Transcript: Collaboration NOW: What Negotiator Personality Type are YOU?

Hello, everyone. I am so excited to have this conversation with Derek Gont. We spoke with him back in December, and you might be thinking, oh my goodness, who is this person with this crazy hair? You might be thinking, I don't have anything to listen to her for. Why am I scrolling past this live?

You might be thinking, I don't have anything to learn about negotiation. I'm already a negotiator and I'm excellent at it. But I have something to share with you. You need to learn about what your personality type is and what other personality types are for negotiation. And that's what we're going to be talking about today with Derek Gont.

He is a negotiations trainer and coach with Black Swan Group. And he is the author of Ego, Authority, and Failure. If you haven't picked up that book, it is a must read and it will help you in all your conversations. So with that, I'm going to welcome Derek to the stage. Hey, Brittany.

How are you? I'm good. Good to see you again. Good to be seen again. Oh, man, I've been looking forward to this interview since December.

And let me tell you, I've gotten so many, so many just accolades for what you've been able to teach people from the last conversation we've had. And and I yeah, I for myself, I had to reread some things, listen to the video myself and apply. Application is the best way to learn. So with that, just a quick recap, wanted to spend a little time, just a little time on what we covered last time back in December to bring people up to speed. We talked about a couple of tools in negotiation, and I'm going to just quick run through them and and and hopefully just bring people back up to speed.

So the first thing mirroring. Repeating something around what someone has said in order to convey that you're listening and you understand what they're saying. Labeling very similar to convey a similar message that you understand what someone is saying, but you're saying it seems like it looks like it feels like and sharing what you you believe they're sharing in your own words. In addition to that, we talked about accusations, audits. And I took a stab at it when we were jumping on the call here today about what people might be thinking as they're scrolling past this particular live here, just getting in front of what people are thinking in order to.

Address the concerns, address the. The concerns, address the. Initial thoughts around what people might be thinking in order to. Really be contrarian to what you're about to say, you address those things first before you get into what you want to share about what you have to desire. So we talked about those things that I miss anything there that I how did I how did I do on what we just.

That that was a pretty good summary for the mirror, the mirroring. It's repeating back the last one to three words. All you have to do is remember the last one to three words that came out of your counterparts mouth, and you're going to be in good shape. Accusations, audits are addressing the negative opinions, assumptions and impressions that the other side has about you, has about the conversation or has about the circumstance. If they were standing on a street corner with a with a megaphone and they were hurling in vectors, invectives about you and what you represent, what would you want to stand next to them and deny?

That is where your accusations are. It's like, OK, great. Thank you for the clarification. Always looking for adjustment and improvement to to my understanding about it, too. So excellent.

You guys, if you want to look up the last conversation that we had, we're going to go ahead and post that in the chat so people have access to all the great information that was shared back from December. We're going to get that in the chat shortly. And then what we're going to hop into today is what type of negotiator are you? So I've done some research, and if you guys haven't picked it up, you need to pick up this book, Ego, Authority and Failure. Derek is the author.

And the forward is by Chris Voss. What I would like to dig in today is how how you even came up with what different types of personality types there are in the first place. I understand you came up with it by by using sort of a different scale of conflict handling models. And so it'd be great to just kind of get that foundation of how was it really established, those personality types? Well, there are different conflict personality type models that are out there.

All of them, in my opinion, were complicated. And so the whole. One of the drivers, not the whole driver, but one of the drivers behind the Black Swan method is that it was developed primarily in the law enforcement arena. And what what cops want more than anything else is something practical, simple, easy for recall. And so when you look at these different conflict personality models that are out there, they tend to get.

They tend to overcomplicate it. So we took what we were seeing in academia and we dumbed it down. We watered it down, if you will, to three different types. Other other models, you'll have, you know, five to seven different personality types. We boiled it down to three because a lot of them tend to blend.

A lot of them tended to share the same characteristics. So we boiled them down to three personality types, assertive. Analyst and accommodator. An accommodator. Now.

When we talk about negotiator personality types, we're talking about what your default is. We're not talking about who you are in your day to day life, because everybody in their day to day life knows that they need to borrow from each one of those camps in order to function in their professional and in their personal lives. But everybody has a default. When you've got skin in the game, when pressure is on, you're being threatened or otherwise attacked. You have a default.

Do you attack back? Do you figuratively or literally run? Or do you try to make friends during the during the attack? And that pretty neatly sums up the characteristics of each, the assertive, the analyst and the accommodator. And I'm not here to tell you that one's better than the other.

I'm here to tell you that every all three types bring something valuable to the table. But you need to know what your default is. So how do you figure that out, Derek? How do you how do you figure out what you are and then how do you identify that in someone else? If I started hurling personal invective, you and I are in a negotiation about.

You pick the topic. And all of a sudden, I tell you, Brittany, I'm tired of you lying to me. Your company has proven that it is incompetent and all facets. I don't even know why I'm in the room with you right now. You clearly don't have the same intellect to be at the table with me.

That's going to cause a negative emotional response on your part. That negative emotional response is going to cause you to behave in a certain way. So you have to ask yourself, what is that way that you would respond? So if I if I figuratively smash you in the face with a brick. How are you going to respond?

Are you going to call me back? I'll for me personally, I'll probably be. I'll I'll listen, I'll hear you out. I'll listen to everything that you have to say and just sit there still and then say, what can we do? What can we do to make this work?

Because you've been coming at me with all of these allegations. But what's the real crux of the matter? And that's that's how I would have kind of gone about that. All right. So it sounds to me like you are more of the analyst type.

But I want you to really think about that. And when I say you, I'm talking about everybody listen, think about you got skin in the game. The pressure is on and a complete jerk to you. What are you going to do? Now, we have found anecdotally that the world breaks up pretty neatly into thirds.

We've conducted an exercise enough times with enough people to know that roughly thirds. Third of the population are assertive, a third are analysts, a third are accommodators. What does that mean to you? That means that there's a 66 percent that the person you're sitting across from you or the world that's different than yours. Which kind of undercuts undercuts the golden rule, right?

The golden rule is treat everybody as you want to be treated. Well, I'm an analyst. If I treat everybody as I want to be treated, I'm going to be alienating 66 percent of the people that I deal with. Don't treat them the way you want to be treated. Treat them the way they want to be treated.

Is the mindset that you should have. So basically speaking, your assumption should be when you engage in the negotiation, engage in a difficult conversation, the chances are better than not that the person on the other side of the table is different than you. And then how do you modify your dialogue accordingly? You have to understand what's important to each of the types. There is.

There is one thing that each of the types holds. In the same regard as they do, coming to an agreement or making a deal with you. For the assertive, it's to be heard and respected. The deal can go to hell in the hand basket as long as you know that they're in charge, they're the person, they're the man, they're the woman, whatever. For the analyst, it's data and information.

I'm an analyst. If the deal goes into the toilet, I don't care because I've been made smarter because of the interaction. I don't care because I was able to verify some of the data I already had. And for the accommodator, it's the relationship in the moment. Now, just based on the names that we've attached to each of the three personality types, you got to ask yourself, well, which one do you think is the most problematic?

And most people default to thinking that the assertive is the person that they dream about when they start to think about a negotiation. And the reality is the assertive is actually the easiest one to deal with during the negotiation because all you got to do is shut up. They're going to do all the talking. Now, personal experience tells me it's the accommodator that's the most problematic because the accommodator will, because they're so, so smart, they're so smart, because they're so beholden to the relationship in the moment, they'll say yes to almost anything and not mean it because they don't want to let you down in the moment.

The accommodator will give you a yes knowing full well they have no intention on execute, but they'd rather tell you that by email two weeks after the fact, or they'd rather tell you by phone two weeks after the fact. And that's two weeks that you've wasted waiting on them to act when they had no intention from the beginning. Wow. Well, thank you for that comment, Maureen. I'm so glad that this book changed life.

It's really, really helpful to know how much negotiation has helped just with understanding personality types. I want to dig into this, this, this accommodator personality type a little bit more because Derek, you mentioned they're, they're the hardest because they might say yes in the moment. But that's within that one conversation. How do you how do you prepare for that when you know that you're about to enter into a negotiation with an accommodator so that you're not. You're going to get the best out of that conversation.

With the accommodator. You're going to have to hit them with a variety. Of implementation questions throughout the conversation. When they agree to do something, we're going to pepper them with what's that going to look like? Who do you have to talk to back in your organization to make sure that we are on track?

What are we going to do if we find out we are off track? And I'm going to I'm going to pepper them in a differential way. I'm not going to talk about it in a differential way. I want that I want them to articulate for me what their next steps are going to be. And my your gut, your intuition is going to tell you how much you need to do.

But I know going in, if I've already labeled this person as an accommodator for whatever reason, I am going to make sure that I get them to explain exactly what they're going to do to hold up their end of. The agreement, the more you get them to speak that into the air, it's tantamount to a public promise and a public promise puts internal pressure on them to to stay true to their word. Right. They they don't. People want to be viewed as consistent in word, thought and in action.

And once they verbalize it, it's almost it's it's it's tantamount to a contract. And that's what I want to have before them before I let them out of the room, because I've been told by an accommodator, you can't believe everything that comes out of my mouth, but I'm not intentionally trying to lie. Now, I'm just going to let that sink in for a little bit. You try to get your head around that. That's that's the thinking of an accommodator.

You can't believe every word that comes out of my mouth, but I'm not intentionally trying to lie. It still hurts my head to try to figure out that that train of thought. So with the accommodators. You have to hit them with what and how implementation questions often to make sure that what they've agreed to, they're going to stick to. OK.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Derek. There's a book that I'm familiar with called Conversations for Action. And what he outlines in that book, Fernando Flores is the author. He outlines and he's from academia and it's quite quite detailed and intense. But how he lays it out is really good.

He expresses that when we make. Agreements about expectations of work, you have to really clearly outline what those conditions of satisfaction are. The person who is meant to deliver on those conditions, they have to repeat it back to you with clarity. What they're what those conditions are that they intend on delivering. And then the requester needs to then respond, saying these these conditions that you plan on delivering will now meet my need.

And I think about that when you're talking about what that conversation might look like with an accommodator, so that you can just get clarity and almost do three way communication with them. Yeah. And with the with the accommodator, it's you're almost going to feel like you're going overboard with it. But the reality is you have to. And because they they they want to keep you happy in the moment.

One of my favorite analogies is the accommodator. The accommodator will walk you up to the edge of a minefield and not tell you. Knowing that your next step could be your last, but they want to keep you happy in the moment. And so the worst type match for an accommodator is another accommodator. You get two accommodators in the room, nothing's going to get done and they'll have fun doing it.

I mean, you'll if you happen to be a fly on the wall and you listen to the conversation, you think there was a party going on and everything was going. Well, I'm really enjoying this conversation. Well, hopefully, Derek can can hop back on shortly. I know he's a he's getting to a good point about how accommodators are do not work well together or accomplish quite a lot together. I'm really interested in what we're going to hit on when we get into analysts, because I had suspected I was an analyst and Derek, he also mentioned he's an analyst.

So it'd be really interesting to hear what that what that approach might be. Assertives, you know, I have a lot of assertives in my life, particularly because of the industry. But, I mean, Derek said we divide up equally into thirds. So, I mean, it's going to be really interesting to understand what that looks like. So hopefully we get Derek back on here shortly.

I hope you guys are enjoying the conversation, Sheila White. I saw your message there. Thanks for putting a note in the comments there. Maureen, I hope you're enjoying as well. Andrew, great and complicated topic.

Yes, it is a complex it's a complex topic indeed. And. That's something for me personally, as someone who has gone through over 13 years of experience and owners rep world. I've really been interested in negotiation and having productive conversations. And so I'm super excited to continue this conversation.

We do have Derek back online. We lost you there for a moment, but we're happy to have you back. Yeah, I'm not sure what happened, but let's keep rolling. What did I where did I leave off? You were talking about how accommodators, when they speak with each other, that can be one of the most challenging situations.

And you were sounding on that point. Yeah, they just they they they won't come to an agreement, but they're OK with it because it's the it's the interaction in the moment that they're happiest with. OK, great. So, I mean, it's not great. But so what are the better combinations?

Right. You said accommodator, accommodator bad. What about, you know, analysts and accommodator? How how do those work together? Analysts, I mean, everybody tolerates the the accommodator.

Analyst understands who the accommodator is and what what puts wind in their sails. And so an analyst has no problem in working with the accommodator. That is a better match. Analysts and assertives, two sides of the same coin, and neither one likes working with the other. The analyst.

Views. Aggressive conversation is a complete waste of time. They're not going to run from conflict, but. They're not going to they're not going to engage in it if they don't have to, because they believe it's a complete waste of time. And so being the same or two sides of the same coin, the analysts and the service are like oil and water.

Assertives love dealing with the accommodator because the accommodator will get smacked around the room and not say anything about it. And that's what the assertive likes to do is smack people around the room. And analysts won't stand for being smacked around the room. We'll just get up and we'll solve our own problem in another manner. I would love to dig into analysts a little bit more.

I mean, you mentioned your your tending towards the analyst type. I mean, I would love to hear an example of how you. Negotiated with an analyst point of view. You know, your point of view. Has to take a back seat.

Because, again, the chances are very good that I'm going to sit down with either an accommodator or an assertive, which means where I want to go in the conversation doesn't really matter until I appeal and appease, appeal to their senses and appease them, regardless of whether they're sort of or an accommodator. So, for example, I'm I. As an analyst, if you invite me to a party. And all I know is you. And I show up at that party, you know where you're going to find me?

You're going to find me with my back against the wall watching the room. I'm not going to be rude. I will engage people if they engage me, but I'm not going to be bopping around that room. Mingling with the crowd, I know you and only you. And, you know, I'll probably interact with you a little bit.

Other than that, if you want to find me, just look at the walls. You'll find me holding up one of the walls, because that's what I do as as as an analyst. And I'm. Reserved, some people call it reclusive. Most people view me as aloof and rude.

It's not who I am once you get to know me, but until you get to know me, I'm very reserved because I'm I'm deliberate about what I let out of the bag. When dealing with an accommodator, that is a problem. Because an accommodator wants that constant back and forth. So if I'm an analyst and I'm sitting back and I'm not saying a lot or I'm being I'm appearing to be contemplative. It's going to set the accommodator off, meaning they're going to wonder to themselves, what did I just do to offend this guy?

Why isn't he talking to me? Why doesn't he like me? Why is he being mean? That's what's going through the mind of an accommodator. What's going through the mind of an assertive?

He just shut up. He's not talking, so he must want me to run this entire thing. And then you can the assertive will keep will keep talking. And I'm continuing to gather information now. I have to preempt that going in.

You talk about the accusations audits earlier. I have to preempt that going in. So if I'm going in with an accommodator, I am going to say to the accommodator, I'm going in with an accommodator, I am going to say to the accommodator, look, from time to time in this conversation, it's going to appear like I'm disengaged. You're going to think that I'm being rude. You're going to think that I'm being aloof.

You're going to think that maybe you said something to offend me. None of those are the case. I'm just going to. I just think a lot. Right.

So I set it up so that now the accommodator knows, oh, if he goes quiet, he told me he was going to do that. It's cool. By the same token, I'm going to tell the assertive, look, from time to time in the conversation, I may go silent. I may start taking notes. Doesn't mean that I want you to fill that silence necessarily.

Doesn't necessarily mean I want you to keep going because you feel like you have to convince me of whatever. It's just my makeup. Accusations audits upfront to prep them for how they should deal with me as an analyst. And so those are the kind of considerations I have going into the conversation once I've identified at least tentatively who they are. OK.

So. Yeah, I think I think that for me, because I mean, you mentioned it seemed like I was kind of going the analyst. I'm I'm feeling I'm fitting that personality type more. That is super, super helpful. And when when you took off for a little bit, that's what I was letting the audience know that I was most interested in.

But I do not want to neglect the assertive. How should the assertive? Prepare for conversations with the analyst or the accommodator. Again, it's knowing what makes him tick, what makes the analyst tick data and information. So as an assertive, I'm going to back up my my pontifications with data and information, because I know that's what floats the analyst boat.

I'm not going to press the analyst for a decision during the initial conversation because you're not going to get it. You and I, if if you're. Negotiated with me, let's say for the sake of this discussion, you're an assertive. And we get together and we're hashing out whether or not we're going to partner in this endeavor together. I'm not going to give you an answer on that first interaction.

I need to go back and think so as an assertive, you need to understand. Time is money for the assertive. He wants an answer. She wants an answer right away. The analyst is not going to give you that answer right away.

So you got to you got to put again your desires, your wants on the back burner. The accommodator views you as being domineering and aggressive. Your tone, regardless of whether you're dealing with an analyst or an or an accommodator, your tone is. Probably your number one tool. It's also your biggest detriment.

You view yourself as being direct and straight forward. People view you as being a bully, being loud, being arrogant. And so even though that's not who you are, that's not your intention. That's how you are viewed. So those are the things that you have to tamp down in order to be successful with interacting with the other two.

The main thing is. You have to be successful with interacting with the other two. The main thing is. Avoid generating negative emotions in your counterpart. And if you're coming across as a jerk, as a bully, as being rude, you are, in fact, producing negative dynamics and negative emotions, and you are, in effect, making your counterpart dumb.

You just are. There's no way around that. When when I'm being attacked or when I view myself as being attacked or insulted. My amygdala fires up. And when my amygdala fires up, it impedes what's supposed to be going on in my prefrontal cortex.

And the assertive may be making the most brilliant argument in the world. I'm not listening because I'm in fight or flight mode at this point. And so. Your tone, the way you deliver your message is your number one tool. In that you can reach into people's brains and you can dial them up and dial them back just based on your tone of voice.

And so if the assertive understands that, they will modify their behavior and their delivery and their cadence accordingly so as to not produce those negative emotions and dynamics. OK, what kind of accusations audit should they enter into the conversation? Again, it's it's going to be. Listen, I'm very animated when I talk. Sometimes I stand up.

Sometimes I smash my my smack my hands down on the table. I'm not trying to manipulate you. It's not done to to try to anger you. I'm not trying to get a rise out of you and not trying to intimidate. It's just who I am.

If at any point during this conversation, it becomes too much. Tell me. And I'll back off by verbalizing that. In that fashion, it initiates compliance on their part because they don't go back to that public promise. They have spoken it into the air.

And so they're more likely to stay true to what they just said. But it also. It also. Tells the counterpart, it puts the counterpart at ease. Now they're expecting the behavior.

It's not a surprise. And if it's not a surprise, it's less likely to generally be a surprise. It's less likely to generate a negative response emotionally. So the accusations audit any conversation with any one of the personality types, it appears that that's the most important thing to consider doing before you enter into any of these conversations. Is that true from your perspective, Derek?

Yeah, without question, without question, because at the end of the day, I want them to be clear of mind. I want them to be I want them to be at ease. I want them to not be. Preoccupied with negative emotions and dynamics, and it's it's the fastest way for you to build trust in report by pointing a negative light back at yourself. That sets you apart from everybody else.

Nobody does that. Most people are afraid of mentioning a negative opinion, assumption or impression because they believe that. If it's not there, I may remind the people that it may be there, and that's what they'll focus on, so I'm not going to say it at all. But the reality is. It takes a certain level of courage for you to point that negative light back at yourself and say, Hey, this I know you're thinking this about me.

And when you start to articulate things that have not been said yet, oh, my gosh, are you serious? How how? Much more of an example of being dialed in, do they need when you start to tell them or you start to preemptive preemptively label negatives that they haven't spoken yet. You almost you almost look like a mind reader. And so when you start to when you start to identify things that they haven't said, there's no clear demonstration that you're attempting to see the world through their eyes.

You know, recently I took a class with someone who is really successful in sales for all types of products across the world. Her her name is Forbes Riley, and she teaches the class about pitching. One thing that she talks about is. Making sure that you understand about yourself, what your relatability factors are. In order for you to bring those up when you're about to enter into a conversation about what you wanting to share about your product.

Right. So as an example, if you're speaking to other technologists, you'll say something like, you know, I grew up, I grew up around technology and always always had a knack for, you know, figuring out how technology works. And I love, you know, I love the elevation of cell phones or whatever it is, like just pick something and call out that particular thing about yourself that can connect with the other individual. So I wanted to just have that and then come back around to what you're saying is to describe the negative things that people may be thinking about you to your point, kind of get into their appear like you're that mind reader.

But it's definitely taking a different spin on looking at yourself and what that other person might be perceiving about you before you even think about how to relate with them. So just throw it out there. What are your thoughts? Yeah. So a couple of things.

The accusation audit demonstrates that you're seeking to understand before you are trying to be understood. That is the entire sequencing of the Black Swan method. Tactical empathy first. Your goal, your objective, your pitch, your ask comes last. Now, as to whether or not you need to accentuate your relatability, what it sounds like the person that you're talking about, it sounds like.

They are talking about common ground. Relatability is tantamount to common ground, and you can you can make deals, you can. Close sales with common ground. But if you rely too heavily on it. It's going to it's good and it's not there.

You're going to be in trouble. And so I'd be very cautious about pursuing common ground as your only strategy. The second problem with common ground is you've made an assumption. You've made an assumption about your counterpart that they can resent. And the assumption is, oh, your son plays baseball, my son plays baseball, buy my stuff.

And again. It's not that you won't make any deals, but you're leaving money on the table, especially if there is no common ground. You know, one of the things I used to hate as a cop, this was many, many, many, many years ago when I was a road cop. And I saw a traffic violation. And I like the guy up, pull him to the side of the road.

And before I even get to the car, there's a badge hanging out of the window. Now, this guy has already made an assumption about me. That because he threw a badge out of the window. I'm going to let him walk. And so there was nothing that that irritated me more because he assumed that that common ground, well, he assumed he assumed because of common ground that I was going to act in a certain way.

So just be very careful with trying to make yourself relatable. If the common ground is legit, then go for it. But if it's not. And you press for it, you're going to be in trouble. Think back to what we used to do in hostage negotiation.

How much common ground do you think I had with any of the people that I dealt with on the inside? The answer was none. Had no common ground with any of them. And I and I was successful at least 93 percent of the time in getting them to surrender. And so comparing contrast that to your success rate and influencing people into doing what you need them to do.

I would bet that the best people listening to this right now, probably somewhere around 40 percent. And if you didn't rely, rely completely on common ground and you relied more on just the tactical empathy, how much could you increase your success rate and influencing other people? So just those are my thoughts on being. Relatable to other people. Common ground would be a slippery slope.

That's really, really good. And for the record, that wasn't the only tool that that she was recommending. But to your point, I really like that you're calling out that you cannot rely on that too much and don't dig into that too deep. Perhaps. Find out what is more accurate.

For you to relate to so that it's a more honest conversation, if there is anything at all. Right. And then focus more on tactical empathy and focus more on. Trying to address those accusations, doing those accusations on in the beginning. Yeah, that that lays the groundwork that that tells them that before this conversation even got started, she's showing me that she wants to understand the world as I see it.

And that's going to cause them to open up a little more. And as they open up a little more, you find out more information, as you find out more information, you're digging for more information. And it's all with using labels, mirrors, paraphrasing, dynamic silence to get that information out. And what you're doing is you're lending an ear to them at a level that they don't experience throughout the majority of their day. And it feels good.

Listening is the cheapest concession that you can make to another person. And most people don't do it on that deeper level. So that when it does occur, it's like, wow, I can't believe this. And I'm going to keep talking and talk because nobody's ever listened before. You don't.

And forgive me if I said this back in December, but it bears repeating. If you don't believe how powerful listening, just listening can be. Go to your local convenience store, drugstore, Starbucks, coffee, ask a person behind the counter how they're doing in whatever response you get. Hang a label on that response and watch how much more information they throw up on you because nobody takes the time they they interact with people all day long. They hear, how are you 100 times a day?

100 times a day. It's a throwaway salutation. And so they know that 99 people out of 100 don't really care how they're doing. That's just how we say hello. So be that one person that when you get the response, you actually label that response and watch how much more information you get.

I'm loving this so much, Derek. I feel like every time I listen to you, I gain something so much more about learning about myself and how how I show up and how I don't show up. When you talk about listening and simply just throwing a label on it. To me, it's such a simple yet profound thing. And I think you did dig into that in December, right?

We talked about the importance of labels and how it makes people feel like they're understood to your point about, I mean, seek first to understand, then to be understood. Stephen Covey, that's a lot of his, that's one of his tools, right? I think that it's many times overlooked and many times not carried out well. We're not carried out at all. There's very little intentionality.

How do you build in that and that intentionality? So that you can listen better, like what kind of things do you do when you go about your day? Do you do that? How do you how do you how do you put how you put those steps into place in order for you to consistently say, let me be a better listener, let me be the type of person who will respond with labels? What are those kind of things that you you do?

Well, it's it's more or less second nature now than it was early on, but it became second nature because of a lot of low stakes practice. The the the coffee shop grocery store scenario that I just threw out there, that's low stakes practice. You got to you got to intentionally look for opportunities to practice these skills, and you can't take it for face value that I said it's going to work and then jump into a million dollar, a 10 million dollar deal with a counterpart and expect to recall and execute with precision.

It's just not going to happen. It takes 64 to 67 reps for you to develop a new habit. The easiest way to develop the habit and the quickest way is low stakes practice. Today is Friday. Make make today be your label day and say to yourself, I'm going to go out into the world and I'm going to look for opportunities to label people in order to get them to continue to engage with me.

Saturday, tomorrow, that's going to be my mirror day. I'm going to spend all day looking for opportunities to mirror in order to get a person to continue talking through a point. Sunday is going to be my dynamic silence day. I'm going to intentionally create voids and conversations to get people to open up. And so that's that's how you get your sea legs under you.

That's how you get your your your traction. That's how you start to strengthen those synaptic connections so that it becomes quote muscle memory so that when you get into that conversation and there's 10 million dollars on the table, you're not fumbling for where you need to go next. You're out of your own head and you're just responding to what your counterpart is giving you. Sixty four to sixty seven reps, did you say? Yes.

We need to practice these tools, probably each one of them that many times in order for it to become second nature, become a new habit, a new habit. OK, yeah. To develop to develop a new habit. And that I can't remember the book, but that came from one of a Blue Angels pilot. And he was talking about the precision maneuvers that they do before shows and how long it takes them to develop new flyers with these new habits.

And, you know, so to develop the barrel roll into a new habit, you got to go through that barrel roll 64 to 67 time. Doesn't make you an expert. It just develops it as a new habit and then, you know, continue building on that foundation is what increases your expertise. Excellent. Well, we got some work to do, guys.

I know I do. And if you guys, if you have any questions for Derek here, we're going to wrap up in the next 12 minutes. But I do want to put it out there if anyone in the audience has specific questions about any of what we talked about today. I love to take those in and really get it get it in front of Derek to see to see what his response might be. I mean, clearly you have an opportunity to get his book, Eagle, Authority and Failure.

And you can definitely dig into that and get some get some foundational understanding. But you have the man right here. Take advantage of it. So that being said, do you want to talk about negotiations you do in your work? Maureen asked this question.

Yeah, I honestly, Maureen, I don't do a lot of it now. We've got a significant biz development team that does most of our outbound negotiations as far as who we're bringing in as corporate training clients or individual coaching clients. So my job primarily right now is just instructing individuals and corporations and how to apply these practices and principles to to their world. So she says, any tip for negotiating with family triggers with different personalities? Negotiating with family triggers with different personalities?

Well, I generally speaking, it's it's always going to be harder for you to exercise the skills when negotiating with family members. Why is that? Because there's emotional attachment going all the way around. And if there are emotional attachments and if there's the difficult conversation, negative dynamics are going to be at play. I would often not often, but there were I remember times when I would return to work after the weekend and and people would ask me, what's the best way to do that?

I would say, not great. I spent all weekend long arguing with my 17 year old daughter and they're like, what? You're arguing with your 17 year old daughter? How come you, Mr. Hoss has negotiated it and just negotiate with her?

And because I got emotional and going back to what I said earlier, when you get emotional, you get dumber. And I would say, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that.

And going back to what I said earlier, when you get emotional, you get dumber because of what's going on in your brain. So the tips is the tips that I would have, you know, you're going to be triggered during the course of the conversation because you're dealing with difficult family members. When you find yourself being triggered, label it to yourself. Yes. Label the emotions that you are feeling.

There's a significant research through fMRIs that show that self labeling emotions diffuses them even on the part of the individual experiencing the trigger. There's one study in particular where they showed people various photographs of horrific images. And when they showed the photograph, they would, because of the fMRI, they could see the activity in the amygdala light up. And then after they showed the photograph, they would say, what are you feeling right now? And they would describe what they were feeling disgust, frustrated, angry.

And immediately, as soon as they labeled it, the activity in the amygdala dissipated. And so you can do that in the heat of the moment when you get attacked. And when you're dealing with family members, you're dealing with a difficult conversation at some point during the conversation, you will be attacked. So mindset, know that going in, try to stay curious during the conversation. And if you indeed are curious during the conversation, it's hard to get triggered.

But if you do label the emotion that you're feeling. Yeah, I love the response, Derek. Labeling emotions is something that they teach in cognitive behavioral therapy as well in order to diffuse that feeling for yourself, in order for you to now look at situations closer to reality versus you being wrapped up in that feeling or that emotion. So what you're describing, the scientific side of things where you're saying with using when using an fMRI, it's easy to see kind of that amygdala, your historic response light up.

It's really interesting to know that the scientific backup matches up exactly with something as simple as labeling how you feel. Yeah, yeah. And again, once you do that, to your point, you become more clear. You get clarity back. Your emotions come down and as a result, your rational thinking comes up.

And that's what we're always trying to do for other people. Why not do it for ourselves? So you're labeling, you're literally putting a label on the feeling that you're having, but you're labeling it seems like it feels like you're using those things to just communicate to yourself what's actually happening. Very interesting. Exactly.

Very cool. If there are any other questions, guys, please continue to have them roll in. Really great questions, Maureen. Thank you for offering those up. Derek, what did we not cover that you would feel remiss to not have mentioned in these two discussions to share with the audience here?

I would say probably if you are at an impasse, take a closer look. At negotiator personality types, when there is an impasse, it's usually the result of type mismatch. Once you have tentatively identified the person as assertive, accommodator or analyst, it's tentative. You could be wrong. You're going to continue to push through the conversation, looking for validation for your label, if you will.

This may be the first time that you're interacting with this person, and based on responses to certain questions or based on your observation, you go, that guy's probably an assertive. That doesn't mean that you rest on your laurels. You're going to continue to test that assumption throughout the course of the conversation because the reality is you're going to get it wrong from time to time. We had a relationship with a guy for 12, 18 months. We were contemplating putting together some content and producing it together.

We realized it probably wasn't going to be a viable idea for us, and we wanted to withdraw from the partnership. Now, we had worked with him 12 to 18 months and basically assumed he was an assertive based on how he acted, based on his status in life, based on some of the things that he said. It turns out when we were partying company, it turns out that he was more accommodator than we ever gave him credit for being. So make your best guess, test that guess.

You want to know how to cold read somebody to determine where they are, assertive, analyst, accommodator. Ask them how they're doing. Label it and watch their response to your label. That's going to be a pretty good barometer as to whether they're assertive, analyst or accommodator. Ask them how they're doing, label the response, and then when they respond to that label, that's going to tell you where they're probably going to be in the categories of personality types.

Derek, I'm trying to envision what those responses would be. Can you give an example for the assertive as an example? Well, the assertive, once you label it, i.e. shown an interest in them, game on. They're going to just unload on you as to exactly why their day is so great or why their day is so cruddy.

The analyst to your label is going to be probably just, yep. And the accommodator is going to be, oh, thank God somebody's talking to me. And they're going to engage you and go back and forth and they're going to keep you there for quite some time. So that is my best quick test. Now, it's like, you know, back in the day, we used Scott Reagent cocaine test kits.

If we got blue over pink, it was positive for cocaine, but that wasn't enough to convict at trial. We had to send the cocaine to a laboratory to get it professionally analyzed. So same way with labeling the response of a person and then listening to their response to the label to determine it's preliminary. You're going to continue to test that throughout the course of the conversation, but it's a pretty good jumping off point. Very good.

I think that provided some clarity for me. And now you're having me second guess whether I'm an analyst or not. Really interesting stuff. Can you be two personality types? Can you swing different directions?

Yeah, that's not that's a great question. Most of us can swing. Most of us do swing back and forth during the course of the day. But think about this. I'll leave you I'll leave you with this.

This analogous story that I like to use. There's a you're hiking on a mountain. You're on a path deep in the bush. You round the corner on this path and there sits a grizzly bear. When you see that grizzly bear, will you a.

Pull out your hunting knife. Square off with this bear and say, I might not win this, but at the end of this, this bear is going to know it was in a fight. B. Same bear, same path. You see the bear, you pull out your GPS, you pull up pre-plotted courses off of the main path because you knew this was a bear.

Because you knew this was probably going to occur. You go off on one of the side paths into the bush. Take a go up into a tree. You take out a sniper's rifle and you kill the bear from a distance. Or do you see?

Same bear, same path. You walk up to the bear, you put your arms around the bear, you give that bear a big hug and you say, I know what your problem is. Nobody understood you as a cub. I'm going to take you home, clean you up, introduce you to my family and provide you with a hot meal. If you fall into category A, you are an assertive.

If you fall into category B, you are an analyst. You fall into category C, you are an accommodator. What would you do with that bear? Think about that before determining who you really are. Are you going to square off with the bear or you're going to snipe it from a distance?

You're going to take it home. What a story to leave, leave us off with here, Derek. And I know that story is in your book. Awesome. Awesome.

Thank you so much, Derek. We really appreciate everything you've had to share and teach us today. Thanks again. Let us know where where can people learn more about you and get in contact with you? Info at Black Swan Ltd.com that'll get to me.

Info at Black Swan Ltd.com. Black Swan Ltd.com is the website for more resources, if you will. And, you know, I'm on LinkedIn, not as frequently as I would like to be. I was forced to join Facebook, so I'm there now. I resisted for as long as I could, but the boss said I had to.

I had to make a Facebook page, so I'm there now as well. Not Clubhouse yet, huh? Yeah, actually, I just he made me do that, too. So I downloaded Clubhouse and I still haven't figured out how to navigate that. So I'm on Clubhouse as well.

We're going to work on that, Derek. We'll work on that. All right. All right. Thanks again.

I know we're up at time. Thanks, everyone, for joining. All right. See you later. Bye.