10 Negotiation Myths Busted by Chris Voss, Fact-Checked

Chris Voss, the former FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator, has built a career on dismantling the “rules” most of us were taught about negotiation. Rules like anchoring, compromising, and looking for the win-win are negotiation myths that Voss argues can work against you.

But how do Voss’ claims stack up against the research? More importantly, does his approach hold up in B2B sales?

Before contacting you, buyers often have a clear idea of what they want. They may arrive at a negotiation with clear targets and backup options. Considering all of these, making the wrong move in a negotiation can cost you margin or put the whole deal at risk.

That’s why it’s important to know which of Voss’ ideas you should actually use. Some of Voss’s claims hold up remarkably well, even in B2B. Others need serious context before you should apply them. And a few depend entirely on the situation, the buyer, and the deal itself.

In this article, we test ten of Voss’s claims against negotiation research and real B2B sales realities. You’ll see what the evidence actually says, when each tactic works, and just as importantly, where it doesn’t.

What Are the Most Common Negotiation Myths?

Negotiation myths are tactics that succeed in one deal which then get promoted into universal rules. Some examples include: never make the first move, always split the difference, and find a win-win outcome at any cost.

To be fair, none of these ideas are inherently wrong. They have worked and still do in certain negotiations. But then, that’s exactly why they cannot be advanced as universal rules. They are highly context- and situation-dependent. That’s why this article tests ten specific claims against negotiation research and asks what they actually mean for B2B sales.

For example, consider one of the most persistent negotiation myths: the idea that aggressive negotiators get better results. Andrea Kupfer Schneider’s 2002 study offers foundational evidence against this idea. In her data, 91% of the lawyers rated as effective negotiators were problem-solvers rather than adversaries. 

Beyond showing that problem-solvers are better negotiators, Schneider’s findings also highlight an important distinction: distributive versus integrative negotiation.

Distributive negotiation treats the available value as fixed, so one side’s gain directly reduces the other’s. Integrative negotiation looks for ways to create additional value before deciding how to divide it.

So, the first step is simply identifying what kind of negotiation you’re actually in. Do that, and you can pick tactics based on the situation instead of following myths as fixed rules.

Also Read:

• Mirroring: The Psychology of Being Understood
• What is Rapport?

Where Do Chris Voss and the Research Disagree on Negotiation Myths?

Sometimes, the disparity between Voss’s claims and our selected negotiation research is wide. The biggest differences appear in Voss’s ideas on compromise, preparation, and win-win deals.  

Voss sees these ideas as potential traps. He warns that splitting the difference, chasing win-wins, or leaning too hard on preparation can backfire at the table. The research, by contrast, tends to back collaboration and preparation as sound practice.

So why the gap? It’s largely because Voss and the researchers approach the topic backed by completely different experiences.

Voss spent much of his career negotiating hostage situations. These are environments defined by high pressure, constant uncertainty, and very little trust. In a crisis like that, compromise and collaboration can be genuinely risky.

B2B sales is a different game. You’re usually sitting in an ongoing commercial relationship, not a one-off emergency. The buyer can always walk away, delay the purchase, or quietly choose another supplier. And the seller has to balance the deal in front of them against the long-term value of the relationship

So it’s no surprise that a tactic that works in a hostage crisis may need serious adjustment before it’s safe to use in a commercial setting.

The ten negotiation myths below come from Voss’s Black Swan article, published on 16 May 2023.

Which Negotiation Myths Hold Up, and Which Collapse?

Three of Voss’s claims are broadly supported. Two need challenging. The other five negotiation myths depend on the situation. Here’s what each one of these negotiation myths means for B2B sales.

Myth 1: Ask Good Questions

Voss is right that questions can work against you. But the problem is not asking questions. It’s making the buyer feel interrogated. This is one of the easiest negotiation myths to misunderstand.

Voss argues that you need information but that people dislike being interrogated. That makes sense in sales. A long list of questions can make a buyer feel like they’re filling out a form. They may give short answers or become defensive.

The better approach is to demonstrate genuine curiosity and ask questions that are useful to the buyer. “What’s your budget?” serves you. “What happens if this slips another quarter?” serves them, and answers yours anyway.

What to Do Instead: Ask open questions that focus on the buyer’s situation and help them think through the problem.

Also Read:

• The Trust Equation
• What is Value?

Myth 2: Listen Twice as Much as You Speak

The myth is the specific 2:1 ratio, not the idea that negotiators should listen carefully. Voss rejects the 2:1 rule and takes it further, recommending that you listen five times as much.

His point is that people communicate through more than words. Their tone, behaviour, and reactions can provide additional information. 

Huthwaite International’s 2019 behavioural research also shows that skilled negotiators check understanding and summarise discussions twice as often as average ones. They also give half as much factual information. 

Summarising is particularly useful because it shows that you’re listening. 

What to Do Instead: Stop worrying about the exact talk-to-listen ratio. Focus on understanding what the other person means and summarising it accurately.

Myth 3: Do Your Homework

Voss overstates this one, and the research on these negotiation myths is clear. He argues “your most valuable data will come while you’re at the table.” That can be true, but it does not make preparation less important.

Preparation helps you recognise useful information when you hear it. 

Huthwaite found in 2019 that skilled negotiators spend more time planning. Harvard’s Program on Negotiation also warned in 2012 that relying on intuition can be costly because the mind is “hard-wired with an array of systematic biases.”

What to Do Instead: Prepare your questions, your tradeables, and your walk-away, not your conclusions.

Myth 4: Know Your Leverage

Voss’s underlying point is right, and of these negotiation myths, it translates most cleanly to B2B. 

He argues that leverage depends on how the other person sees the situation. It’s not simply something you can calculate from your own position.

A buyer may have alternatives, but that does not automatically mean you have no leverage. The important question is what the buyer believes they’ll lose by delaying or choosing another option. A strong value case can change that perception.

What to Do Instead: Stop cataloging your leverage. Help the buyer understand the cost of doing nothing. 

Also Read:

• The Illusion of Choice, Choice Architecture
• The Psychology of Pricing

Myth 5: Be Willing to Compromise

This is the most expensive of these negotiation myths, and Voss is right. “Compromise is a lose/lose situation, always,” he says. That is too absolute, but his main point is sound.

When you split the difference, you’re effectively giving something away to finish the negotiation.

Huthwaite’s 2019 research agrees commercially. Splitting the difference means “making a concession rather than trading positions,” and the cost “will impact directly on the profitability of the agreement.”

What to Do Instead: Trade rather than simply concede. If you give something up, get something specific in return.

Myth 6: Anchor High

Voss and the evidence look opposed here, but they aren’t, which makes it the most interesting of the negotiation myths. He says “extreme anchoring drives the deals you should have made from the table.” A 2025 meta-analysis says both things are true.

Petrowsky and colleagues analysed 374 effects from 90 studies involving 16,334 negotiators. They found that ambitious first offers increased agreement value. The effect was large, with a reported effect size of g = 1.14. 

However, ambitious offers also increased impasses and led to worse subjective outcomes, with both effects close to 0.4.

Image via Elsevier

In simple terms, a strong first offer can help you get more. But it can also make the other side walk away. The effects also change as negotiations become more complex, making aggressive first offers less predictable.

The research supports making a first offer in many situations. It does not mean that an extreme anchor is always a good idea.

The ZOPA, or zone of possible agreement, helps explain why. The ZOPA is the range between what the seller is willing to accept and what the buyer is willing to pay. An extreme anchor does not create a bigger ZOPA. It can simply make the other side believe that you’re outside theirs.

What to Do Instead: Start with an ambitious offer when appropriate, but explain why it’s reasonable. 

Also Read:

• Unravelling the Enduring Influence of “Influence” by Robert Cialdini
• The Neuroscience of Value

Myth 7: Know Your BATNA

Voss is right about the psychology here, but he overstates the remedy. Few negotiation myths are this finely balanced. “If you need a BATNA and you don’t have one you like, you’ve already taken yourself hostage,” he says. 

BATNA stands for best alternative to a negotiated agreement. It’s what you would do if the current deal fell apart. Voss argues that a weak BATNA puts you in a weak position. That is true. 

Your walk-away point is different: it is the minimum outcome you are willing to accept. Your BATNA can help you set that threshold, but the two are not interchangeable.

If you compare every offer against your fallback option, you can become too focused on avoiding a bad deal rather than pursuing a good one. 

What to Do Instead: Know your walk-away, then set your target somewhere else entirely.

Myth 8: Agree on Criteria

Voss is half right on this one, and the half he’s missing is who picks the criteria. Among the negotiation myths here, it’s the most conditional. “Outside criteria will either block you from making a better deal, or take you hostage,” he argues. That’s accurate when the buyer brings the benchmark, and you accept it.

Let’s break it down. Accepting someone else’s yardstick is how deals get commoditised. A mutual action plan is one way to agree on decision criteria and key steps together.

What to Do Instead: Don’t reject criteria. Get there first and set them.

Also Read:

• What Is an Economic Buyer and Their Role in Sales?
• The Buyer Burnout: How Decision Fatigue is Killing Deals

Myth 9: Negotiate Win/Win Deals

The evidence challenges Voss’s broader rejection of collaborative negotiation. Of the ten negotiation myths, this is the one he gets most wrong. “The ‘win/win’ mindset will get you killed,” he writes. His concern is fair: win-win language often covers one-sided concessions. The claim that collaboration loses is not.

Schneider’s 2002 lawyer survey challenges the idea that an adversarial style is more effective. Beyond this, B2B deals also involve more people than a typical one-to-one negotiation. Gartner found in 2025 that B2B buying groups can include five to 16 people across as many as four functions.

That makes collaboration important. You’re not negotiating with just one person. You’re helping a group reach a decision that it can defend internally. 

What to Do Instead: Do not worry about using the phrase “win-win.” Focus on the behaviour behind it.

Myth 10: Identify Common Ground

Voss replaces this one rather than busting it, and his replacement is better. Among these negotiation myths, it alone gets a substitute. “Tactical empathy is about articulating your understanding of their perspective,” he writes. 

Common ground asks what you share, whereas tactical empathy asks whether they feel understood.

Manufactured common ground is especially unhelpful. It can make conversations feel forced. The better approach is to spend more time understanding the buyer’s situation and building rapport.

What to Do Instead: Focus less on finding things you agree on and more on showing that you understand the buyer’s position.

Also Read:

• Are Learning Styles a Myth?
• The Myth of the Player-Coach in Sales

Which Negotiation Tactics Actually Work on UK B2B Buyers?

The negotiation tactics that work on UK buyers are the ones that survive procurement. Most advice assumes two people and one issue. A UK enterprise deal is a committee, a framework agreement, and a buyer who negotiates for a living.

That buyer is being trained: CIPS, the chartered procurement body, reported in 2026 that negotiation is a top skills priority for 42% of procurement professionals.

Image via CIPS

6sense and MarketOne studied UK and Ireland buyers in 2025. They found UK and Ireland B2B buyers control 57% of the journey before vendor contact, compared with 61% globally, on an average deal value of £320,000.

Image via 6sense and MarketOne

What does this mean for negotiation? By the time you reach the commercial discussion, the buyer may already have decided who needs to approve the deal, how the purchase will be evaluated, and when a decision needs to happen. 

If you understand those constraints, you’ll get a clearer picture of where and when you can negotiate. On the other hand, if you wait until the final stage to uncover them, you may have already given away most of your leverage.

What to Do Instead: Negotiate the process before you negotiate the price. Find out who needs to approve the purchase, what the approval thresholds are, what the buying timeline looks like, and when the buyer’s quarter or budget cycle ends. The stages of the sales process can help you identify these details earlier.

Our closing the sale training helps sales teams avoid last-minute concessions at the end of a quarter.

Also Read:

• What is SPIN Selling? The Ultimate Guide for B2B Sales
• The History of The Challenger Sale

FAQ

1. What are the 7 types of negotiation?

Negotiation is usually grouped into distributive, integrative, multi-party, team, positional, principled, and multi-stage negotiation. Distributive divides a fixed amount. Integrative expands what’s on the table first. The remaining five describe who is in the room and how the discussion is structured. Most negotiation myths cut across several in a single deal.

2. What are the 7 rules of negotiation?

There’s no official list, and the versions in circulation disagree. Seven useful rules are:

• Prepare properly: Know your objectives, tradeables, alternatives, and limits.
• Define your walk-away: Know the minimum outcome you’re willing to accept.
• Aim high when appropriate: An ambitious opening offer can improve your outcome, but extreme anchors can also increase impasses.
• Ask more than you tell: Use questions to understand the other side without turning the conversation into an interrogation.
• Trade rather than concede: If you give something up, seek something specific in return.
• Understand the other side: Use tactical empathy to identify what matters to them and why.
• Test the first offer: Treat an opening offer as a starting point, not a conclusion, and assess how it affects the rest of the negotiation.

3. What is negotiation, and how is it different in B2B sales?

Most people define negotiation as a discussion between two or more parties aimed at reaching an agreement. In B2B sales, negotiation is narrower: agreeing on terms with a buying group that must justify the decision internally. You’re rarely negotiating with one person, and almost never on price alone.

4. What is BATNA in negotiation, and does it still matter?

BATNA stands for best alternative to a negotiated agreement. It is the best option available to you if the current deal falls through. It still matters because it gives you a reference point for evaluating the deal. Your walk-away point is different. It is the minimum outcome you are willing to accept in the negotiation. Your BATNA can help inform that threshold, but it should not become your target or be treated as the same thing as your walk-away point.

5. What is ZOPA in a negotiation?

ZOPA is the zone of possible agreement: the range between the least the seller will accept and the most the buyer will pay. ZOPA negotiation needs that range to exist. If it doesn’t, no price tactic will close it. Change what’s on the table instead: term, volume, or scope.

6. What is the difference between distributive and integrative negotiation?

Distributive negotiation treats value as fixed, so every pound you gain is one the other side loses. Integrative negotiation looks for differences in what each side values, then trades across them to grow the total. Most real deals are integrative dressed as distributive, which is where value gets left behind.

7. How do you win a negotiation without damaging the relationship?

Three moves. One: trade instead of conceding, making every move conditional on something coming back. Two: find the issues each side values differently, then swap across them. Three: name what you want back before you give anything. 

8. What negotiation mistakes do B2B sellers make most often?

Three negotiation mistakes dominate. Sellers discount to manufacture urgency, they negotiate before the buyer has actually decided to buy, and they concede to a stakeholder who can’t sign. The best negotiation tips start earlier than the negotiation itself: qualify the decision process first, then agree terms with whoever owns it.

9. Are Chris Voss’s negotiation tips right for B2B sales?

Mostly, but they need context. The article finds that some of Voss’s claims hold up, while others need qualification. His advice on compromise and leverage translates well to B2B, while tactical empathy is a useful replacement for simply looking for common ground. Other claims, such as rejecting win-win negotiation or downplaying preparation, are less convincing when multiple stakeholders are involved.

Ready to Negotiate Better Deals?

Many negotiation myths hold up in some situations and fail in others. Voss is right about compromise and leverage, while his idea of tactical empathy is a useful alternative to simply looking for common ground. His positions on preparation and win-win negotiation need more qualification.

The most useful lesson from these negotiation myths is to treat negotiation tactics as conditional. Trade instead of splitting. Open ambitiously and explain why. Set the criteria before the buyer does.

Look at your last ten closed deals. Where did your team discount? When did the discount appear? Those patterns can tell you more about your negotiation process than any list of negotiation myths or rules. 

If your team gives ground it never needed to give, let’s talk.