E115 - Negotiation with Megan Shapiro - The Uncommon Communicator

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Welcome to the Uncom communicator podcast, where we
bring enlightenment to the topicof communication.
Are you ready to take ownershipof your conversations?
Are you looking to possess theskills to navigate and
facilitate conversations to amutual understanding?
What are you waiting for?
Have your growth mindset andlet's go.
Welcome to Uncom communicator.

(00:32):
This week.
I'm so excited I've got MeganShapiro and Megan we have met on
the internet.
These just sound weird, didn'tit?
That was a weird thing.
Now, it's like if you don'tmeet on the internet then we
never would have met, but we metthrough LinkedIn and you had
some posts about negotiation.
That really piqued my interest,because talking negotiation is
the start of this podcast.
As well as negotiation iscommunication.

(00:54):
Negotiation is listening.
So welcome.
Why don't you introduceyourself?
You'll do a better job than Ican.
Tell us a little bit aboutyourself, hi.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
James, thanks for having me on.
So yeah, I'm Megan Shapiro.
I am a full-time practicingconstruction attorney who
recently decided that I wantedto pivot into proactive risk
management because I decided,after litigating for 15 years or
so and defending the same typesof claims for my clients, that

(01:22):
yeah, you know what, there's gotto be a better way here.
Maybe we should start takingsome of these lessons that we've
learned over this time to stillit down and implement some of
this stuff on the front end sothat we can avoid ending up in
litigation at all, or, if we dobecause of course litigation is
inevitable sometimes we will atleast be in a better position to
defend those claims.
So I decided to sort of shiftmy focus although I am still

(01:46):
practicing full-time as anattorney and I'm working on
taking all of those lessons thatI've learned I distilled them
down into a framework and I'mmaking an online course for
construction leaders that issort of universally applicable.
It isn't state specific, itisn't trade specific, it isn't
even subcontractor versus GCspecific, and so everybody will

(02:10):
have access to hopefully be ableto use that framework and apply
it in their businesses to havesome proactive risk management
strategies that will ultimatelylead them to increase in their
profits through doing that, andthat's sort of what led me to my
LinkedIn journey and that ishow we met.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
I didn't know.
That's what led you to yourLinkedIn journey.
Well, that's exciting, becausethe whole side of litigation I
mean we're as a generalcontractor or anybody doing
construction there's risk,inherent risk that's what we
talk about on the safety side,but there's so much on the
contractual side as well too,and I love the fact that we're
risk managing, because we dothat as a company as well too,

(02:49):
where we're always looking tomitigate those kind of risks but
to have a plan in place andthen actually be proactive.
I love that you're out helpingthe construction industry do
that and avoid those lawsuits,because that's a fear of a lot
of superintendents is that atsome point you're going to be
held responsible for things thathappen on your job site.
So we want to do the best thatwe can to mitigate those risks.

(03:11):
But here to talk aboutmitigating risks, we're going to
talk about negotiation, whichis mitigating risks.
So one thing that so you had apost recently about negotiation.
Do you want to talk a littlebit about what spurred you to
have that conversation onLinkedIn?

Speaker 1 (03:28):
Yeah, absolutely so.
My approach to risk managementis really holistic.
It looks at a lot of differentaspects of a construction
company.
It's not just contracts, it'snot just on site safety, it's
sort of everything from aholistic approach.
And a big part of thatoftentimes can include
negotiation On the contract side.

(03:48):
Specifically, you can mitigateand be proactive in terms of
risk mitigation in the contractitself if you have a systemized
approach to negotiating thosecontract terms on the front end.
And I've sort of realized thatthere are a lot of skills that
are oftentimes consideredattorney skills right, and

(04:09):
negotiation tends to be one ofthose that aren't really
attorney skills at all.
Obviously, someone like you is avery skilled negotiator as well
, but because there's this ideabehind attorneys and negotiating
and these sort of like highlevel concepts and words, I
think it's intimidating forpeople and they don't
necessarily feel like they havethe proper training or the

(04:30):
proper skill set to really takeon these roles.
And that was what sort of led medown this path of merging the
ideas of negotiation withconstruction.
It started, actually, I was on apanel at the Sacramento
Regional Builders Exchange does,an annual Women in Construction

(04:51):
event in September every year,and I was on a panel and I wrote
my part of the panelpresentation with the idea of
imparting some negotiationstrategies and skills to women
in construction so that theycould use them in negotiating
their salaries, in negotiatingprojects at their project
manager, superintendents, thingslike that.

(05:12):
And so I had that presentationand as I was diving deeper into
my LinkedIn journey, I thought,oh, you know what, I should
share my presentation as aseries, and so I did it over a
week and I broke that wholepresentation out into daily bite
sized pieces as daily posts onLinkedIn and then concluded it
with a sort of wrap up article.

(05:33):
And I started it with anegotiation style quiz so that
people could identify their ownnegotiation styles, and then I
gave some tips and tricks onleveraging that knowledge of how
you negotiate yourself and howyou could use that to help you
identify the negotiation styleof the person you're negotiating
against and leverage it to youradvantage.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Yeah, it was a great.
I mean, it was a fun ride thatweek just seeing how much
information that you weresharing, Like there's so much
that can go into it.
In some ways it's in itssimplest form, At least.
I try to consolidate everythingdown to my tiny little mind,
but the idea that it really doesa lot of negotiation comes down
to actively listening.
That's one thing that is really, you know, a key component in

(06:17):
negotiation but you're right,you nailed it is that there are
people who are not skilled at it, and it's just a practice.
It's something that we can alllearn.
But knowing your style and thenapplying your style and knowing
other people's styles, you know, those are things that you kind
of covered through that as welltoo.
Did you get?
What kind of feedback did youget from that post?

Speaker 1 (06:37):
You know, I probably it was probably one of my most
popular series.
I've done a couple of thosesort of week long series on
different topics and that onewas probably the most popular
and somewhat the most.
I mean controversial probablyfeels like a little bit too
strong of a word, but I thinkactually you and I previously
talked about and I'm going tototally forget the name of the

(06:57):
book, so you can help me out butChris Voss has a book about
negotiation style.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
Yep never spoke the difference.

Speaker 1 (07:03):
Right, never spoke.
The difference.
A lot of my style comes fromgetting to yes and that book and
the approach that that booktakes is definitely much more
geared towards legalnegotiations.
And my understanding of ChrisVoss's book is that it comes it
draws on his experience as ahostage negotiator.
Is that?

Speaker 2 (07:19):
right.
Yeah, that's correct.
In fact I'm right now I'm goingthrough again.
I'd listened to getting to yes,before I recognize the guy
speaking this.
So I've been going through thatand you're right, it's a
different take.
Everything has a differentangle when it comes to
negotiation and knowing how toapply it.
Like I started this podcast onthe whole, you know, on Chris
Voss's book never spoke thedifference.

(07:41):
But what I've learned and I hadinterviewed Sarah Gonella on the
podcast and some of the thingsthat Chris says in hostage
negotiation is no starts thenegotiation.
So it's a whole idea like weneed to have conflict to
negotiate.
Now this is a guy that'stalking terrorists off of
buildings with people, so it's acompletely different take that

(08:02):
he's applied to business.
But the idea is that for anynegotiation there needs to be
some kind of conflict going on.
But it was a different processand I didn't realize until we
had that conversation thatempathetically I'm like holy cow
.
I have been going the wrongroad with certain individuals
who are kind of triggered.
I kind of triggered her and Icompletely understand it.

(08:23):
Then I've made me rethink.
How many other people have Itriggered with those?
That exact statement that youknow, no starts the negotiation.
Those are his words, which arevery true in that when we have a
disagreement, it's like okay,now we've got something to work
on.
I didn't realize, like, in somepeople's stance is like no means
no.
So I really went on this reallylong journey of understanding

(08:46):
this.
What you know, why is no meanno, but why does no start a
negotiation?
So it was really a great pathfor me to go down, a big
learning path for me afterworking with her on it.
And then when you were talkingabout that getting the yes
that's kind of that same thingit's like hold on a minute.
No, isn't always the best wayto start a negotiation, is that?

(09:09):
So what, really?
What's the best thing that yougot from that book?

Speaker 1 (09:14):
Yeah.
So I think and that was that'ssort of what I was alluding to
in a little bit of thecontroversy that came out of my
post based off of getting to yesis there are a huge amount of
proponents of Chris Voss's bookand approach.
I also agree with Sarah I, I Ihate the idea and I completely
reject the premise that no isthe beginning of a negotiation.
It could potentially be becauseSarah and I both come from the

(09:37):
female perspective there andobviously we're probably going
to be pretty squarely in thecamp of no means no, right yeah.
And I think that there is asubtle distinction between no
starts the negotiation andgetting to yes ends the
negotiation.
And I think that comes intoplay when you really break down
the difference between what theexperience that Chris Voss is

(09:59):
drawing on.
Clearly I'm not questioning hisexperience.
What I am questioning is theapplication of his experience to
a business context.
I think getting to yes comes atit from a different angle that
is a little bit more appropriatefor business con conversations
and negotiations.
I think of course you have tohave some sort of disagreement
to be to start a negotiation orelse you're not.

(10:20):
There's nothing to negotiateabout.
But in business.
The negotiation starts wheneverybody agrees that they've
got a final goal and a finaldestination in mind.
Nobody's starting with no.
Everybody in a businessconversation or negotiation is
starting with not this, butright it's not no.
No ends the conversation always,and, as somebody who negotiates

(10:42):
, in mediations, inconversations with clients and
opposing parties, no ends theconversation every time.
That's why, when I'm the onethat's in the position of
turning down an offer, forexample, I don't say no unless I
mean no, we're done, thisentire negotiation is over, I
come.
That's why we've counteroffersright.

(11:04):
That's why it's a dialogue,it's a back and forth, and so
I'm with Sarah and I do thinkthat there is a distinction to
be made and that's why I willfirmly stand in the camp that
getting to yes is a betterbusiness application of
negotiation skills than neversplit the difference.

Speaker 2 (11:19):
And I can see that and it really was a deep journey
for me too.
I have this really long ride tothis project that I'm on and I
went through this whole problemsolving technique, like trying
to identify, like why you know,this is a big issue no means no,
but why does no start thenegotiation?
And I really had to processthrough that and what I came
down to and I want to toss thisout your way is I realized that

(11:43):
for me, no, there's two types ofno's.
There's the no of dismissal andI think that's the one for me.
That's the person who you walkin their office and you're not
listened to.
They're like no, get out of myoffice, I don't want to talk
about it.
Those type of no's of dismissalare the ones I'm very defensive
about, because I've been there,I've heard some of them and my

(12:04):
whole thing now through thispodcast and I think it's my
mission now is to give people avoice.
So the idea of no starts thenegotiation is allowing me to
help people get a voice in theno of dismissal.
Now there's the no of refusal.
That one is a no means no, likeif somebody says no, no means

(12:24):
no, and that was like I hadn'treally processed the idea of no
means no before 100%.
I'm in your court too.
You're not just in with Sarahlike we're all together on that.
No definitely means no.
I just I think the perceptionof what I was giving was
different in my mind, which is,you know, the no of dismissal.
And that's what are yourthoughts on the no of dismissal?

(12:46):
And still allowing yourself theconfidence to be able to ask
some more questions, because youknow, a lot of times people
aren't hearing you.
You know you're not being heard, and how do you get your voice
heard through that no?

Speaker 1 (13:00):
You know, I think that's a really astute
observation on your part and avery subtle distinction, but an
important one.
I would totally agree thatthere is a clear difference in
how you can approach the no ofdismissal versus the no of.
I'm sorry, did you call ittermination?
No?

Speaker 2 (13:13):
refusal.
I made that refusal, refusal,refusal.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
Yeah, I think that's.
I think that's a really reallyimportant distinction for people
to be aware of that, and kudosto you for taking the time to
parse that out and sort ofidentify where that disconnect
comes from.
I really love that and I'mprobably going to borrow it with
credit to you.
But yeah, I think, in terms ofstrategies for dealing with the
no of dismissal, as you'recalling it, which again I love,

(13:39):
I think that is a lot more inline with to take it back to the
beginning of this this, thissort of lawyer approach to
negotiation because, for example, for people who may not have
had the good luck of beinginvolved in a lawsuit meaning
the good luck of having not beeninvolved in one mediation is
usually voluntary, that you'renot required to do it.

(14:00):
There will in California anywaythere comes a point in time in
the life of the case where thecourt will require you to
attempt a settlement conference,but it is different than a
mediation which is voluntary,and so oftentimes, when it comes
to the point in the case whereit might make sense to start the
settlement negotiations, oneparty will be the one that
reaches out and says hey, do youthink we should schedule a
mediation that is at everybody'sown personal, out of pocket

(14:23):
cost, and there's this idea thatmaybe being the one that
suggests it might indicate aweakness in the case, and so
even the conversation aboutwhether or not we should begin
the negotiation is fraught withthis idea of strategy and
perception and all of thosesorts of things, and so that a

(14:47):
lot of times can be, as you'recalling it, the sort of no of
dismissal.
And so the approach that Itypically take in those types of
situations is really softeningthe approach right, like,
especially if I've got what I'mgoing to equate to your example
of the boss who says no, I don'twant to talk about this, and
slams the door in your face.
For me, that's a posie councilthat gives the dismissive email

(15:10):
response or the brisk tone inthe phone call and slams the
phone down.
It's really about that's whenyou have to get really strategic
, about understanding your ownnegotiation style and doing your
best to try to understandtheirs, because that's when the
we call it strategy, but reallylet's be candid it's
manipulation.
That's what it is.

(15:30):
That's what all negotiation is.
Let's just, I mean, come on,it's the elephant in the room
right, and so that's when themanipulation comes in, and so
it's really playing to whateverthe person on the other side of
this needs to hear, anddisregard your own ego, because
that's really what it comes downto.
You have to like I have to bewilling to look like the one

(15:53):
that's weak in order to get whatI want, and I think that really
speaks to how you can approachthe no dismissal versus, you
know, the sort of terminating noand um.
It's really about knowing, likeI said, knowing your own style
and doing your best to try toidentify the style of the person
that you're talking to so youcan get what you want out of it.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
Well, and I've 100% avoided the word manipulation
because I like the word strategy, I like the word negotiation,
but there is some degree to that.
But tell me more about how youwould strategize.
Like what's the process instrategizing a negotiation?

Speaker 1 (16:32):
You know, I wish I could give you a quick pithy
answer.
That would be great for a clipthat we could both use.
But that is kind of.
That kind of comes down to theheart of what Getting TS gets to
and what my point is, which isyou have to customize and tailor
it based on your own style andbased on your best determination
of your opponent's style.
Not to do like a plug.

(16:52):
But that's really why mynegotiation style quiz was my
starting point right.
It was like, hey, if you'reinterested in this topic and you
want to go on this week-longjourney with me and potentially
read the book at the end of this, start here, because all of
this is you're going to, eachperson is going to view the
content in a diff, through adifferent lens, based on what
their own style is, and it'sequally important to try to use

(17:15):
the same strategies to try toidentify the style of the person
that you're talking to, becausenot only do you have to know
your own style so that you canmake sure that you're managing
it, you also have to tailor yourapproach to the other side
based on what is going to bemost effective to them.
So I don't necessarily have aquick strategy beyond.
Start with figuring out yourown style and then do your best,

(17:37):
based on the information youhave from your interactions with
the other side, to figure outtheir style, and then you can go
from there.
Then I can give you strategiesall day long, right, and I can
say oh, you have this style,they have that style.
This is what typically works.
Try this, but without that sortof foundational information
it's really just sort of trialand error and you're probably
not going to have a very highsuccess rate.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
And you said trial.
That makes people nervous whenthe lawyer says trial.

Speaker 1 (18:01):
Different kind of trial.

Speaker 2 (18:02):
Different kind of trial.
I think you are there.
I mean, I think what you'retalking about is and I like to
get things as simple down, assimple strategy as you have, and
I think you really did.
You have it, whether you knowit or not.
You're like it's easier as it'sas easy as it is complicated,
because the idea is firstknowing what your style is, and
that's something that I do, wedo as part of the Uncommon

(18:24):
communicator is.
First, it talks aboutenlightenment.
I talk about knowing whether ornot conversation is happening.
This happens with negotiationtoo.
You have to know that it's atwo-way conversation and so that
moment of enlightenment isyou're not getting what I'm
saying or we're not connecting,and sometimes we connect with
people and it just happens Otherpeople it's a lot of work and I

(18:45):
haven't.
So it comes down to the nextstep is taking ownership of it,
which, again, in the negotiationsetting, somebody has to take
ownership of it.
So I do enlightenment andownership.
And on the ownership side, thefirst thing that I do is look at
my style, which I know what mystyle is.
But I'm now looking at yourstyle and know that, all right,
you're an aggressive or at yourpassive, I look at those type of

(19:07):
things and from there I'vecalled it a combination.
I've been looking for years tothe key to communication.
In fact, that's what startedthis with my boss.
I'm like I'm going to figure itout, and it's not a key, it's a
combination lock.
It's this and this and this andseveral different things like
you're talking about to do thatstrategy.
It's the same thing I do inkind of unlocking conversations,

(19:29):
but it starts withunderstanding your style and
their style, because sometimesthey're never just like you said
, it's.
Sometimes it's always going togo to trial, sometimes they are
just going to go that way, andthat's the same with
communication as well.
Sometimes we're just not goingto get past that point because
we can't seem to connect thosetogether.
But that's so you're there.

(19:49):
You've already gotten strategyone you can take that.
You can take that to the bank.
So.
But in creating strategies,though, do you help people?
We can kind of tie this to riskmanagement.
When you, when you talk abouthelping people manage risk, are
you also always a part of that,working on developing their
negotiation style or thecommunication style to help them

(20:13):
mitigate that risk?

Speaker 1 (20:16):
It certainly depends.
I have I do when it'sappropriate, and by that what I
mean.
Such a lawyer answer right, itdepends.
This is why people hate lawyers, and I didn't even notice I was
doing it, man, but it does.
It depends.
It certainly is a part of thecourse that I'm in the process
of writing that will be comingout, and that's because that's a
self study, self applicationsort of format of my framework,

(20:40):
and so I want to empower peoplewith the tools to be able to do
that if they choose to,depending on the certain context
.
In the cases where I'm actuallyworking directly with a client,
whether that's as theirattorney or if it's through the
risk strategy consulting Inthose cases, yeah, it's much
more collaborative, it's reallymore.

(21:02):
I hate the word coaching becauseI feel like it's been so
diluted by so many other nonvaluable sorts of things, so I
hate the word coaching in thatcontext.
That's why I preferstrategizing.
But it really is sort of likecoaching coaching them on,
helping them identify their ownnegotiation styles.
Helping them identify if theyhave a specific person on the

(21:24):
other side that they are oftennegotiating with, or if it's
this specific contract thatthey're negotiating in real time
right now if they know who thatother side is, helping them
sort of apply those things,because it can be a little bit
nuanced and it takes a littlebit of practice to get good at
it and of course, we all haveblinders when it comes to
ourselves.
I think there's nothing harderthan a self assessment, at least
for me, yes, and so, yeah, it'sa little bit of hand holding.

(21:47):
I like that better thancoaching.
I think it's a little bit ofhand holding to help them
through that process and andthen really digging into true,
actual strategies.
Once we, once we've done thatfirst step of identifying their,
their style, their opponentstyle, then we can really get
down to the nuts and bolts,really getting it e gritty, map
it out, game, plan it out, andif I'm the attorney, I'm the one
doing the negotiating most ofthe time.

(22:08):
If it's, if it's a they'renegotiating a contract and it's
not yet in conflict, then yeah,I'll give them the strategies.
I've even gone so far as roleplaying with them and saying
this is how I would say it if,if we were at the level of
attorney involvement, we're notthere yet.
We're trying to prevent thisfrom escalating to the point of

(22:28):
meeting attorneys.
So this is how you can say it.
Let's practice.
I've done that with clients many, many, many times.
So, yeah, there it really is asort of hand holding type of
type of process, but always withthe ultimate goal of empowering
them to get to the point of notneeding me.
It's really it's not a reallygreat business model, either as
an attorney or as a strategistconsultant, but, my true, I

(22:50):
really would love for people tonever need me.
I would love to be able to justlike give them these tools so
that they can do it themselvesand not have to and not need me.

Speaker 2 (22:59):
Well, and I think that's the best strategy.
I know it sounds terrible and Iwas laughing because you're
right in some ways.
You know I'm trying to make Ithink of that the movie liar
liar have you seen that?
With Jim Carrey, where he'slike oh, my plan to eliminate
myself is now complete when hegave the ball, you know, and
anyway.
So the whole idea is to youknow, work to eliminate yourself

(23:19):
.
But I think that's a but makesyou so valuable and what makes
you set apart from other lawyers, from other business people, is
and that's what I see a lot onLinkedIn as well too.
People are giving away thisstuff, which makes you more
valuable, to show the value thatyou have.
It doesn't eliminate youbecause it's kind of like this
you know I do a lot of cooking,a lot of barbecue, and and

(23:40):
they're like oh, is it yoursecret recipe?
Can you share it?
I'm like no, I'll tell youeverything that goes into it.
You know the whole secrecy ofthe recipe.
It's not, that's not where themagic happens.
I don't listen to those people.
It's like I got some secretingredient.
Well then, I'm not going to eatit.
So it's just the whole idea ofyou don't have is share your
secret ingredients.
It's going to make people wantto.
I don't know how I got off on abarbecue.

(24:01):
I haven't had a town, I haven'tbeen barbecuing at all, but the
one thing that you that yousaid which was interesting, was
talking about the, the wholeidea of.

Speaker 1 (24:16):
I just lost it Because I see so many
interesting things, James, it'shard to keep track.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
Well, so one thing is informing a strategy.
The one thing that I guess thebig question that I've got with
strategy is when you're helpingpeople practice that stuff.
Right, that's a strategy aswell too.
And what I liked is especiallyyou were doing the role playing
which I got to tell you likefive years ago.

(24:45):
It's like no, thank you, I'mnot putting on a Harry Potter
hat, I'm not going to go roleplaying or whatever.
That was always my picture, anduntil I got introduced to Chris
Floss, chris Floss actually cameto our company and did a
presentation on negotiation.
That's what.
Yeah, I think it was expensive.
He and his team came.
It was great, but we starteddoing some role playing and
everybody's uncomfortable doingthat.
But now, I'd say, five yearslater, I have completely seen

(25:10):
the value of role playing andpracticing and getting those
skills and practicing thoseskills to become better at it,
Because that's really where youdon't want.
It's just like Toastmasters youwant to practice before you go
out into the real situation, andthat's the same thing with
negotiation.
Sometimes saying those wordsseem uncomfortable the first

(25:33):
time you say them and then youwant to practice them.
Do you as a lawyer?
Do you role play court thingsas well.
Do you do a lot of that type ofpractice, role playing, outside
of just working with yourclients?

Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yeah, I guess I would maybe give it a different title
role play.
To me, role play is like acollaborative thing You're
playing one role, I'm playinganother role.
Let's play this out together tosee how this is going to unfold
.
I don't necessarily do a lot ofthat for myself.
For lawyering I have differenttechniques that are sort of
similar.

(26:06):
So I will pre like if it's, if Idon't do a lot of pre-written
speeches, I'm better off thecuff.
I always have been.
I'm a trained speech personfrom way back.
I've been doing competitive.
I started doing competitivespeech and debate in eighth
grade all the way through, so Iknow my own style.

(26:27):
So I'm much better off the cuff.
If I have a written out scriptlike word for word, it's
terrible Because I'm trying toremember every single word.
I feel like I'm holding to thescript, but occasionally and
really I probably that'sprobably too generous.
If I'm actually thinking aboutit, I can only really think of
one time.
One time when I was very earlyI was actually.

(26:48):
It was for a mock trialcompetition in college.
So this is pre-law school,pre-actually being an attorney,
but it was a mock trialcompetition and I was tasked
with giving the openingstatement as opposed to the
closing argument and thedifference for this?
For the purposes of yourquestion, the difference matters
Because the opening statementis where you're laying out for

(27:09):
the jury what is going to happenin the trial, as opposed to the
closing argument.
You now get to actually argueyour case based on what actually
did happen, and so closingarguments are, by nature,
usually mostly unscripted andoff the cuff, and that's where
I'm more comfortable.
That's what I typically did.
I can't remember what thecircumstances were as to why I

(27:31):
was tasked with doing theopening statement, but because
it was so far outside my comfortzone of how my normal style of
delivery is, because it neededto be scripted, what I did was I
wrote it out word for word andthen I recorded myself this is
date I'm going to date myselfhere.
Are you ready for this?
I recorded it on a CD.
Remember those CDs?
Yeah, I recorded myself on a CDand I listened to that CD in my

(27:56):
car over and, over and overagain to help me memorize every
single word, so that I wouldn'tstumble and I wouldn't get
tripped up.
So I guess in some ways it's alittle bit of a role play, just
a little bit of a differentflavor of role play, maybe, and
it did help.
And you know what's so funny?
That was 2004,.
I think it was when I did thatand I can still recite the

(28:18):
entire opening statement to thisday.
So it worked.
It worked, yeah.

Speaker 2 (28:25):
So I'm not a huge fan of like memorize.
I've done that before.
I've memorized some speechesjust as a practice.
I've manuscripted them, whichis another skill to be able to
write like you're going to talk,and then I kind of did the
speeches you know, like anewscaster would.
So there's different styles inlearning to give messages and
speeches and I think I'm glad Iwent through that process, but I

(28:46):
would never do it again either.
There's a guy named Eric EdMeadies.
He's with Mindvalley and hetalks about how to be able to do
storytelling and it's a reallygreat thing that I saw on
YouTube.
But he can.
He can talk for five minutes orhe can talk for an hour with
the same speech format that hehas.
So you'll have like threedifferent topics.
I don't do anything more thanthree because that's all my

(29:06):
brain can memorize, so I don'tneed notes and then you can
either expand on it, but hiswhole thing is every time you
tell that you're using stories,which is probably a little
different than your presentation, but what I like about being
able to speak off the cuff stillrequires you to be organized.
So you can do it and have yourlike if you had three main
points that you're going to talkabout.

(29:26):
You know I'm just making themup You're going to talk about.
You know how you messed me upand how I got messed up and how
we're going to resolve it.
I don't know I'm fake lawyeringright now, but you have those
three things.
But then you have enough foryou to to make it, you know,
sound personable, cause I'veheard people give written
scripted speeches before andthey're not natural.
But to be able to have that, tothink concisely, I think that's

(29:49):
one of the most important thingin giving any presentation and,
honestly, in communication like.
I know a couple of people thatthey are just conscious stream
of thought people and I'm like Idon't even know where we're
going with this and sometimesit's interesting.
Other times it's like you lostme.
You know it's just like be be alittle, you know more clear in
in this and then also engage inin the other listener.

(30:12):
So there's people that don't dothat and I think, in your
position, to be able to have andthink clearly and concisely and
have a message like that issomething that's really
important to do.
So that's interesting, that youmemorize it and still know that
speech.
That's great, but then againyou'd never do it again, would
you?

Speaker 1 (30:30):
No, never.
No, I would not.
I'm glad I did it so that Icould have that experience.
Like you said, I know now thatI have that tool to use if I
ever wanted to.
But no, I would.
It's it's not my natural style.
I'm not best.
I don't communicate best thatway, I'm not effective.
Well, I'm not as effective thatway and I'm certainly less
persuasive that way.
And as an attorney, of coursethat's my number one job is to

(30:52):
be persuasive.
So yeah it's not my preferredmethod at all.

Speaker 2 (30:55):
And I think you lose the passion in it as well too.
I don't think there's reallyanyone and I know I know you say
it's not your style, it's notmine either, but I don't.
I don't think anyone thatpractices that style comes
across as authentic, eitherbecause you lose that passion
trying to get to the exact pointand having done it, like you,
if you get lost in there, thenyou forget where you're going,
and that's not the whole purposeof giving that message either,

(31:18):
because if you don't know whereyou're going, then nobody's
going to care where you're,where you're at anyways, so well
.
So one thing I did prior tothis is I asked chat GPT because
that's my go to.
I will say, for chat GPT thinkslike I think which is scary
because it is like the firsttime I used it I'm like I need

(31:40):
to find out what's going on.
This is when it came out like Ithink last year or something
like that, I still got the freeversion of it and when I was
would punch things in.
Things come out in bulletpoints.
I'm a bullet points person, Ilike to be concise.
It puts things logically.
So when it makes its messages,it's like how I think organized
it's so there's so much that Ilike about it, but also it has a

(32:03):
it loses a little.
I couldn't just read it to youand you could think, oh yeah,
james is talking here and therobot's talking.
So I went in there like whatare the most important things
when it comes to negotiation?
And I thought this wasinteresting.
The thing that came up wasnegotiation is communication.
I didn't even feed it like inthere, so it automatically said
that, which is very true, but itcame up with five things.

(32:25):
I want to toss these your wayand have get your thoughts on it
.
But the number one thing activelistening.
Number two, clarity andpersuasion.
Number three, questioning andclarification Is that like a
trial type setting Empathy andunderstanding.
And then the last thing wouldbe negotiation, language and
tactics, where it talks aboutyou know mastering specific

(32:48):
negotiation.
You know language in how you'rehaving that conversation, using
the right words, anchoring,mirroring, which are all kind of
Chris Voss kind of things thatwe're talking about.
All you know help, you enhance,you know your abilities to be
able to do that.
So what do you think about chatGPT's version of the five most
important things in negotiation?

Speaker 1 (33:09):
Well, again, in true, true fashion.
I have a question before I cangive an answer, which is, I'm
curious did ChatGPT presentthose in that order of
importance, or is this like arandomized list?

Speaker 2 (33:23):
So I did not ask for.
So let me take a look here.
You know what we're doing thislive, right now.
You may need to screen.

Speaker 1 (33:31):
Share with me too, because I wasn't taking notes, I
already forgot most of them.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
No, I'll go back.
All I asked was what are five?
Hold on no, here.
I asked this question.
I asked it a couple ofdifferent ways.
The number one what is thenumber one skill to have as a
negotiator?
That was my peer question.
Okay, and the response waseffective.
Communication encompassesvarious aspects crucial to
negotiation success.
And then it numbered them.

(33:57):
So I don't know that it putthem in a specific order, but
what I found with ChatGPT is itkind of does give a start and a
finish type of makeup to it.
But the first one was activelistening.
Second one was clarity andpersuasion.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
Yeah, okay, so I would throw active listening out
, entirely Really.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
That might be surprising.
How many more.

Speaker 1 (34:20):
Yeah, and I would start with, by the way, I think
what was number four.
I think number four is what Ithink is the most important.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
Empathy and understanding.
Empathy and understanding.

Speaker 1 (34:31):
Yeah, Maybe that's what it was, but yeah, I would
throw out active listeningentirely and that my giant
asterisk caveat to that is thatcould my position on that could
be informed by the fact thatmost of my negotiation is done
in a mediation setting with athrough a third party mediator.
So I don't need to activelylisten.

(34:51):
I don't have to.
I don't really even have theopportunity to very often
because I'm communicating withthe mediator.
What I want to need themediator is then communicating
that to the other side and thencoming back to me relaying what
they said, and so there isn'treally too much of active
listening that goes on there.
If I were to take my lawyer hatoff and just put on, like I
don't know, my wife hat or myemployer hat or something, a

(35:15):
different hat that required meto negotiate, to negotiate in a
different context, then sure,active listening might make the
list, but it definitely wouldnot be my number one.
It wouldn't be top of mind atall.

Speaker 2 (35:27):
Okay, well, and that's so.
Let me just read the wording.
So it says understanding theneeds, interests and concerns of
the other party throughattentive listening, helps build
rapport and demonstratesrespect.
But I can completely see whereyou're coming from in regards to
the current, the situations youwork under, like you're beyond

(35:48):
this active listening, likeyou're in a mediation format.
But I do think that's reallyone of the keys I think in any
communication is to shut up andlisten, like so many people just
start talking before they likeI know two individuals currently
who make assumptions about whatI'm thinking and going to say

(36:09):
and, instead of actually hearing, they hear what they want to
hear.
But I can completely see that.
The next one was clarity andpersuasion.

Speaker 1 (36:18):
Yeah, I'm huge fan of both of those.
Clarity would probably actuallybe my number one, because if
you don't understand your owngoals and understand, at least
to the best of your ability,based on the information that's
available to you, what the goalsof the other side are, then
it's a non-starter.
There's no conversation to evenhave, you can't even get to

(36:40):
negotiating the negotiatingbecause you aren't even in a
conversation at that point,particularly in terms of
identifying your own goals.
So clarity, I think, wouldprobably be what I would put
number one.
Again, I forgot the order that,I forgot all of those, but I
would definitely put clarityvery, very high, probably number
one.
Then what was the other part ofthat I forgot?

Speaker 2 (37:02):
Persuasion, clarity and persuasion.

Speaker 1 (37:04):
Yeah, I probably put persuasion last, because I think
all the rest of that stuffcomes before you get to the part
of being persuasive andcontributes to your ability to
be the most persuasive.
I think it starts with clarityand ends with persuasion.
That's what I'm sticking withnow until you tell me another
one, and then I'm probably goingto change my mind.

Speaker 2 (37:23):
I'm loving that I had no intention of putting you on
trial.
I feel like I feel your powerright now.
This is amazing.
The next one was questioningand clarification.

Speaker 1 (37:36):
Yeah, that's redundant.
I think, with clarity, chat-tptit's okay, I'll give them a
pass.
I like chat-tpt too, butthey're not great.
It's not perfect Like people,but yeah, certainly I think
asking questions is the best wayto clarify, at least for the
other side's intentions, andmaybe asking questions of
yourself to make sure you canidentify your own goals.

(38:00):
I guess this might be a reallygood place to throw in the idea
of BATNA and WATNA, which againcomes directly from getting to
yes, which is figuring out theother side's best alternative to
a negotiated agreement andtheir worst alternative to a
negotiated agreement.
Similarly, it's equallyimportant to figure out those
two things for yourself.
It really helps you get clearon what you're willing to accept

(38:22):
as a settlement, as anagreement, as a part of the
negotiation.
Knowing what that is for youropponent also gives you a lot of
clarity because it gives you alittle bit more leverage.
You can tailor your approach alittle bit better if you know
what their best alternative isand then what their worst
alternative is, because it givesyou pain points that you can
push on.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
Really, yeah, I think questioning really is the key,
one of the things that caught mewith this and in your right
there's always redundancy, it'salmost like they're getting paid
by the word.
But the one thing that, in thisone in particular, it talks
about asking relevant questionsand seeking clarification when
needed helps ensure mutualunderstanding.
That's really one of the tenetsof the Uncommon Communicator is

(39:03):
to work all conversations to amutual understanding.
That word caught me.
I'm like all right, I think therobots are listening, they're
giving me what I want to hear.
But the idea of questioning andclarification, just so we can
both know exactly that we'retalking about the same thing.
So I really love that portionof it.
But there's a little redundancy, empathy and understanding.

Speaker 1 (39:24):
I do want to go back for one second because I want to
add one more thing to follow upon what you just said which is
as attorneys, one of the numberone things that we're concerned
about, not just in negotiatingbut in everything related to
what we do, is making sure thatwe're all using the common
definitions of what like.
We have a common definitionright, because there's nothing
worse than having a completemiscommunication, where you're

(39:46):
talking past each other becauseyou have not taken the time to
make sure that you share acommon definition of a word.
That's even more amplified inthe context of negotiating
Because if you are talking aboutone thing and using a word to
describe it and the other sidehears that word and has a
completely different meaningthat they associate with that
word, you could be shootingyourself in the foot, getting to

(40:09):
a place where you're at no orstopping the negotiation, and
there's no reason for that.
I think a great example of this.
I took a 40-hour mediatortraining at Northwestern that
used getting to yes as thetextbook.
One of the lessons that we didin that course was a mock

(40:31):
negotiation.
It was so powerful because, ofcourse, in mock negotiations,
the way those are set up is likeI've got my packet of
confidential information.
The person I'm negotiatingagainst has their packet of
confidential information.
Of course, I don't know whatthey know and they don't know
what I know, to set it up, tomake it as real as possible.
There was a key in there to getto a mutually satisfactory

(40:54):
settlement and agreement.
The idea behind it was I neededthe orange peels for something,
it doesn't matter what it was,but I needed orange peels.
My opponent needed orange seeds, but we didn't know that tiny
distinction.
We were fighting over who getsthe oranges.
Of course, the key wascommunicating enough and

(41:16):
defining the terms enough torealize, by asking clarifying
questions, to your point, james,and to Chad GPT's point of
getting to the point ofnegotiating and communicating
well enough, where I say, whereI finally asked a question that
leads you to say I need theorange seeds and I say, well, I
only need the peels, so whydon't we just split it?
That way I'll give you all theseeds, you give me all the peels

(41:38):
, and we're both happy.
I think that really struck achord with me when I experienced
it in that lesson.
I happened to, just byhappenstance, happened to be one
of the pairings of groups thatactually was able to figure that
out, and so we found thesolution, but most people didn't
, and I think that that goes toshow the power of questions and

(42:01):
the importance of remindingpeople about the power of
questions.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
That's a great story.
I actually use the story of theorange when I talk about
conflict management, conflictresolution, which are two
different things.
I've used that story of theorange and I'll bring in the
audience.
I'll say, hey, john, you'reover there, we're both fighting
over this orange and it's likeno, I can't split.
They'll say, split in half andI can't do that.
I take that whole scenario justa story that I tell where you go

(42:27):
into this, just go into this.
Somebody else takes it inone-on-one, brings them in, asks
them some questions and theycome out and they do just that.
In the case of the story that Iuse, somebody needed the pulp
because I make up some storyabout they need the vitamin C
because they're going to getscurvy, which probably half the
audience doesn't even know whatscurvy is.
Then the other person needs theorange peel because they're

(42:49):
making this orange cupcakes orsomething like that.
All they needed was the peel.
I didn't realize that this wasa story that went deeper.
But I've had people go wow,like I hadn't thought about the
concept of we can both winbecause we haven't talked about
what we need.
That's pretty neat that I don'tknow where I still debt program

(43:09):
.
It wasn't chat GPT, but theinternet definitely gave that
one to me.
That's pretty neat.
Questioning clarification, anyother comments or rebuttals
before we move on.

Speaker 1 (43:21):
No, I think I'm ready for empathy and something else.
It was paired with something.

Speaker 2 (43:24):
Yeah, empathy and understanding.

Speaker 1 (43:27):
Okay, yeah, definitely.
Understanding I agree with, butI think that's still as a
little bit redundant withclarity, I would couple it back
to the importance of definingour terms.
I would define understanding asunderstanding their motives,
which would go into the claritybucket for me.

(43:48):
That's why I would parse outunderstanding from empathy.
I personally don't agree thatyou have to be empathetic to be
able to be successful atnegotiating.
In fact, as an attorney, Ithink it can actually hurt you.
The reason why I say that isbecause negotiations in the
legal context can be and a lotof other contexts too

(44:10):
particularly like an employeremployee situation.
It's brought with emotion.
That's, honestly, probably thebiggest value that an attorney
actually brings.
It's not our training innegotiating, it's our ability to
not be affected by theemotionality of the conflict and
the situation.
I think in situations and I'vehad mediations like this and I

(44:31):
think the mediators are probablyjust new or inexperienced or
untrained, but I've hadmediators put my clients in the
situation where they had triedto get them to empathize with
the other side and it backfires.
100 percent of the time they'renot in an emotional state to be
able to say I can see where theother side is coming from,
because if they could, wewouldn't have gotten this far in

(44:52):
the conflict in the first place.
We would have already been ableto find a resolution and settle
it.
I don't agree that empathy isrequired at all.
I would probably argue thatempathy could could, in some
negotiation settings andcontexts, do more harm than good
.
I've had clients walk out of amediation entirely because a

(45:14):
mediator has tried to get themto empathize with the other side
who they felt very wronged by.
I would throw empathy outentirely personally.

Speaker 2 (45:27):
An empathy, sympathy, those are.
I mean, that's a slippery slope, I think.
I think it is hard tounderstand, especially, you know
, I come from a point where I'mjust now finding that I have
some inkling of vulnerability inthere.
I mean, it's just things thatI'm learning, I'm growing from
Finally learning about that.
Prior to that, you know, I justdidn't have response, I didn't
have emotion.
You know, all these things thatI'm developing right, I'm

(45:50):
starting to live life.
But the idea of empathy from myperspective, though, is really
understanding the situation fromthe other person's shoes.
It's not necessarily filledwith emotion, but it's
understanding it from theirposition so you can understand.
So when I understand howthey're coming from and a lot of
that doesn't get there I don'tthink unless you can ask

(46:10):
questions to see it from theirperspective, necessarily, but I
can completely see where it canmuddy things up when you see it
from an epithetic standpoint,and I would agree with you on
the understanding and you nailedit.
They said understanding theirmotives and constraints allows
you to tailor your communicationapproach and proposals
accordingly.

(46:30):
So understanding is importantin there, and empathy is
interesting how it can muddy upthe waters.
Would that be a fair statement?

Speaker 1 (46:38):
Yeah, I think so.
And again, I mean I think it'scontextual.
I definitely think it'scontextual.
If it's a pure business disputeand emotions are not really
involved, then it might not bebad.
But I also think there's lessof an opportunity to be
empathetic in a true, purebusiness dispute because it's
just about numbers.

(46:58):
Right At that point it's abusiness decision.

Speaker 2 (47:01):
Completely, and that's, I think, one of the
hardest things to navigatethrough in any negotiation is
the emotions, and I'm alwayslooking at the detachment
perspective.
How can you detach yourself fromthis to really understand all
of the facts that are in there?
Because emotion, that emotion,is going to drive you in a way
that isn't going to resolve tothe best resolution as well, as

(47:24):
if you're working with somebodywho is filled with emotion, you
know at that point you eitherneed to figure out a way to get
the emotion out of it or stepaway and come back, because
really negotiating in anemotionally tense situation, in
my opinion, does not get to theresolution that you're going to
get to as long as there'semotions in there.
But understanding why there areemotions coming in there might

(47:46):
help you know, understand that,or might help that individual
yourself realize, holy cow, I'mgetting a little fired up here.
You know, maybe I need todetach my emotions from it a
little bit better to look at thefacts.
So that is a tough, that's atough challenge, I think, and
you, as being a lawyer bit.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
Oh sorry, james, I think we froze there a little
bit.

Speaker 2 (48:14):
We did.
I saw that.
I hope I don't have that.
I don't edit, by the way, soeverybody's going to hear all
that, but I would assume thatyou work in and around emotions
quite a bit being in thelawyering field.
Is that right?

Speaker 1 (48:24):
Absolutely, and you know I think I alluded to it a
second ago when we were talkingabout this a little bit.
But I do think that that trulycan be one of the most powerful
things that an attorney canbring to a negotiation on behalf
of a client is both our abilityto not be attached to the
emotion of the situation, butalso we are most of the time, if

(48:45):
you're doing it right, in atrusting relationship with your
own client, and so you can sortof you can have those hard
conversations confidentiallywith your client in a loving is
not the right word, obviously todescribe the relationship
between an attorney and a clientbut in a more positive way,
where you can sort of makehonestly sometimes the same

(49:06):
arguments that the other side ismaking.
But you can do it in a way that,in the context of that trusting
relationship between attorneyand client, you can present it
in a way that gets them to sortof look at it from a little bit
of a different perspective andlet the emotional sort of shield
down a little bit so that theycan see it maybe a little bit
more clearly, see it through thelens of the attorney, and take

(49:28):
a step back from thatemotionality and really look at
it as a business decision interms of, yes, maybe you were
completely wronged here, likeyou might be morally 100% right,
but how much do you want tospend to prove that you are
morally 100% right?

(49:49):
How much emotional taxing do youwant to put yourself through to
continue on through thisdispute, as opposed to
cauterizing the wound andstopping the bleeding now?
Because I think not to derailthis too much off of the idea of
negotiations, but I thinkoftentimes a lot of clients
underestimate the emotional tollthat being involved in

(50:12):
litigation will take.
It is long, it is taxing, it isdraining and I think clients
don't fully appreciate what thatis going to be like until they
are in it and sometimes theywant to take an early off ramp
because they can't handle it,and sometimes they stay in it
too long that now there is nooff ramp and now they are stuck.

(50:34):
So it is kind of the role ofthe attorney to negotiate with
their own clients sometimes toget them to sort of look at that
and see and properly value thedifferent pieces of that
equation.

Speaker 2 (50:48):
That is something that I talk about in my conflict
and resolution and management.
Also is the idea of trying todraw out that emotion.
First because people get itpent up inside and I have
personally resolved conflict ona job site by just letting
somebody talk and then becausethey had something against me.

(51:10):
I am like, all right, joe, whatis going on here?
He is like I am having a hardtime with this and this, and
then it is like I am having aproblem at home and he is like
it is not you, but it was me.
Up until he was able to admitthat, and I think that is part
of you know kind of that is anegotiation part as well, too is

(51:31):
letting people feel thoseemotions.
But I see your point, though,like to let people know ahead of
time how emotionally taxing itis going to be.
You have to be built for it oryou have to be able to come to a
point where you can separate it.
If you don't, it is just goingto grind you up and spit you out
.

Speaker 1 (51:47):
So that is interesting and you know
everybody has heardattorney-at-law, not as many
people have heardcounselor-at-law.
But it is a dual role and weactually talk about it in law
school.
They have a whole portion.
It is not its own class butthere is a whole portion of a
class where they talk about theduties and responsibilities of

(52:07):
being a counselor-at-law, whichis that sort of emotional side
of managing your own clients andthe relationship and the burden
.
It really can be a burden onthe attorney because there is a
shift right.
The clients will rely on us ina way that puts a lot on us.
Less so in the business worldif your clients are businesses,
but certainly if your clientsare individuals in individual

(52:29):
disputes there can be a lot ofburden shift that goes from
client to attorney just byvirtue of the relationship.
And so being a counselor-at-lawhas its own whole set of
considerations and preparationsand negotiations and
communications that go alongwith that with your own client
certainly.

Speaker 2 (52:48):
I have never heard that.
So I have heard the termcounselor.
You know, I just watch a lot ofTV report shows and I never
tied it to actually be acounselor-at-law, because that
is what you are you becomecounsel.
That is another word for it aswell too.
I love that tie verbally towhat that is.
That is interesting.
So the last one we already kindof talked about negotiation,

(53:10):
language and tactics.
We talked about how it isimportant to have the right
wording and I think you agree onthat one there.
Yeah, I think we will say thatchat-GPT gets like a C minus.
Maybe is that what we aregiving it.

Speaker 1 (53:28):
Yeah, I think.
Before I grade chat-GPT, I wantto correct one thing, because I
told you I didn't remember allfive in a row.
I actually think I would putnumber five as number one, and
here is why I think having yourtactics and your strategy ahead
of time is absolutely key.
If I don't have a plan for mynegotiation before I walk in the

(53:50):
door a week before themediation, having already sat
down with my client and goneover it, then I am already
starting from behind.
So I would actually putstrategy as number one.
So I want to clarify that, andthen I would grade chat-GPT.
I would probably give chat-GPT.
I will give them a C plus.

Speaker 2 (54:10):
Okay, we will give them a C plus on this one.
The information was there, justneeded some correcting in its
order.
And then also, I am a bigsimplistic guy.
I do find it a lot.
I am like third point is thesame.
As I said, are you just fillingpoints in here?
So there is a lot of redundancy.
But sometimes communicationneeds some redundancy so people
have an opportunity to hear whatyou are saying.

(54:31):
So, megan, this has beenabsolutely a lot of fun.
I wanted to end with a quotehere and we can talk about that
and then we can go in some otherspecifics.
But this is a quote from MarcusAurelius.
He says the problem creates thesolution.
What stands in the way becomesthe way, and with that the idea

(54:57):
is, you know, oftentimes frontedwith I think I froze there for
a minute huh, a lot of times.
Did you catch that quote?

Speaker 1 (55:08):
I heard the quote.

Speaker 2 (55:10):
Okay.
So the idea is that people okay, so people get kind of just
confronted with negotiation or aconflict and they're like, well
, you know, what do I do?
But the idea is it is the way.
If you can work through that,then everybody's going to be
better on both parts.
Do you think that's?
Is that fitting for anegotiation podcast?
To mention that quote what doyou think of that?

Speaker 1 (55:31):
Yeah, I do.
I think I don't think that'snecessarily always the best
outcome, and this probablybrings it full circle back to no
.
I disagree that no is thestarting of the start of
communication or of anegotiation.
I do think that there are somethings that should not be
negotiated through and the rightcourse for everybody is to walk

(55:53):
away, but I think that that'sprobably the exception that
proves the rules.
So certainly I would agree thatmost of the time I would agree
with Marcus Aurelius.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
Yeah, Most of the time.

Speaker 1 (56:04):
Again, true lawyer response, right I got to tell
you this.

Speaker 2 (56:08):
This is what I've most enjoyed about this
conversation.
I work with a lot of people whoare, you know, you got to only
ask open-ended questions.
They're fixed on that.
In fact, there's this thingthat we do where we go through a
practice and an observer iswatching the other person who's
the coach, and if the coach, youknow, doesn't ask only
open-ended questions, they getkind of a violation.
But there I've asked purposelyyes and no questions from you

(56:32):
and you've always filled in theblanks.
And I mean because it's just toprove a point that you can.
It's okay to ask yes or noquestions and get more
information, but that's justmade this completely pleasurable
for me.
Appreciate it.
I always end Tell me I was thesubject of an experiment, james.
I didn't know until it's halfwaythrough when I caught myself.
I'm like I keep asking theseyes questions and Megan just

(56:53):
fills them in with such greatinformation.
So I was being myself and I'mlike, wait a minute, this is
working.
So I had no idea.
So this one's for Adam Hoots.
I'm going to share that withhim.
That yes question and noquestion does work.
But I always sum up all of ourpodcasts with the UC moments,
the uncommon communicator momentthat we know.

(57:14):
We sum it up.
We've been talking for an hour.
Like what can people who havelistened to this walk away with
in say a one or two sentencestatement?

Speaker 1 (57:24):
About negotiations specifically, I assume, yes, yes
.
Yeah, I would say number onetake the time to identify your
own negotiation style.
If you do nothing else, if youtake away nothing else from this
podcast or from my series orfrom the books, identify your
own negotiation style,absolutely.
If you need help, I will linkmy quiz.

(57:47):
When James publishes thispodcast, I'll link my quiz in
the comments.
I think you'll probably publishit to LinkedIn, james, so I'll
link my quiz.
But whether you do it that wayor not, take your time to
identify your own negotiationstyle.
It will be invaluable to you interms of getting to know
yourself better.
It goes beyond just negotiation.
It helps you identify your owncommunication style, really, and

(58:09):
it will help you in everyconversation that you have, not
just, again, in conflict-basednegotiations.
It'll help you in conversationswith your partner.
It'll help you in conversationswith your kids, your parents.
It's valuable information tohave about your own personality.
So that would be my number onetakeaway.

Speaker 2 (58:25):
I love that, and so how can people and yes, we will
post it on LinkedIn, we're alsoon YouTube.
Those are the places that wewill be sharing this podcast, as
well as all the podcastdirectories as well, too without
video?
We will be posting video, buthow can folks get ahold of you?
And what other things are youworking on?

Speaker 1 (58:44):
So I am working on the online course that we talked
about at the beginning.
It is set for a release onApril 1st.
I'm happy to offer a specialdiscount code to your listeners
if they want to enroll on thewait list, so I can drop that
link as well in the comments.
I'll provide your listenerswith a discount code to join the

(59:05):
wait list early.
It'll be released on April 1st.
I have two live streams a monththat I do.
My next one is going to beTuesday.
I don't know if this is goingto publish before then, but it's
going to be Tuesday.
March 12th is not going topublish, but if you catch the
replay it's on YouTube.
That one's called theNeighborhood Coffee Shop with
Josh Lupker and John GooseDunham.
I also have my podcast Risk toRevenue the streaming sessions.

(59:27):
The next episode of that willbe April 1st with Megan Spivey.
We'll be talking all aboutconstruction contracts.
I am organizing an in-persongathering for anybody who wants
to come.
I did get a DM asking ifsomebody said I'm not
technically in the constructionindustry but I still want to
come, is that okay?
Absolutely Everybody can come.

(59:49):
So we're going to be meeting upin person in Savannah, georgia
the last weekend in September.
I post about it every Saturdayon LinkedIn Hashtag Savannah
Saturdays.
The other hashtag is hashtagSavannah in September.
If you want to follow that, Ialso have an email list for that
specifically so that you don'tmiss out on any of the details
and information, if you want tojoin On that.

(01:00:11):
Note where you can find me.
I am on LinkedIn atconstruction risk strategist.
Megan Shapiro at constructionrisk strategist.
I'm on Instagram as atconstruction risk strategist.
Facebook at construction riskstrategist.
You can find me on my website.
It's very simple it's MeganShapirocom.
My email address is equallysimple.

(01:00:32):
It's Megan at Megan Shapirocom.
Megan is MEGAN.
I know it's on the screen, butfor the listeners of the audio
only podcast Megan is MEGANS-H-A-P-I-R-O.
So I've actually pretty easy tofind and that's what I've got
going on.
It's all exciting stuff.
How?

Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
did you even find time to come on the Uncommon
Communicator podcast?
I don't even know.
Thanks so much, megan, forbeing.
I always get time for you.
I love this.
I so appreciate you being on.
This has been a lot of fun,very informational and the UC
moment being know yournegotiation style.
I love that.
It's short, it's simple.
That's all we've got.
See you, bye.

All Episodes

E115 - Negotiation with Megan Shapiro

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Boysober

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}E115 - Negotiation with Megan Shapiro