Conducting Effective Negotiations

competitor, for example, has actually been promoting something completely different by talking to someone else. And the explanation you get when you protest is: I'm so sorry we had no idea what was going on. The impersonation of-. Deny, deny, deny, right? Yeah or just innocent, you know I had no idea or, oh my gosh. Same organization. Yes. Yes. Which puts you at a disadvantage, maybe there are others, anyone here experiences other obvious techniques that are being used to gain power. Yes Juan. Once they locked us in a room. Yes. I think it was a bit amateurish in the early days in Eastern Europe, for us to just go out the window.

I bet there are a lot of interesting stories. That was another one, then, yeah. Language, there is an experience in

negotiations

in China where he was sitting in front of a gentleman who spoke or at least did not claim to have spoken any English. Yes. And then I had a translator, fortunately. And that was kind of an interesting barrier. Because I was pretty sure he understood. Mm-hm. English. And for various reasons, and the smoke was also another. Yes. He was an avid smoker. And I can't stand smoke, and I did everything I could to make sure he didn't know it.

Because that really affects, a little bit, how it helps everyone spend in this, you know, four-by-eight room. Yes. It was very interesting. So, make things physically uncomfortable or help. There is another way I see language used and that is abusive language. You know, people who start dropping F-bombs, or yelling, you know, cursing at you, whatever. They think they have an advantage. And somehow, most of us react. For us, we get on our heels a little bit when someone starts cursing at us, or raises their voice or something like that. I mean, no matter how tough you are, if someone starts doing it.

There is something in the inner child of all of us that steps back a little and nips at our heels. Now, he can make you come back the same way. You can get yourself to that level, which may or may not be a good thing. Comment? So the opposite happened to me once: we had problems and then we couldn't reach an agreement and then they came back and actually, you know, they could do more, more than they were. saying. If they gave me everything then they treated me kindly and then went behind my back and changed it back to me.

So it was the opposite of using abusive language. So it's kind of a floppy leg. It was. Yes. Yes, where people use different techniques to deceive and. So Joe, I have a feeling that you're going to tell us ways to do this that aren't these ways, but let's use these guys' examples, where you're actually facing people like this on the other side of the table. And how do you really take control or put a positive tone on it, especially if you're in a situation where you feel like this is the company I really want to buy?

Mm-hm. Or this is the job I really want to get. Yes. And you really don't have that many options. But these people actually approach you with these techniques. Yes. What would you advise us to do? Well, let's have the group, I'll give you my way of reacting to it. But someone in the group, you know, someone is using one or more of these on you. Yeah? Just call them. So calling them is really a thing. You know, I actually did this in litigation, where opposing counsel was deposing me. And he got up and got in my face and started yelling at me, saying why did you do this and that.

And you know, it's really unpleasant. And you are, you are, the, the. All the transcript shows is why you did it. . So and so. That's all it shows. That's all it shows. And if you respond how you feel when someone makes a face at you and yells at you in an accusatory way, you say, well, son of a bitch. I'll tell you the reason. Know? And you will do it in a way that is not

effective

. The most

effective

thing I found was exactly what you're saying. I say why do you get up and raise your voice?

That is recorded. But it is the most copied way to do exactly what you say. You're really calling it a nice way. Why are you raising your voice? What makes you scream at that question? Why are you on foot? Why are you walking back and forth while recording everything? Now, it's not necessary to go on the record in a normal negotiation, but calling him is one thing. What's another way you could deal with that? Me, I would start asking questions. That's where I start doing. Questions are very effective, you know, just asking, just posing questions. You know, that's always a very harmless way to turn down the volume, get information and cool people down.

Otherwise. You have to reach a higher plane, because if you are in this kind of mode and the other person is not in good faith in most of the

negotiations

that we are going to do, you need to have a relationship, and the relationship usually In many cases, It's much more important than the actual deal you finally get. So, I mean, I think you have to call him. You have to say, you know, what is your purpose here? Yes. And you guys, if he's doing one and you're doing another, it doesn't make sense. You both have to want a deal and you both want the best, you know, everyone wins.

Sometimes you have such power and such advantage, and you really need the deal. That they get their way and it's difficult to elevate them to that level. When there is so much disparity in terms of information or power, it can be very difficult to do so. I tell them what I'm trying to do is make it completely ineffective, just make it so that I ignore it, I just don't pay attention to what they're doing, by that I mean, I don't drink water. . You know, I can survive, my bladder is better than theirs. Know. Or I'll plan my trip with an extra night's hotel room and have an extra flight the next day, so I'm not even eager to let you know that I'm leaving at 5 o'clock tonight. .

That many times they will put pressure on things. And I just don't worry. We stay and then very soon for me it becomes a question of let's keep staying here, let's keep working. You know, I missed my plane, let's go to work. It's 11 at night, no problem. I can continue working. Well, I mean you do it in a way that the game they set up hurts them. So they really pay the price for whatever game they set up. So make it ineffective. So these techniques can sometimes work marginally in the short term in some people. But in reality they are not very powerful techniques in the long term.

Now, if we look at textbook discussions and negotiations, we come across these terms. And I'm not going to talk, I really want to talk today about very practical real-world situations. But these are, this is the terminology. I know some of you are taking classes or have taken negotiation classes. These will not be terms unfamiliar to you in the negotiation lexicon. Here are some practical keys to successful negotiation. And they will seem so simple that, in fact, that is what most really practical things are. Born from experience. But the first thing is to negotiate with the right person.

I'll tell you half a dozen stories here before I finish, where you'll see how I learned these particular lessons, I think. But choose the right party. You'd be surprised how many negotiations are conducted with the wrong party, with the powerless lieutenant, with someone who isn't really the decision maker, whatever. So find out who is the right party. And are you talking to the right party? Second, become a trusted negotiator. And I say here that it is a function of the PCC, and my students will recognize it. This is a function of character, competence and power. For someone to be trustworthy, he must have great character, be competent, and be able to make a decision.

So you wanted the right party to negotiate with to be someone you could trust. The right party for them is that you should be trusted too. So if you want to engage in high-quality negotiations, gaining high levels of trust based on character competence and empowerment are really important things to evaluate. Then know your own BATNA. What is a BATNA? The best alternative to a negotiated agreement. In unison. . The best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Well, this is a term developed by Fisher and Ury in 1981 from the Hartford negotiation study, where they actually discovered that if people could go into a negotiation with an idea of ​​what their best alternative is, this negotiation would work. successfully.

They came out with better final results. You enter with much more confidence. I have taken it to another level. When I go into negotiations now, I realize I don't know for sure. But I try to evaluate what the other party's BATNA is. So I really think a lot about what they want to accomplish and what their options are because that really helps you evaluate the whole thing and you're not just thinking about my agenda, my agenda, my agenda. This is what I want: price, term, solutions, guarantee. This is what I need. And many negotiators are coming in with their own agenda.

Well, go in and think about what the lay of the land is for the other side, and that helps. We'll talk a little bit later about Fisher and Ury's map, but I think there are three or four suggestions that make it a kind of broad map. They are really very useful. Discern the difference between battles and wars. What, what we used to call the elephant ant. Some people don't know elephants from ants. Have you ever negotiated with someone for whom every point of the agreement is something they have to win? You know, everything is compared, everything that is raised, they have to win every point of the agreement.

I'm here to agree that that's a really dumb way to negotiate. This is a give and take, if you're going to try to develop relationships like Nichola said, or if you're going to try to find creative solutions or whatever, you don't really want to. In this, I have to win every point of the deal. Then know where the elephants are and where the ants are. Be willing to lose some battles to win the war. Yeah? It wouldn't be an advantage for me just on points where I know I don't feel so convinced. Wouldn't the other party be doing the same?

They should be, and you should, I mean, in really effective win-win negotiations, you share what you're trying to accomplish. Lei Coca has a great quote: You know he was the guy who turned Chrysler around. And he said, you know, when I want to accomplish something, I tell the other party exactly what I'm trying to accomplish and what price I'm willing to pay to achieve it. And that's really the starting point for sharing, so there's a lot more information sharing in that kind of negotiation model. It's not always like that, it's not always something you can do.

And I, you know, going back to these techniques, I would say don't worry too much about collections, you have to be aware of them. You have to be careful and that tells you something. Someone is using, I was thinking that when someone yells at me or leaves the room or throws things, there is information in that. It's like I once had a partner in the real estate business who looked at a joint venture document that was this thick. And he looked at it and picked it up and said, and any document that's that thick, it has something for me.

And in a way, anyone who's throwing things and yelling and slamming doors or locking you in rooms, or something like that, there's something in that for you. You know, you can get the moral high ground, you can at least get information. So don't worry too much about them, but be aware of them. And then really understand what the other party is saying. This is a kind of return to understanding the other person better. But if you can understand their values ​​more I will tell you stories in a minute that illustrate each of them. The more you can really understand what motivates them, what's important to them, the more likely you are to come up with a solution that meets what's important to them.

So you've all seen this before. Just to pause for a second. Those of you who fear negotiations have probably experienced some of this win-lose experience. Those of you who said you really enjoyed them have probably experienced more of the column on the left. Well, here are seven situations that have somewhat illustrated these points for me, and I am only telling them to you not because I have had a unique negotiation experience, but because you can recognize some of these things from your own experience. You may be able to link it to your own experience and internalize it in your own way so that it really belongs to you in the first place.

I taught a negotiation session in the real estate course here at Stanford several years ago, and I had a version one and a version two of this. In version one, the instructions were: I want everyone to have fun. So this was the three-way negotiation. There was a buyer, there are two or three properties, a buyer, a seller and a lender. And they had to reach a tripartite agreement. And then they all formed these negotiating teams and reached agreements. The instructions were to have fun, be creative, learn everything you can about real estate and all that, and then just report back on your experiences.

Well, this is what happened. Reasonable agreements were made. Were madethis negotiation? Straight egg. What's that. He catches the rats. She understands rats exactly. She got the rats. Now, why an expert professional negotiator with $10 billion worth of deals under my belt? They gave it to this 11 year old boy on top of some stinky rats. Power imbalance. That's a great point. Or your mom had already said yes, so true power imbalance. For me this is the difference between knowing elephants and knowing ants. You know, he was willing to lose a battle to win the war. And the war, what I wanted, to win for me, to define winning for me, was to raise a child who was responsible, who loved me, who listened to me on the things that really matter, and so I was really willing to make a kind decision. . different view on this.

Once again, the really rewarding part of this story is. In the end, he returned the rats to the lady at the pet store, after the lady at the pet store told him that she would feed them to the snakes. So in the end she didn't like rats as much as I did, and she went away saying, Dad, you were right about the rats. And now. What was that? change . she, I came home and there were the rats. . . Annoy. No, no, that was already done, it's a done deal, mom had already said yes, do you want to hug them, dad? .

No, I think I'll let it go. So, I think we've covered most of this, this idea of ​​episotic versus serial, think about serial in her mind, as you think about her brand. Outside versus inside. The latter was largely an internal negotiation. You will have negotiations with third parties, and with really close people, whether they are employees, partners, brothers, sisters, children, spouses. Those in the interior are, by far, the toughest. Negotiations are the least forgiving and the most important to lose. So this idea that every negotiation is a competitive game that has to be won really helps you get through it.

The more internal negotiations you do in your life, the more you will realize that you don't have to win. Certainly not all points of the agreement and it is not necessary to win all negotiations. So don't consider it a competitive game. This idea is just I like this quote. Don't fight with the pigs, you get dirty and they enjoy it. So be very careful who you negotiate with. And that means generating options, that means always having other people to talk to and do business with. If there is the worst thing in life, it is doing business with people who do not have the same values ​​as you, who you do not respect.

I mean, it's misery. It's a different kind of misery than almost everything you know, except being married to someone who makes you miserable. , so this idea of ​​building reputation. I have given you my examples of that. But. Here are some alternative reputations you have. One is that I am tough, I am inflexible and legal documents govern. I have met many people who are like that. And often they're people who have a lot of money and they really think it's a very smart way to do business. Guess what happens? In the end, they may not have much money or the same position of power.

And they may not have a friend when things go against them. Live by the sword, die by the sword. You can be flexible, reopen, be open to reworking the life company joint venture partner that I told you about that just said, take notes, Joe. Turns out he was one of the most flexible partners you could ever have. So the documents were the documents were the documents. I couldn't negotiate them, I didn't want you to negotiate them, just take notes. But when it came to solving the problems of living in the real world of business, he was extraordinarily flexible.

And so I continued doing business with him. I probably did 25 deals with him throughout my life in real estate. Because he was a great partner. He was a tough negotiator documenter but also a great partner. You may have this, a reputation for being eager to make deals. Where you just say that I do a lot of singles and doubles. I don't hit home runs. The other is that. People, there are some people in the negotiation world who just say that I only hit home runs. If I don't do it, I get a four, if I don't hit a home run, if I don't win, those are the only deals I'll make.

Then you have to decide what your reputation is there. We have talked about these last two, the last one is Fishy Fisher and Yuri. Trained problem solver and we'll talk for a second about Fisher and Yuri. Yes, comment? ,, we're basically talking about these selectors, that they, , what do you do when you're in the situation? where there is simply an event that you need to associate with. MMM. And they are, we really need theirs, there is. There is no other alternative out there. You don't agree with their values. Yes. What do you do in that kind of situation?

In some cases you just have to suck it up and negotiate with them. In some cases, you can get another party to the organization you negotiate with. In other cases, you can talk to them and say, "Okay, this is where I think our conflict comes from," and get to a deeper level. And talk to him about it. I used to have a partner who would tell people that you know we're not going to reach an agreement on this, what would it take to reach an agreement? And that was effective in certain circumstances. Do you know what it would take to put this relationship on a better footing or to develop a longer-lasting give-and-take relationship? and sometimes you can be so real with people.

My point of view, from the beginning, is to create options so that you don't have a supplier that you can really trust or an alternative source of financing. I mean, I like having a lot of options, so I realize it's a bit Pollyanna. You can't always do that. I mean, we just closed a deal with one of the companies that I'm involved in, where they were about 40% of our business and they were really important. We had to close that deal. Accordingly, we took notes and closed the deal. So you're going to do some of that. There is no panacea for all negotiation problems.

You're going to deal with difficult people. You will have to win and lose negotiations. You're going to have some things you fear. But I'm just saying you can push it to make it a happier experience. It's more of a win-win experience, and the better you choose the party. So here, here are the mentalities I have when I put myself in your shoes. What time do we finish Marcello? Where did Marcelo go? 8:12. 8:12? So we have until 12. Are you happy until then or do people want to get out of here? Are you OK? Well, let's talk a little about these.

And one of the disadvantages, one of the mindsets that I think is really good, is that a negotiation is just a conversation. It's just an exchange. You are good at conversations. You talk to people all the time. So this idea of, oh my God, we walk into a room, we close the doors, we sit on opposite sides of the tables. You know, that feels a lot more threatening than just going to talk. About our various interests and try to have a conversation to come to something that is mutually satisfactory, so think of negotiations as conversations and if you are good at that, think of negotiations as a series that we have mentioned, think of agreements are won, we return to this. idea of ​​what you are gaining, the idea is that your agreement should be long lasting.

There is no point in reaching an agreement, which ends in court proceedings six months later. You haven't negotiated a good deal. If you want there to be some elasticity. Some sense, and usually that depends on how much trust you have developed with your opponent. If you have developed a very high trust with your opposing party once you come to a problem, the first instinct is not, oh my God. Let's go to the documents. What do the documents say? Most of the good deals I've made have never been about documents. Not once, and some of these things have lasted 25 to 30 years, which is my entire business career.

We never go to the documents. Because? Because we like and trust each other and these are real problems and we sit down and talk about them. So you want a lasting agreement. So that's another mentality they have. Another mentality is to think that everyone wins. In other words, recognize that you are responsible for... Many times, people think that they are the negotiator and that they are only responsible to themselves. I'm winning for me. Negotiations in which there is no broad responsibility are very rare. It's for your employees, it's for the community, it's for the shareholders. It's to a board.

Sometimes this can be very effective outside of the party in the room. You can use that to give yourself a break to pause and say, well, I can't, I wouldn't feel good about this community. I really don't feel good about throwing this mud into the river, you know? I mean, you really have a responsibility. So it's a good mindset to have the idea that there is a responsibility outside of your own interest. Taking care of your language. I don't think cursing, yelling, cursing, slamming doors, walking out of a room, and even boasting work. I think bluffing is a fool's game because all you need to do is bluff once and it won't happen and you'll have spent your reputation.

You will always be seen as a bluff. So my view on this is never a bluff. Never use what I call high speed words. You simply think of the words that increase people's emotional tension and temperature. Just stay away from them. And if someone uses them on you, ignore them. Don't let it work. And don't let your temperature rise. So watch your language and observe. What if you're really upset and frustrated, you know you're not doing it for an effect and you're not using a technique that you're trying to control at all costs? I think you should try to control it.

And here's why. You know, if you, and if part of it is that you're establishing a baseline, you know. Whatever your baseline is, it is the variation of your baseline that will have an effect. So if I tell you that I will never accept that, that's pretty powerful. If you know me, if you have negotiated with me many times,. For me, I will never do that. I mean, you really believe. I just yelled that. Whereas I'm throwing things and cursing and, you know, a lot of histrionics. I can scream, I will never do that! And you'll say, yeah, yeah, okay, he'll be back tomorrow.

So I think about maintaining the baseline. Keeping the baseline really low is a very smart thing to do. Additionally, it keeps blood pressure low. I got out of there. This multi-million dollar deal I made here. Where we were exchanging properties worth a billion dollars. I sat down with the partners. There were six of them and one of me. And the oldest of them just said something that was completely strange and unfair. And I simply stood up and said, gentlemen, it has been a pleasure to be his partner all these years. It makes me very sad that this has to end like this.

I'm catching my plain and I'll be gone. Call me in Dallas if you want to talk about this. And it was that simple before I could even get to the airport. I got a call from three of these partners saying, please come back, we want to negotiate business, and it wasn't like I was up. I got up when they said it, left the room, but my speech was really that calm. And I think they took it as, oh my God, he's serious. He is really serious. And that's the message, that I'm really serious. That's what I want to convey, not that I'm cracked and out of control. because people don't trust that so much. in the end that idea of ​​being trustworthy.

You know that if you really want to be an effective negotiator, trust him. whether the other party can trust you. In the long term, you will build that brand. And you will develop lasting agreements, high-trust relationships, creative solutions, relationships with other people you like, etc. So I recommend it as a different mindset than a lot of people have about it. Yeah. . . North America and Wesson, I worked all over the world. Getting angry may or may not work, but it's not a big surprise when it happens. In the rest of the world, I mean, if you're always calm, that translates across cultures.

Yes, yes, it is a kind of universal language. Clarity. Something in some cultures is just an absolute no and you've lost... We burned all your credibility. You lose credibility. Yes, you are seen as an unstable person. Here, people may or may not forgive you. Depending on the industry. Yes. Some industries are full of wild people. Yeah? We negotiate with a broker, an investment banker, an agent... Or a lawyer who is actually negotiating a deal, would you use this as a model to find, select and broker? Because that person can often also have a tremendous impact on your brand because he can completely act and stand alone.

You don't really know exactly what they're doing either. Neither. I think you have to be very careful who you select, because they carry your brand. I have seen more lawyers ruin deals than facilitate them. In fact, I select my attorneys based on whether they are transaction facilitators. Are they negotiators, problem solvers? Or are they some kind of pushy egomaniacs, who have to be right on every point of the deal, who have to write the most difficult documents? Many times what you will do in agreements is have the lawyers fight. And the lawyers will fight. And it will destroy the deal and the relationship.

So, the first thing is that I try not to have many intermediariesFirst line. I don't like. Have agents, brokers, investment bankers or lawyers negotiate my deals. I like to establish a one-on-one relationship with the main other, in deals. I truly believe that is the safest way to maintain your brand. And it is the way to create better relationships, to generate better results. It's more short-term work. It's less work in the long term. I think there is a reason why people use these intermediaries and I think they can be valuable. I think it's always smart to have someone out of the room.

Because negotiations are real-time things where you're exchanging things back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, and you can make mistakes and it really helps to have someone, whether it's a board of directors, a partner , a lawyer or Anyone who can come in, refine, correct, soften. So I like to use them on all those things. Many times I will say that I need to get this past my partners. This makes sense to me, but let me check with the lawyer, tax counsel, or my accountant. So you know, I like to have a little backup. So I use them that way.

But I never put them in, my lawyer will partner with your lawyer and make a deal. I think it's very dangerous. It doesn't mean it doesn't work, but it does. I had this question about not really going above or below the median like someone, I'm very emotional. That's who I am and what I'm hearing. You know, poker face, try not to get caught up in these things, try not to get excited. Which to me is really like you saying the best way to negotiate is if you're six feet tall. And I'm five feet tall. Yes. So that's fine with me, I agree, I can see how it would be effective, how do you do it?

But you're just not six feet tall. Yeah, I'm not six feet tall. So how do I do that? I think you start by being yourself. Authenticity is something that will be measured by the opposing party, who will. Trust a lot again. I'm just saying you can modulate. You can, you can stop the swings from being so wild and that will help you, you know? It won't make you 6' tall, but it might make you 5'2". So that's okay. I, I think you need to be yourself. I mean, I'm demonstrative too, I mean talk to My hands, I wander.

I get excited about the idea. I mean, it's what I am, so I am that. But I just said that there are certain things, there are certain thresholds that I don't want to cross because if I go over those thresholds. I've spent something that doesn't give me back what it's worth. So if you're all over the map and like that, you just need to realize you're spending something that's pretty valuable and you have nowhere to go. You know, once you've gone up. the volume all the way up, there's nowhere to go. And I think I tone it down.

And the last one is being nice. And I know you didn't come to Stanford to listen to being nice, but I, when I went through litigation, I remember talking to. He was the opposing attorney after it was all over again. And he said something like, you know, I wanted to not like you, I wanted to hate you. He really wanted to be as angry with you as the plaintiff was. He said, but I couldn't help it, but I like you, and he said, I didn't want to influence, I'm a professional and I did my job, but it still had an impact.

So I talked to my lawyer about it and he said, you know, I've had the same experience as me. And he, he, he fired Ivan Boesky, he, I mean, if you go down the list, the people he had gone through, a bunch of them, and he said, you know, some of them were really nice scoundrels and it made a difference . And others, you know, you just wanted to fry them. And so this idea, there's something about everything, even the most jaded professionally trained litigator who gladiators for a lifetime, you know, says that he makes a difference if you like the other side.

So I think there's almost no advantage to being an idiot, to being a jerk, I just don't think it gets you anywhere. Well, we're almost out of time, well, let's see if we have more of these. We talk about agents, being of principle. We have talked about lawyers as memorializers or dispute agents. You know, this is at the other end, or at the formal end of the negotiation. Whether you mediate, arbitrate or litigate. I guess my advice on this is that they are all bad results. And you really want to avoid it, you really want long-lasting, flexible agreements and trusting relationships.

If you have to go to these litigations and arbitrations are not that different in terms of, the arbitration may be a little shorter and a little less expensive, but you are still presenting information under rules of evidence typically to a special master or hired judge or something. So it's more or less the same. Mediation. That negotiation is a negotiation to divide the baby. So if you're right, you'll lose half. So I think you just want to be, so this is again in this very sty stylis, formalized way. The rules of these negotiations greatly limit their results.

So, just keep in mind. Implementing the agreement, removing hidden agenda items, outbursts... I think we've talked about all that. So Fisher and Ury. Has everyone here read it? How many of you have read Getting to Yes? Just some of you. It may be so old that people don't read it. It remains the classic book on negotiation. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to become a better negotiator. Written in 1981 by Fisher and Ury, two Harvard lawyers. And they talk about their negotiations in the salt talks. And a lot of data about what really works and what doesn't.

They wrote another book called Getting Over No. So Getting to Yes is the first and Getting Over No is the second. In reality the second is much less read. In fact, is there anyone here who has read Getting Passed? Good, excellent. Not many people have read it. Actually, I think it's an even better and more revealing book, if you've negotiated a lot. These are two really good practical academic texts that give you a good map. And I usually realize that when I'm negotiating with someone who has studied Ury and Fisher. It is a different type of negotiation.

It's actually quite nice. So here it is, if you don't want to read it, here's the Reader's Digest version. I'm saving you time. You thought you were wasting an hour on me, I'll save you a couple of hours. Basically, the idea is separated, so here are the four fundamentals. Separate people from the problem, which many people don't do. They merge them, you know? The problem is thorny, which is why I don't like people. People who have this problem that they present to me, because I don't like the problem or because it puts me in an uncomfortable position, I don't like those people either.

And there is a lot of confusion, which is why they say to separate those two and focus on interest, not position. Now, in other words, what would you like to see happen? Not what positions you are going to take, but what the other party will take, because the positions are not necessarily related to what really interests you. People express positions that may not be the actual end point that reflects their interests. Then invent options together for mutual benefit, when you think outside the box, invent options. And then insist if you can, this is the most difficult thing for me, is to find objective criteria.

You know what, what would be a winning deal? What would work? And then evaluate your deal based on these objective criteria. That's the hardest one for me, but I've seen it work. And finally, for me, I would say meet your bartner. Find it out, write it down, know it when you enter and my corollary is to calculate the other party's barter. Then you really know that it is not life or death. There are alternatives and negotiations will be more likely to be successful. Now I'll show you that this is, again, more Fisher and Ury stuff. But if I may, that's how they approach some of this stuff.

Deal with problems and frame things. So I'll show this slide and another slide, and then have you think about what else this relates to. You know, discuss each one, don't blame the opponent, look at the opponent's intentions, observe the situation, know from their perspective, give them a stake in the outcome. You know, don't react to a provocation, walk away, don't respond reflexively, be an active listener, accept when you can. I used to have a friend I negotiated with, a guy who became a friend I negotiated with, who started every negotiation with all the things we agreed to.

So you would go through ten items and say, okay, we agree on this. We agree on this. And you acquired the thoughtful habit of simply agreeing. Okay, I agree with that. That works. I agree with that. That works. Okay that's fine. And you would end up with numbers 11, 12 and 13, which were the difficult ones. These are things that Ury and Fisher discuss. And it would be, you know? I guess I'll tell you because we're out of time. My take on this is that this is marriage. You know, that's how I've made a marriage work for 35 years, basically doing these things.

And most relationships you find yourself in are subject to negotiation. If you listen to these best practices, your life will work better, your relationships will work better and your conversations will be happier, your agreements will last longer and most of the time you will feel like you won. Most of the time you won't feel dirty, like you need to take a shower. And negotiations will not just be about eating your broccoli but will be something that gives you life, expresses your creativity and builds relationships. So, I'll stick around if any of you want to discuss this or have any questions, but thank you very much.