November 18, 2025 • 21 mins
Offering a comprehensive guide to negotiation strategies and tactics. The book is structured around various negotiation "gambits" and techniques, covering topics such as setting initial positions, handling offers, dealing with authority figures, managing impasses, and understanding cross-cultural negotiation differences. It emphasizes the importance of psychology, non-verbal communication, and preparing for negotiations to achieve "win-win" outcomes where both parties feel satisfied. The excerpts include chapter titles, key points, and illustrative anecdotes to explain concepts like the "Flinch," "Good Guy/Bad Guy," and the influence of time pressure on negotiation dynamics.
You can listen and download our episodes for free on more than 10 different platforms:
https://linktr.ee/book_shelter
Get the Book now from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Power-Negotiating-15th-Anniversary/dp/1601631391?&linkCode=ll1&tag=cvthunderx-20&linkId=6933942e4f6f8cd68b90d83e28a80c89&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl
Produced by:
https://www.podcaistudio.com/
You can listen and download our episodes for free on more than 10 different platforms:
https://linktr.ee/book_shelter
Get the Book now from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Power-Negotiating-15th-Anniversary/dp/1601631391?&linkCode=ll1&tag=cvthunderx-20&linkId=6933942e4f6f8cd68b90d83e28a80c89&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl
Produced by:
https://www.podcaistudio.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the depth dive. Today, we're really immersing ourselves
in what you might call the definitive playbook for negotiation mastery.
We're pulling this straight from Roger Dawson's core principle.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Right, and this isn't just about haggling over price tags.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
It's bigger than that exactly. It's about viewing the whole interaction,
from the initial hello to the final handshake, let's say,
as a structured journey. It's designed to well maximize your outcome.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
But crucially doing it in a way that leads the
person across the table feeling genuinely satisfied too, like they want.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
That's the key, isn't it that feeling. So we're summarizing
this material not just as like a list of disconnected tricks,
but as a complete strategy, a story, almost a story.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Yes, if you listening, really want to stop leaving value, money, time,
whatever on the table, you need to grasp these three
phases of what Dawson calls power negotiation.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Okay, what are they?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
First the opening set of getting the stage right, Then
the active engagement, the back and forth, the tactics. Finally
the psychological endgame. It's all connected.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Okay, And before we jump into actwy, the opening, there's
this foundational belief system, right something power negotiators just.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Know absolutely three core assumptions. First, negotiation is always a
two way street, always okay. Second, it's played by a
set of rules, predictable rules and counter rules, what we'll
call gambit. It's tactics and maybe the most potent idea.
No isn't the end. It's never the final word. It's
just the opening position.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
It changes everything, doesn't it? That confidence? Just knowing no
means let's talk.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay, let's hit the ground running with Act one, the
opening salvo. This is all about setting the anchor, defining
the starting point.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
And the first golden rule. Here it feels almost basic,
but it's essential. You must ask for more than you
actually expect to get.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
You absolutely must.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
But why, I mean, why is it so bad to
just walk in with your fair final offer?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Seems efficient, efficient maybe, but cycle logically disastrous. You completely
deny the other side the satisfaction of winning something from you.
If you give them your best shot right away, they
don't feel they earned anything. They instantly think, hm, I
probably could have done better or worse. What's wrong with this? Deal,
they walk away feeling well, cheated or at least suspicious.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Dawson calls that unilateral disarmament. Right, you give up your
weapons before the fight.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Exactly, you have to leave yourself room to concede. It's
part of the dance.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
And this isn't just theory. You see it in huge
situations like the Persian Gulf war scenario.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
He talks about a perfect high spakes example, when the
US stated it's opening demands, get out Kuwait, restore the government,
pay reparations. That wasn't just an opening bid.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Is their bottom line?
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Precisely, they started where they absolutely needed to finish, So
zero flexibility, no room for the other side to claim
any kind of win or concession. It had to lead
to a deadlock.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
So the strategy isn't just asking hi, it's bracketing. Can
you explain that sure?
Speaker 2 (03:00):
About setting the range? So your target is in the middle.
Let's say you want to buy a car for thirteen
thousand dollars, the dealers at fifteen thousand dollars. You don't
start at twelve thousand, five hundred dollars. You start way down,
maybe eleven thousand dollars, now thirteen thousand dollars is bracketed,
sitting neatly between their fifteen K and your eleven dior
It makes thirteen k feel like a reasonable middle ground.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Got it sets the psychological field, but then comes the
next trap, doesn't it? The second rule never say yes
to the first offer you receiver.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Never you have to pause. It's mandatory.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Why, even if it's amazing.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Even if it secretly thrills you, Because if you accept immediately,
two things happen in the other person's mind. First, darn,
I could have done better. I started too low?
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Right buyers are sellers remorse instantly?
Speaker 2 (03:45):
And second, wait, why do they agree so fast? Is
there something wrong here? I'm not seeing Remember that magazine
salesman story.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Yeah, he asked for two thousand dollars, the buyer offered
five hundred dollars, and the salesman just snapped it up instantly.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
The buyer got a ridiculously good deal objective, but felt
totally ripped off because the salesman gave into easily. You've
got to make them feel like they worked for it,
earned it.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Okay, so you set your high anchor you resist their
first offer. How do you reinforce that initial pushback? That's
the flinch, right.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Yes, the flinch, And it's crucial because what something like
seventy percent of communication is nonverbal. People believe what they.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
See, so you have to visibly react like act shocked.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Visibly react with shock, surprise, maybe even a little bit
of you know, pain at their proposal. Yeah, even if
it's perfectly reasonable.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Even if it's exactly what you expected.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Especially Thendlson tells that story about his speaker friend offer
fifteen hundred dollars. The friend just visibly gasped, maybe if
light recoil, and the offer immediately jumped to twenty five
hundred dollars just from the nonverbal signal conveying wow, I
couldn't possibly do it. For that, it forces the other
side to reconsider before a single word is negotiated.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Okay, but quick question for you know now we do
so much remotely video calls. How does the flinch work
effectively when all they see is your head and shoulders?
Seems harder.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
That's a great point. It definitely changes the how, but
not the why. You have to be more deliberate, more
theatrical almost Okay, since you have less body to work with,
it might be a sharp lean back, maybe covering your
mouth slightly like oh why, or even a slow, deliberate
headshake that says no.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Way, exaggerated surprise for the small screen.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Exactly because the context is limited, the gesture needs to
be clear enough to still create that friction, that feeling
of uh oh, my offer landed badly?
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Okay. Act I set the stage anchored the negotiation. Now
we move into act two, the engagement. This feels like
where the real tactical battle happens. How do you start
without just getting into a big argument?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
You deliberately avoid the argument. Arguing is like throwing gasoline
on the fire. It just makes the other person dig
their heels in harder to prove their right.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
So what's the alternative?
Speaker 2 (05:55):
The feel felt found formula psychology one A one. Really,
someone hits you within ajection your price is too high
or that delivery time.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Is impossible, Yeah, common ones.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Instead of arguing, you validate their emotion. First, you say,
I understand exactly how you feel about that. Pause, let
it land, okay. Empathy first, then bridget Actually, many of
our best clients have felt the same way initially. Now
you're normalizing their concern, making them feel less alone or confrontational.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Right, you're building common ground and then the pivot.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
But here is what we have always found, and you
gently guide them towards your solution or perspective. Feel felt found.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
That's smooth. You're basically sidestepping the confrontation by agreeing with
the feeling, not necessarily the fact. But let's be honest,
couldn't that come across as well? Kind of manipulative If
you don't nail the tone, Oh.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Absolutely, If it's soundscripted or insincere, it falls flat. Worse,
it builds distrust. The field part has to be genuine.
You need to actually pause and acknowledge their point. It's
about using empathy strategically, not faking it.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Got it? Authenticity is key?
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Okay, So once you've diffused potential arguments, you might use
a tactic to shape the perception of value before you
even talk numbers. That's the reluctant seller or buyer thing exactly.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
This technique is about playing hard to get. Basically, it
either expands the negotiation range if you're selling, or squeezes
it if you're buying, before formal talks even start.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
The Trump example with the Saint Murt's Hotel is pretty
famous here, isn't it classic reluctant seller. He made it
known he wasn't really interested in selling that he was
keeping it for his grandchildren, you.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Know, right, creating scarcity precisely.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
It created this huge psychological pressure on the buyer, Alan Bond,
who really wanted it. Bond ended up paying what one
hundred and sixty million dollars, almost double what Trump paid,
largely just to persuade Trump to even consider selling. The
perceived difficulty became part of the value.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Wow. Okay, so that sets a tone. Now, let's get
into the specific tools for when the numbers are flying.
What if they hit you back with something vague but aggressive,
like just do better?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
The vice technique, you'll have to do better than that.
It's designed to make you make the next concession without
them giving anything specific. It's pure pressure.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
So how do you counter it?
Speaker 2 (08:09):
You turn it right back on them with discipline. Your
immediate response should be exactly how much better do I
have to do?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Ah? Make them name a number.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Yes, you refuse to bid against yourself. You force them
to be specific and make the next concrete move. Don't
fall into the trap of just offering a random discount.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Smart, Okay, another big one, especially for people managing budgets
or working in organizations higher authority.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Oh, this is essential. You should never ever reveal that
you have the final say. Even if you do, always
have a vague higher authority.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Like the committee or the board exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Or the folks at corporate, my partners, the finance department.
It's deliberately vague. This entity becomes the bad guy applying
pressure without you having to be confrontational yourself.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
So you can say, look, I love to but my
committee just won't approve anything below X.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Precisely, it allows you to hold firm or make necessary
concessions without damaging the personal rapport. Now the counter.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
For someone who knows this game, there's always a counter.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Always, the sophisticated negotiator will try to pin you down
up front. They'll ask something like, Okay, let's say this
proposal meet all your needs perfectly. Is there any reason
you wouldn't be able to give me a decision today?
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Trying to take away your excuse before you use it.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Exactly. They're trying to smoke out whether you truly have
authority or if you're planning to use the committee later.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Okay. Next classic tactic often seen in pairs good guy
bad guy.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Yeah, the old police interrogation routine. Right, we've all seen it.
One person on their team is tough, inflexible, maybe even
a bit aggressive.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
That's the bad guy making unreasonable demands.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Right. Then their partner steps in the good guy, all friendly, reasonable,
offering sympathy, suggesting a compromise that still heavily favors them,
but seems great compared to the bad guy.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
So how do you beat that? It feels like it
could be effective.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
The most effective way is simply to call it out.
Name the game.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Really, just say it.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Yep, look at them both and say something like, Okay,
I see what's happening here. You're playing the bad guy,
you're the good guy. Look, let's just cut that out
and talk about a fair win win solution directly.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Does that work? Seems bold?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Often? Yes, Naming the tactic neutralizes its power. It could
be a bit embarrassing for them, and they'll usually drop
it and shift to a more straightforward approach.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Interesting, Okay, let's talk about giving ground concessions. You said
earlier you need room to concede, But how you concede
matters hugely, doesn't it. You can't just give equal amounts away.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
No, that's a huge mistake. Giving concessions in equal steps,
like one hundred dollars off and another one hundred dollars
than another one hundred dollars signals that you have plenty
more where that came from. It encourages them to keep pushing.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
So you need to signal that you're reaching your limit exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
That's the rule of tapering concessions. Your concessions must get
smaller and smaller.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Give me an example.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Okay, maybe your first concepent is four hundred dollars, the
next one is smaller, say three hundred dollars than two
hundred dollars, then maybe just one hundred dollars. The pattern itself,
the shrinking amounts and the clear message we're scraping the
bottom of the barrel. Now, this is getting really tough.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
And if your last concession is tiny, they're more likely
to believe it is your last one.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Correct. Conversely, if your last concession was your biggest, say
you suddenly drop five hundred dollars at the end, they'll
absolutely believe you have more room and we'll push for
another one. The pattern tells the story.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
Okay, makes sense. Finally, in this act to engagement phase,
let's get into strategic misdirection, decoys and red herrings. These
sounds similar, but.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Are different, right, Yes, subtle but important distinction. Let's break
it down. A decoy is a phony issue, something you
pretend to care about but are actually indifferent to.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Why would you do that so you could trade it.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Away later for something you actually want. Remember the hotel guest.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Example, the one who made a big fuss about needing
a king sized bed.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Right, made a huge deal about it, even though they
didn't really care what size bed they got. Then later
in the negotiation about the room rate, they reluctantly agreed
to take a queen room in exchange for a massive
fifty percent discount on the rate.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
So they traded something worthless to them the bed size,
for something valuable half off the price.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
That's a decoy trading non value for real value.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
Okay, So what's a red herring then? How is it different?
Speaker 2 (12:25):
A red herring is usually a phony demand, often something
outrageous or impossible that you know the other side will
never agree to.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Okay, so it's not just indifference, it's like actively unreasonable.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Often, Yes, you introduced this demand knowing it's a non
starter purely so you can later agree to withdraw it
in exchange for a real concession you want.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Like you're doing them a huge favor by dropping this
crazy demand exactly.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
The classic example is from the Korean War talks. The
North Koreans demanded that the Soviet Union hardly neutral, act
as the.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Mediator, which was obviously never going to happen, right, impossible,
It was a red herring.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Later, they magnanimously agreed to withdraw this unreasonable demand in
exchange for the US side dropping the restriction on rebuilding
North Korean airfields.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Wow, so they got a major military concession by giving
up something that was never on the table anyway.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Precisely, they created bargaining leverage literally out of thin air.
That's the power of a well played red herring.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
All right, we've navigated the opening and the main engagement tactics.
Now we move into acts three, the psychological endgame. This
is where things beyond just the numbers really come into play. Right,
factors like time.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Time is huge, maybe the most underestimated source of leverage.
There's a sort of eighty twenty rule that often applies here.
It's eighty percent of all concessions in a negotiation tend
to happen in the final twenty percent of the available time.
As the deadline looms, pressure mounts and people start making
moves they wouldn't have earlier.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
The Vietnam Peace talks example illustrates this dramatically, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
It really does. The story goes the American negotiator was
reneing his hotel suite in Paris on a week to
week basis. What is that signal urgency?
Speaker 1 (14:05):
A deadline pressure from back home to get a deal
done quickly, probably before an election or some political events.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Exactly Meanwhile, the Vietnamese negotiator renative villa outside Paris for
two and a half years.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Wow. Talk about projecting.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Patients infinite patients. The Americans basically broadcasted their deadline their
lack of time power, while the Vietnamese projected they had
all the time in the world. This pushed the US
team against their internal political clock that November deadline and
likely forced concessions.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
So the key takeaway is pretty blunt. Never ever reveal
your deadline.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
If you can help it, and relentlessly try to figure
out theirs. Knowing their time pressure gives you immense power.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Okay, besides time, what other psychological factors are key in
the endgame? Information?
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Information power is massive. Think about it. Governments spend billions,
literally billions on intelligence gathering.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Why because knowing what the other side is going to propose,
or what their limits are before they even say it,
that's a game changer.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
It's devastatingly effective. If you know their bottom line before
the talks even start, you know exactly where to bracket,
exactly how far you can push. Information reduces uncertainty and
uncertainties where negotiators often make mistakes.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Okay, so knowledge is power. That makes sense. But then
Dawson throws a curveball. He suggests, sometimes acting dumb is smart.
How does that work? It seems totally counterintuitive.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
It does, doesn't it. But it's about managing the atmosphere
of the negotiation. Acting slightly less informed, maybe asking for
clarification on complex jargon, or politely asking them to repeat
figures or explain a concept.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Again, what does that achieve?
Speaker 2 (15:42):
It subtly shifts the dynamic, It diffuses the competitive spirit.
Most people, when faced with someone who seems a bit
lost or less knowledgeable, instinctively want to help or explain
rather than crush them.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
So it encourages collaboration instead of confrontation.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Exactly, it makes them feel a bit like the teacher,
the expert helping you out. This can make them more
willing to work with you to find a solution that
well works for you both. It lowers their guard.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
That's a real tightrope walk. Though you could just look incompetent.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Absolutely, this is critical. You never act dumb about your
core area of expertise. If you're a heart surgeon, you
don't ask what a bypass is, but maybe the surgeon
could plausibly ask for clarification on some complex financial terms
in a hospital contract negotiation. Use it selectively outside your
main field.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Okay, that makes more sense. Let's talk about the goal itself.
We hear win win all the time. Americans especially tend
to think that means like a perfect fifty to fifty split.
But Dawson defines it differently, right, more powerfully.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
Much more powerfully. True win win isn't about an objectively
equal outcome. It's about both sides feeling like they won.
That subjective feeling is everything.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
So the focus shifts completely.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
The core creed isn't what can I get them to
give me. It becomes what can I give them that
doesn't really cost me much or anything, but might be
highly valuable to them.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Finding concessions that have asymmetrical value exactly.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
The goal is always to expand the number of issues
on the table, expand the pie, as they say, rather
than narrowing it down to just one thing like price.
If it's only about price, one person wins, one person
loses guaranteed. But if you add terms, delivery, service, guarantees,
future business, suddenly there are lots of things to trade.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Off, making room for both sides to get something they value.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
So they both walk away feeling good about the outcome.
That's a sustainable win win.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
And this idea of different perceptions of value leads right
into the role of culture, which he covers. The whole
deal versus relationship thing seems like a massive potential pitfall,
especially internationally, Oh.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
It's huge. Western cultures, particularly American tend to be very
low context. What does that mean? We focus on the
words the written contract, the legally binding deal.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
That's paramount the letter of the law, right.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
But many other cultures, especially in Asia, Latin America, and
the Middle East are high context for them. The relationship
is paramount the trust, the long term connection.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
The contract.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
The signed contract might be seen more as well an
understanding of where things stood on that particular day. It's
expected to be flexible to be adjusted as conditions change
within the context of the ongoing relationship.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
So if an American originally insists on enforcing some minor
clause later ignoring changed circumstances.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
A partner from a high context culture might see that
not just as tough negotiation, but as a fundamental breach
of trust, as an insult that destroys the relationship itself,
which they value far more than that specific clause. You
absolutely have to know which cultural context you're operating in,
or you risk disaster without even realizing why.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Okay, as we bring this deep dive into Dawson's playbook
to a close, let's talk about the ultimate ace up
your sleeve, the final source of leverage. He emphasizes in
chapter thirty nine.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
It boils down to one thing, projecting credibly that you
are willing and able to walk away from the deal.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
The power to walk away.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
It's the single greatest psychological weapon you have. The moment
the other side believes you need this deal, that you
have no other options. Poof all, your leverage evaporates instantly.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
So the power isn't necessarily in a walking away.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
No, not. Usually, the objective isn't actually to walk away.
The objective is to gain concessions because the other side
genuinely believes you will walk away if your needs are met.
It's the perception of your willingness that creates movement, that
quiet confidence.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Right and after the dust settles, maybe you played a hardball,
maybe they did. Even if you feel the other side
didn't perform well, there's a final step, a courtesy.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Yes, the final courtesy. No matter how the negotiation went,
no matter how you feel about their performance, you must
always congratulate them at the end.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Congratulate them even if they were terrible.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Especially then, perhaps make them feel they're brilliant. Tell them
they drove a hard bargain that you really had to
work for it.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Why do that seems counterintuitive? Again?
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Two reasons. First, it reinforces their feeling of having wom
making them feel good about the deal and less likely
to suffer buyer's remorse or try to unravel things later
with annoying little nibbles, those small requests after the main
deal is done hah.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Prevents the post deal hassle.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Exactly, and second, it protects the long term relationship. You
want them to feel respected, so they'll be willing and
perhaps even eager to negotiate with you again in the future.
Burning bridges is rarely smart.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Business makes sense. Preserve the relationship capital.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Okay, we've covered a ton here, the opening anchor, the
engagement gambits, the endgame, psychology, dozens of specific tools. But
if you had to boil down this central lesson from
all this.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Yeah, what is it for me? It's about psychological resilience.
It's not just about knowing the tactics. It's about your
internal state. Your success hinges on your willingness to tolerate ambiguity.
You know, the uncertainty of the process.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Right, not needing instant closure, and the ability to bounce
back when a tactic fails or you hit a roadblock.
Plus projecting that core internal confidence that you simply will
not be taken advantage of that underlying belief is powerful.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
So here's something to think about, maybe a provocative thought
for you listening. Dawson touches on different kinds of psychological power,
things like charisma, deep expertise or what he calls reverence,
which is projecting unwavering, consistent values of those three charisma Expertise, reverence,
which one feels like the easiest path for you to
(21:31):
cultivate and consciously use in your very next negotiation.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
That's the actional takeaway. Which power source can you lean
into starting tomorrow? Because mastering this stuff isn't just academic,
It's about building real world influence.
Welcome to the depth dive. Today, we're really immersing ourselves
in what you might call the definitive playbook for negotiation mastery.
We're pulling this straight from Roger Dawson's core principle.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Right, and this isn't just about haggling over price tags.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
It's bigger than that exactly. It's about viewing the whole interaction,
from the initial hello to the final handshake, let's say,
as a structured journey. It's designed to well maximize your outcome.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
But crucially doing it in a way that leads the
person across the table feeling genuinely satisfied too, like they want.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
That's the key, isn't it that feeling. So we're summarizing
this material not just as like a list of disconnected tricks,
but as a complete strategy, a story, almost a story.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Yes, if you listening, really want to stop leaving value, money, time,
whatever on the table, you need to grasp these three
phases of what Dawson calls power negotiation.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Okay, what are they?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
First the opening set of getting the stage right, Then
the active engagement, the back and forth, the tactics. Finally
the psychological endgame. It's all connected.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Okay, And before we jump into actwy, the opening, there's
this foundational belief system, right something power negotiators just.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Know absolutely three core assumptions. First, negotiation is always a
two way street, always okay. Second, it's played by a
set of rules, predictable rules and counter rules, what we'll
call gambit. It's tactics and maybe the most potent idea.
No isn't the end. It's never the final word. It's
just the opening position.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
It changes everything, doesn't it? That confidence? Just knowing no
means let's talk.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay, let's hit the ground running with Act one, the
opening salvo. This is all about setting the anchor, defining
the starting point.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
And the first golden rule. Here it feels almost basic,
but it's essential. You must ask for more than you
actually expect to get.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
You absolutely must.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
But why, I mean, why is it so bad to
just walk in with your fair final offer?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Seems efficient, efficient maybe, but cycle logically disastrous. You completely
deny the other side the satisfaction of winning something from you.
If you give them your best shot right away, they
don't feel they earned anything. They instantly think, hm, I
probably could have done better or worse. What's wrong with this? Deal,
they walk away feeling well, cheated or at least suspicious.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Dawson calls that unilateral disarmament. Right, you give up your
weapons before the fight.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Exactly, you have to leave yourself room to concede. It's
part of the dance.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
And this isn't just theory. You see it in huge
situations like the Persian Gulf war scenario.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
He talks about a perfect high spakes example, when the
US stated it's opening demands, get out Kuwait, restore the government,
pay reparations. That wasn't just an opening bid.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Is their bottom line?
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Precisely, they started where they absolutely needed to finish, So
zero flexibility, no room for the other side to claim
any kind of win or concession. It had to lead
to a deadlock.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
So the strategy isn't just asking hi, it's bracketing. Can
you explain that sure?
Speaker 2 (03:00):
About setting the range? So your target is in the middle.
Let's say you want to buy a car for thirteen
thousand dollars, the dealers at fifteen thousand dollars. You don't
start at twelve thousand, five hundred dollars. You start way down,
maybe eleven thousand dollars, now thirteen thousand dollars is bracketed,
sitting neatly between their fifteen K and your eleven dior
It makes thirteen k feel like a reasonable middle ground.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Got it sets the psychological field, but then comes the
next trap, doesn't it? The second rule never say yes
to the first offer you receiver.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Never you have to pause. It's mandatory.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Why, even if it's amazing.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Even if it secretly thrills you, Because if you accept immediately,
two things happen in the other person's mind. First, darn,
I could have done better. I started too low?
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Right buyers are sellers remorse instantly?
Speaker 2 (03:45):
And second, wait, why do they agree so fast? Is
there something wrong here? I'm not seeing Remember that magazine
salesman story.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Yeah, he asked for two thousand dollars, the buyer offered
five hundred dollars, and the salesman just snapped it up instantly.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
The buyer got a ridiculously good deal objective, but felt
totally ripped off because the salesman gave into easily. You've
got to make them feel like they worked for it,
earned it.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Okay, so you set your high anchor you resist their
first offer. How do you reinforce that initial pushback? That's
the flinch, right.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Yes, the flinch, And it's crucial because what something like
seventy percent of communication is nonverbal. People believe what they.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
See, so you have to visibly react like act shocked.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Visibly react with shock, surprise, maybe even a little bit
of you know, pain at their proposal. Yeah, even if
it's perfectly reasonable.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Even if it's exactly what you expected.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Especially Thendlson tells that story about his speaker friend offer
fifteen hundred dollars. The friend just visibly gasped, maybe if
light recoil, and the offer immediately jumped to twenty five
hundred dollars just from the nonverbal signal conveying wow, I
couldn't possibly do it. For that, it forces the other
side to reconsider before a single word is negotiated.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Okay, but quick question for you know now we do
so much remotely video calls. How does the flinch work
effectively when all they see is your head and shoulders?
Seems harder.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
That's a great point. It definitely changes the how, but
not the why. You have to be more deliberate, more
theatrical almost Okay, since you have less body to work with,
it might be a sharp lean back, maybe covering your
mouth slightly like oh why, or even a slow, deliberate
headshake that says no.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Way, exaggerated surprise for the small screen.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Exactly because the context is limited, the gesture needs to
be clear enough to still create that friction, that feeling
of uh oh, my offer landed badly?
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Okay. Act I set the stage anchored the negotiation. Now
we move into act two, the engagement. This feels like
where the real tactical battle happens. How do you start
without just getting into a big argument?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
You deliberately avoid the argument. Arguing is like throwing gasoline
on the fire. It just makes the other person dig
their heels in harder to prove their right.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
So what's the alternative?
Speaker 2 (05:55):
The feel felt found formula psychology one A one. Really,
someone hits you within ajection your price is too high
or that delivery time.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Is impossible, Yeah, common ones.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Instead of arguing, you validate their emotion. First, you say,
I understand exactly how you feel about that. Pause, let
it land, okay. Empathy first, then bridget Actually, many of
our best clients have felt the same way initially. Now
you're normalizing their concern, making them feel less alone or confrontational.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Right, you're building common ground and then the pivot.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
But here is what we have always found, and you
gently guide them towards your solution or perspective. Feel felt found.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
That's smooth. You're basically sidestepping the confrontation by agreeing with
the feeling, not necessarily the fact. But let's be honest,
couldn't that come across as well? Kind of manipulative If
you don't nail the tone, Oh.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Absolutely, If it's soundscripted or insincere, it falls flat. Worse,
it builds distrust. The field part has to be genuine.
You need to actually pause and acknowledge their point. It's
about using empathy strategically, not faking it.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Got it? Authenticity is key?
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Okay, So once you've diffused potential arguments, you might use
a tactic to shape the perception of value before you
even talk numbers. That's the reluctant seller or buyer thing exactly.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
This technique is about playing hard to get. Basically, it
either expands the negotiation range if you're selling, or squeezes
it if you're buying, before formal talks even start.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
The Trump example with the Saint Murt's Hotel is pretty
famous here, isn't it classic reluctant seller. He made it
known he wasn't really interested in selling that he was
keeping it for his grandchildren, you.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Know, right, creating scarcity precisely.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
It created this huge psychological pressure on the buyer, Alan Bond,
who really wanted it. Bond ended up paying what one
hundred and sixty million dollars, almost double what Trump paid,
largely just to persuade Trump to even consider selling. The
perceived difficulty became part of the value.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Wow. Okay, so that sets a tone. Now, let's get
into the specific tools for when the numbers are flying.
What if they hit you back with something vague but aggressive,
like just do better?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
The vice technique, you'll have to do better than that.
It's designed to make you make the next concession without
them giving anything specific. It's pure pressure.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
So how do you counter it?
Speaker 2 (08:09):
You turn it right back on them with discipline. Your
immediate response should be exactly how much better do I
have to do?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Ah? Make them name a number.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Yes, you refuse to bid against yourself. You force them
to be specific and make the next concrete move. Don't
fall into the trap of just offering a random discount.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Smart, Okay, another big one, especially for people managing budgets
or working in organizations higher authority.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Oh, this is essential. You should never ever reveal that
you have the final say. Even if you do, always
have a vague higher authority.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Like the committee or the board exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Or the folks at corporate, my partners, the finance department.
It's deliberately vague. This entity becomes the bad guy applying
pressure without you having to be confrontational yourself.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
So you can say, look, I love to but my
committee just won't approve anything below X.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Precisely, it allows you to hold firm or make necessary
concessions without damaging the personal rapport. Now the counter.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
For someone who knows this game, there's always a counter.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Always, the sophisticated negotiator will try to pin you down
up front. They'll ask something like, Okay, let's say this
proposal meet all your needs perfectly. Is there any reason
you wouldn't be able to give me a decision today?
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Trying to take away your excuse before you use it.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Exactly. They're trying to smoke out whether you truly have
authority or if you're planning to use the committee later.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Okay. Next classic tactic often seen in pairs good guy
bad guy.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Yeah, the old police interrogation routine. Right, we've all seen it.
One person on their team is tough, inflexible, maybe even
a bit aggressive.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
That's the bad guy making unreasonable demands.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Right. Then their partner steps in the good guy, all friendly, reasonable,
offering sympathy, suggesting a compromise that still heavily favors them,
but seems great compared to the bad guy.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
So how do you beat that? It feels like it
could be effective.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
The most effective way is simply to call it out.
Name the game.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Really, just say it.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Yep, look at them both and say something like, Okay,
I see what's happening here. You're playing the bad guy,
you're the good guy. Look, let's just cut that out
and talk about a fair win win solution directly.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Does that work? Seems bold?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Often? Yes, Naming the tactic neutralizes its power. It could
be a bit embarrassing for them, and they'll usually drop
it and shift to a more straightforward approach.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Interesting, Okay, let's talk about giving ground concessions. You said
earlier you need room to concede, But how you concede
matters hugely, doesn't it. You can't just give equal amounts away.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
No, that's a huge mistake. Giving concessions in equal steps,
like one hundred dollars off and another one hundred dollars
than another one hundred dollars signals that you have plenty
more where that came from. It encourages them to keep pushing.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
So you need to signal that you're reaching your limit exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
That's the rule of tapering concessions. Your concessions must get
smaller and smaller.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Give me an example.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Okay, maybe your first concepent is four hundred dollars, the
next one is smaller, say three hundred dollars than two
hundred dollars, then maybe just one hundred dollars. The pattern itself,
the shrinking amounts and the clear message we're scraping the
bottom of the barrel. Now, this is getting really tough.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
And if your last concession is tiny, they're more likely
to believe it is your last one.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Correct. Conversely, if your last concession was your biggest, say
you suddenly drop five hundred dollars at the end, they'll
absolutely believe you have more room and we'll push for
another one. The pattern tells the story.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
Okay, makes sense. Finally, in this act to engagement phase,
let's get into strategic misdirection, decoys and red herrings. These
sounds similar, but.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Are different, right, Yes, subtle but important distinction. Let's break
it down. A decoy is a phony issue, something you
pretend to care about but are actually indifferent to.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Why would you do that so you could trade it.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Away later for something you actually want. Remember the hotel guest.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Example, the one who made a big fuss about needing
a king sized bed.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Right, made a huge deal about it, even though they
didn't really care what size bed they got. Then later
in the negotiation about the room rate, they reluctantly agreed
to take a queen room in exchange for a massive
fifty percent discount on the rate.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
So they traded something worthless to them the bed size,
for something valuable half off the price.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
That's a decoy trading non value for real value.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
Okay, So what's a red herring then? How is it different?
Speaker 2 (12:25):
A red herring is usually a phony demand, often something
outrageous or impossible that you know the other side will
never agree to.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Okay, so it's not just indifference, it's like actively unreasonable.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Often, Yes, you introduced this demand knowing it's a non
starter purely so you can later agree to withdraw it
in exchange for a real concession you want.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Like you're doing them a huge favor by dropping this
crazy demand exactly.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
The classic example is from the Korean War talks. The
North Koreans demanded that the Soviet Union hardly neutral, act
as the.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Mediator, which was obviously never going to happen, right, impossible,
It was a red herring.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Later, they magnanimously agreed to withdraw this unreasonable demand in
exchange for the US side dropping the restriction on rebuilding
North Korean airfields.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Wow, so they got a major military concession by giving
up something that was never on the table anyway.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Precisely, they created bargaining leverage literally out of thin air.
That's the power of a well played red herring.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
All right, we've navigated the opening and the main engagement tactics.
Now we move into acts three, the psychological endgame. This
is where things beyond just the numbers really come into play. Right,
factors like time.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Time is huge, maybe the most underestimated source of leverage.
There's a sort of eighty twenty rule that often applies here.
It's eighty percent of all concessions in a negotiation tend
to happen in the final twenty percent of the available time.
As the deadline looms, pressure mounts and people start making
moves they wouldn't have earlier.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
The Vietnam Peace talks example illustrates this dramatically, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
It really does. The story goes the American negotiator was
reneing his hotel suite in Paris on a week to
week basis. What is that signal urgency?
Speaker 1 (14:05):
A deadline pressure from back home to get a deal
done quickly, probably before an election or some political events.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Exactly Meanwhile, the Vietnamese negotiator renative villa outside Paris for
two and a half years.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Wow. Talk about projecting.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Patients infinite patients. The Americans basically broadcasted their deadline their
lack of time power, while the Vietnamese projected they had
all the time in the world. This pushed the US
team against their internal political clock that November deadline and
likely forced concessions.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
So the key takeaway is pretty blunt. Never ever reveal
your deadline.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
If you can help it, and relentlessly try to figure
out theirs. Knowing their time pressure gives you immense power.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Okay, besides time, what other psychological factors are key in
the endgame? Information?
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Information power is massive. Think about it. Governments spend billions,
literally billions on intelligence gathering.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Why because knowing what the other side is going to propose,
or what their limits are before they even say it,
that's a game changer.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
It's devastatingly effective. If you know their bottom line before
the talks even start, you know exactly where to bracket,
exactly how far you can push. Information reduces uncertainty and
uncertainties where negotiators often make mistakes.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Okay, so knowledge is power. That makes sense. But then
Dawson throws a curveball. He suggests, sometimes acting dumb is smart.
How does that work? It seems totally counterintuitive.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
It does, doesn't it. But it's about managing the atmosphere
of the negotiation. Acting slightly less informed, maybe asking for
clarification on complex jargon, or politely asking them to repeat
figures or explain a concept.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Again, what does that achieve?
Speaker 2 (15:42):
It subtly shifts the dynamic, It diffuses the competitive spirit.
Most people, when faced with someone who seems a bit
lost or less knowledgeable, instinctively want to help or explain
rather than crush them.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
So it encourages collaboration instead of confrontation.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Exactly, it makes them feel a bit like the teacher,
the expert helping you out. This can make them more
willing to work with you to find a solution that
well works for you both. It lowers their guard.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
That's a real tightrope walk. Though you could just look incompetent.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Absolutely, this is critical. You never act dumb about your
core area of expertise. If you're a heart surgeon, you
don't ask what a bypass is, but maybe the surgeon
could plausibly ask for clarification on some complex financial terms
in a hospital contract negotiation. Use it selectively outside your
main field.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Okay, that makes more sense. Let's talk about the goal itself.
We hear win win all the time. Americans especially tend
to think that means like a perfect fifty to fifty split.
But Dawson defines it differently, right, more powerfully.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
Much more powerfully. True win win isn't about an objectively
equal outcome. It's about both sides feeling like they won.
That subjective feeling is everything.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
So the focus shifts completely.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
The core creed isn't what can I get them to
give me. It becomes what can I give them that
doesn't really cost me much or anything, but might be
highly valuable to them.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Finding concessions that have asymmetrical value exactly.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
The goal is always to expand the number of issues
on the table, expand the pie, as they say, rather
than narrowing it down to just one thing like price.
If it's only about price, one person wins, one person
loses guaranteed. But if you add terms, delivery, service, guarantees,
future business, suddenly there are lots of things to trade.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Off, making room for both sides to get something they value.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
So they both walk away feeling good about the outcome.
That's a sustainable win win.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
And this idea of different perceptions of value leads right
into the role of culture, which he covers. The whole
deal versus relationship thing seems like a massive potential pitfall,
especially internationally, Oh.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
It's huge. Western cultures, particularly American tend to be very
low context. What does that mean? We focus on the
words the written contract, the legally binding deal.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
That's paramount the letter of the law, right.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
But many other cultures, especially in Asia, Latin America, and
the Middle East are high context for them. The relationship
is paramount the trust, the long term connection.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
The contract.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
The signed contract might be seen more as well an
understanding of where things stood on that particular day. It's
expected to be flexible to be adjusted as conditions change
within the context of the ongoing relationship.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
So if an American originally insists on enforcing some minor
clause later ignoring changed circumstances.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
A partner from a high context culture might see that
not just as tough negotiation, but as a fundamental breach
of trust, as an insult that destroys the relationship itself,
which they value far more than that specific clause. You
absolutely have to know which cultural context you're operating in,
or you risk disaster without even realizing why.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Okay, as we bring this deep dive into Dawson's playbook
to a close, let's talk about the ultimate ace up
your sleeve, the final source of leverage. He emphasizes in
chapter thirty nine.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
It boils down to one thing, projecting credibly that you
are willing and able to walk away from the deal.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
The power to walk away.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
It's the single greatest psychological weapon you have. The moment
the other side believes you need this deal, that you
have no other options. Poof all, your leverage evaporates instantly.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
So the power isn't necessarily in a walking away.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
No, not. Usually, the objective isn't actually to walk away.
The objective is to gain concessions because the other side
genuinely believes you will walk away if your needs are met.
It's the perception of your willingness that creates movement, that
quiet confidence.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Right and after the dust settles, maybe you played a hardball,
maybe they did. Even if you feel the other side
didn't perform well, there's a final step, a courtesy.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Yes, the final courtesy. No matter how the negotiation went,
no matter how you feel about their performance, you must
always congratulate them at the end.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Congratulate them even if they were terrible.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Especially then, perhaps make them feel they're brilliant. Tell them
they drove a hard bargain that you really had to
work for it.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Why do that seems counterintuitive? Again?
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Two reasons. First, it reinforces their feeling of having wom
making them feel good about the deal and less likely
to suffer buyer's remorse or try to unravel things later
with annoying little nibbles, those small requests after the main
deal is done hah.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Prevents the post deal hassle.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Exactly, and second, it protects the long term relationship. You
want them to feel respected, so they'll be willing and
perhaps even eager to negotiate with you again in the future.
Burning bridges is rarely smart.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Business makes sense. Preserve the relationship capital.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Okay, we've covered a ton here, the opening anchor, the
engagement gambits, the endgame, psychology, dozens of specific tools. But
if you had to boil down this central lesson from
all this.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Yeah, what is it for me? It's about psychological resilience.
It's not just about knowing the tactics. It's about your
internal state. Your success hinges on your willingness to tolerate ambiguity.
You know, the uncertainty of the process.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Right, not needing instant closure, and the ability to bounce
back when a tactic fails or you hit a roadblock.
Plus projecting that core internal confidence that you simply will
not be taken advantage of that underlying belief is powerful.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
So here's something to think about, maybe a provocative thought
for you listening. Dawson touches on different kinds of psychological power,
things like charisma, deep expertise or what he calls reverence,
which is projecting unwavering, consistent values of those three charisma Expertise, reverence,
which one feels like the easiest path for you to
(21:31):
cultivate and consciously use in your very next negotiation.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
That's the actional takeaway. Which power source can you lean
into starting tomorrow? Because mastering this stuff isn't just academic,
It's about building real world influence.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.