Kwame Christian, CEO of the American Negotiation Institute, business lawyer and bestselling author, knows that mutual understanding leads to a workable path forward in times of conflict. He’s developed a recipe for successful negotiation, which he shares through his podcast, “Negotiate Anything,” and two bestselling books, “Finding Confidence in Conflict” and “How to Have Difficult Conversations About Race.” His recommendations: Diffuse strong emotions by asking questions to understand and acknowledge others’ perspectives to set a foundation for effective communication. Create a connection by listening well and empathizing and building trust. Then, persuade action through compassion, conversational leadership and joint problem-solving.

Trevor Brown 0:03

Welcome to the podcast leadership forum, a conversation with leaders who serve the public good. My name is Trevor Brown, and I'm privileged to serve as Dean of the John Glenn College of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University, where we aspire to fulfill a simple phrase that Senator John Glenn used to describe what we do, inspire citizenship and develop leadership. I also have the honor of serving as the host of this conversation series. So welcome to a thoughtful and reflective conversation about leadership. I'm joined today by Kwame Christian, two time best selling author, keynote speaker, business lawyer, and CEO of the American Negotiation Institute. He's recognized as one of the world's top negotiation experts, and hosts a number one negotiation podcast in the world, negotiate anything. He gained his prominence through a TEDx talk, finding confidence and conflict, which has been viewed over 500,000 times. He's the author of two best selling books, finding confidence in conflict, and how to have difficult conversations about race. Under Kwame's leadership, the American Negotiation Institute has worked with several Fortune 500 companies and globally recognized organizations like Google, Apple, NASA, Uber, Target, Intel, and Liberty Mutual Insurance, and more on applying the fundamentals of negotiation to organizational success. Kwame, thank you for joining me today to talk about negotiation, and particularly how we can persuade people to engage in certain behavior change in the public sector.

Kwame Christian 1:40

I appreciate it. Thanks for having me. And I must add an important element of my bio, arguably the most important, I am a proud graduate of the John Glenn College of Public Affairs, of course, and I attribute a lot of my success to to that background. So I appreciate to having the invite to come back on the show.

Trevor Brown 2:00

Well, I'm thrilled you called that out. And just for truth in advertising Kwame he's also a graduate of the Moritz College of Law here, which has, as of this year, the number one ranked program in alternative dispute resolution, which also helps explain his tremendous success in the negotiation world. And I love the fact in fact, we're going to talk about this throughout the conversation today about how you meld those legal skills, with the context of the of the public sector, I think that's going to be a theme that runs throughout. But I want to start with some scene setting because I think a lot of our listeners are especially here in higher ed, we spend a lot of time thinking about how to get people to when we're in an in a conversation that might be categorized as a negotiation, to negotiate over a set of ideas to I want to get you to agree with me, or at least to understand my position as a juxtaposed to more of a managerial context, where not only am I getting somebody, you know, in a negotiating to try to maybe agree about something, but actually want you to take some action. So I'm trying to persuade you. And the question is, is there a meaningful difference between those two kinds of things? And are the steps that you as a negotiator, may guide me, as a manager to take would vary based on whether it's just a conversation about like, Hey, can we agree on this? Or, hey, I need you to take the following action?

Kwame Christian 3:37

Yeah, I think it's really important for us to get clear on what it is that we want the actual outcome to be. Because sometimes if we're, we think we're clear, but we're not very clear with ourselves, for example, our emotions can take us astray, lead us astray in these endeavors. Because for example, I might have a fundamental emotional drive for you to not just understand, but also agree, and then say, I'm right, and that you are also wrong. There's a lot that I want out of this. And then I need to essentially have a negotiation with myself to figure out what I really need. So here's an example. When we think about agreement, we will often think about these conversations in terms of agreement, but I can get you to change your behavior without necessarily fundamentally agreeing that I'm correct. I can attest as somebody to the fact that as somebody who's been married for 14 years, I don't always agree. But I do usually comply. You know, so I think we have to understand what it is, especially when we're talking about behavior change or if we're talking about the in the political arena arena, changing of beliefs, there are going to be strong emotional ties to certain thought processes and certain certain behaviors and and it might not even be possible for us to accomplish complete thought change behavior change and complete agreement. But if I can get you to this point of mutual understanding where I can understand you, you can understand me, and then we could decide on a workable path forward, then that is often a lot more achievable going forward. So I think when we get that clarity, in terms of what it is that we actually want, the fundamental mechanics are going to be more or less the same. But it has to start with mutual understanding. And I think that's an important first step.

Trevor Brown 5:37

So take us through those those next steps. What are the mechanics give us the basic recipe for how to effectively negotiate and potentially over something very conflictual?

Kwame Christian 5:50

Yeah, I like this. This flow here, when we talk about persuasion for us, we think about it in terms of defuse, connect, persuade. So first, I'm going to assume that there's some level of emotionality here. So I want to defuse that emotion, the strong emotion, because it's going to be difficult for the person to process what it is that I'm saying, if they're highly emotional, and then I want to create a connection. So I want to empathize, I want to understand create that, that foundation of mutual understanding. And then once I build that foundation of trust and empathy and build some rapport, then I can persuade. And what's really interesting, Trevor is that if you can sequence it in this way, if you can defuse the strong emotions, and just connect, a lot of times the persuasion can happen almost organically, but we don't give it that space. So when I'm in an actual conversation, I like to think about the the flow that I use as the compassionate curiosity framework. So it's a three step framework we've created that makes it really easy and operational, like operational for people who are actually having these conversations. So when it comes to defusing, what we're going to do is first acknowledge and validate the emotions in the room. And so we're going to acknowledge by labeling the emotions, and then we're going to give the person space to vent, decompress, explain themselves, then we're going to get curious with compassion. So we're going to ask open ended questions with a compassionate tone, to gather information, empathize and build that connection. And then in the last step, what we're going to do is we're going to utilize joint problem solving. So we're going to work with the other person to try to put something together. And I think with this third step, it's so important that it is joint problem solving. There's a collaborative effort here, because I don't want to go into this conversation, assuming that I'm the sole arbiter of truth and understanding in this conversation, the other person has something valuable to add. So what I can build independently, will probably pale in comparison to what we can build together. And so in that last part, we're working together to find some kind of workable solution. But that's a framework that I use for these conversations.

Trevor Brown 7:56

So that is very helpful. And on the face of it super, super straightforward. I imagine the execution is a lot harder than it sounds. But I'm, I want to build off your last point about joint problem solving and actually go back to the beginning where you're trying to defuse emotions. I'm curious for you, as we'll just refer to you as the negotiator or the you know, the one who's who's initiating the conversation, trying to reach some some end. Do you do joint activity in that first stage, where you said, the first step is to acknowledge the emotions that are present? And then try to label them so that people say, oh, yeah, I'm feeling the following way. And that hopefully diffuses it? Is that something that you do? Or is that something you do together?

Kwame Christian 8:51

It is, it is a collaborative process, because I can't do it without them. But it is something that I'm leading. So throughout this, I have this mentality called conversational leadership. So throughout the conversation, I want to be demonstrating good behaviors in the hope that other people will reciprocate. And so in a conversation, let's say about, there's a manager trying to get somebody to change their behavior, you can use the same conversation, the same framework when it comes to giving feedback. So I might say something like this, Trevor, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the inefficiencies that you're seeing it's causing a lot of frustration for you, am I am I sensing that right? And then I'll give you the space to explain. Yes, I'm frustrated because of this. And that. And one of the most important things for us to recognize here at this point is that we're giving the person space to decompress. We have one goal here, and that is to lower the emotional temperature of the room. And so it's highly likely that first of all, you're going to be triggered and emotional, this stage of the conversation too. So there's a lot of discipline and restraint that's required, but it's likely that the reasons for why they feel the way that they feel may be something that you disagree with fundamentally. So the cause of your frustration in this example, might be something that you disagree with. But at this point, I'm just acknowledging and showing that I understand their perspective without agreeing with them, or endorsing them if I don't truly agree. So as I'm validating it, I'm thinking of myself almost like a grade school teacher trying to give partial credit on a math problem. So if I'm, if I agree, I'll let you know that I agree. If I disagree, I'll still validate by saying, so let me see if I'm understanding this correctly, you're saying that you feel frustrated, because in your perspective, and then I would give that summary. So the person feels understood, because a lot of times we, of course, it's nice to get people to agree, they want you to agree with them, you want them to agree with you. But really, at the root of that, is understanding. And you if you can give that person the understanding, like the clarity, you can convey the fact that you understand them on a fundamental level, even if you don't agree, that is enough to lower the emotional temperature of the room. So we can then progress in the conversation.

So now I want to layer in sort of the context in which these conversations or interactions occur, and actually just want to put a pin in something where, and I think this will come up in our conversation, but I want to make sure that it's in your brain in mind, so you can be subconsciously thinking about it. I can imagine there are contexts in which it appears calm at surface level, like we're at right now, just talking to each other. And yet, I know underneath it is emotion. And so like if I've just sort of tactically going into the conversation, I can say, Oh, well, I've reduced the temperature, we're not yelling at each other, I don't see any of the physiological signs of emotion. And yet I know they're present. And so one of the things I want want you to be thinking about, as I asked the next questions is, is it ever wise for me to try and elicit those to raise the temperature only to then lower it again? So that we get it out? Or is it better to just start and say, Oh, no, no, we're calm. Now let's move on in the conversation. And we'll just not even invite those emotions into the conversation. And maybe I'll actually now that I can see you smiling. Let me just ask you that irrespective of context, because it'll come up again, but what's your reaction to that?

Yeah, so a couple of things. Let's, um, let's talk about the amygdala. So this is the part of the brain where all emotions come from positive negative emotions originate there, the part of the brain we want to activate is the frontal lobe. So we have logical reasoning, emotion management, executive function, that's the higher level thinking that we want to activate. But there's an antagonistic relationship between these two brain structures. So the more emotional you are, the less clearly you're thinking, and vice versa. So when that amygdala is firing, we have to recognize that they cannot process the information that we want to share at a high level. So the reason why I say it's important to recognize this is because when you think about a toddler, the reason why they're so emotional, is because their frontal lobe hasn't developed. So they cannot control that amygdala. But as we get older, of course, we can control it a little bit better. And then as we become professionals, we can veil our emotions in professionalism, but that inner toddler is still there.

So I bring I bring that person to work every day. It's my bring my toddler to work day, everyday.

So when you look at it, you realize, oh, there's gonna be somebody who seems really calm on the surface. So their toddler is having a tantrum, and they're just hiding it. So you have to look at the context clues. Has their body language shifted? Was there a shift in their tonality? Is there a barrier that seems to be invisible, that we can't break through, but there's no logical explanation for it? So when I start to see those clues, I'm going to hypothesize that there is an emotional barrier. So I'll be very humble with the assertion but I'll just say, Hey, I might be off on this, but I'm sensing something is there? Is there something else that's bothering you, or something like that? Because I wouldn't necessarily say I'm intentionally trying to raise the temperature, I would say that I'm trying to take the lid off, so we can stop pretending. But you have to create a an, an environment of psychological safety, where the person feels comfortable expressing that part of themselves too. So there's a lot of work that goes into it.

That's extremely helpful. And I I'm taking notes furiously in my brain about plays out. Wow, I wish I'd said that differently in that conversation. So so thank you for some guidance. So how much does the context the organizational context of these interactions matter? So you just gave a great sort of generic example of how as we age and mature and wind up in a job, we might have developed some norms of behavior that cause us to you know, bury our emotions in a work context, whereas in other contexts, it's it's fully acceptable that sort of let your inner toddler out. And I'm thinking specifically about in the public sector broadly, we sometimes have the norm in our world of a kind of dispassionate neutrality and objectivity, that that is the veil over which a lot of interactions occur. And that's specifically true for a lot of the kind of the analysts that come out of programs like ours, put your partisanship aside, come into this conversation as just a neutral objective implementer. But that doesn't mean you're always interacting with people that feel the same way. So just since you're trained in both worlds, so to speak, what are your thoughts on how critical those sort of organizational norms in that context is?

They are pivotal, they are so critical. So let's, let's zoom out and then zoom back in. Okay. So in order to be an effective negotiator, or conversationalist, in these situations, you have to consider three things, three dimensions. So mindset, are you confident enough to have the conversation? Do you believe you have what it takes to have these conversations? Then we have skill set? Do you actually have the tools that are required to succeed in these conversations? But then also culture? Is the culture one of which one that actually encourages constructive conversation? Does it stifle constructive conversation? does it encourage respectful dissension where people can speak up those type of things, so you can have a really great mindset, you can have incredible skill set. But a great mindset and a great skill set in a culture that inhibits effective communication will still struggle. And so that cultural element, the context that we find ourselves in, during these conversations are going to be really important. So it's not to say that we cannot break through if the culture does not really encourage these kinds of conversations, it will just be more difficult. So we have to figure out what those cultural and contextual nuances are, and figure out how we can navigate through those in order to still be effective in the conversation.

So let's get this is great. Let's go down this road of where, you know, we train a lot of students to be dispassionate. And this goes back to the whole framework, but also, it's then reinforced by the culture and norms, that that facts and analysis should drive decision making. If I just present some person that I'm trying to convince that I'm right, I'm just going to show them the data, so to speak. And in some ways, we even discourage our students from bringing their their passion, sometimes we say you need to lock those away. So that's the training, that's the norm. But then that just take step one out of the equation, what guidance would you give to us and to people in those contexts, about know how to how to bring forward those emotions? Or at least acknowledge them? Given your own personal inclination to say they're irrelevant?

Yeah, I think what we have to recognize is, there is a big difference between being right and being persuasive. And so if you're somebody who has done all the research, you've gathered all the evidence, you have the facts and the data and everything to bolster your argument. We can think about times where we've done all that homework. And we have brought that to the conversation. And it has gotten us absolutely nothing in the conversation. Yes. It's so frustrating, right? And so once we're ready, once we're able to recognize that there's a difference between being right and being persuasive than we realize that a lot of times the gap between where we are and where we want to be, comes down to that skill, of persuasion. And if we go all the way back to ancient Greece, and we think about Aristotle, who was really the godfather of persuasion, he thought about it through these the persuasive triad, the three things that could lead to persuasion, we have egos, ethos, logos, logos, and pathos. So we have ethics character, we have logic, and then we have passion. And so we have to be able to recognize what it is that will move the other person, because if we're talking to somebody else, who is well trained, they understand the data and things like that, then we can maybe rely a little bit more on the Logos, the evidence, the data, those type of things. But even if somebody is very focused on the logic, they're usually using the logic and the evidence to substantiate their biased conclusions. So when we think about it, psychologically, we have to recognize that let's go back to the amygdala versus the frontal lobe The amygdala moves very quickly. This is the most primitive part of our brain. And so your emotions will have the first shot of interpretation. And a lot of times, that means that we will come to our conclusions instantly, subconsciously. And then that will guide the data and logic that we pay attention to and respect, fueling confirmation bias. And so what do we have to do still, even if we have somebody who is very logical, very data driven and everything, we still need to figure out what it is that drives them? How do they feel about that? Because that will change their entire orientation about their perspective on the data and the logic and the evidence. So we still need to have a little bit of the pathos, which is the the passion, the emotion, we still need to have the the ethos, which is the character like who are you, in this conversation? What breed makes you a trustworthy communicator in this too. And so a lot of times, what you'll find is that somebody is really, really good at logical thinking, the and the data and everything like that. But those two other elements of persuasion are often overlooked.

So, again, super helpful. What I want to talk about sort of two types of interactions, one or repeated interactions, think a manager with an employee or a manager with a supervisor above them, where I'm, I'm repeatedly interacting, how do I get to know what their motivations what guidance would you you give me? And then after that, I want to ask, What if I just met somebody? And I'm in an almost spontaneous negotiation? What are cues for me to know what their Pathos is? So start with the first like, what's just guidance in again, a managerial context? What are the best ways to get to know the the motivations of those that work?

And, Trevor, just disclaimer here, my goal for the rest of this conversation is to be as underwhelming as possible. Because the, the answer to that is almost insultingly simple, and it is listening. That's really it. After over 1000 episodes of negotiate anything, I realized that in order to be a better negotiator, you just need three things. Again, you've seen the commonality with the rewrite, you need to write a better listener, you need to ask better questions, and you need to be able to manage emotions, both yours and the other person. So let's bring that to the conversation with the manager. So I need to be a better listener. And no matter how good you are at listening, there is always room for improvement. And so my goal in these conversations, is I almost turn it into a game, sometimes I have to focus myself through the lens of competition. But I think about it, like collaborative competition. So in these conversations, especially when I don't understand somebody, or I fundamentally disagree, I play with this, I play this game, I say, I bet I can demonstrate that I understand this person so well, that it would actually be shocking. Like, they would actually be surprised at how well I understand them. And potentially, it could help them to understand themselves at a deeper level. And so when you think about it that way, like we're, taking the goal of just understanding the words that were spoken from the other party, to a whole new level. So now I'm dialed in. And so when you're listening at a deeper level, you're not just listening to what is said, you're also listening to what is not said, You're listening to the emotions behind what said the body language, all of those things. And so when somebody can feel that, they feel a lot of respect, because a lot of times when people are feeling disrespected, it's because they feel that the person does not even care enough to understand. And so I'm going to go out of my way to demonstrate that level of listening. And by listening at that level, it encourages people to even share more. So even beyond going into what I need to say and do, if I just listen, I'm going to get more information. And I'm going to encourage them to share more information simply by how I'm listening. And so when you actually just really focus on that the people are ready and willing to give that information. But a lot of times they don't give that information because they don't even think you care enough to listen.

So, again, sounds so simple, and yet so hard. So, again, you know, in a repeated work context, this makes eminent sense to me and I can hear myself and as you say, always room for improvement. But I want to come to know the people I work with I want to know what they enjoy doing. I want to know what they get pride out of in a work product if we're and then reinforce and then say wow, that looked like you really felt good about that. And that gives you the ability to reinforce that later. Right. But in a moment in which I'm I'm just met somebody and how what are some very tactical ways of like you just said of, I'm going to I'm going to demonstrate to you in as short time as possible that I am listening to you and I am understanding you knowing that there's some, some transaction we're trying to engage. And I'm trying to convince you of some argument and I want you to take some behavior or whatever it may be. How do I listen deeply, but efficiently? In a in a first or, you know, that limited time period?

Yep. So let's use a combination of tools here. So we have compassionate curiosity. And then I'm going to introduce the empathy loop, and then also the question funnel. So we talked about compassionate curiosity, acknowledge and validate emotions, get curious with compassion, joint problem solving, then with the empathy loop, what we're going to do is this systematizes, the listening process. So when somebody speaks, we're going to listen, and then we're going to summarize it, we're going to say something like, correct me where I'm wrong. But it sounds like you're saying this, that and the other is that, and then we're going to ask them to actually correct us. So we're not going to advance in the conversation before until they correct? They say, Yeah, you got it. Right. So it's Listen, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying this, Am I close on that? Is that a fair synopsis, however you want to whatever words you want to give to it, go ahead and use that. But it's that that process of listening, so I'm not going to just ask questions, I'm going to listen systematically. And then with the question funnel, what I'm doing is I'm starting the conversation off with really broad questions at the beginning. And then I'm getting more specific as the conversation goes on. So for example, when I was mediating, one of my favorite questions to start off with was, how did we get here? And which seems almost silly, because I read the whole case file they've been litigating for over a year. I know. I know why we're here. Right. I want to hear it from you. I've never heard it conversationally. And so as I'm listening, I'm listening for a few things, some clues. So I'm going to listen to deviations in tone, pace, and then tone and pace. And then I'm also going to listen to repetition, what do you keep coming back to? And then I'm also going to pay attention to body language. And I don't know what all these things mean. But they are clues for deeper levels of curiosity. So I'm asking you to explain your perspective on this. But there's a key word that you keep on coming back to you keep on coming back to fiscal responsibility. You mentioned that three times in your response. Interesting. My next question might be, Trevor, you mentioned fiscal responsibility. Can you tell me what that means to you? Yeah. And then we just keep on going down. So we're just following this trail of breadcrumbs, breadcrumbs, but just cycling through these really foundational conversational skills as we do it.

So now, I want to turn the tables, let's say I'm a neophyte, of which I am, I'm a total novice. And I'm, I'm in some kind of negotiation with you, the master, you can be some jujitsu to be able to like redirect your, you know, like, what do I do if I'm in one of these circumstances where I can tell oh, wait a minute, this person is sort of levels above me skills? How do I become aware of that? And am I just at your might just a cat toy at that point? Or is there is there a way to parlay some of this back?

No, you are doomed.

No, it's, it's really interesting. Because first, if you have a good relationship with somebody, then it's not necessarily a bad thing, because that just means a good person has their hand on the steering wheel. So the the beauty of working at ANI is that everybody on the team, they're great negotiators. So I can tell when they're negotiating. And I'm like, Okay, well, you're negotiating with me, I trust you. So it's not that bad. But I'm usually let's say it's a situation where it's a little bit more competitive in that regard. I think about it, in terms of steering the conversation in a way that was beneficial. Because I know that if I'm in a negotiation, I'm really clear not only on what I will say or can say, but I'm really clear on my boundaries, what I won't say the information, I don't feel comfortable disclosing and the adjustments that I will and will not be willing to make in the conversation. I've already thought about this in advance. And so one of the benefits is recognizing that if you have good negotiation skills, and you've prepared more so than anything, if you've prepared, then the only person that can hurt you is yourself, because you allowed it to happen by sharing too much or agreeing to something that you shouldn't have. And when it comes to steering the conversation, I would be more concerned about the person steering it in a way that is not beneficial to me that leads me to potential vulnerabilities that might make let me expose myself and the way that we control the conversation is through questions. Because, Trevor, in this conversation, you are controlling the conversation with the questions that you're asking, right? I'm talking way more than you. And so in my negotiations, I want to be talking less than the other side. I want that type of interview or type of dynamic. But I don't feel controlled in the way that you're asking the questions. It feels very mutual, right. And so if I recognize that I'm feeling as if I'm losing control of the conversation, it's probably going to be manifesting itself in the in the reality that I'm talking too much, sharing too much, and maybe adjusting too much. So what I'll do is I'll still answer the question, but I would make sure that I close my response with another question. Yeah. Because now I'm turning the table. I'm taking control, they respond. Now I'm asking questions. So I want to make sure that my hand is on the steering wheel. And if I recognize somebody else's grabbed the wheel and taking us in another direction, that's how I can gently bring us back.

No, that's great. That is great. Well, I can talk to you all day. But I know you're a busy person who's got to go help a lot of people through these difficult conversations. But but as we close this, I want to learn a little bit more about you, you strike me as, as somebody and I know, having spent time with you before that this was not just something that came to you innately. And so tell us just briefly about your own journey. And, and, and how you got to really embrace some of these approaches and how easy or difficult it was. And then what advice you would give to someone where it's similarly isn't just innate for them to be a good listener and those kinds of things. So you share your story, and what advice do you have somebody who maybe started at a similar point to you?

Yeah, for sure. I think what's encouraging about my story is that I started off being profoundly bad at this. It's always funny when somebody in a training says, Well, of course, it's easy for you, you're a natural and like, natural funny, because I was a people pleaser for a long time. And I knew that I needed to change, but I didn't know how. And it wasn't until I got to law school where I stumbled into a negotiation class simply because it fit into my schedule, that I discovered that this was a skill, not a talent that could actually learn from this. So I became obsessed with this with this process of negotiation. And so at law school, at OSU, they had these negotiation competitions. And my partner and I, we won the competition at Ohio State. And that gave us the opportunity to represent the school at the American Bar Association competition in Ottawa, Ontario, and we won that one as well. And so I was hooked. Because for me, it was, I get gained a lot of confidence from this, because every time I stood up for myself had a tough conversation, it was a vote of confidence for the man that I ultimately want to be. But then I also recognize that if I'm the, if I'm struggling with this, other people are struggling with this. And it made me wonder how many people in the world are living limited lives, simply because they can't have these conversations. And so for us at ANI, we believe the best things in life are on the other side of difficult conversations. And so for us, we want to help them make to make the world a better place and change lives and communities. Just one difficult conversation at a time. And so for for folks who are looking at me, who say Oh, Kwame has got it, of course, he's good at this. I wasn't born like this, I built myself like this. And if ever if anybody else is on that same journey, just know it can be done. It just takes a lot of practice.

Well, Kwame, thank you for letting me win this conversation by asking all the questions and then you providing all of the answers. I am definitely the winner in that I have gotten so many word nuggets out of this but fundamentally a really well thought out framework for for how to not only engage in work context, but in life context. So you you're doing great work and keep it up and Thanks for Thanks for this conversation.

My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai