Reverse Interview: Kwame Christian with Dan Webb Howard

Hello, my friends, and welcome to another exciting episode of Negotiate Anything. This show is produced by the American Negotiation Institute and with over 5 million downloads and listeners in over 180 countries, listeners just like you have made this the number one negotiation podcast in the world. Hi, my name is Kwame Christian and I am the founder and CEO of the American Negotiation Institute here at A&I. We believe that the best things in life are on the other side of difficult conversations, and we are passionate about providing you with the best content that will help you to make your difficult conversations easier, both at work and at home. Lastly, I want to remind you that we offer consulting and conduct trainings both virtually and in person all around the world. Our focus is in three main areas. First, negotiation and conflict resolution. Second, leadership. And lastly, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Check the link in the description below to learn more about how we could work with you and your team. And now, without further ado, let's jump into the interview. Dan, thanks for joining us today.

Thanks so much for having me.

Yeah. And we're excited to have you, my friend. So how could you get us started? By telling us a little about yourself and what you do.

Sure. My name is Dan Howard and I'm a professor in the Lundquist College of Business at the University of Oregon. And one of the subjects that I teach here is negotiations. And we. One of the main sources of content, actually for our class is the Negotiate Anything podcast. So I have a lot of students who consider you a superstar and are very excited about this interview.

Well, what's up, students? It is great to be here virtually and I'm excited to hear your questions. So. So listen, there's. This is going to be a bit of a reverse interview. So Dan has questions from his students. He's going to ask me. I'm going to do my best to answer them. This is a fun little change of pace because we did this. When was the first time we did this? Like a couple years ago, One or two years ago.

I think it was pandemic time. Probably early in the pandemic. So I guess a couple of years.

Ago now, let's just jump into it. Dan, so what do you have first?

So a student asks if the other side is belittling you, for example, engaging in name calling during a high stakes negotiation, is it productive to ask about their emotional state?

I would say it depends. So there are different. There are different ways we could do this. First, we have to acknowledge and validate the emotions in the room. This is part of the compassionate curiosity framework. But Sometimes there are some things that go beyond just emotional frustration to the point of disrespect. So let's assume that this question is speaking to that latter. And so I think if somebody is being flagrantly disrespectful and then you ask about their emotional state, it could be more triggering, which could incite more of that emotionality. So, for example, if, Dan, you were having a negotiation, and then you insult me, and I'll say, hey, Dan, are you. I can't even say it with a straight face. Like, what's your emotional state right now? Like, feeling a little crazy today, you know, like these types of things. It doesn't help. I think what we should do is really take a step back and think about what's happening in that person's perspective. And it's one of two situations speaking very broadly. Number one, it's a situation where the person says something out of true anger, frustration, or emotion. And so think about times where we have done that. A lot of times we eventually come to regret the thing that we said in that moment. People. The other situation could be the person is using this as a tactic, a strategy, a tool to create instability on your end, to get you off of your game. Now, how can we tell the difference? This is the critical element. We cannot tell the difference, not with certitude. And that's the thing. A lot of times we approach it as if the person's using a tactic and then they're not. And we accuse them of using a tactic, and then they defend themselves. And now we have an unproductive conversation because we're trying to play the role of mind, of police. I don't know what's inside of your mind at all, nor. Nor do I need to. Playing with intent is really hard to do. And so I think we need to be mindful of that reality. And so for me, I assume I operate under the assumption that every emotion that I see is genuine, because I cannot tell otherwise whether it's. Whether or not it's true or genuine. So. So what I do is I have a strategy that works in both of those situations. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to assume that it's an emotional issue. And if somebody says something with emotionality that. But it's stated as a fact or a conclusion, I address the emotionality but not the fact. So I'm not going to ask them about their emotional state. What I'm going to do is I'm going to tell them what I see But I'm going to use the most respectful potential label for the emotional state. So for example, we're negotiating. You say something offensive, I'll say, hey, Dan, before I continue. It seems like this is something that you feel really strongly about. Is that a fair synopsis? Tell me a little bit more about what's making you feel this way. Or it seems like this is a really frustrating situation. Or it sounds like this is really frustrating. You tell me more about that. Right. And I'm going to give them the opportunity to vent and decompress. And what I find is that a lot of times when I ignore bad behavior and instead try to change their behavior by acknowledging and reinforcing good behavior, that's a better methodology for addressing that situation. Because if I chastise them for performing poorly under emotional distress, a lot of times they respond with shame and then they pull back from the interaction and they're not being. They don't feel psychologically safe in the interaction anymore and they're not giving me the information I need to be an effective negotiator. And so a lot of times I think about times where I've said things that I've instantly regretted or eventually came to regret and I think about how the other person responded and I wish they would have just let it go, like pretend I didn't say that. Right. And that happens from time to time. But I think what we have to do is we have to stay really focused on what our ultimate goal is. And usually responding with emotional reactivity doesn't serve our ultimate goal. So I think in order for us to maintain equanimity under duress, we have to make sure that our goals, our larger long term goals, are bigger in our mind than satisfying our emotional need for catharsis in that moment. Because if we use, if we try to satisfy our emotions by lashing back out, it almost guarantees that the conversation is not going to be effective. So I think we just need to be patient. It doesn't feel good, especially when somebody's being antagonistic. But we have to make sure that we use the right approach to make sure that we're going to get the outcome that we want. And could.

Part of that, just to follow up on the student's question, part of that being setting the boundaries in terms of how you want to be addressed and then moving to the stage of trying to figure out what their point of frustration or anger is.

Absolutely. Because essentially what we're doing is before the negotiation, we're negotiating how we will negotiate. I think this is really powerful. If the person has a track record for this type of behavior, or you can really be reasonably certain that there's going to be a high level of emotionality, we want to include that into the way that we frame the conversation. This is the storyline that we bring to the conversation. It just answers the question, who are you, who am I, and what are we here to do? A lot of times that's a little hidden negotiation that doesn't occur, but needs to, because we have our storylines coming into this conversation. And a lot of times, for example, it could take the arc of a hero, villain. I'm the hero, you're the villain. My goal as the sole arbiter of truth in this interaction is to educate you so you become less repugnant. Right. If you have that approach, that's problematic because people can feel the fact that you're being patronizing and lording moral and intellectual superiority over them, perceived superiority over them, and they'll, you know, respond in kind. And a lot of times, they have the exact same hero, villain framework, but they're the hero, you're the villain. And so instead, before the conversation begins, I want to win that framing game. So I'm going to frame this as positively and collaboratively as possible. So I'll say, hey, Dan, before we start this conversation, I know we've worked together for a long time. You're somebody that I respect, and I'm looking forward to having this conversation with you. So we could work together and figure out the best way forward for us. Then I'll let you respond. I' sure that you absorb the frame. And then I'll say one thing that I've seen in conversations like this is that they can get kind of heated. And so my goal is to make sure that we can keep this conversation being productive. And so I'm going to try my best to make sure that I give you space to talk. I'm not going to interrupt, and I'm going to refer to you respectfully, too, and I hope you're willing to do the same thing. Most people, when you have a frame that that's positive and collaborative, that is that level of positivity, it's hard for them to say no. You know, what are you going to say to that? You know what, Kwame? Actually, I like being disrespectful, so I'm going to just, you know, heap on the insults. Then we're not going to talk, and we're just not going to do that. Right. But I think that's a really simple tool that we could put in place to make sure that the conversation moves a bit more productively.

Yeah, that kind of process oriented framing where you're making someone say, no, I intend to be unreasonable during this negotiation. It's very hard thing for them to do. Right.

Exactly. Exactly.

Great. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to the next one here. So question from a student is in an emotional negotiation, A, how do you recognize when your emotions are overtaking logic? And B, how do you address that?

Does your company invest in professional development training? If you believe that your team would benefit from a negotiation workshop, all you need to do is go to our website, fill out the workshop request form, and then we'll set up a time to chat. These workshops are completely customizable and we've done them all around the country. Negotiation and conflict resolution skills are beneficial across all professions, but they're especially useful in procurement, purchasing, sales, sourcing, and contract management. Our calendar is filling up quickly and we even have some workshops scheduled for next year if you think you might want one. I'd suggest reaching out soon so you don't miss out. Check out the link in the description to learn more and we will be right back after this.

In an emotional negotiation, A, how do you recognize when your emotions are overtaking logic? And B, how do you address that?

Oof. This is a great question. It comes down in large part to self awareness, because here's the thing, there's a difference between facts and feelings, but in the heat of the moment, they can feel the exact same way. And so we need to elevate our level of self awareness to be able to distinguish between our emotions and our rational thoughts. And so one of the things we have to do is we have to ask ourselves, and this is something you should do before, well, before the negotiation, just day to day in life, how do emotions feel to you? Like, how does it register through your body? People carry their emotions in different places in different ways. So is it like a pit in your stomach? Does your chest get tighter? Does your breath get shallow? Do you start to get stiff in your back? Do you start to shy away from the conversation? Like physically pull back those types of things? Sometimes our body will tell us things about our mind, but we're not listening to our body to understand what it's trying to tell us. You know, and so when I get that flare of that like pinch of adrenaline running through my veins when somebody says something, I'm like, kwame, you felt that? Just know you have some thoughts and you have something that you want to say very quickly. I haven't had the chance to think about it, but just know what you're about to say is probably the wrong thing to say. You know, there's a little bit of the metacognition, the thinking about thinking that's happening beneath the surface where you have to be able to recognize that. And to ask yourself to do that under duress is an unrealistic task. Right. And so this is emotion, emotion management and self awareness is an ongoing battle that you have to fight every single day to know yourself in a deeper level and recognize that sometimes now might not be the best time for you to have the conversation or now might not be the best time for you to deliver this element of your message because you're not on firm foundation. And so for me, what I like to do is I slow down, take my time and try to regain emotion, my, my emotional stability by just stay sticking to the principles like the, the compassionate curiosity framework. I'm sure I'm talking, I'll talk about that. So externally focus. So to other people it's acknowledge and validate the emotions, get curious with compassion and joint problem solving. But it's the same framework just flipped internally for a tool of bias reduction, emotion management and better decision making. So I'm going to acknowledge and validate my own emotions, conclusions or beliefs. What am I feeling? What are all of the emotions that I'm feeling? What do I believe to be true? Right now I'm going to label those things, then I'm going to get curious with self directed compassion. So I'm going to ask why do I feel that? How do I know this is true? What evidence led me to this conclusion? And then you start to get a better picture of what is fueling that emotionality or what's leading you to believe what you believe. And a lot of times we can't answer those questions. How do I know this to be true? Why do I think this is right? I don't know. Oh, might be a bias here. Okay. And so we have to get curious with self directed compassion because sometimes we find out things about ourselves in this process that we don't really like. And so we have to recognize everybody's flawed, we'll all make mistakes and it's okay. So but stick to the process because if you just, if you don't have that element of self directed compassion, your internal voice will be too critical and you won't continue the process. And then the last step is getting curious. Sorry. Is joint problem solving. So Reconciling the differences between our hearts and minds. So what satisfies me emotionally in this situation? What satisfies my substantive needs? How does it, how do I actually solve the problem? And you figure out gets some kind of alignment between that emotional need and the substantive need so you actually know what to do or say next. And so for me then in a difficult conversation, if I feel that emotion coming up, I always have a notebook. I'm always taking notes. And so as I'm going through this internal process, I'll just ask for a few seconds to write down some notes. And it's just me stabilizing myself, gathering myself, understanding what I need to do next. And then I'll come back to the conversation when I'm ready after about 10 to 15 seconds to just think and process.

Well, a lot of the negotiators at this stage of my students might think that once you've gone through a thousand business negotiations, you're just going to feel the emotions differently. And what you're saying, it's not so much that it's learning to regulate them. We still have these emotions, we still have these biases. It's practicing self regulation, being honest with yourself, but also forgiving of yourself and just the power in taking the time to let yourself process those emotions. That's great.

Thank you. Yeah, and one last note on that too. One of the frustrating things about writing books is that at some point the process of writing has to end. And then like you still have ideas and you're like, I should have put that in the book. So this is one of those ideas. I call it the spark theory of emotion management. And so I think about the emotions that we feel, kind of like a spark. And so if you take that spark and you take it to a dry field full of brush, now you have a forest fire. But if you're able to recognize the spark and like address that like the moment the spark hits the ground, or maybe even better before it hits the ground and sets everything on fire. Like the sooner you recognize that, the easier it'll be for you to manage your emotions. It's never like easy to manage the emotions, but there are certain things we can do to make it easier. So when it comes to self awareness, it's not just about being aware. If you become aware after the entire forest is on fire, I mean, thanks for letting us know, but it's not as helpful. You know, you might have already told somebody off or said something inappropriate by the time you, you, you gather yourself. So it's not just self awareness, but also training ourselves to become a lot faster with that awareness so we can utilize the skills sooner and it becomes easier to manage.

Let me go off script for a second because this is a question that I think relates as someone who, you know, as in a field like law, as we are, some similar field where you have a lot of stressful negotiations, you're learning to regulate your emotions. But maybe one of, one of the things that means you're not able to fully express them in the negotiation, it kind of builds up, and maybe it builds up that dry forest, right? Do you have any thoughts about how you can productively channel that and not negatively channel that into your personal life if you've kind of had to regulate those emotions during your negotiation day?

Great question. I think what we have to do is when we're going through this process, we have to understand that there needs to be some outlet for these emotions has to come out. Otherwise there's going to be what you call emotional leakage where no matter your best intentions and efforts, it's going to come out in some type of way. You know, I mean, a great example. This is, you know, this is top of mind right now. I'm married, and sometimes I try to hide my emotions from Whitney. Never works. Never works. At some point there's going to be a crack in the facade, right? And so here's one thing that I've done in the past. I'll use a simple example. So if I'm hungry, Dan, I let people know I'm hungry. I give that disclaimer because I can't hide it. Can't hide it very well. And so I say, hey, before I start this conversation, I just want to let you know I'm very hungry right now. Maybe I haven't slept very well. So if you're sensing anything from me, just know it's probably not. It's not you, it's me right now. Let's bring it to the emotionally charged conversation. I'll say, before we get into this conversation, I want you to know that this is something that I care about a lot. And sometimes when I talk about things that I care about, I get a little bit emotional. And I want to let you know beforehand because I don't want you to take this personally. It's not about you, but it's hard for me not to emote when I care so much. And so then what you're doing is you are, you're, you're, you're telling them what they are going to See, but you're giving them the appropriate interpretation. Because our minds are meaning making machines. We can't just see things and say, that's a thing, and move on. We have thoughts about that thing. And so if I see emotionality in somebody else, and maybe there's ambiguity, I'm not exactly sure where it comes from. But the safest assumption is that this emotionality is a threat to me in some kind of sense. And so I'm going to be a little bit fearful of it. And so I might ramp up my level of emotionality in order to protect myself. So for you, taking that prophylactic measure of saying, hey, by the way, I care, you will see emotions. And that is actually a good thing. It's not a bad thing. You're safe. That that simple move really goes a long way.

A lot of power in those disclaimers. I think it's really good advice. I think that sometimes it can be hard to, when you're starting out negotiating in a professional context, to just make that shift between, this is how I negotiated my professional day in the context of these negotiations. My personal negotiations should not be the same. And I don't want to assume the lawyer voice when I go home.

Oh, my goodness, Dan, you know how that is. I worked so hard for this degree, passed the bar, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt just for it to be thrown in my face as an insult. You know, it's like, I worked so hard, and then Whitney's like, you sound like a lawyer. Like, oh, my God, I need to work on my tone.

I always thought that was a compliment.

That's what I thought. I was like, oh, you love being lawyer. That's why you married. Oh, man.

All right, let's see. Moving on here. This is an interesting question student asks. When you represent a client who is clearly in the wrong and acknowledges as much. How can you take accountability and accept blame while not losing bargaining power completely?

Well, plot twist. Sometimes when you sign the contract and they become a client, you don't know they're in the wrong. I don't know if you've been in that situation in the middle. Oh, my gosh, that's the worst. It's like they say something and then the other side provides evidence, and I just look at the others like I'm trying not to stare daggers through my client. Like, why wouldn't you tell me? This is privileged. But anyway, that is highly realistic.

I will say that the one thing that strikes me as less likely here is the. Where the student asks and they Acknowledge that they're in the wrong, that happens less often.

Yep. I don't think that's ever happened to me. I've recognized that they're in the wrong. That acknowledgement. Hey, Kwame, by the way, I'm the bad guy here, so just disclaimer nobody. It never happens. But be that as it may, how do we. How do we do this? So how do we accept responsibility without creating the, like problems down the line? Let's just call it in general problems down the line, because in the legal context, it could be liability, but just in life there are some consequences. Right. And so I think what we have to do is we have to be as honest as possible and we have to own up to it. Because even though when we make a mistake, it's not great. But humans make mistakes. We're all humans. We will all make mistakes. And the problem is, a lot of times our arrogance can lead us to almost feel like it is unacceptable for us to make mistakes. And if we believe that it's unacceptable for us to make mistakes, then it will be unacceptable for us to accept when we make mistakes. So I think there's like a bit of self work that needs to happen in general, but I'm assuming that the student's asking for like a semantic solution. So let's actually talk about how to address this. I want to think about anytime that I've made a mistake as an opportunity. The. Our underlying belief and methodology here where we say conflict is an opportunity, it still applies here. So where's the opportunity? Because the other per. You're not going to. If the. If you know you made a mistake and the other person makes a. Knows you made a mistake, you're not going to wave a magic wand and then say, you know what? Kwame didn't make that mistake. It happened. We know it happened. So we need to have a realistic approach. So we have to own up for it and give the proper apology. So first of all, we just. We accept responsibility and we say I'm sorry that not I'm sorry if. So listen, Dan, I know I did xyz and I want to let you know that I'm sorry that it had that impact on you. And I'm going to make it very clear that I've heard what Dan said. I know that because of my actions or my words, this happened, this happened, this happened, this happened. And this is the real world impact. But also because of the real world impact, it had this emotional impact on you too. People want to know that you know what happened. And the way it made them feel. So you want to really encapsulate that. And then you want to shift as quickly, quickly as possible to the future. Because emotions and hurts, those exist in the past and in the present. We have an opportunity today in this conversation to chart a brand new path for our relationship. And because I have owned up to it in this way, you can actually trust me more. More than somebody who would have had the exact same incentives and chosen to hide this from you. That's why you can trust me more. Now. We have a whole episode on how to regain trust when you lose it. A really, really great episode. And the thing that I've learned a couple of things. First thing is, don't lose trust. It's very hard to get back. That's the first thing. But not all trust violations are created equally. So if I make a mistake because I did not have the information that I needed to do better, that is a violation of trust. Okay, but we can fix that. But if I make a mistake because I don't have the skills, okay, I can accept that too. But then if I make a mistake and it demonstrates a failure of morality, now that is a mistake that is very hard to overcome. You can overcome it, but just know it takes a lot of time. It's going to take a lot of repeat investments into the relationship in order for them to feel better about the situation. So a great quote from a presentation, not. Not from a presentation that I gave somebody after the presentation came up and told me, he said that trust is gained in drips, but lost in buckets. And so it takes a long time to fill up that bucket of trust. But you tip that bucket over one time, it's all gone. But it doesn't mean that it cannot be refilled. But just know that it's going to take some time. And I think it's fair to communicate that to the other person and just say, listen, I know I violated your trust, and I apologize for that. And I want to make things better. And I need your help to know what makes this better. And I'm committed to the long haul. And I think just being able to own up to that in that way, it's so refreshing and different that it'll be noteworthy and it'll put you on the path to reaffirming the relationship.

So the next question a student has is, what advice can you give to those preparing for intercultural negotiations other than educating ourselves on the respective culture of our counterparts?

Great question. I'm writing this list of episodes to send you. We'll link these at the bottom. I think it was Kim Elsbach was the trust episode. And then I believe I have two episodes with Mark Davis. He's one of the only negotiation experts in the world who focuses on cultural intelligence in negotiation. Really fascinating. And so notice I didn't say cultural competence. I'm saying cultural intelligence. And cultural intelligence is far superior than cultural competence because cultural compet competence kind of just gives you stereotypes. So the Japanese negotiate like this, Americans negotiate like this in Germany. Be on time, you know, things like that. Okay, cool. But we need a little bit more. We need a little bit more. And so I think really we have to start by redefining what we consider culture to be. And so the definition that Mark gives is that culture is the general way that we do things, whoever we happen to be. So, Dan, within your family, there's a culture. In your neighborhood, there's a culture. In your city, there's a culture, state culture, organization, the university, different departments have different cultures. I'm assuming that the engineering department has a different culture than the social work department that's different from the medical department. Right. And so we have to be able to identify the differences in cultures that are at play. And so I think there are limited perspective on what a culture is and isn't really inhibits our ability to understand what cultures are at play. So for example, let's say there is a large multinational company, and so the person that you're talking to is in, let's say, Shanghai. Okay, great, cool. What's the company, though? Because the company itself has a culture. Right. Which department are they in? Which country are they in? They're in Shanghai. Okay, they're in Shanghai, China. Great, cool, that's helpful. But where did they go to school? Were they educated in China or they were educated here? All of these types of things will matter and come into play. And so what we have to be able to do is get a general understanding of what cultural influences may or may not be at play. So I can know, hey, I know in Asian cultures, they're more collectivist than individualists. Okay, great. But I will treat all of those things not as a stereotype, which I believe is true, but as a rebuttable assumption that may or may not be true. I understand that this might be something that is impacting the decision making of this person, but I cannot be for sure. And so I think it helps you to understand what might be at play, but not locking yourself into believing that you know more than you really do Because I think when we focus on cultural competence, it leads us to over overestimate our competence in these situations.

Yeah, I love that. That was much more detailed than my response to that question to the student. But it was along the lines of if you're going to go really shallow, then it's better probably not to investigate the intercultural competence issue at all.

Right. Because if you're just going to follow.

The first advice you find on Google, it's, it's very likely to get you into a lot of trouble.

Oh, 100% like you would be much better just admitting complete ignorance than tricking yourself to believe that you know something after reading a listicle.

So here's a question that's, it's pretty broad, but I think one that I got a similar question from a lot of students. So I think it's on a lot of people's minds, which is how do you avoid compromising or conceding too much in a negotiation if your general disposition is that of a people pleaser?

Oh, yes, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this as a recovering people pleaser, you know, so this is, this is really helpful. Again, I'm just writing down these episodes. I believe it is Natalie Lu Nat Lu coming on the podcast. That would be a good reference for overcoming people Pleasing. And so when you're having these difficult conversations, it's important to be very aware of who you are and what you bring to the table. And what we bring to the table is a litany of life experiences, predispositions, biases, genetic makeup, those type of things, a personality. And so let's just talk about this from the context of personality. I think that's just an easier framework to analyze this question. So if we're thinking about personalities, the types of personalities assessments that I like or are the ones that allow me to make reads in the moment. So I like the big five personality traits. It's been peer reviewed, tested for decades, really consistent. And it's easier for you to make an assessment of yourself and others without having to do like a robust test. And so big five personality traits, we have openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Neuroticism is often now described more as emotional stability because neuroticism over time has been kind of become known more as an insult in common parlance than its original psychological origins. So I think I just want to put that out there. So the acronym is ocean, and that's what makes it easier to remember. So with agreeableness, we have people who are highly agreeable, more people pleasers. Then we also have people who are disagreeable on the far end, disagreeable people, difficult people, however we want to describe it. And so with agreeable people. Attorney. Exactly. Our colleagues, that's exactly what you have. Yes. And so. No, you're good. It's right. And I think one of the things we have to realize is that there's two major elements that we should pay attention to with agreeableness. So agreeable people generally are well liked. So it's easy to get along with an agreeable person. If somebody's giving you everything that you're asking for, what's not to like? Right. The other problem is that. But that's not really too much of a problem. Being liked is not a problem. But. But the challenge is that people who are agreeable, they also like to be liked. And that desire to be liked leads us to compromise inappropriately. And so we have to recognize that. And so when you're in these conversations, what you're going to feel as a people pleaser is what I call people pleasing pressure. So there's going to be, as the person is speaking, you're going to recognize that you are going to move closer and closer and closer to that person or feel the need to do that. And so we have to recognize that about ourselves and be very clear about what it is that we're going to do in this conversation. We have to have a concession strategy. So one of the things I always tell our clients and I talk about in our courses, all those things, is that you have to concede according to plan. I cannot trust myself to, in the moment, in the conversation, adjust my position. And it's not because I'm trying to be unreasonable. It's that I cannot trust myself to make the right read under that level of pressure. And so I know what concessions I can make and I know what concessions I cannot make before coming into the conversation. If they want to do something outside of that, we can certainly do that. But I'm going to tell them I can't make a decision on this call or in this negotiation. I need to think about it and I'll get back to you. And the reason I do that is because after I'm outside of your presence, that pressure starts to diminish and I can talk to somebody else who has a more objective perspective and they can help me to make sure that I'm making the right decisions. And I think one of the things is that negotiation Is a process. Yes. Negotiation is also a skill, of course. But if you have the skill of negotiation, but people pleasing leads you to make bad decisions, then you're not a good negotiator because you're not making good decisions. So we have to concede according to plan in those situations. And if you really struggle with this, here's a simple framework that you can use. I call it Assertiveness made simple. So in every conversation, for certain points people have in their minds, some it's like a shot clock. So in their minds, they're going to put up a certain amount of resistance or they're going to ask for something for a certain amount of time before they give up and stop asking. Okay, great. And so I remember one time when I was teaching at the, when I was teaching in the MBA program, there was a person who was matched up with somebody on the other side who was a seasoned veteran. So they were already in the industry for many years and they were like in their 40s coming back to get their MBA. She, on the other hand, was an undergrad student who was very ambitious leveling up and getting her mba, like taking some MBA credits. And so she was randomly assigned to negotiate with this guy who always answered all the questions and would reference books, negotiation books, as he was doing it. And so she said, kwame, I do not want to do this. I think I'm going to get destroyed. And I'm terrified. And so I said, all right, here's the rule. When this negotiation starts, it should take about 45, 50 minutes. For the first 30 minutes of that call, you are not allowed to change your position, but you are allowed to listen, empathize, summarize what they said and ask an open ended question. That's all you can do. Listen, summarize, ask open ended questions. You just cycle through that over and over and over again. Concede all you want. After 30 minutes, she did really, really well. And so a lot of times it's really an issue of timing and an issue of misreading those internal signals. Signals. And so once you can get an understanding of that, you can create bespoke strategies for yourself in the conversation to overcome those predictable challenges.

Yeah, I love that on the timing. I mean, that's something we talk about a lot in class, is you're going to feel time pressures that don't necessarily really exist, but that you're putting on yourself. Resist those. If the other side is actively pressuring you, ask them why? Why does this need to be done right now? And if they don't have an explanation. They're just trying to bully you into a fast decision. Right. That's use information. And I like what you said too, about, like, to the extent possible, take those breaks and talk with a trusted confidant may have a different. You know, you can find some people with complementary negotiation skills that you can talk to that maybe aren't people pleasers. What do you. What do you think of this situation? What do you make of this? But just to summarize the last part, what you were saying reminded me of an episode where you talked about the because test for setting anchors. Right. And it seems to me like you're. I think you were kind of alluding to something similar here where you're, you know, if you're. And correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but before you make a concession, make sure you're asking yourself, I'm making this concession because. And the answer can't be, I'm a people pleaser. It has to be because I've learned something that really changes, you know, my perspective going in or something of that nature.

Right.

Some objective. Yeah, yeah.

And so what you said sparked two things. I don't usually give, like, zingers to people, but this is a good one. So check this one out. So if you're a people pleaser, somebody's really bullying you into changing your perspective or something like that, and you're saying, no, I need to think about this before I make a decision. They're like, no, no, I need you to decide now. You need to do this now. Okay, cool. This is the line. If you need a decision now, then the answer has to be no. But give me some time to think. It might be yes. People can find some patience when you hit them with that. It's like, oh, okay, so actually I'm going to be directly penalized for my bullying and aggressive behavior. Noted. Okay, good. And then another really handy move. This is from Deepak Malhotra in his book book Negotiation Genius. When it comes to making sure you're making the right decisions when it comes to compromising or making concessions is just asking yourself this simple question, is this information or is it influence? You can change your perspective and change your position based on new information. That's okay. And that's the sign of a good negotiator because sometimes it's appropriate to adjust. But if it's just influence and attempts to influence without any substance, then your best bet is to stay put.

Right. And it may be the example Sometimes I'll cite in class is when you're in that mediation with a judge who puts a lot of ego on, I get things settled. And that is the consummate example of influence. Like you attorneys and you, your clients aren't leaving until we get this settled. I don't care if we're here until 2:00am you know, that type of thing. That is the consequent example of influence is like, that is the ultimate test of, I am not going to be persuaded by the influence. I'm going to be persuaded only by what I learn in this actual mediation session. This is an interesting one on the, I think, the psychology of your negotiation counterpart. And that is simply the student asks, how do you discern when your counterpart cannot be reasoned with?

We can't know for sure. And let me give an example here, because I think back to some of my mediations that I've done, and there were some where even I, at the beginning, kind of early in my career, I was like, well, this isn't going to happen. No way. Because one of the things that's interesting about mediation is that sometimes we have a situation where it's 0 to 100, where somebody's like, I owe you 0% of what you're asking for. And the other person's like, no, you owe me 100%. Okay. But then there's some situations that are 100% to negative 100%, where somebody says, you owe me 100%, you're fully culpable. And then they say, not only do I not owe you anything, you owe me. So there are some deals that we have gotten done that look like they were dead on arrival. And then three and a half hours later, wow, we hit a breakthrough and we get the deal done. Sometimes we spend three and a half hours and we move incrementally in the right direction or toward a settlement. And then we have another mediation, another mediation. Sometimes it's in the fourth mediation that we get things done. And so this helped me to kind of coin the phrase of micro negotiations. So along with the term micro negotiations, we have to understand the term persuasive weight. So every conversation has some kind of persuasive weight. How heavy is the persuasive task in this conversation? It could be, hey, would you mind scooting over? Very light conversation, not very heavy. But if I'm asking you to change your political ideology, if I'm asking you to, you know, compromise in a significant way on a business deal, those type of things, that's going to take Some time. And so we have to invest the time. And so really when it comes to the question of whether, when do we write off the person as unpersuadable, to me it's not making an assessment of whether or not the person can change. That's not really it because I think the ability for somebody to change is pretty significant. And we have more influence than we think. Shout out to Vanessa Bonds with the episode titled that and the book titled you have more influence than you think. Because studies demonstrate we're far more persuasive than we realize. And I think about the example in my second book, how to have difficult conversations about race, when Daryl Davis, who was a black man, was able to convert over 200 KKK members just by spending enough time, he converted the grand wizard, the leader of the Ku Klux Klan, to renounce his membership and become friends. Like Daryl Davis is the godfather of Roger Kelly's daughter. Insane, right? So we can persuade people more than we realize. The question becomes whether or not it's worth it. Because with Roger Kelly and Daryl Davis in that example, it took him years. A lot of times we don't have the luxury of time to invest in a relationship to get there. And so for me, in my mind, I have a shot clock. How much time am I willing to invest in this situation until I need to realize that negotiation is a problem solving tool. I have a problem I'm trying to solve of it. I use diplomacy first. Okay, it didn't work. I'm going to use my BATNA. Great negotiators always have good BATNAs, which is your great. Your, your best alternative to a negotiated agreement. You have to have that in mind going into the negotiation and then you have to determine whether or not you should start to execute on your batna. That's really it. So if you have the luxury of time, go ahead and put it in. But you have to recognize at some point you have to let the negotiation go and it's not your fault won't you can't persuade everybody every single time.

So being that I have a lot of students who are seniors, job negotiations came up quite a bit in, in the questions. One of them is what is the best technique for broaching the subject of whether salary is negotiable during the interview process?

So first of all, we need to assume that it is. That's the first thing. And what we have to do is let's assume that we're negotiating from the outside in. You don't currently work at this organization. This is Your you're getting a job offer. It's not a promotion type of situation because that strategy would be slightly different. And so you should always assume that the position is negotiable. And even if they don't, if they say, hey, this is not negotiable, Negotiate Anyways. Okay, That'll be the alternative name of this podcast. And welcome to Negotiate Anyways. Right, because here's the thing. You're showing people who you are with your negotiation. The style just changes if the person says, hey, by the way, we can't negotiate. So let's just say it's a traditional type of scenario where they don't typically say this. They just give you an offer. Hey, okay, $100,000 with these benefits. What do you think? Great. Okay, so now you go and you do your research and you. And I'll drop some episode links as well to go more into the tactics. But so I'll just say the big picture strategy. So you do your research, you come back with your counteroffer. And so it's a longer offer that doesn't just address the salary, it address everything. So it's not. Don't think of it as a salary negotiation. Think of it more as a negotiation for compensation. So flexibility, flexible work hours, you know, what does healthcare look like? Where do you work from? Like all of these things, vacation time, everything is negotiable. And so you want to think about everything that you want. Put it in the offer. And so in your email back, first of all, you start with appreciation, Dan. Hey, I appreciate this offer. I'm really looking forward to seeing if there's a way for me to work with you and the team. I was doing some research on the industry and the industry standard says xyz, considering that I've attached my counter proposal and I'd love to have an opportunity to talk with you about this, then you set up the conversation and flow through it. Usually the way this dance typically goes, especially if it's an entry level position, it's offer and it's counteroffer and then their final offer. Usually it's just three passes for this level. And so I think that's a good type of move to make. And then the other thing is, what if they say, by the way, Kwame, no negotiation. We are, let's say it's like a lockstep type of firm type of thing where they say everybody comes in at this level, those type of things. Then what you say is you want to respect that structure within the organization, but you still want to let them know that you are a good advocate because you are still showcasing your skills for your future employer. It's like, all right, I understand that typically salary is not. But when you think about the overall, all of the elements of this compensation package that you provided, what flexibility do you have? So it's a simple open ended question that assumes there is flexibility, see what their response is and then flow from there. But you're still always going to negotiate in some capacity. It just depends on what type of structure it is.

Right. And reflecting on that, I was thinking about how you were talking about certain jobs are very lockstep. And certainly when I, I entered my first job out of law school was a quote, big law job.

Right.

And those tend to be very lockstep salaries, frankly, because I think all of the first year attorneys are getting overpaid relative to the skills we actually have. Right. But I was thinking even then, so I, you know, I have to relive some, some painful negotiation experiences in class and so that students can learn from my mistakes. And I said, you know, there were a number of things even outside of compensation that I could have and should have negotiated if I were more forward looking because they would have set me up in year two, year three, year four for much better compensation. So I could have negotiated mentoring that was more effective. I could have asked them what they were looking for in year one when they were determining my compensation in year two going forward. And just kind of some of those visioning questions, even to, to, to open up that negotiation about do I need to do to improve my compensation going forward? What kind of things can I negotiate now to make myself more valuable to you? So you don't want to lose me and all the good training you've put into me. So yeah, those are all things that just to be clear, I did not do that. I, in retrospect, think I really should have done that.

Listen, I feel the same way. But listen, I think about it this way. We're putting forth our experience as a sacrifice for the next generation to make sure they don't make those things.

Okay, I think I found a good closing question here. How do you balance between creating your own style of negotiation and catering to the methods that this specific negotiation you are engaged in requires?

One thing that I've realized with a lot of like gurus and experts in the industry is that a lot of the methodologies and books and things almost seem to at times, not all the time, at times kind of codify the person's personality like I do this, and it works for me. And then everybody starts to follow suit, but it's like, hey, there's something special about this person that makes what they're doing work right? And so you have to filter every piece of advice that you give at through your own lens and see, like, what is it that you can do authentically, not trying to be like somebody else. So I always say it. I don't want people to listen to this and read my books and things like that and say, I want to negotiate like Kwame. I want them to say, I want to be a better version of myself and take inspiration from my approach, but not completely adopt it. Unless I have a Kwame clone out there.

And I'll throw out an episode, since you referenced a few. But one of the very first ones that, that they listen to in my course is the Luke Fedlam episode on authentic learning to, you know, bring your authenticity to a negotiation.

He. He is incredible. So that's a great. That is a great episode to listen to, you know, So I think that's important. And now to the specifics of the question, we have to recognize that there are different versions of our authentic self. And I know that sounds super hypocritical, but bare with me. Right? So what does that mean? So me talking to you this whole podcast interview was me being authentic. Kai comes in. There's a little bit of a flex there, right? Because it's like, okay, now we went from Kwame the lawyer, podcaster and CEO to Kwame the father, and now we're back, you know, so I have a, I have a one year old kid, is adorable. I play with his cheeks all the time. I'm not going to do that to opposing counsel. The assault, you know, and so we have to recognize that they're different versions of ourselves that are still authentic. So sometimes I'm going to have to bring like Papa Bear Kwame to the negotiation where I need to focus a bit more on protecting my interests because the person on the other side is a bulldozer. Other times I can be really collaborative. Kwame that flows super empathetic, kind of just like that's the negotiator I want to be. If you want to know how I negotiate, just listen to the podcast and how I ask questions and how I get the person to talk all the time. Time. That's how I. That's how I podcast. That's how I negotiate. That's how I mediate. That's the authentic Kwame. But I recognize I have to make some changes from time to time, based on what the situation demands. And so I think we have to be flexible in our approach and understand what our core values are, what lines we're not willing to cross, but also recognize that it is okay to adjust your approach to the person who's in front of you. And not only is it okay, but it's necessary. That's what you need to be to be effective. And so, for instance, I was giving a keynote in Tempe, Arizona, and one of my buddies, I'll give a shout out to Dennis, he was the person who brought me in, and he said, hey, this guy is a tough. There's one guy who's probably going to give you a hard time. He's from New York, really hardcore guy. And during the presentation, I was talking about empathy, compassionate curiosity, and those type of things. And he's like, listen, so what if people think you're manipulative with the way you're approaching? I was like, well, I don't want to assume. I know what you mean. What do you. What do you. What do you mean by that? He's like, okay, all right, I'll say it. Well, listen, if. Where I'm from, if you start talking about this empathy stuff and acknowledging my emotions, I'll just say, this is bullshit. And I was like, let's. Let's do a role play. So I'm going to acknowledge. We'll use the case study we've been using the whole time. I'm going to use this methodology. You all stick to this and that alone. And so we'll go back and forth. You come at me with that cynicism, and we'll work, we'll go back and forth. And it worked really well. And at the end of the. At the end of it, I said, hey, was that helpful? He's like, yeah, that was really helpful. I was like, yeah, I know it was. I got a scouting report. I know. You're the guy from New York, aren't you? We all had a good laugh. And the way that I acknowledged his emotions, where he said, listen, I don't want to talk about any of this emotional stuff, those type of things, kind of skepticism in the role play. I was like, all right, so correct me if I'm wrong. It seems like for you, you just want to skip all of the, like, all of that element of the conversation. You just want to get to business. That's. That's the thing that's most important to you. Is that right? He's like, yeah, that's all I want to do. I was like, no, that makes sense. We, you know, time is money, so let's just shift to that part of the conversation. And so what I'm doing is I'm acknowledging and validating his desire to not be acknowledged and low and below, but lo and behold, he liked it. Right? You know, and so we have to recognize that, hey, me acknowledging and validating a guy from New York who is, like, banging out business deals all the time is going to be very different from me in Columbus having the same conversation to somebody who's more used to a slower Midwestern pace. And so this kind of goes back to what we were talking about with cultural intelligence. Like, knowing that coming into the conversation, I recognize that the acknowledgement needs to come in a form that he could respect based on his culture, you know, so. So we have to be able to flex, but we have to know really who we are, but also which version of ourselves we need to bring to the table at the right time.

And you didn't use the potentially insulting word impatience, but in reality, that was kind of an underlying emotion you're acknowledging in that conversation.

Dan, I really appreciate you coming on and asking these questions. This is one of my favorite types of interviews to do, so I appreciate you coming in and giving me the opportunity to be interviewed on my own show.

Thank you so much for taking the time to do it. I know my students will be very appreciative, and I'm very appreciative, and I learned a lot in our conversation as well. So really appreciate you taking the time.

Congratulations. You've just joined an elite club by listening to a full episode. You're now officially on the Negotiate Any. 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. 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.