Success Tips: Keld Jensen on Trust in Talks

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 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.

Keld, thanks for joining us today.

Thank you for inviting me.

Oh, it's my pleasure. So how about we start off by telling the listeners a little bit about yourself and what you do.

Yes, I'll be happy to. The short version is I'm originally a Dane from Europe, been living in the US for about eight, nine years, a US citizen today and working with negotiation globally. Originally I came from the business of technology change business in the late 90s as I discovered that we were not very good at negotiating and that included myself. So I was kind of what I called unconsciously incompetent. I didn't know I wasn't very good at it. So I jumped ship and changed into the business of negotiation and has been lecturing, speaking, writing books, and a long list of other items within the world of negotiation.

Fantastic. Yeah. We are excited to have you here and I think the three topics that we're going to talk about today are going to be great for the listeners. So the first one is trust, taking a little bit of a different perspective on trust. And the next one is going to be discussing terms that you've coined nego, economics, and smartenership, really excited about that. And then the last one will be evaluating the other side. So beginning with trust, let's just start off with an operational definition. When you say trust, what do you mean?

Very good point. If I could step back just a little bit. When I started in the world of negotiation, we had kind of a toolbox that was created by my partner back then in Stockholm, Sweden, who created the company back in 1976. And it was a really good toolbox and a lot of value tools to improve your negotiation. But I worked with that a while and I discovered that still some negotiation failed big time. And I couldn't understand why because the tools were right, people were intelligent. So I didn't really understand why parties that should be successful in collaborating with each other just failed big time. So my conclusion after studying that for a while was that trust was actually an issue. So I teamed up with World Economic Forum in Switzerland. They went up, did a study among 20,000 people in 15 countries and came back to me and said, you know what? Your stomach sensation about trust is low. Is actually true. Trust has dropped with more than 55% in the last 20 years. And there might be some of the listeners out there, Kwame, that's just thinking, oh, that's interesting. So what? But that's actually a real disaster. Because if you think about it this way, if we have a high level of trust in any kind of collaboration, our transactional cost will go down and the profit will go up. But if we have a low level of trust, our transaction cost will obviously increase and our profit will go down. So we can capitalize trust. And that's why we called it trust currency. We just obviously combined the two word trust and currency because we can put a monetary value on trust. So my specific angle into negotiation, Kwame, is really trust. I have kind of a three legged stool. I'm talking about macroeconomics. We're getting back to that trust and obviously negotiation. And I find trust to be essential. I don't think I really answered your question. That is how do we define trust? And I'll try to do that. Now. Trust is really working with you without necessarily always having a contract. It's really down to making sure that you are going to fulfill what you promised me and I'm going to fulfill what I promised you. And not everything in business have to be a contract. I'm working with attorneys around the world as well and. And sometimes I am provoking them like crazy because I'm saying a written agreement is not worth the Papers written on. And I think that could provoke you as well, Guami, because there's a tendency that professional like you would say that contract is essential and we need it. And I'm obviously not saying we shouldn't do contracts. I believe in contracts mostly because humans memory is really bad and we forget where we agreed. So it's nice to take it out of the draw if we actually mess up. But what I'm saying is a successful negotiation is never based on a good contract. The negotiation is one thing, and then I think we should actually have a contract. But I've seen too many cases throughout my career where the strong party have forced a counterpart that may be in a weaker position into a bad contract for them. And you know the way they always react when they get back home, they never react by saying, okay, that was a bad contract we signed. Let's just do whatever we can to fulfill what we promised. They obviously, they obviously calling an expert, an attorney, and asking that attorney, how do we get out of this contract? So trust is really just being sure that the counterpart is going to do what they promised you and you're going to do what you promised your counterpart. So that was a very long answer to your question. I apologize that.

Oh, no, it's okay. And you are correct, as you said, trust is believing that somebody's going to do with or without a contract. A wave of anxiety came over me as a lawyer, but what you said makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense. And I think, especially with the American style of negotiation, we rely really heavily on contracts in a way that I think other cultures would find surprising. And so, since the majority of my listeners are in the U.S. how can you sell that idea of trusting even if the contract isn't in place or there is no contract addressing a specific issue?

Yeah, that's a wonderful question. And obviously I would never advise anybody to become naive. Right? I mean, the opposite of trust is naivety where you just trust everybody. And that's obviously stupid as well. So you should have a very constructive approach into this. And I would say that one thing, I know that sounds immediately a little bit naive, and I just warned everybody against being naive. But I do think that if you come through as trustworthy, if you actually do what you say you want to do, in most cases, I do find that the counterpart is responding that way as well. Of course you could be cheated. But in most cases, if you're honest, if you're open, if you're transparent, if you share information, if you do what you promised that you're going to do, in most cases, you're going to see the counterpart is going to respond the same way if they read you that way as well. So when we talk about trusts, I think we can all agree that it's really hard changing other people, right? I mean, it's basically impossible. It's a challenge to go out there and change hundreds of thousands or millions of people's mindset. What you can do, and that's even tricky as well, is you can try and start changing your own mindset. So what we need to do, Kwame, is actually start verbalizing trust. And what I'm advising my clients to do is actually verbalizing trust as part of the negotiation. Because one thing I'm always telling our clients is that we need to negotiate on how to negotiate. So we actually need to negotiate prior to our negotiation, how we want to conduct negotiation. Because you are a true expert within this field as well. So I'm sure you would agree with me that people don't necessarily perceive negotiation the same way. Right? Some people turn up and believe negotiation is like playing tennis. Other people turn up and believe negotiation is like playing chess. So it's going to be a real fun game when you have one guy sitting there with a racket and the other one moving pieces around on the chessboard. Right? And that is what I sometimes see in reality. So we have to agree before we even get started. Are we going to play tennis or chess? When we have agreed on that, then we actually have to agree. How do we define trust? How do you see trust, Kwame? How do I see trust? What are we going to do if we feel that trust is declining throughout this negotiation? If I suddenly feel I don't trust you as much as I did in the beginning, how can I put that forward? Because when that has been verbalized and actually written down as part of the rules of the game, how to negotiate, it becomes easier to raise that topic later on. If I could just. I know I'm doing too much talking here, Kwame, but if I could just add another thing. Since my background was born and raised in Scandinavia, obviously. So I have a European background and a North American background now. And you're absolutely right. There's a tremendous difference in the approach to collaboration in Northern Europe and North America. In Northern Europe, you could have one company that has no previous experience with another company. You could have that company call them and say, hey, we love your products or services or whatever. Could you ship for $100,000? And in most cases, they would go, oh, absolutely, that's great. And they would do it. There wouldn't be a contract, There wouldn't be a written agreement. There wouldn't be any lawyers involved. It would just happen. Where I would question if that could happen in North America, because there's a tendency that we need a contract and everything else. Just to sum up, I got married to a beautiful American. And we got married six, seven years ago. I should actually remember that. Exactly. It's embarrassing. But we got married and we need a wedding planner. And the wedding planner was charging a very small amount of money. I think it was less than $500. But what was crazy to me, Kwame, coming from Denmark, was that she came up with a contract, a huge contract that we should sign just for her doing this work for less than $500. And I was thinking, it will take me more time reading this contract than paying her the money that she requested. And so I told her, why are we doing a contract? And I even suggested some changes. And she went back to her attorney to have the changes to a wedding planner contract approved. And in the end I just gave up and said, no, we're not going to hire you. It's just too complicated. And that's to me just makes transaction cost just becomes too complicated.

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.

This is interesting for a number of reasons. First of all, I bet she paid more in legal fees than she would have if she got the contract. But that's an aside. I think the other thing would be kind of giving a case study for what this would look like when you're actually verbalizing trust. Because I think that's going to be a new concept for a lot of the people here and I want them to really get a good understanding of what that would look like in action. So if you were consulting somebody and they were possibly potentially working with a company and they were about to engage in those negotiations and you were Telling them how to verbalize trust, what would that actually look like?

Well, in the beginning, I see some get a little bit confused because for some people, not all, but for some people, implementing trusts or using trust as a word in the same sentence as negotiation is alien. That's weird. That's difficult. But if they understand the concept of collaboration, where transparency and openness generates more value for both parties, and if they understand that trust is generating a value, they happily embrace that concept as well. And one way of explaining a very simple example of monetary value, Kwame, one way of doing it is that if I have people challenging the idea that you could put a monetary value on trust, I usually give them a very simple example. If I'm out speaking, for instance, I pick up two bottles of water. They're completely identical. And then I ask the following question. If you are a procurement officer in a company and you've been buying this bottle of water, let's say you've been buying thousands or hundreds of thousands of these bottles of water from one supplier for a number of years, and you like that supplier, you trusted that supplier and you had a great relationship. Assume that a new competitor offering the exact same bottle of water appeared in the market, but that new supplier was just 20 cents cheaper than the original one you've been working with. But it's the same bottle of water. It's the same everything. But the challenge is that the new supplier, you don't really like that person. You don't trust that person. You get that stomach sensation that something is wrong. You can't put your finger on it. Would you continue buying from the old one or the new one? In most cases, people are saying, well, if that's the price difference, I would continue with the existing one. And then I just increase that price difference from the existing supplier to the new one. At one point, people switch. So at one point people say, no, now the price difference is too big. I will go with a new one, even though I don't trust that person, don't like that person, or have this weird stomach sensation. So that's how we, in a very simple example, can price trust. So what we've actually now studied, government identified, that is if we're working with a more complicated product or service, people will accept up to 34% in price difference just based on trust and relationship. It's not technology, it's not delivery, it's not terms, it's not contract, it's not legal, it's not anything but just a relationship and trust towards that person. And the more complicated a product or service will be, the higher we accept the price difference just based on that. So that's one way I convince people that trust is something that we need to focus on.

That's really interesting. So if there are in the beginning stages of a negotiation and they want to verbalize trust to the other side, what would that look like?

We basically write down rules of the game. So we have rules of the game, which is very simple piece of paper that just lists how we want to negotiate, how we want to conduct the agenda, who should open up first, what happens, One part open up about cost or benefits, how should the counterpart react? How are we going to share mutual value identified, and how are we going to address trust? So trust is just a topic, like variables, what we're supposed to negotiate, visual aids, everything else. It's just part of fruits of the game.

That's really interesting because it sounds as though we're essentially adding trust to one of the articulated issues at the negotiating table. Am I understanding that right?

Yeah, yeah, you are, absolutely.

That's fascinating because I think it could lead to a lot of interesting information. And you might have thought that you had somebody's trust and they might articulate, well, we don't trust you in this area. And then that could be a potential opportunity within the negotiation to increase the value that they see in the deal. Because we could maybe potentially put in a trust mechanism to make them feel more secure in that particular issue and they might not have otherwise shared it unless you made it abundantly clear during the preliminary stages of the negotiation.

Yep, you're absolutely right.

Yeah, I think that's. That's a really interesting thing. It's funny. I bet we could spend the entire time talking about trust. But for the sake of time, let's transition onto the next point, which is nego economics and smartenership. And I guess for these two, since these are probably new words for the listeners, what do these two words mean?

Yeah, let me start with smartmanship. I've heard for so many years that companies and individuals are saying we are in partnership with our counterpart. And if we are just talking very quickly about strategies, choice of strategies in negotiation, we have a serious sum approach in a negotiation where I win at your expense or you win at my expense. I'm sure most of your listeners knows that approach, a typical zero sum, then we have partnership. And partnership, to me is a funny expression because in lots of cases I've actually experienced that organizations saying they're in partnership with a counterpart are really just in A long term zero sum. So they just translate long term zero sum into a partnership. And that's not a partnership. A partnership is something more mature and more advanced than a zero sum. A real partnership is where the parties are working together. They're trying to utilize cost and benefit, and they're not necessarily winning at the expense of the counterpart. But what I have experienced that might sometimes be an issue in partnership is that they may not have agreed rules with the game and they may not have included narcoeconomics and trust. So we delivered a third step called smartnership. And the difference between especially serious and smartership is that in smartnesship, we will focus on naked economics. That I'm going to explain in a second. We're going to focus on necroeconomics. That basically means that we will work together as a team to identify additional values. And that will be. That will result in. I will be able to make an additional $100 without you being paying for it, Kwame. And you'll be able to make an additional $100 without I'm paying for it. So the additional value in that negotiation is coming from unutilized potential. That is naked economics. And that moves me on to explain what is Negro economics. Now, Negro economics is the asymmetric value or cost between two parties. So let's say very quickly, simple example, cost of money. Everybody knows that money is a commodity, just like a computer, a projector or table or whatever. It's something that can be bought and sold and money of different values to different people. So let's say that I don't have any money whatsoever, Kwame. So my cost of money is very high. I may have an 8% cost of money. You have loads of money. So your cost of money is very low. Let's say it's only 2%. Now, if you and I went into a business relationship, we should utilize that difference between my 8% and your 2%, the difference obviously being 6%. The 6% is necroeconomics, because if we utilize that correctly, we can mutually benefit from those 6%. So instead, if I was buying something from you, instead of me going down to the bank and get a loan that I would pay 8% interest rate on, I could borrow the money from you and perhaps pay 6% or 7% interest rate to you. By doing that, obviously you would capitalize the difference between your custom money up to what I'm getting, and I would be saving that difference between what my custom money would really be and what I'm paying you. So necroeconomics is not rocket science. It's the asymmetric difference in cost and values between two parties. And here comes the exciting thing. It's actually an awarded philosophy in negotiation. We've been awarded by the Organization of Public Procurement Offices in Europe. We've been awarded by the International Organization of Contract and Commercial Management for the simple reason that we've discovered that up to 42% of values in negotiation worldwide are not being utilized simply because people don't exchange the cost and values. Because in a zero sum, you would never tell me what your custom money might be, and I would never tell you what my custom money might be. And when we talk about variables that could create Nicoeconomics, then we have more than 280 variables. It could be transportation, it could be warehouse, it could be logistic, it could be warranty, it could be right of return, it could be, you name it. There's a number of variables that could utilize that difference in Nicko economics.

That's really interesting. And for somebody who maybe this is their first time hearing this, what would you say is the first step in take that you should take if you're trying to create a smartenership and maximize those asymmetric values that you discussed earlier?

Basically what we talked about already, you need to establish rules of the game and trust. Smartership and Ecoeconomics will not work without trust. Smartership and EcoEconomics will not work without rules of the game. So you have to have discussed and agreed on how we're going to to negotiate. Because if you don't explain and visualize to the counterpart what it is you're trying to do, they will suspect something is wrong. So it will actually turn out to work the opposite way around because you will be asking a lot more questions. When you're working in smartenership, I will start asking you questions like, Kwame, why is it you want delivery on this date? What's the financial benefit for you if we delay it or if we speed it up? What would your cost of money be? What is your interest in, why do you want it at this specific approach, you know, stuff like that, I will be very interested and concerned about your cost and your values. And I would obviously tell you that I'm happy to share that as well. So you will need to know my costs, you'll need to know my benefit in each of these areas. And then as part of the rules of the game, we actually need to agree on how we're going to split the potential. Nick Economics. So let's say that we Find a number of hundred thousand of dollars. How are we going to split that at the very end? Because remember, Negroeconomics is free money. It is something that is generated between us. So it's not something that is coming from you or coming from me. It's actually money we generate together by working together.

This is really interesting because it sounds as though the only way this could work is if you do a good job at the beginning of the conversation, framing the conversation and letting them know what type of game you're trying to play. Because if you come into the negotiation asking these questions that the other person might feel is a little bit too invasive, they might infer mal intent on you. They might say you're trying to get this information to leverage me to squeeze me that type of stuff. So they might clam up. But if you take the time to first let them know that your goal is to create value for both parties and you are going to be equally open with the information that you have about yourself, then they might feel a little bit more willing to share that information and start to work collaboratively and creatively with you.

Oh, you're absolutely right. You're spot on. So, yes, we need to discuss with the counterpart what it is we want to do and if they agree with it. And obviously sometimes in reality, Kwame, what happens is you meet somebody that is not able to do it, don't want to do it, don't have the resources to do it, and then you just have to negotiate in zero sum. We have a saying in Denmark. It probably works in the US as well. You can drag the horse to the water, but you can't force it to drink. Right. And that goes in negotiations. Well, you know, we can force the counterparty into smartship and generating necroeconomics if they don't feel like it. So it's only if people understand the benefit that we can work together.

That makes a lot of sense. And I think that also helps us to transition into the third part, which is evaluating the other side. And I know this is about focusing on the interests and values of the counterpart. But a part of that has to be on evaluating whether or not this person is trustworthy. And so if you are going to open yourself up and be vulnerable by disclosing information, how do you know you're playing the right game with the right person?

That's the $1 million question that you just put out there. And it's a very, very important one because I want to share a very important lesson with all the listeners here and that is, if you're in smartnership and you're not aware that the counterpart of playing in zero sum, you're obviously going to lose because you will be sharing values and cost, and the counterpart will just be accepting that information and not really sharing anything themselves. And the one who can see the size of the pie is the one that's going to win. So it's a great question, Kwame, because you have to make sure, obviously, that your counterpart is not just pretending, but actually actively participating. And I don't think there's any foolproof way of doing that. The way I recommend of doing it is start with a variable that basically is not risky to share. Start with a variable that could generate a little bit of profit. And if it goes bad, doesn't really hurt you that bad. Just to test, you know, just to test the counterpart to see if they play along. And if that works out, then take the next one. If that works out, take the next one. And then, you know, you. You slowly build up that trust. Because I think we can all agree trust is not something that you and I can verbally agree. Okay, let's trust each other. Let's be open and honest. And then the counterpart goes, great, let's do it. That's not the way it works. I mean, it's something. Trust is coming from behavior and actions and not wording. So we have to prove to each other in the beginning that we can trust each other. And when we have done that, and that doesn't have to take that long, though. But when we have proved to each other that trust will work, then everything just becomes easier and negotiation goes smooth. But back to your question. I would start with a variable that is not that risky.

It makes sense. So our friend Alan Tsang, he has a concept that I really like when it comes to building trust in a way that makes it less likely for you to get burned. And essentially, it's what you said, taking those small steps with something that doesn't hurt you as much. And he calls it strategic vulnerability. And so you share a little bit about yourself, you see how they respond, and then hopefully it triggers a little bit of reciprocity. So you share something about them, about yourself, and then it makes it more likely for them to share something about themselves. And since you're not taking a big leap, you're not exposing yourself, but you're still doing something that takes a step towards potentially building trust if it's there to be had.

Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I actually love that expression. So it's Spot on. I would agree with that completely.

And when we talk about the evaluation with regard to the interests and values of the counterpart, what do you mean by that?

Well, I think the best way I can explain that is that I am a critic of the typical tender process. You know, a company sending out a tender saying we want to buy a thousand units of these, we want to deliver delivered at that date, we want a warranty of that time frame, we want this and that. And while doing that, they have not focused on the cost or the benefit of the counterpart. I see negotiators step into negotiation every single day just focusing on their own interest, their own values, their own cost, their own risk, and with no interest of the counterpart. And just getting back to Nicoeconomics, if we, you and I are buyers, and if we put out a requirement to the supplier that put a cost on the supplier that is higher than our savings, then we're actually hurting ourself. I can repeat that because I know that's hard for some people to grasp in the first time around. If we put out a requirement or request to the supplier that actually puts a higher cost on them than our savings, then we are messing up. And by doing a tender or opening our negotiation just focusing solely on our cost of benefit, we are completely missing the opportunity of getting a feedback from the counterpart, understanding whether we actually going the wrong way around generating nick economics. So instead of just going out with a tender saying we want delivery on June 1, we want two years warranty, we want this and that, we have to ask the counterpart, what will the impact be to you on delivery June 1st? And please let us know if you could save money by offering a different delivery time. What would it mean to you if we change the warranty period from two years into something else? Would that give you a benefit or cost? And that's what I'm talking about, Kwame, when I'm saying that we don't focus on the counterpart. We're just thinking, I want to get this this date and I want this warranty and I wanted that price. And I don't understand that one of my demands could actually hurt the counterpart way more than my benefit might be. And obviously he needs to make money. So if he's losing money on one variable, you have to gain it somewhere else. So, you know, at the end I might be the one paying for it anyway.

That's a really interesting take. And especially when it comes to those situations where it's like a request for a proposal when people are when larger companies are saying, hey, we have these specific needs. Who can do it? It triggers a mentality in the people who are making those bids to say, all right, well, whatever my situation is, I need to find a way to make that thing work. And there isn't really too much of a. A negotiation happening. It's. It's more of a. An auction. And then the. The. The relationship is created, and we're not even sure if it. If it could work or even should work. And so it sounds like what you're saying is maybe you could potentially use that as an anchor, but you still have to have the conversation to. To figure out how you could create value for both sides.

Exactly. Very well put. I completely agree with what you just said there. Yeah, exactly. And I would say, Kwame, I know you especially not one of those, but I know there's a lot of trainers out there, professional or less professional, that basically focusing on training their clients on becoming better at zero sum. And I honestly think that's just stupid. I mean, we have to change the mindset on how we should negotiate instead of just improving the way we have been negotiating for hundreds of years. So look at negotiation as a science. Look at it as an art where we can develop. And what is really interesting when I've been doing studies is that if we look at a typical commercial or political negotiation, for that matter, we basically do the same as we've been doing for hundreds of years. We have more technology supporting that approach today, but basically it's the same thing we're doing. So what I'm trying to do in my mission in life is really to try and change the mindset on how we perceive negotiation, because we can do so much better moving out of zero sum and getting into a different approach.

This is really interesting to me because I know, like you said, there are some people who are holding really firmly to the zero sum approach. If you, with your Negro economics and smartership approach, run into somebody who is zero sum, what is your approach in that situation?

Basically the same. The first thing I'm trying to do is to try and generate the understanding that all of us can actually generate a better outcome, reduce cost and improve profit by changing that approach. And I'm actually spending time prior to negotiation just explaining that. So I'm basically taking both my own client and the counterpart through a very brief workshop, just introducing the concept, what is the benefit? How do we need to do it? And then basically giving them a little bit of time to think about that. Because one of the challenges, it's not that easy as we're just talking about right here. Kong because if it was, everybody would be doing it tomorrow, obviously. Because one of the challenges we have is that what I'm saying that we need to know the counterparts cost and benefit and we need to know our own cost and benefit on all variables. Do you know what's kind of funny or scary is that some organizations don't actually know their cost of warehousing. They don't know their cost of changing the warranty period. They don't know their benefit or cost of changing transportation. They actually don't have a clue. But they're still going out there asking for better a warranty or change of delivery terms or whatever. But they don't actually know what the impact might be at home, which is very confusing to me because why would you ask for something if you don't know what the impact might be? You just want more or better, but you don't know how that would impact your bottom line. So back to your question. It's really down to explain to people how and why we want to change it, but also give them the ability to figure out what their cost and benefit might be. And that's not as it just said something you might have ready, that's something you might have to go home and prepare and then you have to postpone negotiation until everybody's round the table is ready with those numbers.

Makes sense. That makes a lot of sense. Well, I know just to be respectful of the listeners, time we have to wrap it up here. But this has been incredibly helpful. We appreciate it. Before you go, can you tell the listeners a little bit about any projects you're working on that you want to share and how they can keep in touch with you?

Well, I have published 24 books since 1998 on negotiation that is published throughout the world. Obviously my philosophy is not confidential whatsoever because they're published in the book. The latest book that is out in North America is called Honest Negotiation and obviously available everywhere. And we do have an online training program as well called smartnershipnegotiation.com that people could check out. And then typically we are I'm doing a lot of speaking globally and we are doing mostly in house training courses for our clients. But otherwise they can Visit my website, Kellyinson.com and see what's going on.

Fantastic. Kel, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me.

Congratulations. You've just joined an elite club by listening to a full episode. You're now officially on the Negotiate Appreciate 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. Except again, thank you for joining the team. We are excited to have you, and I will see you in the next episode. I'll catch you later.