The Problem With Fixating On The Bottom Line in Negotiation - Linkedin Live Event with Kwame Christian, Esq., M.A.

Hello, my friends, and welcome to a special episode of Negotiate Anything. As always, we are produced by the American Negotiation Institute. With over 10 million downloads and listeners in more than 180 countries, you've made us the world's number one negotiation podcast. I'm Kwame Christian, the founder and CEO of the American Negotiation Institute, and our goal is simple. We want to make your difficult conversations easier and more productive. In today's episode, it's a little bit different. It's all about you, our listeners. This is part of our Negotiate Anything live series on LinkedIn. We record the episode live, allowing you to ask your questions and engage directly with the content. If you want to join the next live session and be part of this interactive experience, make sure you follow me on LinkedIn. We'll put a link in the description for you. Now, before we dive into this episode, remember we offer keynotes and trainings in negotiation and conflict resolution. We're here to support you and your team, both in person and virtually wherever you are in the world. Check out the link in the description to learn how we can work together. And now, without further ado, let's jump into your questions and explore the art of negotiation together. Hello. Hello and good afternoon. Welcome to another episode of Negotiate Anything Live. Welcome, my friends. I'm excited for this. I'm really excited for this particular live because this is a question that comes up a lot for me in the. The trainings that I do in the keynotes. And it was a question that I would always answer, but for some reason it bothered me. So this is the question, how do I know if I'm getting closer to the bottom line? So if I'm negotiating with somebody, how do I know whether or not I've pushed them as far as I can push them? Because I want to get as much as I possibly can from them. But I don't want to break the deal. I don't want to ruin the negotiation, and I don't want to ruin the relationship. So how do I get as much possible value for them? And how do I know whether I've gotten to that line? And again, that question always bothered me. So let me tell you what my typical response would be would be. And as I'm telling you what my typical response would be, I want to get in the. In the comments. I want to hear your thoughts. What do you think about that question? How can I get them to their bottom line? Or how do I know whether or not I've gotten them to the bottom line? I want to know how that how you feel about that question to see if you feel the same way. So this is what I would say. I would say, really, there is no way for you to figure out how to get whether or not you're at their bottom line. There's no reality where after the deal is done, you sh. And everything. And they're like, hey, hey, come over here real quick. I want to show you something. And they say, this is an email from my CFO. You could have gotten $57,000 more. Sucks to be you, right? That's not realistic. You're never going to know whether or not you've gotten to the bottom line. But what you can know is whether or not you got a good deal. So how do we know whether we got a good deal? Here is the classic response. So a good deal matches these criteria. First and foremost, it's better than your batna, which begs the question, what is a batna? The batna is your best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. So think about it as a plan B that you can execute upon regardless of whether or not the other side wants you to do it. Let's give a simple example with a salary negotiation. So let's say you're making $200,000 and you want to get a promotion. You want to make something around 220, 230, something like that. And so you're negotia. As you're negotiating, you get another offer from another company, and they say, hey, we'll give you $220,000. Offer is on the table. And then as you're negotiating with your own company, and let's say, hypothetically, the only thing you care about is money. That's never the case, but let's say that's the only thing you care about. And they say, sorry, we can't give you more than $215,000. Then your Batna, your best alternative to a negotiated agreement is at $220,000. So it makes more sense for you to go with your plan B, Okay? And regardless of whether or not your employer likes it, you can make that decision and leave the company. Okay? So agreeing to 215 in that situation would have been a bad deal because it's not as good as your batna. Okay? So your a good deal is better than your batna. That's criterion number one. It meets your needs acceptably. So it meets your needs really well. Let's say best case scenario. So you know what your interests are, you know what you need to have, you know what you want to have and you get all of your needs. Okay, cool. So it meets your needs. Well, it also meets the needs of the other party acceptably well, so they don't feel like they just got taken to the cleaners. You don't want to create a scenario where the deal is so bad for the other side that they're incentivized to get out of the deal. So you want to make sure that it's okay enough for them to accept it and it's okay enough for third party members who are not actually at the negotiation table but are going to be impacted by the negotiation. It's good enough for those third party people to accept the deal and not want to try to interfere. Okay, so those, those are the qualifications of a good deal. That's a decent answer. But again, it didn't address the fact that I felt really uncomfortable with the question as a whole. So let's see, let's see. Posturing. Somebody says posturing. It's a take it or leave it stance. Is there any body language indicators we can consider? So, yeah, there are definitely some body language indicators we can consider. They're going to be some signals you're getting close to the bottom line. So that's definitely something to keep in mind. I'm going to talk about that too. And Annette, I see your comment and it said, and you said you don't. Can you elaborate on that one a little bit? Because I, I know you and I know there are a lot more thoughts behind it. So I want to give you time to elaborate. So go ahead and say that. So here's what it was for me. When I thought about what made me feel uncomfortable, I thought about it from the perspective of if I were on the other side of the table and somebody was thinking in this way. Oh, before I give my answer, I see Michelle chiming in. Okay. A good negotiator trusts the process. You can gauge success by how comfortable and confident you are during the process. Concentrating only on deal terms to define success can ignore relationships and future interactions as valuable too. Great points as always. And of course, check out Michelle's episode on Negotiate anything. She was really, really great. So, yeah, we trust the process. The best we can do is the best we can do. And we have a certain amount of tools at our disposal. And if you trust the process and do the best you can in the negotiation and use the, the best strategy that applies to the situation, then you'll get the best outcome you could possibly get. We have to remember there's another party in this agreement. And even if you do the very best you can, it doesn't mean that the other side is going to play along. Think about negotiating with a toddler or, or a 2 year old. All they can say is no. And they're just going to say it no matter what it is that you're offering them. So it's not completely on you. So you have to consider they have a part in the process as well. And so for me, when I think about it, I think about it from the other side. How would you feel, how would you feel if you knew the person on the other side, their primary focus was getting the most they could from you? Just put it in the chat, let us know. So if you're negotiating with somebody and you know that their sole purpose is value extraction from you, how would that make you feel in that situation? Good. Oh, Annette, thank you for elaborating. I mean, you don't know the whole picture from their point of view. You have to use your own strategy to get the best outcome. Yeah. Think about it. We have to, we have to recognize that focus is a, is a limited resource. I only have but so much focus I can allocate to a problem, a situation, or any type of instance I find myself in. Right. And if I'm focusing on things that are way outside of my control, then it diminishes the amount of focus I put on my negotiation skills. And now since I'm focusing so intently on things that are outside of my control and things that I can never fully know, it takes away from the focus that I would put into actually negotiating effectively too. So again, that's a really great point. Thank you for elaborating. Right. So if I, I know that if I'm in a negotiation and the other side is just focused on extracting value now, I don't feel safe in the relationship. It doesn't make me feel comfortable. It doesn't feel like it's a partnership. It feels more like a battle where my primary interest will be protecting myself during that interaction. If I knew, I would employ the same strategy. Yeah. Fighting fire with fire. Right. And so if you have that, that mindset where you're saying, I'm just going to try to take much as I can from this deal and the other person senses that, then they're going to say, oh, well, first of all, I'm going to, number one, protect my own interests and I'm going to retaliate by taking more from you. Right. And so that we turn this negotiation into a proverbial tug of war where I'm just trying to get as much for me and you're just trying to get as much for you and it turns into a war of attrition. Right. And like Michelle said, we have to think about the future relationship. We have to think about the partnership that we're trying to create. And it is very rare that we're engaging in deals where we have no future interactions with the other side. Most likely we're going to have to work together in some capacity or exist in the same sphere. So there's going to be life beyond the negotiation as it relates to this relationship. And if the other side feels as though your sole focus is extraction of value, then they're not going to feel safe in the relationship. That's going to damage future conversations and interactions down the road. So when you think about the, the trust equation, one of the things that they, they talk about is self interest. So if somebody thinks that you are completely in it just for yourself and that's all you care about, it makes it less likely for them to trust you because they have their own interests. And they say if you're focused entirely on yourself, then I feel less safe because you probably don't care about me because you care about yourself so much. And so here we have. It's a win lose concept that is somewhat hostile. Yes. Good call out. Good call out. Right. And so I think it's really important for us to recognize this when it comes to negotiation, our goal should not be to try to get as much value as we possibly can from the other side. Our goal should be to get the best possible deal in the conversation. That's it. Get the best possible deal. How do you get the best possible deal? You utilize the best possible strategy and execute it, usually utilizing the best possible tactics. And that's it. You trust the process and you engage in the negotiation wholeheartedly. And that's it. And we want to also make sure that we don't come off as solely focused on extracting value. So let's say you, you, you attend this event, you listen to this podcast, however it is you're getting to this, this message, and then you yourself, okay, message received. I'm not going to focus on extracting value. Great. Now it's not just about your own mindset. That's where it starts. But now we also have to consider the messages that we're sending to the other side. So if I'm asking for something, I'm going to explain why I'm asking for it. I'm going to disclose what my interests are and what problem I'm trying to solve with the solution that I'm offering. So if it's in a transactional negotiation, here's the deal I'm offering. And I'm offering this because blank, this is what I need. And at the same time, I recognize that this is what you need. And so we always want to recognize as we're communicating, we need to communicate that level of mutuality. It's not just about me. It's not just about you. It's about you and me working together to figure out what our future relationship looks like, if there is a future relationship. What does the deal look like if there is a deal. And so we have to be mindful of the way that we're coming across in these conversations because just like you all said, you might respond with hostility if somebody just wants to attract extract value, you're going to be less vulnerable, you're going to share less information, you're going to put up your defenses. And so we want to be mindful of the way that we're coming off to other people so they don't respond with that defensiveness or aggression toward us. Hello, my friends. Before we get back to today's episode, I want to ask you a question. Have you ever wondered how to elevate your team's negotiation game and how you can help the folks on your team have better, difficult conversations? At the American Negotiation Institute, we offer transformative keynotes and workshops tailored to empower professionals with top tier negotiation and conflict resolution skills. Whether it's a keynote for your next event or hands on training for your team, we've got you covered. Don't just negotiate. Master the art with the American Negotiation Institute. Click the link in the description to find out more. Elevate, negotiate and succeed. And so what I want to do here is I want to open this up, keep those comments coming because they're awesome. Hey, Pat, good to see you. High self interest in negotiation is too transactional and does not think about generational business relationships. It's all about the future. Exactly. I think a lot of times when we're just focused exclusively on the bottom line, we lose sight of the bigger picture. There's more value that we can gain because of the quality of the relationship. It reminds me of the the sports agent for Larry Bird. His name was Bob Wolf and in one interview that he gave, he said, I never, ever, ever extract all of the value I can from a deal. I try to leave like 10 of the meat on the bones. That's what he's saying in this interview. He says, because the reality is I could push harder, I could be more aggressive and I could get more. But that would be short term thinking, because I might get more in this instance because I have the leverage. But that might not always be the case. I want to be somebody that people want to work with. And if I am constantly just cleaning the floor with people in these negotiations, number one, people aren't going to want to work with me. I'm going to receive fewer opportunities. So my deal quality in this instant might go up, but my deal volume might go down simply because people are trying to avoid me. The other side is now people will negotiate differently with you. Now people say to themselves, you know what? That guy, that's a shark. You don't want to negotiate with them. And if you do, watch your back. And now people aren't sharing information. They don't feel comfortable being vulnerable. They're less likely to adjust because they're constantly protecting themselves. And then it might, like you said, it might invite more hostility and more aggression, and they might negotiate in a more aggressive way toward you than they do with other people. And so even if being really aggressive and extracting all of the value you can from this particular deal might lead to greater revenue in the short term, we have to consider the downstream consequences because they will have an impact on the relationship that you have with the other side going forward. Good, Marcelo. Good to see you, man. Good to see you in here. Yeah. Marcelo says it's a long game in doing so. When you. When you know this, it makes it easier to come up with your genuine self rather than an util ulterior motive. Well said. We can be a lot more real when we as humans want to connect as humans. Right. When people can see that warmth and that positivity and that genuine desire, that care, then they. It changes the way that they interact with you. Completely changes the way that they interact with you. And that's really, really meaningful. Good. Now, when it comes to this balance, I want to hear what your questions are. So think about this balance, because at the end of the day, we're still here for a job. We want to make sure that we're doing a good job of advocating for our needs. We want to make sure that we're doing a good job of doing our due diligence as a representative for a company or just a representative for ourselves. But at the same time, we want to make sure that we're not coming off as too Overly aggressive or too greedy. Now you might say, oh, yeah, I always have that concern of being too greedy. Then your problem might be on the flip side of this coin where you say, all right, I'm overly concerned about being too greedy, and so I'm not going to ask for as much as I deserve. So I think it's really important to be clear that I'm not saying that we diminish what it is that we're asking for, and I'm not saying that we. We don't negotiate assertively to meet our needs. That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we have to make sure that we're focusing on the right things and focusing on our behavior, focusing on our strategies, our tactics, and then not overly obsessing about the bottom line of the other side. Now, earlier somebody said, what are some signs that we're getting to the bottom line? So let's talk about one of those things. When somebody is conceding when they're making adjustments, you want to be mindful of the gap between each concession. So let's say we're negotiating and they make an offer, and you push back. And now their next offer, I'm just going to use my hands and say it's a hundred thousand dollars less. So we're talking big numbers here, right? A hundred thousand dollars less than where they started. Okay. Now, from this first step down to the second step, it was $100,000. Now, the next time, it got smaller. All right, we'll adjust again, but this time we're adjusting. It's. It's only $30,000. I'm going to adjust $30,000. Next time they're adjusting, it's only $10,000. And then the next time they adjust, it is $7563. Oh, now we're getting really precise. So here's some things that we pay attention to. We want to recognize the differences in the gaps between each concession. You're going to start off, they're going to make a big concession, and then the concession will be smaller. It'll be smaller, it'll be smaller, and it'll be smaller. So this. The. As the concessions get smaller, that's a sign that you're getting closer to the bottom line. Another sign is the fact that it's not just that the numbers will get smaller, but they'll also get more precise. So you'll start to see round numbers at the top when it comes to their original concessions, their early concessions, and then it starts to get more precise. And as it gets more precise, that is a signal that you're getting closer to their bottom line, right. Another thing would be the way that they respond. And now this is an imprecise science. Not saying that the study of non verbal communication is imprecise, but saying that there is a strategy to fake it too. So for instance, this is an old school negotiation technique, but it doesn't change the fact that it still works really well. If you get an offer that is aggressive, or at least you want to signal that it is outside of the realm of possibility, there's a technique called the flinch. What is the flinch? You know, if somebody, if somebody's coming at you like with a baseball bat, like ah, I'm gonna hit you, you're like ah, right, you flinch, right. So in a negotiation, if somebody gives you an offer and it's way outside the realm of possibility, there's lit, there's going to be a response like, right, something, some signal like oh, that's hard to do. So there might be a little bit of a head nod, like a flinch and then a shake of the head, like, right, okay, now we can see if that is authentic, then you might be, you might be getting close to the bottom line. But again, there's a term for it that means it might not be authentic. So when it comes to the body language from people, when it comes to the way that they respond to your offer, I would be a little bit more skeptical about the body language because it can be strategically faked at this point. Because when somebody knows an offer is coming, they say I'm going to have to respond in some kind of way. So this could be a strategic injection of false body language. When I'm thinking about reading people's body language, I want to be, I'm, I'm more trusting of body language that I read in the middle of a conversation as the conversation is flowing, where I say something or they say something and they respond to either what I said or what they said. And it wasn't something that could be potentially scripted, it's more of a response, it's in flow of the conversation. Now that is a bit of data that I would be more likely to, to actually bank as legitimate information. Otherwise if it's a flinch to an offer, I'm going to focus more on those objective things like the differences between their, as they adjust between offers from offer to counteroffer those type of things rather than the flinch. Because like I said, a well trained negotiator can and can Understand when to inject that body language in order to get other people to back off. I mean, there are times where somebody can unilaterally back off their own offer. When they make an offer, the person flinches. Like, that's tough. I can't do that. And then they say, well, if you can't do that, I'll. We can do this. And they negotiate against themselves almost instantly. Right. So keep that in mind, Patrick says Kwame. To me, the only people who could container consider using false body language are buyers. Buyers, yes. So shout out to Patrick here. So check out his episode on Negotiate Anything. It's really good. And so Patrick comes from the world of sales, like big deals, big numbers. Right. So, Patrick, in your world, I would agree, because it's the sellers that are often making these offers and the buyers have that position to accept or reject the offer. So typically, yes, definitely. In your world, where it's sales and purchasing, sales and procurement, those type of things, procurement is definitely in a better position to, to, to utilize that technique because they're typically the people receiving the first offer, but the seller could still utilize that as it relates to the proposals. But I think it's a lot more organic, like you said, for the buyers to use that because they're usually the recipients of the initial offer. Great. Great call out. Hey, Nithy, Good to see you. Good to see you people. I can't wait for Nithy's podcast episode to come out. She was so good. So good. It was great. It was great. So it's going to be a while though, Nidhi, because I, I talked to Simone and we are about three months ahead of schedule with the podcast, which is really great to know that I don't need to stress about new episodes, but not great, because I really want that episode to go live immediately. But don't worry, it's coming. It is coming. Good. Simone. Hey. Love to see you in here. Crossing the bottom line can evoke feelings of remorse in the other party. Oh, yes. So when we think about remorse, we. We have to remember this. Sometimes people will agree in the moment to something that is not in their best interest. And sometimes the best thing you can do as a savvy negotiator is recognize if you're dealing with somebody who is inexperienced and they might be making a mistake. One of the things I like to do is slow it down. I never want to be. This is just a. This is a Kwami rule. So you could completely ignore this. This is just the way that I choose to live my life. But I refuse to be a regret. Refuse to be a regret. I don't want anybody who works with me in a business, in the business world, or somebody in my personal life. I never want them to regret interacting with me, doing business with me, or having a relationship with me. I never want to be a regret. That's just a bad place to be in, in a business relationship or any kind of relationship. Right. So whenever I see potentially, number one, a lack of negotiation experience, a lack of negotiation confidence, like confidence in their skills, and a lot of uncertainty as they agree with me, what I'm going to do is I'm going to slow it down and I'll say, hey, I just want to pause right here and say we don't need to commit to anything right now. Slow down. Talk it over with your team. Let's talk again, because I want to make sure that you are sure as you're coming to this conclusion. Sometimes they might adjust their position. That's fine. Because as long as it's still within my terms for a good deal, then I'm good. So we have better than my Batna, Right. Check meets my needs. Checks meets their needs. I'm not sure about that. And if I'm not sure it meets their needs, I'm going to slow them them down and say, hey, we need to make sure that this deal is sustainable. And if it's not sustainable for you, then it's not sustainable for me either. So we need to make sure that we're on the same page there when we. When we're thinking about, again, classical negotiation parlance here. We talked about the Batna, but we also have to talk about the Zopa, the zone of possible agreements. So we have an upper range, we have a lower range. And between there, there is a range of acceptable outcomes for both parties. So as long as the deal is better than my batna and within our collective Zopa, Cool. I'm willing to give you that space to adjust because I care about the relationship. Right. And when do we know it's not a good deal? When the deal that's offered doesn't meet our Batna. Which suggests that there is no deal within the Zopa, within the zone of possible agreements. Right, Good. Shifting the thoughts from winning to prioritizing a healthy relationship is key to successful relationships. Yes. Christina Curtis. Good call. Yeah. Because again, when we think about winning, we have to broaden our perspective. Because a lot of times when we think about winning, we think about it in a sports context. This is. But in the business world, thinking about it that way could lead to toxic, toxic competitiveness. Right. So it's not just about winning, it's about winning at your expense. And so we have to shift that paradigm and thinking about making sure that we're getting the best deal possible while still keeping an eye on the relationship. It's a different way of playing the game. Yeah, short term negotiations are just a waste of time and energy and lawyer fees. Will says. Yeah, yeah, but listen, speaking as a lawyer, in our world, more problems, more money. So, yeah, y' all go and engage in your short term negotiations and have lots of conflicts and get my friends paid, you know. But all jokes aside, all jokes aside, he's right. Because a lot of times what ends up happening is that the negotiation becomes unnecessarily contentious. Sometimes you're in tough negotiations, that happens. But sometimes we create these scenarios, unfortunately, because of that toxic competitive mindset that we have. And then what ends up happening? Either we don't get a deal when we could have gotten a deal, or we do get a deal and the relationship is fractured. And as a result, then a lot of times we have to maintain the deal through litigation and threats and just relying on the contract to keep people in line. Your goal should be to create deals that are self enforcing. And so what I mean by that is that both parties, neither party has any incentive to get out of the deal because the deal works for both parties. Right. So that's really important. Nithy says resentment isn't a solid foundation to build a business relationship on. Both parties need to feel good. Exactly. They need to feel good. They need to feel respected, and they need to feel like they trust their partner. Because again, if somebody just abuses me in a negotiation and uses all their leverage to force me into a deal that I really don't want to be. Be in, then we have to recognize that humans have this tendency for something called. And this is a, this is a big word, be ready to write it down. Revenge. We have a tendency for revenge. Right. So think about it. If I think you mistreated me in this negotiation, I'm going to bide my time. Because we have to remember, power is dynamic. It's not static. It will change with time. So in this moment, this person might have the leverage, but as time changes, I'll get more leverage. And I will never forget what did to me in that negotiation. I'm just talking about human psychology, not me personally. I do not want to come out as petty. Not yet. But yeah, we have to remember we don't want to Invite bad behavior from other people by mistreating them during the negotiation. It's really important because otherwise there's this internal scale of justice that's in their mind, and they're going to say, you mistreated me in this instance. So when I get the opportunity, I'm going to mistreat you in the same way just to balance the scale. Right. So, yeah, we don't want to create that dichotomy, that dynamic. Michael says, how do you determine the Zopa, the zone of possible agreements, area of the other side prior to negotiating? So it's an imprecise science, Michael, which is an unfortunate truth with this answer, because we'll never know for sure, but we can take an educated guess. So we should look at other deals that we've done in the industry, if there are any market trends or analyses or indices, those type of things, then we could start to paint a picture of what is realistic. And so as we start to do this research, we want to try to figure out proper benchmarks so we can make our offers and recognize what's a good offer, what's a bad offer, what's a good deal, and what's a bad deal. One of the things that we want to keep in mind as we are making our offers is that what everything that we say has to be legitimate and objective. So legitimate meanings that it comes from a respected source, but objective meaning that it's not a biased source. Right. So let's say I'm. I'm in procurement and I'm negotiating the price. I'm negotiating with a supplier who supplies steel. And so I'm going to look at the steel indices to determine what is a fair price, given the market conditions in this moment. And so what I would say is as I'm making the offer, I'm going to refer to these indices because it legitimizes the offer and makes it more acceptable, more palatable. It's not me saying this because I just want to win in this negotiation. No, this is what the data says, and I'm going to lead with the data. And so as we do our research, we can start to paint a picture on what is realistic. And so we want to get to an idea where we can figure out more or less what the. The. Our assumption is for what the zone of possible agreements could be. And then we start off with an offer in that is within the zone of possible agreements, but more in our favor, understanding that the negotiation will shift. And even though we start at this point here, as we negotiate, there will be some edits and, and counter proposals that will move the needle. But again, we just want to make sure we're staying in the Zopa. Good. Great question, Great question. What else we got? Oh, yeah, Patrick said gotta get paid though. Kwame. Yes. Don't forget about that. Again, I am saying don't, don't be completely and fully self interested. You should still be somewhat self interested. You're still an important factor in this. So. Yeah, that's a good point. That's a good point. Because a lot of times we get too far in the extremes. Sorry, Simone, I saw you were putting something up. Monique, how is negotiation different between male and female CEO? How can negotiation feel different between a male and female CEO? So disclaimer. I always give this disclaimer whenever I answer questions on gender dynamics and negotiation. I always want to cite myself, my sources on this and I'm going to do the best I can. But also want to be respectful and not mansplain here. Right. I think that's really important. So we have to recognize that gender dynamics will play a role in these negotiations. Now adding the gender dynamics along with the title of CEO makes it even more interesting too, because when we think about status, prestige, authority, those type of things, when you have that title, it shifts. Right. So we have to understand the psychology of bias. Bias is just, just generally speaking, a preference towards something or someone or a prejudice against something or someone. Right. And so there's going to be a bias associated with that title as well. And so that's going to have an impact on the negotiation. And so in a lot of cases, that title can overcome or at least ameliorate some of these biases that might be at play in the situation. But just to keep it simple, let's talk about male versus female gender dynamics. I'll give some book recommendations that are really good. So first we need to talk about Women Don't Ask by Linda Babcock and Sarah Lashfer. I think in the industry of negotiation, they were the first people who really made a splash with their research as it relates to gender dynamics. Really, really great book. Also, I'd recommend the Confidence Code by Caddy K and Claire Shipman. That's another great book for the Forces of Good by Lucia Cantor as well, another great book on the topic. So when we're thinking about gender dynamics, I think in the term in terms of negotiation, this could be a massive lecture. But let's talk about how assertiveness is perceived differently between men and women. And so for the male CEO, it is more culturally and socially acceptable for them to be assertive or aggressive in the negotiation and focus on claiming more value. There's less of a social penalty than there is for a woman who does the same thing. And so what they found in the research is that when a woman in a negotiation, when they are, when they're making their offers and framing their assertiveness, when they frame it in terms that are more collaborative, it is more palatable. One thing that is lacking the research that I would like to see is just compare because essentially what they're suggesting is a collaborative negotiation model that's more interest based, that leads to less social penalties for women who are being assertive in a negotiation. I'd be interested to see whether or not the same applies for men. I would assume so, but I'd love to see those two like compared. I'm not sure how to formulate that study but what I would suggest you doing, Monique, is check out those books and then, and do some research. But also blend that research with your own personal experience too because we have studies that will give us a general hypothesized scenario. So they're talking about correlations, it's more or less likely, those type of things. It's, it's imprecise and it's more general. But then you yourself, you're going to have your own experience. You live in a different city, you might have a different race, different age. Right. Different title within companies. So what I like to do is I like to take the research that is out there and available as suggestions as to what might apply in these situations. And then I want to compare that with my own subjective personal experience to figure out what generally is the case for me. Because everybody's negotiation style needs to be, it's going to be different. It necessarily needs to be different because we all are different negotiating in different circumstances, finances. So as we consider gender, we also have to consider all of those other elements of ourselves that may or may not come into play during the negotiation to figure out what is the best way for you personally to negotiate. So let me know if, if that's helpful. Awesome questions. I mean that, that whole issue deserves its own LinkedIn Live. And also too, we should put the, the link to the LinkedIn live I did with, with, with Nancy Medoff because I know we talked about that a little bit too. That would be good. Simone says going back to the bottom line, taking everything from the other party when they have nothing to lose is highly dangerous. Yes, the most dangerous opponent is somebody who has Nothing to lose. Right? That is. That is really, really scary. And I'm reading this book now on status. It's called the Status Game. And they're talking about the. Not just status in terms of status as it relates to other people and society and those type of things, but also the opposite side of status, which is humiliation. And when people feel humiliated, it triggers shame and is more likely to lead to violence and aggression from the other side. And so if you take the other everything from the other side and leave them with nothing, then they're going to feel humiliated and they're going to feel some level of justification in aggression toward you in order to balance the scales in the relationship. So, Simone, that's a really great point. Gwendolyn makes a great point here, too. A woman. A woman must feel confident in her skin, looking. Looking the male in the eyes, not flinching. A woman must feel comfortable not dwelling on gender, just knowing the product and speaking with strength, but not arrogance. Yeah. Yeah, that's big. That's really big. And I think, again, we have to be honest with ourselves, too. We have to figure out what our performance gap is and whether or not we are performing to our highest level, and if we're not, what is leading to that performance gap. Because we have to recognize that our belief about ourselves will have an impact on the skills that we bring to the table and how we're perceived by other people. Because if I'm negotiating with somebody and they don't sound confident in their skills, they don't sound confident in their position, those type of things, people can sense that, and they can sense that weakness, and then they will. If you're dealing with somebody who is more aggressive, more like more of a shark, they'll sense that blood in the water, and then they will attack and try to take advantage of it. So imagine if we're having a negotiation and somebody says, how much are you asking for? Let's go back to that salary negotiation. And you say, well, it would be. It would really be great if I could get around maybe 30,000. Well, not 30,000. I was 230,000. 230,000. Let's try that again. It'll be great. If I could get around 230,000, it's like, are you making an offer or are you asking for permission to speak? Right. Because if somebody makes an offer, saying with that upward intonation, not too sure, a little bit of trepidation in the way that they're delivering it, it, the other side is going to say, I don't know what you're going to end up getting. But it's not 230, 000. It doesn't even seem like you believe you deserve 230, 000. Right. So the way that you come off to the other side is going to dictate how they approach you. We, we don't talk about that element. We always talk about bullies and we talk about aggressive negotiators, but we don't talk about the fact that sometimes our behavior might lead to the aggression from the other side because they feel they can get away with it. And so this confidence aspect is going to be very, very important. And so even zooming out this scope, not just focusing on gender, focusing on anything, it might be just a lack of confidence in negotiation, a lack of confidence in the person on the other side, whatever it happens to be, but it will manifest itself in the way that you approach the conversation. And simply because of the way you approach the conversation, you might invite increased aggression. Yeah, that's a really, really, really great point. Really great point. And then Michelle always dropping dimes here. Michelle. Accounting for each other's lived experiences such as. And is such an advanced skill, one indicating emotional and cultural intelligence. If you can get to know one another, more options and paths to solutions can open up in negotiations. Yeah, and this is a great way to put a bow on this because again, when we think about the fact that we are just humans talking to other humans and we focus on that human to human connection and we have more discussions that are exploratory and genuinely curious versus strategically curious, where we're just trying to lead somebody down a logical path to our preferred outcome. You find some really surprising things in the negotiations. Just the fact that you are going to increase the level of trust, increase the quality of communication, and encourage the free flow of information. Now that I have more information about you and what you want and you have more information about me and what I want, now we both are in a better position to find a deal that works for both of us. So we have to get back down to the human to human fundamentals. That's often lost when we get too tactical in our approach or too selfish in our approach as well. This is really good. Really good. Well, Red, 41 minutes we were flowing today. I like it. I like it. Well, everybody, I appreciate all of the, the, the positivity in the comments. Thank you. For those of you listening on, on, on YouTube or on the podcast and you're saying, wow, how do I get in on this? Says join the community join us on LinkedIn. We're going to put a link to this too, so you could actually put in your comments after the fact, which is cool. So you can still join the conversation, but we're going to be doing these LinkedIn live events more frequently, which is very, very exciting. So keep an eye out for that and yeah, I appreciate it. Leave a review like and subscribe. Other things influencers say, five star review, all that good stuff. All right, I appreciate you. Thanks for the love in the comments. Good to see all of you and I'll catch you on the next one. Have a good one. See you. Congratulations. You've just joined an elite club by listening to a full episode. You're now officially on the Negotiate Anything team. So welcome aboard. What most team members members do is they subscribe to the podcast because that allows them to automatically get the latest episodes of the show. The best things in life lie on the other side of difficult conversations. Keep learning, keep practicing and keep getting better. Your relationships will improve, your career will soar, and you'll have the confidence you need to get the most out of these crucial conversations. Again, thank you for joining the team. We're excited to have you and I will see you in the next episode. I'll catch you later.