multiyear restraining order, and pay them a large lump sum of money.” Chances are, we would have gotten absolutely nowhere. Instead, we needed to proceed at a slow and steady pace, posing noncoercive questions: “What do you think would be fair?” “Would you consider doing this?” “Wouldn’t it be great for your son if you did that?” This is the negotiation equivalent of asking, “What else?” You continue to add foundation blocks for your golden bridge until you’ve done all you can do.

Be aware that it’s far too easy to pounce when you get the admission or concession you were seeking. More often than not, he shoots himself in the foot. When you see that your monologue is having a positive effect, proceed with care and ensure you’re not jumping the gun when you decide to check your progress. Let the person cross that golden bridge at his own pace, on his own accord. Trying to rush him across will almost certainly cause the bridge to collapse.

THE FICTION ROUTE CAN BE DANGEROUS, SO PROCEED WITH CAUTION

Highlighting a shared experience can be remarkably effective in creating a bond with another person. As has been discussed elsewhere, we’re more likely to cooperate with people we like, and who are like us. So a shared background or a shared loss, for example, can establish a connection that encourages people to provide truthful information.

When selecting juries, seasoned trial lawyers often will, within the bounds allowed by the judge, share information about themselves or their clients with each potential juror. Since juries are more likely to side with the lawyer and client they can more easily identify with, this simple gesture can yield very positive results. It is, of course, essential to observe applicable laws and codes of conduct with respect to the factual nature of the information being shared. This applies equally to interview, elicitation, and negotiation situations.

For example, in the United States, law enforcement officers can legally misrepresent certain matters when interviewing a suspect in a criminal case. The police may tell a suspect that a codefendant has confessed and implicated him when he hasn’t, or that they have incriminating fingerprint or DNA evidence when in reality no such evidence exists. They cannot, however, make a misrepresentation to a suspect about a deal, such as an assurance that he’ll receive a lighter sentence if he confesses, when that’s not the case. In some other countries, any misrepresentation by law enforcement is prohibited.

Similarly, in negotiations, lawyers are bound by rules of professional conduct found in American Bar Association Model Rule 4.1, which requires that they not “make a false statement of material fact” to a third party during their representation of a client. Any party in a negotiation, solicitation, or business transaction, moreover, is well advised to take extreme care to avoid making any untruthful claims. For example, if someone were to make a statement about a relative dying of a certain disease as a means of persuading people to donate to a particular charity, he may well find himself on the wrong end of a felony prosecution. So it’s essential to always be mindful that going the fictitious route can take you into extremely dangerous territory, especially if the fiction can easily be tested. It can completely undermine your credibility, and destroy your ability to effectively engage with the person sitting across the table.

It’s equally essential to ensure that your delivery is absolutely clear, since it’s very easy for someone to take something you say out of context, or to mischaracterize it in a way that bolsters his own position. I recall an occasion in which I represented a police officer who made a statement during an interview that he had “been on firearms training with the SWAT team.” The questioner returned to that statement later in the interview with this contention: “Earlier you claimed that you were on the SWAT team. That was a lie! You were never in SWAT, you never even applied for SWAT.” The questioner was furious, and appeared to be grasping at anything he could to make his case. The fact was, my client had never suggested he was on a SWAT team, or that he had ever applied. He merely mentioned that he had attended firearms training with the SWAT team. That the questioner had jumped to an erroneous conclusion served as a reminder of the importance of delivering your message clearly, and in a way that doesn’t lend itself to mischaracterization.

Conveying a fictitious account of some dimension of your background or experience, in order to demonstrate sincerity and empathy in an elicitation situation, can be an effective means of creating a bond that will encourage a person to reveal the truthful information you’re seeking. But it’s a tack that must be taken with great care and prudence. Whenever possible, it’s likely in your best interest to create that bond on the strength of your authentic experiences. That approach can reduce the risk of stepping over a legal or ethical line that you never want to cross.

“THOSE TO WHOM EVIL IS DONE”

If there’s one thing that very few people like, it’s being judged. Someone who feels that others are sitting in judgment of him is very likely to react with defensiveness and rancor—a reaction that in an elicitation or negotiation situation needs to be avoided at all costs. Consider Michael’s interrogation of Tommy, the live-in boyfriend. In spite of the horrific injuries Tommy inflicted on the baby girl, Michael made it crystal clear that he wasn’t judging Tommy. That approach not only avoided a defensive reaction, it also helped to keep Tommy in short-term thinking mode. Being judged in Tommy’s situation would carry with it a connotation of legal consequences, and Michael clearly had to prevent Tommy’s head from going there. It was no accident that when Tommy asked Michael what he would do in that situation, Michael’s response was, “I would tell the truth,” not “I would sign a confession,” or “I would admit my guilt.”

The admonition, “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” is worthy of remembrance. One of my favorite poems of all time is “September 1, 1939” by W. H. Auden. In it there is part of a verse that I have printed out and posted in my office, and that I would often carry with me on business to admonish me to sit in judgment of no one, and to regulate my temper and my conduct when conducting interviews, negotiations, and depositions. It reads, simply: