Mastering the Art of Negotiation - Reverse Interview By Christine M. Keller, Ph.D.

Hello, my friend, and welcome to another exciting episode of Negotiate Anything. Thanks for joining us today. With over 10 million downloads and listeners from more than 180 different countries, it's dedicated listeners just like you who have made Negotiate Anything the number one negotiation.

Podcast in the world.

I'm your host, Kwame Christian. I'm a business lawyer, mediator, author, and the proud CEO of the American Negotiation Institute. Now, before we get into today's insightful conversation, I have a golden opportunity for those of you who recognize the power.

Of negotiation in your professional lives.

Have you ever found yourself wishing that you could navigate those high stakes conversations with more confidence? Or perhaps you're looking to empower your team with the art of persuasion and conflict resolution? At the American Negotiation Institute, we've crafted specialized keynotes and workshops tailored for those very needs. We've transformed the negotiation skills of professionals.

Worldwide, and we're eager to do the same for you. We believe the best things in life are on the other side of difficult conversations. And our goal is to help you.

Improve your lives and the lives of those around you, one difficult conversation at a time. Don't let another challenging conversation leave you second guessing. Click the link in the description to discover how we can help you find confidence in conflict, negotiate better deals, and have stronger relationships. Because in the world of business, every conversation counts. And now, without further ado, let's jump into the interview.

Christine, welcome to the podcast.

Thank you, Kwame. It's a pleasure to be with you.

Yes, it's a pleasure to have you, my friend. So how would you get us started? By telling us a little bit about yourself and what you do.

All right, great. Well, I am the Executive director and CEO of the association for Institutional Research, or AIR for short. So what our association does is we offer education training, resources, put together convenings for those who work with data and analysis in higher education. So I suspect that not a lot of people are familiar with institutional research. So our work is really centered around the effective, ethical and equitable use of data and analysis to improve decision making at colleges and universities. And the hope is to improve the experience for students at those universities. So why I'm excited to be with you is you joined us at our annual AIR Forum in May and helped us sort through some. What I think is one of the challenges facing institutional research professionals right now is that we often work at the intersection people and of data. I often say that institutional research, or superpower, is actually data sense making. So when I describe institutional research, you probably think of people who are data Scientists and statisticians, and that's true. But we also have to be the interpreters of data. We also have to make meaning out of data, then explain that to other people. And those other people sometimes are at different levels within the organization. They often aren't familiar with statistics and data. So we say data don't speak for themselves. You have to make meaning from that data, and you have to negotiate with the person who you're trying to explain so you can come to a common understanding. So that's why we were so excited for you to come to our conference and help us with how you negotiate at that intersection. And I think our conference attendees agreed because they asked you over 80 questions during the short time you were with us. So I'm excited to be back and explore some of those questions we didn't get to during the conference.

Yes, I'm excited for this, too, because the Q and A portion of the keynote is my favorite part. And I added the case studies, and we only had, I remember, specifically six minutes to do the Q and A.

I was like, come on, Kwame, come on. Well, we probably don't have that many questions. 80 questions.

Oh, my gosh.

Yes.

But I think that's a great sign, though.

It shows that people were engaged and they're interested in learning more. Because you're right. When it comes to the data, you and your colleagues and the people who are in the institute, the association, they understand the value of the data. They understand what it means. And then the problem is the decision makers often don't. And it's your responsibility to persuade them. And it's really frustrating when you run into a situation where it seems as though facts don't work.

So what do we do in those situations?

So, listeners, this is going to be a fun one because I am giving all of the power and authority to Christine. This is her podcast today. So this is going to be a reverse interview. Christine's going to ask me questions, and we're going to get to a few of those lingering questions from the keynotes. And I'm excited to get into this because these questions were exceptional.

Well, excellent. I will pass that along to our community members. And as you will see as I start to go through these, clearly we're not going to get through 80 questions in our time together. So I tried to pick those that were really focused on some of the power dynamics in that negotiation. Our profession, our members, often lead from the middle. So for you and your listeners, you'll hear that's the theme and thread through all of these questions. So can I jump in and get started?

Yep.

All right. So our first question is, how can I deal with positional power differentials in difficult conversations? What suggestions do you have for those of us who are middle managers as we engage in negotiations with supervisors and leaders?

Yeah, this is a tough one to deal with because the reality is negotiation, persuasion, influence, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. And a lot of times when we give advice on the topic, we are almost situation agnostic. This is how you persuade, period. Persuasion is going to look very different in different circumstances. So we have to be mindful of the power dynamics. And when we were chatting before, I said, it's been a while since we've talked about power dynamics within an organization as it relates to leading and managing and persuading within an organization. And the last person that we had to talk about this was actually Dave Stahoviak. So that's really coincidental title, because listeners, that's how Christine became familiar with my work, from Dave's podcast. So I remember when I had him on the podcast, I was asking him the same question, and he gave a lot of great advice. And then I said, but what if that doesn't work? What if that doesn't work? And what if that doesn't work? And then he said, well, at some point, you have to realize that you have limited power and the decision is in the hands of somebody else. So the reason why this feels so daunting is because deep down inside, we understand that there is truly a limit to our power, and we have to find out how to influence without authority, while at the same time recognizing that even if we do our best, we collect a lot of data and we present that very, very effectively, they still might not make a good decision, and it's completely out of our control. That's the reality that we're dealing with now. I think it's important to explicitly say that, to say, listen, that doesn't change the fact that our responsibility doesn't change. You're still responsible for carrying the message and having the conversation and recognizing and respecting rank and recognizing that sometimes they might not agree. And I actually think, Christine, that expressing that is really, really powerful. So think about situations where you feel as though your autonomy, your power, your authority has been called into question. Even the best of us will say, okay, listen, I'm going to need to flex on you a little bit, because clearly you're getting out of line. Right?

So what often happens is that we.

Approach this in a way that invites resistance because it's not about the data anymore. It's not about making a good decision. It's about proving to you who's boss in this interaction. So I think leaning into a more deferential stance, considering our rank and position within an organization, is really important. So it might sound something like this. So let's say I'm your direct report and we're having these conversations. And so I'll say, hey, I have this data. This is what the data show. And also I recognize that this is completely your decision. My goal here is to give you the information that you need to make an informed decision. And I have my perspective, and at the same time, I recognize that you have the authority to make the decision. So I'm looking forward to having this conversation to see what direction we choose to go moving forward and just taking that moment and acknowledging the power dynamics in the room. It helps them to feel respected and makes them feel like, hey, I don't need to push back as hard because this person sees that. And when you think about it in the context of the compassionate curiosity framework, where we have acknowledge and validate emotions, get curious with compassion, and doing problem solving, we're still using the same framework, but we're using a more deferential tone. So how did we start this off? I acknowledged and validated their desire for respect, the pride they have in their position and the authority that they have. That's going to be an emotional barrier if I don't acknowledge that explicitly. Because if they don't feel like I recognize that power, then they might feel obligated to use that power to show who's really in control. So I think a big part of this is being a bit more deferential to avoid that, but then seeking advice. So a lot of times we use the same framework, but think about it in terms of advice. So they might be moving in a different direction or suggesting that we move in a different direction that you disagree with. And then you could say, hey, Christine, you think we should do this for this reason and that reason and perhaps this reason. Am I understanding your perspective correctly? So I'm going to pause, I'm going to show that I've been listening and empathize with them, but prove it to them by summarizing it so they feel heard. Okay, great. That makes a lot of sense. And that's actually something I considered. The problem is insert challenge. Considering this challenge, based on the research that we've done now, what do you think we should do? So again, I'm still approaching this from the perspective of you're the boss, you have the control, you have the decision making power. Power. But what I'm going to do is I'm going to provide you with data to help you to recognize what the situation really is so you can make a better decision.

I think that makes a lot of sense and I think that's at least for those of us who are part of our association. This would be especially important because often the data may show something that's a surprise or as counterintuitive, or dispels a myth or some deeply held belief. So I think approaching it that way, some data is pretty common. Graduation rate may not be a surprise, but sometimes it does open up conversations about particular approach that may not be working and that could really affect the power dynamic. I also wonder if this type of conversation might not be just one conversation, it might be broken up across time. Is that something you would recommend to get people acclimated to this surprise in the information you're presenting and perhaps stop a conversation and then come back? Is that part of another tactic that someone could use?

Hello, my friends. Before we get back to today's episode.

I want to ask you a question.

Have you ever wondered how to elevate your team's negotiation game and how you.

Can help the folks on your team.

Have better, difficult conversations? At the American Negotiation Institute, we offer transformative keynotes and workshops tailored to empower professionals with top tier negotiation and conflict resolution skills. Whether it's a keynote for your next event or hands on training for your team, we've got you covered. Don't just negotiate. Master the art with the American Negotiation Institute.

Click the link in the description to find out more.

Elevate, negotiate and succeed.

And I think we can blend these two things too because recognizing that it's a surprise, I think it's important to say that it's a surprise. Because sometimes as leaders, we think about them as having all of this power and they have everything that they want. But a lot of leaders are profoundly insecure and sometimes they are not comfortable admitting when they are either wrong or they didn't see something coming. They feel like it's an indictment of their intelligence or leadership ability. So leading in by saying, hey, I was actually very surprised at what we found might help the other person, the leader, feel a little bit more comfortable being vulnerable and saying, yeah, I didn't see that coming to either. Right. And so then you could have a more open conversation, but to your specific question, breaking it up into smaller conversations, I think that's Very wise. Especially if we're asking somebody to change their perspective significantly. The greater the change, the more time it will take to persuade in most circumstances. Because think about it, how long did it take for the person to formulate this position? Maybe it's based on their worldview that they've carried their entire life. Decades. Right. So then we're saying to ourselves, all right, Great. I've got 13 minutes in this conversation. I'm going to undo 40 years of thinking in a specific way. It's unrealistic. So I think bringing up the concept of persuasive weight would be valuable here. So just imagine we're helping somebody move. There are things all over the house. We are not going to say, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to take every single box in one trip to this moving bed.

It's literally impossible.

But we try to do the same thing in our conversations. No, I'm going to go box by box and move incrementally. So if I look down the road and I see six months down the road, we might need to make a substantial change in this university. Great. I'm going to start this process right now. I'm going to break this up into smaller conversations and disperse that weight of persuasion across multiple interactions. And then it makes it a lot easier for the person to adjust over time.

So that leads to the next question, I think is, how do you start a negotiation or really initiate one? Let's just stay with this scenario. The data is a surprise. It's probably going to undo a deeply held belief. What's the best way to enter into that type of conversation? Do you start with saying, this may take multiple conversations? How much do you show your cards when you approach something like this?

I like to be as transparent as possible because that often catches people off guard. And it's really endearing, too, because when I'm transparent and I'm vulnerable, I'm doing that in a way that I'm not exposing myself inappropriately to liability or problems or things like that. I'm going to be calculated with it, but at the same time, I'm letting the other person know that it's okay to share information, even if it might not be in my interest in the moment. And I think that's actually more beneficial because if I'm saying things that somebody in my position typically wouldn't say, that is a way to build trust more rapidly because they say, oh, okay, I can trust this person to show their cards. So I don't feel like I need to hide my own. And then when it comes to starting the conversation, easiest way to do it is using this framework where it's situation, impact, invitation. So I'm going to describe the situation using what I call naked fact. So these are facts that are stripped of all interpretation, judgment and opinion. Then we move on to the impact. I'm going to talk about the impact. I'm going to personalize it as much as possible. But if it is more general, if we're talking about data as it relates to the decisions that we're making, I'm going to focus on the data. Main thing is that I don't want this to be controversial or something that somebody could resist at this point. And then I'm going to invite them to have the conversation. So, for instance, the situation. I'm going to say, hey, the other day I was doing an analysis and I found something interesting. That's the situation. Impact. In my opinion, I think this is something that could have an impact on the university. So, invitation. I'd like to have a conversation with you to see what we can do to address this and get your thought. And that's it. And let's give an example of how not to do it. Situation. We are in dire straits. Okay, Opinions. All right. Impact. This is an existential threat to our institution. Okay. There's a lot of opinion in that, too. So we're creating this dynamic where people could contend the way that we're describing the situation before we even get into the conversation. So this framework gives us a really smooth way to enter the conversation. And then I'll just tell them again with that transparency, because I have that long view in mind. And I'll say, listen, as of right now, I'm not exactly sure what this means for the university. That's why I want to have this conversation with you. Now. I don't think there's any decision that we need to make today, but I think it's going to be good for us to start discussing this so we're more informed in the future when we do have to talk about that later.

Well, that makes sense to me. My next question is, someone asked I need to do damage control. So they didn't enter gently into the conversation as you just recommended. They had recent negotiations that didn't go well, and now the other party is more entrenched in whatever their previous position is. How do you reopen the issue in a way so the other person can hear what you're having to say?

This is perfect timing, Christine, because as a Husband, I'm not perfect.

Imagine that, right?

And I have to do some damage control this weekend.

I am fresh on this. Really, what it comes down to is acknowledging your contribution to the situation. For us to be great conversationalists, and especially as it relates to conflict resolution, we have to understand the distinction between blame and contribution. Because a lot of times when we think about it through the lens of blaming somebody else, it's who deserves the blame. It's 100% and 0%, and then nobody wants to own that. But if you think about it in terms of contribution, it's easier for people to own that and say, this is what I contributed, objectively, this is what happened, and I could have done better this time. And it makes it easier for the other person to say their contribution, too, because it doesn't seem like an indictment of who they are as a person. So in those situations when you have to do some damage control, one of the most powerful things we can do going back to transparency, is state the obvious. So let's say it's us having this conversation, and I'll say you. Situation, impact, invitation. Hey, last week we had a conversation, and I personally don't feel good about the way that I handled myself in this conversation. So I'd love to see if you'd be open to having a conversation to see what we can do to get back on track. Simple entry, right? There's nothing that they're going to contest about that. We had a conversation. Okay. You don't feel good about it. They can't contest that. Right. And in the conversation, I'll say, I'll just go ahead and start off by saying, hey, listen, I've been thinking about the interaction that we had a lot, and this is what I did, and this is why I believe it had a negative impact on you. And I apologize for that. And I want to find a way for us to move forward. And it's interesting is that when you say the things that they want to say about you yourself, it kind of deflates them. This is just kind of like a hey, Kwame and Whitney show. Real quick. There was another time where we missed a flight completely. My fault.

100% my fault. Christine, we're at the gate, and we were watching Netflix, and Whitney said, hey, is our flight boarding? I was like, no, we're good.

But it was boarding. It was.

The flight was gone. We were sitting right there. And Whitney said, yeah, Kwame, hey, you remember that time where the flight was boarding? And I said, we should go? And you said, no, let's finish this show.

I looked at her, I was like, yeah, and I was wrong wit.

And she's like, you're not supposed to agree. I wanted to attack you more. So when we go ahead and acknowledge.

Those things, it really does wonders for making the conversation go a lot smoother. Because a lot of times people are going in there with the mode of I need to defend myself while at the same time attacking the other person. And then it breaks that pattern. They say, wow, I don't need to defend myself because I'm not being attacked. And I don't need to attack them because they already addressed the core issues. And I think a lot of times our strategy, unfortunately, because of our fear of engaging in conflict, is more like unintentional gaslighting, where I clearly did something wrong and I'm not willing to admit it.

And I know you saw that. I saw it too, but I'm going.

To pretend like it didn't happen. So there's going to be that lingering question within the relationship, hey, Kwame made a mistake. He never owned up to it. I don't feel safe in this relationship because I don't know whether or not he is capable, of course, correcting and not making this mistake in the future. So by addressing that ourselves and kind of controlling the narrative, not in a manipulative sense, but just leading the dance and saying, hey, you are correct on these points because I did this, next time I'm going to do this differently. I'd love to get your perspective and see what we can do to go to move forward. And just approaching it with that level of vulnerability makes it more likely for them to feel safe and open up about their contributions and commit to do better as well.

And I think this type of situation is one of the most difficult, at least for those of us who work with data and analysis, that emotional component to all of this. Because even though we talk about being data sense makers, I know there's part of myself that says, okay, I have the numbers, here are the facts, and you're just ignoring them. So I've brought this information to you, and you're either blaming the statistics or you're blaming the analysis. You're blaming the students, you're blaming the faculty, but you're really not focused in on the university's role in. Let's just say we've got a group of students who are not graduating at the same rate as other students are graduating. So you're blaming everybody else, but you're not really looking at the contribution of the University. So in a situation like that, would you have any specific ways that we could stop blaming everybody else for the outcome and really focus on how we could move forward together to really help resolve the situation?

Definitely. You pointed it out really well, the distinction between blame and contribution. This is a great example of it because they will often lead the dance when it comes to how are we going to describe this situation, how are we characterizing everything? Yeah, I'm blaming this person. It's this person's fault, it's that person's fault. This person's fault. Right. But nevermind, never my fault. Right. So what I would do is I would use the simple improv technique of just saying yes. So yes. Christine, I agree with you that when you think about this situation, it's multifaceted. There are a lot of people involved. So you're right. I think the students have some contribution to this challenge. I think the parents have some contribution and policy has some contribution. The problem is that I cannot control the parents, the policies, or the students. That is outside of our control. And I recognize that there are some things that are within our control. So that's really what I want to focus on in this situation. So a couple of things that we want to point out here. First, the transitional statement we don't want to use, but because that's the great eraser, it erases all of the nice.

Things that you just said.

Right. So yeah, you made a good point. But okay, great. They don't care about anything that you said beforehand. Right. They're taking it as an attack and they're gearing up. They can't even listen because they're ready to respond and defend themselves. So I'm going to say, yes, you are correct, there is contribution with those parties. And I'm going to summarize it so they feel heard and then transition. Now, the problem that people run into a lot of this time is that, like I said, they might use but. But they might instead contend those points. So they'll say, no, we're not going to blame the students, we're not going to blame these people, blah, blah, blah. And now the person feels completely invalidated. Forget that the fact that they might objectively be incorrect. This is not an issue of objective reality. This is an issue of emotional entrenchment. They're stuck in their position for whatever reason. This is an emotional issue more so than anything else. So I'm not going to transition until I feel as though I've addressed that emotional side. And a lot of times when somebody Starts to yell in an interaction. Why are they yelling? They're yelling because they don't feel heard. So I want to avoid a lot of that by making it clear, hey, Christine, I did hear you, and I'm going to prove that I heard you. And I'm not going to invalidate what it is that you're saying, because I might disagree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that it is how you feel and how you're seeing the situation. So in this conversation, I want to be additive. So I'm going to say, yes, you are correct. And there's this other element that you might not be considering. And then also, when we deny what somebody else is saying, they become more fixated on it, too, because in that conversation, okay, we want to blame the students. We want to blame policy. When we want to blame parents, great. We can do that. Doesn't help us in this situation. We get nothing for it. But I'm not going to say that, because then they get fixated on it, and now they're going to change their approach to saying no. Now, my goal is to get Kwame to agree that this is a big deal. So instead I say, hey, this is a big deal, and we don't have control over those things that you identified. So let's focus on this. And so it helps you to steer the conversation into a productive direction without the person feeling like they're being manipulated or controlled.

Well, I think that's good advice, because what I'm hearing you saying is, back to the beginning, this may be multiple conversations, particularly on something that is complicated, is a surprise when everyone's not in agreement what the information and data is telling you. And also, I'm hearing maybe you break it up into components, too. You recognize that they're contributing factors. That doesn't mean it's everything that's happening. So you can get people to see what you're seeing as another one of those contributing factors that may be within your control to change. Is that a fair assessment of what you're saying?

Exactly. Spot on. And I think in my second book, I talked about this story, the Parable of the Elephant. It's such a useful story. You remember this? This is.

Yes.

They have the five blind men and the elephant. And so they bring them into this room and they say, all right, there's an elephant in the room. Literally. I want you to touch the elephant, to describe it. So one person touched the elephant's leg and said, the elephant must be like a big, strong, tall column. Another person touched the tusk and said, an elephant is like a spear. Somebody else touched the ear, somebody else touched the tail. So they started to argue with each other. How in the world do you believe. It's like a column, it's like a fan. I'm touching the ear. It's like a right. And so who's right and who's wrong? All of the people are a little bit right and a little bit wrong. So really, in these conversations, I'm not trying to deny your reality because it's real to you. What I am trying to do is help you to see another part of the elephant that you might not have considered. So I want to pull you to see. Help you to see what I see. But you're not going to be willing to move and see my perspective until it's clear that I have seen your perspective. And a lot of times people would say, like, that's not fair. They're misbehaving, they're behaving badly. Right. Imagine, Cristine, if all parents were saying.

My kid's misbehaving, they shouldn't do that. Doesn't change the fact I still have a responsibility here. So if we look at ourselves as.

Conversational leaders, then it helps us to recognize that it might not be my fault that they're behaving badly or they're taking the conversation in a wrong direction. But if my focus is on the ultimate goal of helping this institution make good decisions, it still is my responsibility to make sure that this conversation goes in the right direction. And I want the folks who are listening to think of themselves as conversational leaders and say, all right. When I see misbehavior in a difficult conversation, this is an opportunity for me to teach them how to negotiate. You don't know how to listen. That's unfortunate. Watch, let me show you. Next 10 minutes, I'm going to listen very well, and then you'll learn how to listen. So once you start to demonstrate those positive behaviors, it makes it more likely for them to reciprocate.

Right. And then the next time you approach them, too, you've already built that level of trust where they'll perhaps listen to you more readily right out of the gate.

So, yeah, And I think about conversations that I've had where somebody's like, oh, this person is so difficult to deal with. And for me, the first time might be difficult to deal with, but since I can handle the conversation and I can treat them with respect, despite the bad behavior that's coming my way, the person softens Their stance to me. So, yeah, the first couple times might be tough, but then we start to get in a rhythm and a pattern of the relationship where they don't feel like they need to grandstand and posture with me, they feel a little bit more comfortable being open and they're not as defensive. So every opportunity we have to have these conversations are an opportunity to make a deposit in the relationship bank account. Every time we start to chip away and improve our relationship with the people that we're having these conversations with, the subsequent conversations become easier. But it takes a lot of investment up front.

Well, we've talked a lot about negotiating, managing, helping the other person with their emotions. But my next question is from someone who wants some tips about handling their own emotions. So the question is, clearly, this is very thoughtful and difficult work. How do you address your own emotions in a situation where you are frustrated when you're having to do all the work? And in a conversation, what tips do you have for someone who's experiencing that frustration?

First of all, you're not alone. It's heavy, right? Heavy is the crown.

But it's something that we have to recognize because our emotional state will have a profound impact on our performance. And if we're off, that's going to impact the way that we show up in these conversations. So we have to do some pre work and then also do work during the conversation. I designed the Compassionate Curiosity framework so it could be utilized for internal negotiations as well. I never get to talk about this keynotes because I never have time.

Here's your opportunity.

Yes, I'm excited. So use the exact same framework. Acknowledge and validate emotions. Get curious with compassion and joint problem solving, but directed towards yourself. So before and during the conversation, I can say, all right, acknowledge and validate emotions. What am I feeling? What are the emotions? I'm going to label that. So, like you said, I'm frustrated. What else? Don't just stop at one layer. Go a little bit deeper. Because often it's multiple emotions. I'm frustrated. What else are you feeling? I'm feeling disrespected. Okay. Anything else? No, I'm not feeling anything else. Okay, let's move on. So what is making you feel frustrated and disrespected? Well, the data are clear here, and I have not been able to break through. They're denying the science, they're denying the analysis, and it's disrespectful because they're just sitting here in their ivory tower behind this desk, not looking at a single digit. And I'M crunching all of these numbers and doing all this work. This is my job. And you're going to look at this analysis and just say, no, what's that? So we just go through this ourselves and then we say, all right, last step, joint problem solving. Reconciling the differences between our hearts and our minds. So what would satisfy me emotionally and what would satisfy me substantively? So in your mind you might say, well, I have this scolding hot cup of coffee, so I'm going to throw it in the face. That might satisfy you emotionally, but it.

Is not the right substantive decision to make. Right. So let's see, what else?

Well, I would feel more satisfied if I said something because I have a job to do and I don't feel like I could respect myself if I don't advocate for what I believe is right in this conversation. So I should say something. So you go through this process and it gives you a little bit more clarity and it helps to lower your emotional level to a point where you're a little bit more stable so you can perform at a higher level. And as you start to do this more, you're going to start to get a little bit faster at doing the calculation. When you hear me articulated this way, it's like, well, Kwame, that took like 13 minutes. How am I going to do that.

In the middle of a conversation?

But really, for me, one of the tricks that I use is I always have a notepad and I say, hey, you've given me a lot of information. You mind if I take some notes real quick? Nobody's going to say no, that would be absurd. No, you can't take notes. I don't want you to document. That's ridiculous. Right? So people will give you 15, 20 seconds to just take notes in silence and little fun fact, Cristine. A lot of times I am just scribbling. I turn this into a little meditation. I'm controlling my breathing, I'm going through it. What am I feeling? Okay, I'm feeling frustrated. Okay, great. Blah, blah, blah. And I go through this process. Takes about 13 seconds, something like that. And then I come back to the conversation with an open ended question prepared so I can steer the conversation in a more productive direction. So that is a really simple way that you can gather yourself and lower the emotional temperature in the room for yourself so you could perform at a higher level level as well.

Oh, that's really interesting because when we started I was thinking about what we could do, what others could do. Entering into the conversation but what you just said is not just that. Also, you can actually take carve out just a little bit of time and space during the conversation to turn down your own emotional temperature a little bit. I'm going to use that. That's where I need to turn down the dial. Sometimes it's in the middle of the conversation, not before.

Bingo.

Yeah, that is really helpful. So I actually have one last question on my list for you, and this one is, is it disingenuous or insincere to try to connect with people for the purpose of persuading and getting what you want in the end? So is everything you described really, is it sincere or is it some form of manipulation? I remember that from the keynote someone asked you difference between negotiation and manipulation. So if you want to expand a little bit more on that, I think that's something that came up a couple of times, at least for our audience.

Oh, yeah, this comes up a lot. And it all comes down to intent. Right. Because if we think about a knife, is a knife evil? No. But the way that we use the tool could be evil or it could help me to eat. Right, right, right. When you think about the tools of persuasion, influence and negotiation, it will play upon the same psychological mechanisms that when in the wrong hands, could turn into manipulation. So it all comes down to your intent. And I think even if you have a very clear outcome in mind, I don't think that becomes manipulative either. Because I'm not saying to somebody that I don't like, oh my gosh, I love you so much. This is so amazing. You're so great. Okay, now that's manipulative because it's flagrantly not true. Right. But I do think we should think about it in terms of a relationship and asking ourselves what type of relationship we want to have and need to have in order to achieve the outcomes that we want. And if you don't think about it through the lens of relationship, then the person just becomes a tool for the outcomes that we want, and that becomes a little bit icky. But when you just think about the fact that in order to be effective, I do genuinely need to create some kind of connection, I would benefit from creating rapport. And if I can enjoy myself in the process and make the other person feel good in the process, then that's great. But when it comes to manipulation and the intent, if you focus on the outcome but also the consequences for the other person, that's where it becomes a little bit clearer the line. Because if I'm trying To get you to make a decision that is bad for you, then that could be manipulative. And I think different people will draw the line differently. But the way that I think about it is that I always want my family, my friends, to be proud of me. And so I say to myself, if I have this invisible audience of my mother, my father, my wife, my kids looking at me, would they be proud of the way I handled myself? Would they have said, you know, that thing that you didn't tell them, you really should have told them. That is my line. Because I want to be able to sleep at night, and no outcome is worth that.

Well, I think it's not that different from what I said early on about how our association, our profession, wants to use data. I used three words. I used effective, ethical, and equitable. Data is not good or bad, necessarily, but the way you use the data and analysis, I think for our audience, for our members, I would say you approach negotiation and persuasion the same way you approach the use of data and analysis, and you're probably in a good space. Plus, I love the idea of an invisible audience, especially of my mother. That will keep me on the straight narrow, without a doubt.

Yeah, that's been very helpful for me.

Well, Kwame, that was all the questions I had. I guess I could borrow a technique from Dave Stohoviak and other interviewers. I've heard this as, what question haven't I asked that you would like to answer? What else would you like to ask?

That's a good question. I might need to start adding that to my repertoire here.

I will say it's more of a comment.

It's nice to talk to somebody who uses the plural use of data. You know.

I'm going to be honest. Part of my conversational code switching is I realize most people use it as singular, so I don't. So I'm like, no, Christine knows. Okay, so I'm going to be.

I would be kicked out of the association if I use the singular.

That is great. No, this is amazing.

I am an advocate for the association of Institutional Research, starting a podcast with host Christine Keller. You were really great. I appreciate you coming on the pod. This is a lot of fun.

It was. It was a great continuation of what we started at the keynote, and it's always a pleasure to have a conversation with you, Kwame. Thank you.

Likewise.

Congratulations. You've just joined an elite club by listening to a full episode. You're now officially on the Negotiate Anything team. So welcome aboard. What most team members do is they subscribe to the podcast because that allows them to automatically get the latest episodes of the show. The best things in life lie on the other side of difficult conversations. Keep learning, keep practicing, and keep getting better. Your relationships will improve, your career will soar, and you'll have the confidence you need to get the most out of these crucial conversations. Again, thank you for joining the team. We're excited to have you, and I will see you in the next episode. I'll catch you later.