Naval: Selling the Truth

Shen Translation Bureau is a translation team under 36Kr, focusing on technology, business, workplace, life and other fields, with a focus on introducing new overseas technologies, new perspectives and new trends.

Editor's Note: Top talents can see through sales tricks at a glance. Naval puts it bluntly: Business games are never meant to split leftover scraps, and the top-tier negotiation poise is the courage to walk away from the table whenever you want. This article is translated from relevant original content.

Reputation Comes First

Nivi: Naval is extremely talented in sales, and some even say he has his own "reality distortion field".

Naval: That's true. I have never taken any sales courses in my life, nor have I deliberately tried to improve my sales skills. I don't even know exactly what sales is. I don't do hard selling. I just try to figure things out thoroughly. Once I have something I truly believe in, I convey it to the other party as accurately and sincerely as possible. There is no such thing as sales skills in this process at all.

If there is any "sales training" I have received, it is probably watching the movie *Glengarry Glen Ross*. That film is really good, I would highly recommend it.

I have also read Robert Cialdini's *Influence*, the original book he wrote about persuasion. Just like most sequels, you can skip the second book directly, there is no need to read it at all. There is only one remarkable concept in it, that is the "anchoring effect", and that's it.

Cialdini popularized the six laws of persuasion (CLASSR): Consistency, Liking, Authority, Scarcity, Social Proof, and Reciprocity. These are basically the six ways to influence others. Later he added a seventh point in the sequel, which is essentially the anchoring effect.

But I don't believe in those so-called sales routines at all. If you feel someone is selling to you, or you feel you are being treated as a sales target, you will instinctively feel disgusted. Humans are born with psychological defenses against being sold to. So I think what really plays a decisive role is reputation. Reputation is far more important than sales skills. If you want to master "sales", what you really need to pursue is to build impeccable credibility.

You have to make others trust you. You need to be the kind of real estate agent who will take the initiative to advise clients to avoid bad deals, bad neighborhoods and bad houses; in this way, when a property that is truly suitable for them comes up, they will trust you unreservedly. You have to completely let go of your ego, put yourself in the other person's shoes, and figure out what they really want.

And once you figure out the core demands of the other party, the transaction will naturally come to fruition smoothly.

But I am not the kind of person who can teach you to hit sales performance targets, such as selling 50 sets of software this week or this month. But I can tell you: In life, the group of people you most want to impress and get acquainted with can see through you at a single glance.

They can easily see through your sales routines and rhetoric. And these people are exactly at the top of every field. So if you are eager to cooperate with top talents and achieve those far-reaching, great undertakings, you must have extremely high credibility.

To gain credibility, you have to be sincere. You have to tell the truth, and you have to have real expertise. They must be convinced that you are not after immediate personal gains, but are thinking for the long term. You treat others candidly, have a thorough understanding of what you are talking about, and can explain it clearly in easy-to-understand language.

After all, no one is an omniscient expert, and the other party cannot grasp all the complex details in an instant. So you must learn to use vivid metaphors to convey the core logic. But this does not work every time. You can't cling to the result, and you can't sell everything to everyone. I know there is indeed another model that works, some people act very aggressively, adhering to the logic of "never give up, pester endlessly, keep bombarding until the defense is broken".

I am not that kind of person — I am lazy. I like to follow the trend and take the path of least resistance. If my idea or proposal cannot resonate with someone, I will turn around and leave immediately without any delay, and go to find those who can truly resonate with me.

"Yes, and..."

Nivi: I noticed a "technique" that Naval often uses, that he is extremely good at using the "Yes, and" communication rule.

No matter what you say to him, he will often follow up with "Yes" first, even if he does not agree in his heart. He will first show recognition, maybe expand on your point of view for a few words, and then skillfully lead to the core content he really wants to express.

He will never bluntly refute you on the spot, or directly give you a cold "no".

Naval: This is indeed a communication skill, but sometimes I will directly refute others. But I have to say, when most smart people express their views to you, they are often thinking sincerely, and there are reasonable reasons for them to hold a certain belief. And you can usually see through the logic behind it. That's where the word "Yes" comes from — it means you truly understand the other person: "Oh, I get it, that's where your concern lies, I see."

You have to listen to the other person first. But if I completely disagree with their logic, I will also refute them bluntly: "No, I don't think that's the case, here are a few reasons."

By the way, I often raise objections. And usually when I refute others, I am easily proven wrong by reality. That's the moment I learn to be humble, because most of the time it is me who is wrong.

So "Yes, and" is really a good strategy, even though I don't treat it as a deliberate routine. It is essentially a kind of "rational empathy" — you put yourself in the other person's position through logical deduction, and examine whether their position is tenable. If it is reasonable, you affirm it first; then you further explain why your position is also valid, because in theory your point of view is also well thought out and fully justified.

Self-interested Candor

Nivi: Another trait I noticed in Naval is his extremely open and inclusive way of thinking, which even I find incredible.

Naval: I think the key is that I want to pursue objectivity. Objectivity means stripping away my own biases. It means you can't always look at things from your own perspective, because the other person is in a completely different perspective. Over the years, many people have come to me for advice, almost treating me as a psychological mentor. I used to wonder why that was the case. Then one of them told me straight out: "When you give me advice, your words don't sound like they carry your subjective intentions at all. They are more like I am talking to another version of myself in a different dimension. You are not instilling your ideas, nor are you saying flattering words that I want to hear, let alone ordering me what to do."

That's exactly the state I've been working to achieve.

That's objectivity, that's honesty. And this is a kind of "self-interested honesty" — because I am eager to make the most correct decisions for myself, which requires me to be as objective as possible. By the way, I have made countless mistakes, and about 80% of my judgments are wrong. Considering that, if I don't stay objective and candid, the consequences would be unimaginable; I would be like walking forward blindfolded, and my error rate would probably soar to 95%.

Charisma is Confidence Overlapped with Kindness

Nivi: Another trait I observed in Naval is that he can tell the truth while always conveying positive energy. If you come to me for advice, I might choose to be candid, or choose to cheer you up; but to tell harsh truths while making people feel positive is an extremely difficult and rare ability.

Naval: Yes, that's exactly my definition of "charisma". The so-called charisma is the ability to exude both confidence and care at the same time — or to have both a sense of power and kindness. I think as long as you have empathy in your heart and truly care about the other person's feelings and well-being, you will naturally find a proper and gentle way to convey the truth.

But my close friends may tell you that I am neither positive nor gentle in daily life, and I often speak sharply and unsparingly. I like to tease people, I like to gain the upper hand in verbal debates, I like to show wit, and sometimes I am even a little mean to people. But that's only for my closest people. Facing them, I don't need to weigh my words carefully to worry about their thoughts, because we know each other's way of thinking very well. I know they can take it, and all of us just want to get straight to the point.

But I think sincerity is the foundation of everything. If you have to choose one between the two, sincerity always comes first. Even if being candid makes the other person unhappy or even angry, it is more important than false polite remarks. But in most cases, the two can be achieved at the same time. Reality is cruel. If you just tell the truth without any kindness, others will not listen to you at all.

So this becomes another proposition: do you just want to prove that you are right, or do you really want to solve the problem effectively? If you pursue practical results, you must learn to wrap the truth in a layer of kindness.

Of course, this personality also has shortcomings. For example, I am extremely bad at firing employees. I have indeed fired people, but it happens very rarely. Making the decision to fire is very difficult for me, and although I have improved over time, I was extremely bad at it in the past. In most companies, I usually rely on co-founders to play the "bad guy". This all stems from this point: I resist doing unkind things from the bottom of my heart. So when it comes to the point of having to lay off staff, even if the other person is holding back the team or the position does not match, my empathy mechanism will still activate, and I will keep dwelling on how much harm and emotional impact this will cause to them.

This makes me feel extremely difficult. Later, the only way I found to fire people with a clear conscience is that I must be fully convinced that in a different environment or role, they will exert greater value; then I will do my best to help them find a new way out, or at least always be willing to provide a strong reference for their job search.

I will almost never fire a person easily before I figure out where they can play a greater role.

Do Not Rely on Control, Focus on Leadership

Nivi: By the way, what I said about "being sincere and positive" means that every time after you finish talking to Naval, you leave full of energy and eager to try, and can't wait to implement the things you just discussed.

Naval: That's right, this touches on the essential difference between "leadership" and "management". Management is telling others what to do, while leadership is inspiring them to have a genuine desire to do it. I think leadership is the most core lifeline of an organization's operation. You have to ignite people's inner desire to take the initiative to do things, but this ignition can never be done by empty promises or false kindness.

It must be combined with their own talents and life pursuits, and transformed into a real internal driving force. Therefore, you must take time to patiently listen to what they really want in their hearts, then find the intersection between their personal pursuits and the organizational goals, and then motivate them to go all out.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry has a famous quote. I admire him very much, he is a great writer, who wrote works such as *Wind, Sand and Stars* and *Airman's Odyssey*. The gist of his famous saying is: "If you want to build a ship, don't just gather people, give orders, cut wood and make a fire; instead, arouse their infinite desire for the vast and boundless sea."

So when I'm recruiting talents, I'm always sharing what I believe to be true — this is candid and pure: that joining a startup is an excellent way to build a career and experience life compared to following the routine in a large company, and the work process is much more fun. You are no longer a screw in a huge machine; you have full autonomy, you can get more happiness, and you have the opportunity to create greater wealth. Yes, it's extremely tough in the short term, but in the long run, once you have experienced the charm of starting a business, it's hard to go back to being an ordinary employee in a big company.

Once you have experienced a highly autonomous working state or have worked for yourself, your traditional "employability" will be greatly reduced. One of my most popular tweets wrote: "Once you taste the taste of freedom, you will no longer be willing to be employed." That's exactly what I mean, especially for those who are exceptionally talented, highly skilled and have strong internal drive.

Of course not everyone is this type, but if you are the kind of person with high initiative and strong sense of autonomy, once you get freedom, you can no longer adapt to the traditional employment system. It's like a child who is used to studying at home can no longer stand the rigid rules of traditional school. They have tasted the sweetness of freedom, and in a state of unfreedom, you can never perform at your peak.

Hunting Side by Side

Naval: Therefore, in order to achieve the established goals, you should form a small team as lean as possible.

I think deep down, everyone — maybe some women too, but men are especially obvious — carries this imprint in the course of evolution. We evolved in hunter-gatherer tribes, where men used to form teams to go out hunting, right? Eight or ten people gather together, hold spears, and embark on a long journey to chase prey. Maybe a day, a week or a month later, they return in triumph, bringing abundant food, furs and spoils to the whole tribe.

This nature has long been engraved in our genes. We are born to perform specific tasks in the form of lean teams: whether it is people sailing to the West Indies to open up new continents in the past, going to the battlefield side by side, or starting a business together. So when you read books like *Liftoff* (which tells the story of Musk and his team building the first SpaceX rocket), *The Macintosh Way* (which records the story of Jobs' team building the first Mac computer) or *Soul of a New Machine*, you will feel blood boiling. Because deep in the subconscious of every person, what everyone really craves is exactly this kind of experience: on the journey of creating great undertakings, being in a lean and excellent team, everyone does their part and goes all out, and delivers absolute trust to each other, so that you can give full play to your creativity and get extraordinary results at the end.

The entire human society is built on this cornerstone. In game theory, the most well-known model is the "Prisoner's Dilemma". The core of the Prisoner's Dilemma is: two people are arrested by the police, who will betray their accomplice to protect themselves?

Under that mechanism, betraying the other party becomes the optimal solution. But real life follows a completely different set of game logic. The operation of real society is closer to the so-called "Stag Hunt Game". The Stag Hunt Game means that if we act alone, each person can only catch one hare at most; but if the two of us cooperate side by side, we can hunt a stag together, so that everyone can get far more meat than a hare.

This is the normal state of operation of a healthy society. In those low-trust societies, there is a lack of trust between people, and the institutional mechanisms hinder deep collaboration — taxes are too heavy, regulations are too complicated, bureaucracy is prevalent, and there are restrictions everywhere. People cannot carry out large-scale "Stag Hunt" collaboration. As a result, small workshops are everywhere, and the whole society is mired in poverty.

In a society with sound systems, people can carry out Stag Hunt collaboration to their heart's content. People trust each other, and the rule of law provides protection. You know that as long as you work together to create value, your results will not be looted by others, and you will definitely get the due benefits. You can join forces with top talents, the government will not plunder arbitrarily, and the law will not set up artificial obstacles at will.

You are in a circle of like-minded people, in a high-trust environment. People know each other in social networks, and reputations are clear, transparent and available for checking at any time. In this way, you can gather an elite team of 10, 20, 50, 100 or even 200 people to tackle those seemingly impossible miracles. This state is thrilling, and I think this is the most ideal way of collaboration and survival.

You should form a lean team with highly trustworthy partners to jointly tackle extremely challenging and hard-core problems. Deep down, you are born for this kind of battle, and you genuinely crave this experience. So when I'm promoting talents and inviting them to join a company, this is the core logic I convey. I will tell them: "Hey, this is the place you really should come. You can realize your self-worth here, and you can experience the greatest joy of creation here."

One secret I use in recruitment is — set the talent