395. Mastering Negotiation: Strategies for Success with Kwame Christian

Welcome to episode 395 of the Brainy Business Understanding the Psychology of why People Buy in today's episode, I'm excited to have Kwame Christian, host of Negotiate Anything.

Back on the show.

Ready? Let's get started. You are listening to the Brainy Business.

Podcast where we dig into the psychology of why people buy and help you incorporate behavioral economics into your business, making it more brain friendly.

Now here's your host, Melina Palmer.

Hello. Hello everyone.

My name is Melina Palmer and I want to welcome you to the Brainy Business Podcast. In today's conversation, I'm joined by my dear friend Kwame Christian. Kwame is an attorney, best selling author and host of the fantastic podcast Negotiate Anything, the number one negotiation podcast in the world. This episode, I believe, makes it so Kwame officially has the most appearances on the Brainy Business and it will wasn't intended to be an episode, at least not here.

But I could tell in our conversation.

It was way too good not to share. So here's the backstory. Kwame has been kind enough to do a guest lecture for my class on internal communication and change management. Details on that in the show notes if you want to learn more about the virtual courses I teach and each new cohort of the class, we do a Q and A with the students where they all submit questions for Kwame, which I curate into a flow and ask in a reverse interview that he can use as an episode of Negotiate Anything. My students always bring good questions, of course, but this cohort did an amazing job of asking things that I've never asked Kwame before in all the years we've known each other and many interviews. And the answers were so stellar and it was such an enlightening conversation. I knew before we were even done that it had to be an episode here on the Brainy Business as well. So we have a bit of a double reverse here. The conversation we're going to ju into is Kwame as the host introducing me as a guest interviewer on Negotiate Anything. It's a fun little twist on the discussion. Really quickly before we get into the conversation, I want to be sure you know there are links in the show notes for everything, including my top related past episodes and books and more. It's all within the app you're listening to@the brainybusiness.com395 now let's jump right into this Inception style episode with me introducing Kwame to introduce me.

Here we go.

Melina, thanks for joining us again my friend.

Of course. Anytime. All the Time. I'm always here for you. You know that.

I appreciate it. So for the listeners who may have missed your several previous episodes, tell them about yourself and what you do for sure.

So my name is Melina Palmer. I work in applied behavioral economics, essentially understanding the psychology of why people buy, you know, so why customers buy and employees buy in on ideas. And I think a lot of the buy in stuff is what we talk about here. You know, negotiate anything, thinking about how people interact with one another and how our brains really work.

Absolutely. And my humble friend, make sure you let them know about the podcast and the multiple books and the speaking everything.

Oh, well, thank you for that. Yeah. So I do have a podcast that is called the Brainy Business and we have hundreds of episodes much like, but nowhere near what we see on Negotiate Anything where we talk about all of these aspects of the brain and how people really do things instead of what we think they should do. I have three books, what your Customer Wants and Can't Tell youl what your Employees need and Can't Tell you and the newly released Truth about Pricing with the greatest forward that anyone has ever written from my dear friend Kwame Christian that is out there in the world. And I also do teach, in addition to, you know, consulting and speaking, I teach applied behavioral economics through the Consumer Behavior Lab or the Human Behavior Lab at Texas A and M University. And that is part of why I'm here today asking some questions from my students of Kwame.

Yes. So this is going to be a reverse interview. So Molina is going to be interviewing me, asking all of the questions from her students. This is always a lot of fun. So how would you get us started with some. What's the hardest question you got, Molina?

Ooh, wow. So with the backstory here is I'm teaching a class on internal communication and change management, of which that second book, what your employees need and can't tell you is a big focus for the class. And we also have some guest lecturers like Kwame, who talks about his compassionate Curiosity framework. And then the students all watched your talk about that and then are following up with some questions. I'm sure that the bulk of your listeners are aware of what your compassionate curiosity framework is, but is it good to do a little summary before we jump into questions?

Yeah. Let's do a quick recap. So it's a three part framework for having difficult conversations. So step one is acknowledge and validate the emotions. We're going to label the emotions that we see. We're going to recognize that emotions can present a challenge in these conversations. So we want to lower the emotional temperature of the room before proceeding in the conversation. Then we're going to stop and get curious with compassion. So we're going to ask open ended questions with a compassionate tone, Gathering information to create connection, to build rapport and also build a little bit of empathy. Then lastly, we are going to utilize joint problem solving. And so this is just standard win, win negotiation. I call this future focused problem solving. So we're going to ask ourselves, what do we want the relationship to look like going forward? If this is a problem that we're solving, what is the solution going forward? How do we make sure this doesn't happen again? Or if this is a negotiation, what does the deal look like in the future?

Perfect.

Well, might not be the toughest of the questions I've got, but I think kind of starting at the beginning here, in your talk you mentioned that frustrated is a really good kind of a catch all descriptor for times when you can't be more specific about the emotion that you're observing for some, for someone. And so this question is asking, saying, I wonder how he thinks about the trade offs of priming and anchoring by being the first one to offer a descriptor.

Yes. Okay, this is, this is great because we get to get deep into the psychology here. Yay. Right? So when we're talking about priming and anchoring, what we're doing is essentially, I know you could describe this a little bit better, but what we're going to do is essentially start off the conversation or the interaction or whatever we're happening to talk about by kind of setting the tone more or less. And so it sounds like for your student here, the concern is by labeling the emotion and introducing that label, are we then priming them to feel that even if they weren't? Yeah. And so in this situation, we recognize that we're sensing something. We don't know for sure what we're sensing. And so what you want to do is you want to create a hypothesis. Take your best educated guess in this situation. We have to understand the psychology here because yes, priming is legitimate, especially when you think about anchoring in negotiations. We cannot just, we don't only anchor with the, the numbers, we can also anchor with the emotions as well. So that's legit. But if there is a legitimate emotion, what we want to do is we want to trigger some. Well, actually I'll give the term, it's affect labeling. So when you think about talk therapy in psychology, what you're doing is you're going to label the emotion, and that triggers the frontal lobe to take action, not just the amygdala, because if somebody's emotional, the amygdala is firing, and there's an antagonistic relationship between the amygdala and the frontal lobe. So the more emotional you are, the less clearly you're thinking. So I want the other side to be thinking a little bit more clearly. And so by labeling the emotion and giving them an opportunity to express themselves, then that makes it more likely for them to calm down, lowering the emotional temperature of the room. And then we can proceed now to the specific point that your student is mentioning. The reality is that if we do say, hey, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this might be a really frustrating situation for you. If we're incorrect, they will correct us with the appropriate label because maybe they're not sensing anything, maybe they're uncomfortable, maybe they ate something and it's not. Not sitting right. We might be misreading it. It gives us an opportunity to clarify, and it offers us an opportunity to create a connection. So even if we are incorrect in our educated guess, it still creates an opportunity for connection. And it also could create a check for the other side because they might think that they're holding something back, but they're not. And it could give them an opportunity to course correct. So it is a valid question. But then when you think through the potential chall challenges of not addressing the emotionality, that is a future that is a lot more damning and concerning than potentially creating the emotion that doesn't exist.

Right. And I think in that way, you're not like, starting every conversation with being like, hey, are we? Who's frustrated today? What's got you frustrated? Right. Then we're maybe priming on getting people to start feeling like, yeah, what? Why am I frustrated? That did make me mad. Right. Then you can kind of. That, I think, is where priming would likely come in. If we're just using it blank it for anything, you could be setting that stage to kick things off. When you get to a point in the conversation where it's like something's. Something's off. I'm going to use a term here. And you're going to ask about if they feel frustrated. It seems like you're frustrated. They're probably so far gone that frustrated is actually kind of a bit back from the most extreme that they may.

Have to say, theoretically, absolutely, yeah, yeah. And the thing is, again, the. The worst thing that can happen is you're wrong and they correct you. And that sometimes leads to a spike in emotionality, but then they course correct. And I can tell a story about this too. When I was mediating one time, I was having a conversation with a woman who was in a really tough situation. It was just me and her on having this conversation at this time in private. The other side was in a different room. And I realized she was kind of stonewalling me. I needed some information, but she was stonewalling me. And I said, okay, this is an emotional response, most likely. What's a safe guess? Let me go with frustrated. So I said, hey, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this situation is really frustrating to you. And so she paused, and then she glared at me and she said, oh, no, I'm not frustrated. I'm angry. And then I said, I apologize. Can you tell me it makes sense that you're angry in this situation? Tell me about what is making you angry. She said, I'm angry for this reason, this reason, and this reason. And I just validated that. And as I validated that and listened to her, the emotional temperature dropped. And then she was able to share a little bit more openly. So again, don't be afraid of being wrong, because people will correct you and you're still on the same path that you're still utilizing the same technique. You just apologize and use the correct label and then proceed with the framework.

Mm.

Mm.

Perfect. Okay, I'm gonna moving. So some people sent multiple questions for you, which is very exciting, and we'll make sure we balance our time properly. I really like this question. It's one like you said, we've talked a lot and I've never asked you this and saying. So it says, be great to hear from Kwame on whether there are people who he believes do an excellent job at demonstrating each part of the framework. For example, you might say Oprah's approach to start off interviews is a great way to acknowledge and validate emotions. I'm just looking for additional examples so that my mirror neurons can get to work when, if ever. And then this is like follow up when, if ever. Does it make sense to have a co negotiator like a relationship builder and a prop problem solver could partner to a goal for a client? Does a good cop, bad cop work? So kind of two questions, but I thought those were both really interesting and ones I haven't asked you before.

Yeah, no, this is. This is great. And I'm thinking about for the ACKNOWLEDGMENT the thing the people that are coming to mind, honestly, for the good examples of the framework would be podcast hosts, honestly, you know, because our job is to ask great questions. And so the thing is, for example, if somebody were to listen to your show, you know the answers to the questions that you're asking, right? Because if you're asking a question about behavioral economics, you know the answer. Right. But you can still ask it in a way that triggers genuine curiosity and invites the other person to share without biasing them in a specific way. And so what I started to do to improve my ability to not only be a good interviewer, but also a great negotiator with asking great questions is I would listen to interviews, but I would pay more attention to the person asking the questions, and I would evaluate the quality of the questions that they ask. So you would be actually my example of somebody who asks great questions, because you do that every day when it comes to your podcast, too.

Well, thank you. Well, I appreciate that. And yeah, it is interesting, too, to see when you look at, I think with that advice for somebody looking at an interview that went wrong, maybe even. And you can say, how did they ask? Like, how did we get here, right, where we can go back and kind of see what happened? Or someone who's really good at getting more out of a guest than other people have. You know, you can watch those strong, strong interviewers. Do you have any that come to mind as some, like, if we're thinking about like a TV interview or something you're going to go get on YouTube.

The old school, maybe, you know, somebody who has been complimented a lot. And I, when I started to pay attention to it, I realized, oh, he is very good. I don't know his name, but he's the guy who does the. The hot ones interviews with celebrities.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a fun. I like that show.

Yeah, yeah, it's really good. So for those of you who don't know, he. He has these really, really spicy chicken. Chicken wing sauces and he brings on random celebrities to talk about it while they are dying. Eating battery acid on chicken. Yeah, it's them literally melting.

It's so interesting. I've seen him talk about the premise of the show too. When you think about the way part of it is because when you lose, you lose a lot of that veneer of typical interviews. When you are. There's a psychological shift that happens when we're totally overwhelmed with the spice and you're thinking about this and then people answer Questions differently. The other thing I know about him is he does really, really, really, really a lot of prep. A lot of prep. And that's like where his guests say, I feel like I want to say his name is Sean, but I don't know that that's right. But he does so much prep that people are like, oh my gosh, I can't believe you even asked about that. Like that knowing things that aren't just the top level question helps people, I think, to feel seen and like you care enough like you're investing and then they want to get back to reciprocity is here.

Absolutely. Yeah. He does incredible research so he can ask questions on topics because he knows those topics. And other people might not even know that that is something that you could ask about, like a nickname from high school. And people are like, how did you find that out? That's, that's wild. And seeing their responses to the question a lot of times is, is really is charming. Right? It's very endearing. Another example of somebody who takes a different approach is Larry King, who has, of course, since passed away. But his rule was he never did any research on anybody. And for him, it helped him to stay genuinely curious. So he was extremely, essentially advocating for the audience rather than advocating for his own unique interests. So you can, you can get to the same place using different tools or techniques, but really it comes down to genuine curiosity. And you can still be genuinely curious even if you believe you know the answer to the question because you don't know the way that they are going to answer the question.

Definitely. Any thoughts on that? If there's ever value in having a co negotiator.

Oh, 100%. So one time I was working with a procurement team. So It's a Fortune 500 company. They're talking about multimillion dollar contracts. And there was somebody who said, I'm very confident in my negotiation skills. But this one person, this one person on the other side, I don't know what it is about him, but we have never got along. And I have great relationships with everybody else, but the friction between us is just so intense. And it's been years. It's always been like, I've tried different things and what should I do? And I said, all right, so correct me if I'm wrong, but in this situation, you're negotiating as a team, so you're the lead negotiator. There are multiple people on the team, right? And he said, yes. And I said, well, here we have some options. We can talk about how we can rebuild relationships after they've kind of gone awry. We can do that. But we have to also recognize that sometimes it's. It's just a connection issue. It's a matchup issue. For whatever reason, you two don't vibe. And if the goal is for you to get the best deal possible and you don't have the leverage in this situation, then if we think about this using a sports analogy, it might be time for a substitution. Because in mediation, we would talk about a concept called reactive devaluation. And I like to think of it as the. Just because you said it, I don't believe in bias. So in mediation, a lot of times there might be a viable proposal, but it is more likely to be received if the mediator sends over that proposal rather than the negotiator on the other side. And sometimes you have to recognize that the most persuasive thing you can do is put somebody else in for you to advocate for you and carry that message. And so sometimes if the relationship is too far gone, it might be beneficial to do that. And that's in the negotiation context. If it's a conflict resolution situation, again, sometimes the relationship might be so fractured that it makes it more difficult than it needs to be to resolve that conflict. You might be able to get to a more fair and expedient outcome if you bring in a third party. It doesn't always need to be a mediator in a legal sense. It could be somebody within an organization that both of you trust. But just having another person in there that doesn't carry that same level of emotional baggage can be really beneficial. And I think that's a negotiation strategy that, that people are really hesitant to utilize because it's. It. They're afraid it reflects poorly on them. And it requires a lot of humility and self confidence to be able to say, you know what? I'm not the person in this particular situation doesn't mean I'm not the person, period. But in this conversation, I might need a little bit of help, for sure.

That's where, you know, having that awareness, the thoughtfulness of, like, what's the most important thing? And often it's not that I win the thing with you and I'm the one to present it and to get you to say yes, it is very likely that we need to move forward with it. And I might not be the best person to get that through. And it doesn't say anything about me. It's just in this moment, you know, what might make this happen. So that Bigger picture perspective. I love how you talked about that, so thank you. Okay, I'm gonna jump to. I'm trying to get things we haven't ever really talked about. I thought this was interesting. So it says, you know, I'm reading the text from the module and also have watched various interviews with Kwame in the media, and I'm curious about the moments when negotiation skills are most useful for Kwame in the process of developing his personal brand and achieving success as a negotiation teacher slash expert and a thought leader.

Oh, that's a great question. That is something that you haven't.

I know. This is so fun. Thanks, class. Y' all are awesome.

No, this is great. I, I, I realized something, Molina. It was last year that I realized this. I was thinking to myself, when it comes to the media type of deals that we've been able to strike, I feel like we've been punching above our weight. And I'm like, why is. Maybe I'm. Am I just getting lucky with these types of things? And then I, you know, sometimes the most obvious thing is the hardest thing to, to appreciate. I realize, oh, the reason I'm getting better deals than I should is because I'm negotiating these deals. Right? The. We've had two network deals. We're on. We had. We're on Acast, and that was at a time where we still relatively small, but I believe they had PBS NewsHour and the BBC on. On Acast. It's a network out of Sweden. They're big. And then we're able to parlay that to the relationship with the LinkedIn podcast network. And so, again, that was massive for us. And so that was a really unique deal because it wasn't just the money coming from being on the network, from monetizing and listening to those ads. Don't skip those ads, people. We can see when you're doing it. That's how we get paid. We love an ad that was part of it. But with that deal, we were able to also get a content manager. So every week, I'm meeting with somebody teaching me about the LinkedIn algorithm. We're able to understand different strategies. We're able to collaborate and to have these opportunities to be on the CEO of LinkedIn's podcast and these type of unique opportunities. Same with Forbes. Right? It was the negotiations from the relationships that I created, negotiating my way through the company and then landing the deal. Now we write for Forbes, same with Audible. And so really, when it comes down to these opportunities that we've gotten over the course of the years, our ability to negotiate and advocate for ourselves where really was the quintessential element to our success. Because we wouldn't be able to have these opportunities if we weren't negotiating for them. And I've been able to have a lot more confidence in shooting these shots because I know that if I can at least get in the conversation, I can communicate the value in a way that's mutually beneficial. And even though it might not seem obvious to the person on the other side where the opportunity is, I can use these negotiation skills to find that opportunity and close deals. So I don't think we would be where we are today if we weren't the really good at what we did.

Yeah. Well, I think that really ties in actually to the next question here, which is asking says love to ask Kwame whether or not he has had experience with or can see how this framework could be applied in a sales conversation or even in marketing, which it could just be like, see above.

I know it's funny because the you I'm surprised you didn't mention anything about the fact that I am very red today.

You are right.

So for people who are on the listening on the podcast Red Turtleneck, and then I changed my LED background to red. And yes, I am a Buckeye. But that's not the reason is because we closed Coca Cola. So they're a client. And so, yeah, it's their sales team that's going to be our clients. So the answer is yes, we work with sales teams. But I think it's really important to. To understand how negotiation fits into sales. And I'm really clear with this about this with the clients because you need to have a sales expert to understand that sales is a process. Sales is a process. It's a discipline. So there's a methodology to having this. But within the conversations, the sales conversations, you sprinkle in the negotiation techniques. So you're negotiating within the sales process. So that's where those the skills are complimentary but also distinct. And so when it comes to the end of the process, you might have gone through the process of doing a great job of generating interest. Now, toward the end of the process, this is where the negotiation really comes into play. Because now we're talking about not whether or not you want it through the sales process, we know that you want what I have to offer. Now we're negotiating to figure out what are the details of the deal that actually get us across the finish line. That's where the negotiation comes into play. And so when you're able to not only know how to negotiate, but also know how the negotiation fits in within a really robust sales process. It's that synergy of those two skill sets that leads to the best deals.

Well, and this brings us back kind of full circle to the person who asked the first question I asked, had also asked, you know, in a negotiation, you can choose to make the first offer or wait to hear the first offer. And that strategy used varies depending on the counterpart, the data asymmetry, among other factors. Do you ever prefer not to offer? Well, this is a descriptor for emotion. So what do you think about offering first versus waiting when it comes to negotiation? And we can apply it to sales if it makes sense, but there is a bit of that, like, game of chicken kind of that comes in there. What are your thoughts on that?

Yeah. So first, let's just do a brief primer on anchoring, my favorite negotiation technique. And I've done an episode, just a solo episode, and I believe I came on YouTube.

I was gonna say you've been.

Well, well, yeah, episode, like an hour, just talking about the psychology behind it. It's so powerful. So just very briefly, essentially, anchoring within a negotiation is starting off the negotiation with the most aggressive request that you can reasonably justify. So you want to be able to substantiate what you're asking for with legitimate and objective criteria. So legitimate, it comes from a source that is respected and then objective. It is not biased in my favor, most likely coming from a third party. Now, the benefit is psychologically, if you're able to set a good anchor, it makes it more likely for the deal to settle closer to that anchor. And numerous studies have demonstrated the validity of this. And the thing is, even the beautiful thing about anchoring is that even if you're asked specifically if the anchor was effective, you don't understand how effective it was. Right. So I'll give an example. So they did a study with real estate agents, and I'm just going to come up with arbitrary numbers because I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head. So let's say they have these experienced real estate agents come and look at a house. It's the same house, but in the different experimental conditions. What they did is they said, this house is worth the list price was 500,000 versus 550,000 versus 600,000. And so then after they. The realtors went in and evaluated the house, they said, okay, what do you think the true market value is of this house, considering the comps and everything? Like that. And not surprisingly, the group that was primed with that anchor of 500 was lower than 550, 550 was lower than 600. Then after the fact, if you ask them, hey, did the list price have an effect on you? They said, no, I'm smart. Of course not. Right? So anchoring is really, really powerful. Now, anchoring doesn't work if you have a completely illegitimate anchor. So if you say, hey, this house is worth $7 billion, they'll say, I'll pass, because you clearly have problems, so you have to do it within a reason. So now back to the original question. If I have an opportunity to drop an anchor, I will always drop that anchor. When it comes to who makes the first offer, there is only one consideration, one variable other than, you know, if an industry standard might dictate that it comes from one person, it's information. If I have more information, I'm going to make the first offer. If I believe we have comparable amounts of information, I'm going to make the first offer. But if I recognize that there's an information asymmetry and they have more information, then I'm going to sit back, let them make the first offer, and then gather information and counter. Because every offer comes with information. They have to justify or substantiate why it is that they're asking for what they're asking for. So if I don't have enough information, I treat their offer as information and ask questions to figure out what the interest is behind that position, what problem is it that they're trying to solve with what they offered. And then as I start to gather that information, I utilize that information to then make a competent offer. Because again, again, it comes down to information. Once I have more information now, I can be more confident with the way that I respond.

I think, like, this is the, like, masterclass of the moment of this there. And there's a big piece of what I hear in this too, that like you said, if you have comparable information, so you do want to make the first offer, and I think a lot of people have sort of learned, like, let them go, and then you get to go off of what they said. And I think knowing that if you can put out a first offer that is favorable to you, that you're willing to back off of, like, then there's room there. Whereas I think if people are less comfortable with making offers, deals, negotiating, that it's sort of like what's kind of the least thing I can do to get in here and that maybe we want to Reframe our own mindset as we think about the way we can be putting out the offer. That's something that's reasonable. That again, is a higher anchor maybe than where we're willing to come back from. Is important to know if we think about it as, you know, first offers information like you said, and that expect that there will be discussion to get to the land, the final landing point.

Absolutely. Yeah. And for me too, Molina, because I like to, I still like to be more of a conversational counterpuncher. I prefer to be the person who is speaking less. I like to follow the 70, 30 rule. Getting the other side to speak 70 of the time. I speak 30% of the time. That's the goal. Because again, I like that information. And you're less likely to make a mistake if you're talking less. So that's an added bonus.

Right.

So when I'm, when I make that offer, I'm not starting off the negotiation then going off on this long monologue for why this is the right offer. What I'll do is I'll drop that anchor. My strategy is to drop that anchor and then I go back into compassionate curiosity and I'll just say, hey, this is what I believe. This is what I believe is a fair offer for this deal, whatever it happens to be. We can just go with trainings. I negotiate these trainings all the time. So it's like, hey, based on what it is that you need, this is the proposal. This is how much it costs. And what I want to do is see how that's landing with you. So I go back into curiosity and then I get the other side talking, getting them to voice any concerns they might have or whatnot. But I'm still leading the dance. Dropping the Anchorage.

I love it. All right. I know we're, we're hitting our time here. I'm going to ask you a couple that are the rapid fire response options, because I know these are things that you have potentially like other episodes on and things we can kick over to. So when working to label emotions, your partner's not acknowledging or accepting of their own feelings. Is there a point where you should disengage, take a break, re. Engage like our breaks. Good. And if so, kind of how do you know when and where to take them?

Yeah, breaks are underutilized in negotiations. I like to think about it in terms of micro negotiations. My goal is to get as much value and as much progress as possible in whatever time I have allotted. And so I don't. I want to Be clear, when I say as much value, I don't what I think want you to think that this is just about value extraction. Right. I'm just saying what is the very best outcome I can get in this interaction? Because I'm, I'm thinking that way even if there's not any money on the line. I might be in a problem solving type of relationship building type of situation. It might be a conflict I'm trying to resolve. But the thing is the more change that occurs, the riskier it feels like to the other side regardless of whether or not the change is good. You might be offering somebody something very, very good, but it's a significant deviation from what their, their norm is or the reality is right now that's still a scary thing. So what I want to do is I want to progress as far as possible. Once I recognize that there's a. The momentum is kind of slowing or there might be some resistance, it might be time to just take a break. Just take the time, the time to say hey listen, we've accomplished a lot. We've gone through this. We were here at the beginning and now we're here. And let's continue this conversation later. The reason I frame it that way is because I want to trigger sunk cost fallacy. I want them to appreciate the fact that they just spent like, like 60 minutes with me trying to work through this. This shouldn't be a waste. Let's keep this the good times rolling. You know, I think that's going to be important. And then speaking to the people who don't feel as comfortable accepting their emotional state, just pause and recognize how bizarre it would be is if you try to force an emotional label on somebody. You see mad. No, I'm not. You seem sad. No, I'm not. Right. It's a weird, it's a weird thing. Don't do it. Sometimes people just aren't comfortable. So I'll acknowledge and validate that. So I'll say hey, I might. Based on what you said, it seems like you're a kind of person who wants to just really focus on the facts and keep the conversation rolling. Right. Hey I, I respect that. Let's keep it moving. And so they're used to situations where people don't respect that desire from them. So I'm, I might not be able to acknowledge and validate the specific emotion but I'll, I'll acknowledge and validate something so they can still feel seen and appreciated so I can at least still create a connection. And even if the there's still a little bit of emotionality. If I can diminish it just a little bit, it makes the conversation a lot more productive.

Perfect. That leads into people. Do they feel like the framework's being used on them? And maybe they want to rebel against saying, hey, are you using a system on me? Or something? Any thoughts on.

Oh, yeah. When he says that all the time. And. And I say yes. I remember one time she was really upset and I was doing it and I was holding her and her head was in my chest. And then she's like, wait, are you using compassionate curiosity? And I said, yeah. And then she put her head back on my chest. She's like, I like it. Yeah. And I'm very open with my negotiation strategies on the podcast and the books and everything like that. So if somebody asks, hey, are you using this tactic? I'll say yes. Because if they ask that, they. They're seeing that I'm not going to gaslight them, that diminishes trust. So I'll say yes, and then I'll give a reason. I'll say, because xyz. So here's an example. Are you just using your compassionate curiosity framework on me? Yeah, I am. And I do that with people that I care about. Because your emotions matter. I want to validate that and I want to make sure that we get to a conclusion that works for both of us. So absolutely, I'm using the best technique that I have at my disposal. Right. That's a sign of respect.

Right. I love it. Cultural differences. Do you have an episode or a quick link or anything that we can trigger for.

Yes. So check out the episodes from Mark Davis. Mark Davis talked about cultural intelligence. Yeah, he talked about that a lot. And Angelique Hathaway as well. Both out of Britain. I think when it comes to cultural intelligence, refocusing on what culture is and isn't is very helpful. So I'll just give a quick overview. I like to think about culture in terms of little C culture and Big C culture. So Little C culture, this is just the way that we do things, whoever we happen to be. So within a company, there are different cultures even within that company. Right. So you have different departments who have different cultures. Legal is different from marketing, for example. The. The people who are in a bowling league are different from the people who go to a yoga studio. Right. It's just different cultures even within a community. But then we have big C culture. This is talking about ethnicity, this is talking about geography, nationality, those type of things. So it's important to Understand the nuance. And so the way that I think about it in a very simplistic way is that I want to understand my cultures that I'm bringing to the conversation. I want to respect and understand as much as possible your cultures. But as we negotiate, I want to create our own little micro culture for the way that we do things together. And I think every interaction is a cross cultural communication in some capacity. And a lot of times if we're not connecting, it might just be that you just happen to do things differently. And it's not right or wrong, it's just different. And if we can respect that, we can still try to move forward collaboratively. Collaboratively to a goal that works for both of us.

Wonderful.

Well, thank you so much for asking or answering all these amazing questions for my students and thank you for everyone. What good questions. It was so fun to ask. I love this conversation. So thanks for having us.

Hey, my pleasure. This was fun. Awesome questions like I expected. And yes, everybody make sure to check out Melina's podcast, check out her books and if you're looking for a speaker or consultant on this topic, you know who to go to. Those are great questions.

Students, they did a good job. There was a really, really, really well structured and it's a, it's a smaller class this time. But yeah, I, I like those. Very different than what we've had before, not surface level. So yeah, that's good.

Absolutely.

Thank you again to Kwame Christian for joining me as a guest lecturer in my class and answering student questions and for letting me repurpose the chat here for you on this show today. So what got your brain buzzing in today's conversation? For me, I always love talking to Kwame. He is so fun and kind and generous with his time. It was interesting to hear his insights on how he's had so much success in building his personal brand. The great interviewers he admires, when to use a co negotiator or to just pass the baton for the greater good of the team's goal and and more. Remember, Kwami's framework is called compassionate curiosity. It's about understanding, asking good questions, finding common ground and working together to move forward. I've linked to Kwame's books and podcast and some of the other times he's been on the show in the show notes along with other related episodes and content, ways to connect with Kwame as well as to learn about the certificate program and courses where I teach teach so you can learn from me and maybe even ask Kwame some questions. Yourself next time. It's all waiting for you in the app you're listening to and at the brainy business.com395 and thank you again to Kwame Christian for joining me on the show today. It was a delight to chat with and learn from you. Join me Tuesday for another Brainy episode of the Brainy Business Podcast. It's going to be a lot of fun. You won't want to miss it. Until then, thanks again for listening and learning with me, and remember to be thoughtful.

Thank you for listening to the Brainy Business Podcast. Molina offers virtual strategy sessions, workshops and other services to help businesses be more brain friendly. For more free resources, visit thebrainybusiness.com.