E115 - Negotiation with Megan Shapiro

Experience the transformative power of negotiation with our esteemed guest Megan Shapiro, a construction attorney turned risk management maestro. As we unravel the complex tapestry of negotiation for construction leaders, Megan imparts her wisdom on the holistic approach to risk management. It's not just about the fine print or safety protocols; it's an intricate dance with communication styles, tailored approaches, and the strategic use of questions to unlock win-win scenarios. Our dialogue is a masterclass in identifying personal negotiation styles, leveraging them for strategic advantage, and fostering a culture of active listening and consistent practice.

Step into the world of the 'Uncommon Communicator' with us, where Megan Shapiro guides us through the nuances of legal disputes and mediation. Discover how to resonate with different communicative styles and adapt to the combination lock of negotiation dynamics. We delve into the paradoxical goal of strategic consulting — empowering clients to the point where our presence becomes unnecessary. From the role-playing exercises that hone our communication skills to the art of asking the right questions, we provide a roadmap for construction professionals to navigate the emotional and factual landscapes of negotiation.


Check out more for Megan Shapiro at:
Negotiation Style Quiz: https://meganshapiro.ck.page/81045b49f1

Discount code for the online course: https://meganshapiro.ck.page/276f6a94f2

Email list for Savannah trip: https://meganshapiro.ck.page/694d9d28bf

My website: https://www.meganshapiro.com

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOJqHEhS1CtX3A4nztIBzdA
Instagram: The_Uncommon_Communicator
TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@theuncommoncommunicator
Facebook: The Uncommon Communicator
LinkedIn :https://www.linkedin.com/company/80960291/
Website : theuncommoncommunicator.com

Transcript

Speaker 2: 0:06

Welcome to the Uncom communicator podcast, where we bring enlightenment to the topic of communication. Are you ready to take ownership of your conversations? Are you looking to possess the skills to navigate and facilitate conversations to a mutual understanding? What are you waiting for? Have your growth mindset and let's go. Welcome to Uncom communicator. This week. I'm so excited I've got Megan Shapiro and Megan we have met on the internet. These just sound weird, didn't it? That was a weird thing. Now, it's like if you don't meet on the internet then we never would have met, but we met through LinkedIn and you had some posts about negotiation. That really piqued my interest, because talking negotiation is the start of this podcast. As well as negotiation is communication. Negotiation is listening. So welcome. Why don't you introduce yourself? You'll do a better job than I can. Tell us a little bit about yourself, hi.

Speaker 1: 1:02

James, thanks for having me on.

Speaker 1: 1:05

So yeah, I'm Megan Shapiro.

Speaker 1: 1:06

I am a full-time practicing construction attorney who recently decided that I wanted to pivot into proactive risk management because I decided, after litigating for 15 years or so and defending the same types of claims for my clients, that yeah, you know what, there's got to be a better way here.

Speaker 1: 1:24

Maybe we should start taking some of these lessons that we've learned over this time to still it down and implement some of this stuff on the front end so that we can avoid ending up in litigation at all, or, if we do because of course litigation is inevitable sometimes we will at least be in a better position to defend those claims. So I decided to sort of shift my focus although I am still practicing full-time as an attorney and I'm working on taking all of those lessons that I've learned I distilled them down into a framework and I'm making an online course for construction leaders that is sort of universally applicable. It isn't state specific, it isn't trade specific, it isn't even subcontractor versus GC specific, and so everybody will have access to hopefully be able to use that framework and apply it in their businesses to have some proactive risk management strategies that will ultimately lead them to increase in their profits through doing that, and that's sort of what led me to my LinkedIn journey and that is how we met.

Speaker 2: 2:26

I didn't know.

Speaker 2: 2:27

That's what led you to your LinkedIn journey. Well, that's exciting, because the whole side of litigation I mean we're as a general contractor or anybody doing construction there's risk, inherent risk that's what we talk about on the safety side, but there's so much on the contractual side as well too, and I love the fact that we're risk managing, because we do that as a company as well too, where we're always looking to mitigate those kind of risks but to have a plan in place and then actually be proactive. I love that you're out helping the construction industry do that and avoid those lawsuits, because that's a fear of a lot of superintendents is that at some point you're going to be held responsible for things that happen on your job site. So we want to do the best that we can to mitigate those risks. But here to talk about mitigating risks, we're going to talk about negotiation, which is mitigating risks. So one thing that so you had a post recently about negotiation. Do you want to talk a little bit about what spurred you to have that conversation on LinkedIn?

Speaker 1: 3:28

Yeah, absolutely so. My approach to risk management is really holistic. It looks at a lot of different aspects of a construction company. It's not just contracts, it's not just on site safety, it's sort of everything from a holistic approach. And a big part of that oftentimes can include negotiation On the contract side. Specifically, you can mitigate and be proactive in terms of risk mitigation in the contract itself if you have a systemized approach to negotiating those contract terms on the front end.

Speaker 1: 4:02

And I've sort of realized that there are a lot of skills that are oftentimes considered attorney skills right, and negotiation tends to be one of those that aren't really attorney skills at all.

Speaker 1: 4:14

Obviously, someone like you is a very skilled negotiator as well, but because there's this idea behind attorneys and negotiating and these sort of like high level concepts and words, I think it's intimidating for people and they don't necessarily feel like they have the proper training or the proper skill set to really take on these roles.

Speaker 1: 4:35

And that was what sort of led me down this path of merging the ideas of negotiation with construction.

Speaker 1: 4:43

It started, actually, I was on a panel at the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange does, an annual Women in Construction event in September every year, and I was on a panel and I wrote my part of the panel presentation with the idea of imparting some negotiation strategies and skills to women in construction so that they could use them in negotiating their salaries, in negotiating projects at their project manager, superintendents, things like that.

Speaker 1: 5:12

And so I had that presentation and as I was diving deeper into my LinkedIn journey, I thought, oh, you know what, I should share my presentation as a series, and so I did it over a week and I broke that whole presentation out into daily bite sized pieces as daily posts on LinkedIn and then concluded it with a sort of wrap up article. And I started it with a negotiation style quiz so that people could identify their own negotiation styles, and then I gave some tips and tricks on leveraging that knowledge of how you negotiate yourself and how you could use that to help you identify the negotiation style of the person you're negotiating against and leverage it to your advantage.

Speaker 2: 5:53

Yeah, it was a great. I mean, it was a fun ride that week just seeing how much information that you were sharing, Like there's so much that can go into it. In some ways it's in its simplest form, At least. I try to consolidate everything down to my tiny little mind, but the idea that it really does a lot of negotiation comes down to actively listening. That's one thing that is really, you know, a key component in negotiation but you're right, you nailed it is that there are people who are not skilled at it, and it's just a practice. It's something that we can all learn. But knowing your style and then applying your style and knowing other people's styles, you know, those are things that you kind of covered through that as well too. Did you get? What kind of feedback did you get from that post?

Speaker 1: 6:37

You know, I probably it was probably one of my most popular series. I've done a couple of those sort of week long series on different topics and that one was probably the most popular and somewhat the most. I mean controversial probably feels like a little bit too strong of a word, but I think actually you and I previously talked about and I'm going to totally forget the name of the book, so you can help me out but Chris Voss has a book about negotiation style.

Speaker 2: 7:01

Yep never spoke the difference.

Speaker 1: 7:03

Right, never spoke. The difference. A lot of my style comes from getting to yes and that book and the approach that that book takes is definitely much more geared towards legal negotiations. And my understanding of Chris Voss's book is that it comes it draws on his experience as a hostage negotiator. Is that?

Speaker 2: 7:19

right.

Speaker 2: 7:20

Yeah, that's correct. In fact I'm right now I'm going through again. I'd listened to getting to yes, before I recognize the guy speaking this. So I've been going through that and you're right, it's a different take. Everything has a different angle when it comes to negotiation and knowing how to apply it. Like I started this podcast on the whole, you know, on Chris Voss's book never spoke the difference.

Speaker 2: 7:41

But what I've learned and I had interviewed Sarah Gonella on the podcast and some of the things that Chris says in hostage negotiation is no starts the negotiation. So it's a whole idea like we need to have conflict to negotiate. Now this is a guy that's talking terrorists off of buildings with people, so it's a completely different take that he's applied to business. But the idea is that for any negotiation there needs to be some kind of conflict going on. But it was a different process and I didn't realize until we had that conversation that empathetically I'm like holy cow. I have been going the wrong road with certain individuals who are kind of triggered. I kind of triggered her and I completely understand it. Then I've made me rethink. How many other people have I triggered with those? That exact statement that you know, no starts the negotiation. Those are his words, which are very true in that when we have a disagreement, it's like okay, now we've got something to work on.

Speaker 2: 8:37

I didn't realize, like, in some people's stance is like no means no. So I really went on this really long journey of understanding this. What you know, why is no mean no, but why does no start a negotiation? So it was really a great path for me to go down, a big learning path for me after working with her on it. And then when you were talking about that getting the yes that's kind of that same thing it's like hold on a minute. No, isn't always the best way to start a negotiation, is that? So what, really? What's the best thing that you got from that book?

Speaker 1: 9:14

Yeah. So I think and that was that's sort of what I was alluding to in a little bit of the controversy that came out of my post based off of getting to yes is there are a huge amount of proponents of Chris Voss's book and approach. I also agree with Sarah I, I I hate the idea and I completely reject the premise that no is the beginning of a negotiation. It could potentially be because Sarah and I both come from the female perspective there and obviously we're probably going to be pretty squarely in the camp of no means no, right yeah. And I think that there is a subtle distinction between no starts the negotiation and getting to yes ends the negotiation. And I think that comes into play when you really break down the difference between what the experience that Chris Voss is drawing on.

Speaker 1: 10:00

Clearly I'm not questioning his experience. What I am questioning is the application of his experience to a business context. I think getting to yes comes at it from a different angle that is a little bit more appropriate for business con conversations and negotiations. I think of course you have to have some sort of disagreement to be to start a negotiation or else you're not. There's nothing to negotiate about. But in business. The negotiation starts when everybody agrees that they've got a final goal and a final destination in mind. Nobody's starting with no. Everybody in a business conversation or negotiation is starting with not this, but right it's not no.

Speaker 1: 10:38

No ends the conversation always, and, as somebody who negotiates, in mediations, in conversations with clients and opposing parties, no ends the conversation every time. That's why, when I'm the one that's in the position of turning down an offer, for example, I don't say no unless I mean no, we're done, this entire negotiation is over, I come. That's why we've counteroffers right. That's why it's a dialogue, it's a back and forth, and so I'm with Sarah and I do think that there is a distinction to be made and that's why I will firmly stand in the camp that getting to yes is a better business application of negotiation skills than never split the difference.

Speaker 2: 11:19

And I can see that and it really was a deep journey for me too. I have this really long ride to this project that I'm on and I went through this whole problem solving technique, like trying to identify, like why you know, this is a big issue no means no, but why does no start the negotiation? And I really had to process through that and what I came down to and I want to toss this out your way is I realized that for me, no, there's two types of no's. There's the no of dismissal and I think that's the one for me. That's the person who you walk in their office and you're not listened to. They're like no, get out of my office, I don't want to talk about it.

Speaker 2: 11:58

Those type of no's of dismissal are the ones I'm very defensive about, because I've been there, I've heard some of them and my whole thing now through this podcast and I think it's my mission now is to give people a voice. So the idea of no starts the negotiation is allowing me to help people get a voice in the no of dismissal. Now there's the no of refusal. That one is a no means no, like if somebody says no, no means no, and that was like I hadn't really processed the idea of no means no before 100%. I'm in your court too. You're not just in with Sarah like we're all together on that.

Speaker 2: 12:33

No definitely means no. I just I think the perception of what I was giving was different in my mind, which is, you know, the no of dismissal. And that's what are your thoughts on the no of dismissal? And still allowing yourself the confidence to be able to ask some more questions, because you know, a lot of times people aren't hearing you. You know you're not being heard, and how do you get your voice heard through that no?

Speaker 1: 13:00

You know, I think that's a really astute observation on your part and a very subtle distinction, but an important one. I would totally agree that there is a clear difference in how you can approach the no of dismissal versus the no of. I'm sorry, did you call it termination? No?

Speaker 2: 13:13

refusal. I made that refusal, refusal, refusal.

Speaker 1: 13:16

Yeah, I think that's. I think that's a really really important distinction for people to be aware of that, and kudos to you for taking the time to parse that out and sort of identify where that disconnect comes from. I really love that and I'm probably going to borrow it with credit to you. But yeah, I think, in terms of strategies for dealing with the no of dismissal, as you're calling it, which again I love, I think that is a lot more in line with to take it back to the beginning of this this, this sort of lawyer approach to negotiation because, for example, for people who may not have had the good luck of being involved in a lawsuit meaning the good luck of having not been involved in one mediation is usually voluntary, that you're not required to do it. There will in California anyway there comes a point in time in the life of the case where the court will require you to attempt a settlement conference, but it is different than a mediation which is voluntary, and so oftentimes, when it comes to the point in the case where it might make sense to start the settlement negotiations, one party will be the one that reaches out and says hey, do you think we should schedule a mediation that is at everybody's own personal, out of pocket cost, and there's this idea that maybe being the one that suggests it might indicate a weakness in the case, and so even the conversation about whether or not we should begin the negotiation is fraught with this idea of strategy and perception and all of those sorts of things, and so that a lot of times can be, as you're calling it, the sort of no of dismissal. And so the approach that I typically take in those types of situations is really softening the approach right, like, especially if I've got what I'm going to equate to your example of the boss who says no, I don't want to talk about this, and slams the door in your face. For me, that's a posie council that gives the dismissive email response or the brisk tone in the phone call and slams the phone down.

Speaker 1: 15:16

It's really about that's when you have to get really strategic, about understanding your own negotiation style and doing your best to try to understand theirs, because that's when the we call it strategy, but really let's be candid it's manipulation. That's what it is. That's what all negotiation is. Let's just, I mean, come on, it's the elephant in the room right, and so that's when the manipulation comes in, and so it's really playing to whatever the person on the other side of this needs to hear, and disregard your own ego, because that's really what it comes down to. You have to like I have to be willing to look like the one that's weak in order to get what I want, and I think that really speaks to how you can approach the no dismissal versus, you know, the sort of terminating no and um. It's really about knowing, like I said, knowing your own style and doing your best to try to identify the style of the person that you're talking to so you can get what you want out of it.

Speaker 2: 16:14

Well, and I've 100% avoided the word manipulation because I like the word strategy, I like the word negotiation, but there is some degree to that. But tell me more about how you would strategize. Like what's the process in strategizing a negotiation?

Speaker 1: 16:32

You know, I wish I could give you a quick pithy answer. That would be great for a clip that we could both use. But that is kind of. That kind of comes down to the heart of what Getting TS gets to and what my point is, which is you have to customize and tailor it based on your own style and based on your best determination of your opponent's style. Not to do like a plug.

Speaker 1: 16:52

But that's really why my negotiation style quiz was my starting point right.

Speaker 1: 16:56

It was like, hey, if you're interested in this topic and you want to go on this week-long journey with me and potentially read the book at the end of this, start here, because all of this is you're going to, each person is going to view the content in a diff, through a different lens, based on what their own style is, and it's equally important to try to use the same strategies to try to identify the style of the person that you're talking to, because not only do you have to know your own style so that you can make sure that you're managing it, you also have to tailor your approach to the other side based on what is going to be most effective to them.

Speaker 1: 17:30

So I don't necessarily have a quick strategy beyond. Start with figuring out your own style and then do your best, based on the information you have from your interactions with the other side, to figure out their style, and then you can go from there. Then I can give you strategies all day long, right, and I can say oh, you have this style, they have that style. This is what typically works. Try this, but without that sort of foundational information it's really just sort of trial and error and you're probably not going to have a very high success rate.

Speaker 2: 17:57

And you said trial. That makes people nervous when the lawyer says trial.

Speaker 1: 18:01

Different kind of trial.

Speaker 2: 18:02

Different kind of trial. I think you are there. I mean, I think what you're talking about is and I like to get things as simple down, as simple strategy as you have, and I think you really did. You have it, whether you know it or not. You're like it's easier as it's as easy as it is complicated, because the idea is first knowing what your style is, and that's something that I do, we do as part of the Uncommon communicator is.

Speaker 2: 18:25

First, it talks about enlightenment. I talk about knowing whether or not conversation is happening. This happens with negotiation too. You have to know that it's a two-way conversation and so that moment of enlightenment is you're not getting what I'm saying or we're not connecting, and sometimes we connect with people and it just happens Other people it's a lot of work and I haven't. So it comes down to the next step is taking ownership of it, which, again, in the negotiation setting, somebody has to take ownership of it. So I do enlightenment and ownership. And on the ownership side, the first thing that I do is look at my style, which I know what my style is. But I'm now looking at your style and know that, all right, you're an aggressive or at your passive, I look at those type of things and from there I've called it a combination.

Speaker 2: 19:11

I've been looking for years to the key to communication. In fact, that's what started this with my boss. I'm like I'm going to figure it out, and it's not a key, it's a combination lock. It's this and this and this and several different things like you're talking about to do that strategy. It's the same thing I do in kind of unlocking conversations, but it starts with understanding your style and their style, because sometimes they're never just like you said, it's.

Speaker 2: 19:36

Sometimes it's always going to go to trial, sometimes they are just going to go that way, and that's the same with communication as well. Sometimes we're just not going to get past that point because we can't seem to connect those together. But that's so you're there. You've already gotten strategy one you can take that. You can take that to the bank. So. But in creating strategies, though, do you help people? We can kind of tie this to risk management. When you, when you talk about helping people manage risk, are you also always a part of that, working on developing their negotiation style or the communication style to help them mitigate that risk?

Speaker 1: 20:16

It certainly depends. I have I do when it's appropriate, and by that what I mean. Such a lawyer answer right, it depends. This is why people hate lawyers, and I didn't even notice I was doing it, man, but it does. It depends. It certainly is a part of the course that I'm in the process of writing that will be coming out, and that's because that's a self study, self application sort of format of my framework, and so I want to empower people with the tools to be able to do that if they choose to, depending on the certain context. In the cases where I'm actually working directly with a client, whether that's as their attorney or if it's through the risk strategy consulting In those cases, yeah, it's much more collaborative, it's really more.

Speaker 1: 21:02

I hate the word coaching because I feel like it's been so diluted by so many other non valuable sorts of things, so I hate the word coaching in that context. That's why I prefer strategizing. But it really is sort of like coaching coaching them on, helping them identify their own negotiation styles. Helping them identify if they have a specific person on the other side that they are often negotiating with, or if it's this specific contract that they're negotiating in real time right now if they know who that other side is, helping them sort of apply those things, because it can be a little bit nuanced and it takes a little bit of practice to get good at it and of course, we all have blinders when it comes to ourselves. I think there's nothing harder than a self assessment, at least for me, yes, and so, yeah, it's a little bit of hand holding. I like that better than coaching. I think it's a little bit of hand holding to help them through that process and and then really digging into true, actual strategies.

Speaker 1: 21:55

Once we, once we've done that first step of identifying their, their style, their opponent style, then we can really get down to the nuts and bolts, really getting it e gritty, map it out, game, plan it out, and if I'm the attorney, I'm the one doing the negotiating most of the time. If it's, if it's a they're negotiating a contract and it's not yet in conflict, then yeah, I'll give them the strategies. I've even gone so far as role playing with them and saying this is how I would say it if, if we were at the level of attorney involvement, we're not there yet. We're trying to prevent this from escalating to the point of meeting attorneys. So this is how you can say it. Let's practice.

Speaker 1: 22:31

I've done that with clients many, many, many times. So, yeah, there it really is a sort of hand holding type of type of process, but always with the ultimate goal of empowering them to get to the point of not needing me. It's really it's not a really great business model, either as an attorney or as a strategist consultant, but, my true, I really would love for people to never need me. I would love to be able to just like give them these tools so that they can do it themselves and not have to and not need me.

Speaker 2: 22:59

Well, and I think that's the best strategy. I know it sounds terrible and I was laughing because you're right in some ways. You know I'm trying to make I think of that the movie liar liar have you seen that? With Jim Carrey, where he's like oh, my plan to eliminate myself is now complete when he gave the ball, you know, and anyway. So the whole idea is to you know, work to eliminate yourself. But I think that's a but makes you so valuable and what makes you set apart from other lawyers, from other business people, is and that's what I see a lot on LinkedIn as well too.

Speaker 2: 23:30

People are giving away this stuff, which makes you more valuable, to show the value that you have. It doesn't eliminate you because it's kind of like this you know I do a lot of cooking, a lot of barbecue, and and they're like oh, is it your secret recipe? Can you share it? I'm like no, I'll tell you everything that goes into it. You know the whole secrecy of the recipe. It's not, that's not where the magic happens. I don't listen to those people. It's like I got some secret ingredient. Well then, I'm not going to eat it. So it's just the whole idea of you don't have is share your secret ingredients. It's going to make people want to. I don't know how I got off on a barbecue. I haven't had a town, I haven't been barbecuing at all, but the one thing that you that you said which was interesting, was talking about the, the whole idea of.

Speaker 1: 24:16

I just lost it Because I see so many interesting things, James, it's hard to keep track.

Speaker 2: 24:25

Well, so one thing is informing a strategy. The one thing that I guess the big question that I've got with strategy is when you're helping people practice that stuff. Right, that's a strategy as well too. And what I liked is especially you were doing the role playing which I got to tell you like five years ago. It's like no, thank you, I'm not putting on a Harry Potter hat, I'm not going to go role playing or whatever.

Speaker 2: 24:51

That was always my picture, and until I got introduced to Chris Floss, chris Floss actually came to our company and did a presentation on negotiation. That's what. Yeah, I think it was expensive. He and his team came. It was great, but we started doing some role playing and everybody's uncomfortable doing that. But now, I'd say, five years later, I have completely seen the value of role playing and practicing and getting those skills and practicing those skills to become better at it, Because that's really where you don't want. It's just like Toastmasters you want to practice before you go out into the real situation, and that's the same thing with negotiation. Sometimes saying those words seem uncomfortable the first time you say them and then you want to practice them. Do you as a lawyer? Do you role play court things as well. Do you do a lot of that type of practice, role playing, outside of just working with your clients?

Speaker 1: 25:46

Yeah, I guess I would maybe give it a different title role play. To me, role play is like a collaborative thing You're playing one role, I'm playing another role. Let's play this out together to see how this is going to unfold. I don't necessarily do a lot of that for myself. For lawyering I have different techniques that are sort of similar.

Speaker 1: 26:06

So I will pre like if it's, if I don't do a lot of pre-written speeches, I'm better off the cuff. I always have been. I'm a trained speech person from way back. I've been doing competitive. I started doing competitive speech and debate in eighth grade all the way through, so I know my own style. So I'm much better off the cuff.

Speaker 1: 26:28

If I have a written out script like word for word, it's terrible Because I'm trying to remember every single word. I feel like I'm holding to the script, but occasionally and really I probably that's probably too generous. If I'm actually thinking about it, I can only really think of one time. One time when I was very early I was actually. It was for a mock trial competition in college. So this is pre-law school, pre-actually being an attorney, but it was a mock trial competition and I was tasked with giving the opening statement as opposed to the closing argument and the difference for this? For the purposes of your question, the difference matters Because the opening statement is where you're laying out for the jury what is going to happen in the trial, as opposed to the closing argument. You now get to actually argue your case based on what actually did happen, and so closing arguments are, by nature, usually mostly unscripted and off the cuff, and that's where I'm more comfortable. That's what I typically did.

Speaker 1: 27:28

I can't remember what the circumstances were as to why I was tasked with doing the opening statement, but because it was so far outside my comfort zone of how my normal style of delivery is, because it needed to be scripted, what I did was I wrote it out word for word and then I recorded myself this is date I'm going to date myself here. Are you ready for this? I recorded it on a CD. Remember those CDs? Yeah, I recorded myself on a CD and I listened to that CD in my car over and, over and over again to help me memorize every single word, so that I wouldn't stumble and I wouldn't get tripped up. So I guess in some ways it's a little bit of a role play, just a little bit of a different flavor of role play, maybe, and it did help. And you know what's so funny? That was 2004,. I think it was when I did that and I can still recite the entire opening statement to this day. So it worked. It worked, yeah.

Speaker 2: 28:25

So I'm not a huge fan of like memorize. I've done that before. I've memorized some speeches just as a practice. I've manuscripted them, which is another skill to be able to write like you're going to talk, and then I kind of did the speeches you know, like a newscaster would. So there's different styles in learning to give messages and speeches and I think I'm glad I went through that process, but I would never do it again either.

Speaker 2: 28:47

There's a guy named Eric Ed Meadies. He's with Mindvalley and he talks about how to be able to do storytelling and it's a really great thing that I saw on YouTube. But he can. He can talk for five minutes or he can talk for an hour with the same speech format that he has. So you'll have like three different topics. I don't do anything more than three because that's all my brain can memorize, so I don't need notes and then you can either expand on it, but his whole thing is every time you tell that you're using stories, which is probably a little different than your presentation, but what I like about being able to speak off the cuff still requires you to be organized. So you can do it and have your like if you had three main points that you're going to talk about. You know I'm just making them up You're going to talk about. You know how you messed me up and how I got messed up and how we're going to resolve it. I don't know I'm fake lawyering right now, but you have those three things. But then you have enough for you to to make it, you know, sound personable, cause I've heard people give written scripted speeches before and they're not natural.

Speaker 2: 29:45

But to be able to have that, to think concisely, I think that's one of the most important thing in giving any presentation and, honestly, in communication like. I know a couple of people that they are just conscious stream of thought people and I'm like I don't even know where we're going with this and sometimes it's interesting. Other times it's like you lost me. You know it's just like be be a little, you know more clear in in this and then also engage in in the other listener. So there's people that don't do that and I think, in your position, to be able to have and think clearly and concisely and have a message like that is something that's really important to do. So that's interesting, that you memorize it and still know that speech. That's great, but then again you'd never do it again, would you?

Speaker 1: 30:30

No, never. No, I would not. I'm glad I did it so that I could have that experience. Like you said, I know now that I have that tool to use if I ever wanted to. But no, I would. It's it's not my natural style. I'm not best. I don't communicate best that way, I'm not effective. Well, I'm not as effective that way and I'm certainly less persuasive that way. And as an attorney, of course that's my number one job is to be persuasive. So yeah it's not my preferred method at all.

Speaker 2: 30:55

And I think you lose the passion in it as well too. I don't think there's really anyone and I know I know you say it's not your style, it's not mine either, but I don't. I don't think anyone that practices that style comes across as authentic, either because you lose that passion trying to get to the exact point and having done it, like you, if you get lost in there, then you forget where you're going, and that's not the whole purpose of giving that message either, because if you don't know where you're going, then nobody's going to care where you're, where you're at anyways, so well. So one thing I did prior to this is I asked chat GPT because that's my go to. I will say, for chat GPT thinks like I think which is scary because it is like the first time I used it I'm like I need to find out what's going on.

Speaker 2: 31:40

This is when it came out like I think last year or something like that, I still got the free version of it and when I was would punch things in. Things come out in bullet points. I'm a bullet points person, I like to be concise. It puts things logically. So when it makes its messages, it's like how I think organized it's so there's so much that I like about it, but also it has a it loses a little. I couldn't just read it to you and you could think, oh yeah, james is talking here and the robot's talking. So I went in there like what are the most important things when it comes to negotiation? And I thought this was interesting.

Speaker 2: 32:16

The thing that came up was negotiation is communication. I didn't even feed it like in there, so it automatically said that, which is very true, but it came up with five things. I want to toss these your way and have get your thoughts on it. But the number one thing active listening. Number two, clarity and persuasion. Number three, questioning and clarification Is that like a trial type setting Empathy and understanding. And then the last thing would be negotiation, language and tactics, where it talks about you know mastering specific negotiation. You know language in how you're having that conversation, using the right words, anchoring, mirroring, which are all kind of Chris Voss kind of things that we're talking about. All you know help, you enhance, you know your abilities to be able to do that. So what do you think about chat GPT's version of the five most important things in negotiation?

Speaker 1: 33:09

Well, again, in true, true fashion. I have a question before I can give an answer, which is, I'm curious did ChatGPT present those in that order of importance, or is this like a randomized list?

Speaker 2: 33:23

So I did not ask for. So let me take a look here. You know what we're doing this live, right now. You may need to screen.

Speaker 1: 33:31

Share with me too, because I wasn't taking notes, I already forgot most of them.

Speaker 2: 33:36

No, I'll go back. All I asked was what are five? Hold on no, here. I asked this question. I asked it a couple of different ways. The number one what is the number one skill to have as a negotiator? That was my peer question. Okay, and the response was effective. Communication encompasses various aspects crucial to negotiation success. And then it numbered them. So I don't know that it put them in a specific order, but what I found with ChatGPT is it kind of does give a start and a finish type of makeup to it. But the first one was active listening. Second one was clarity and persuasion.

Speaker 1: 34:12

Yeah, okay, so I would throw active listening out, entirely Really.

Speaker 2: 34:18

That might be surprising. How many more.

Speaker 1: 34:20

Yeah, and I would start with, by the way, I think what was number four. I think number four is what I think is the most important.

Speaker 2: 34:26

Empathy and understanding. Empathy and understanding.

Speaker 1: 34:31

Yeah, Maybe that's what it was, but yeah, I would throw out active listening entirely and that my giant asterisk caveat to that is that could my position on that could be informed by the fact that most of my negotiation is done in a mediation setting with a through a third party mediator. So I don't need to actively listen. I don't have to. I don't really even have the opportunity to very often because I'm communicating with the mediator. What I want to need the mediator is then communicating that to the other side and then coming back to me relaying what they said, and so there isn't really too much of active listening that goes on there. If I were to take my lawyer hat off and just put on, like I don't know, my wife hat or my employer hat or something, a different hat that required me to negotiate, to negotiate in a different context, then sure, active listening might make the list, but it definitely would not be my number one. It wouldn't be top of mind at all.

Speaker 2: 35:27

Okay, well, and that's so. Let me just read the wording. So it says understanding the needs, interests and concerns of the other party through attentive listening, helps build rapport and demonstrates respect. But I can completely see where you're coming from in regards to the current, the situations you work under, like you're beyond this active listening, like you're in a mediation format. But I do think that's really one of the keys I think in any communication is to shut up and listen, like so many people just start talking before they like I know two individuals currently who make assumptions about what I'm thinking and going to say and, instead of actually hearing, they hear what they want to hear. But I can completely see that. The next one was clarity and persuasion.

Speaker 1: 36:18

Yeah, I'm huge fan of both of those. Clarity would probably actually be my number one, because if you don't understand your own goals and understand, at least to the best of your ability, based on the information that's available to you, what the goals of the other side are, then it's a non-starter. There's no conversation to even have, you can't even get to negotiating the negotiating because you aren't even in a conversation at that point, particularly in terms of identifying your own goals. So clarity, I think, would probably be what I would put number one. Again, I forgot the order that, I forgot all of those, but I would definitely put clarity very, very high, probably number one. Then what was the other part of that I forgot?

Speaker 2: 37:02

Persuasion, clarity and persuasion.

Speaker 1: 37:04

Yeah, I probably put persuasion last, because I think all the rest of that stuff comes before you get to the part of being persuasive and contributes to your ability to be the most persuasive. I think it starts with clarity and ends with persuasion. That's what I'm sticking with now until you tell me another one, and then I'm probably going to change my mind.

Speaker 2: 37:23

I'm loving that I had no intention of putting you on trial. I feel like I feel your power right now. This is amazing. The next one was questioning and clarification.

Speaker 1: 37:36

Yeah, that's redundant. I think, with clarity, chat-tpt it's okay, I'll give them a pass. I like chat-tpt too, but they're not great. It's not perfect Like people, but yeah, certainly I think asking questions is the best way to clarify, at least for the other side's intentions, and maybe asking questions of yourself to make sure you can identify your own goals.

Speaker 1: 38:00

I guess this might be a really good place to throw in the idea of BATNA and WATNA, which again comes directly from getting to yes, which is figuring out the other side's best alternative to a negotiated agreement and their worst alternative to a negotiated agreement. Similarly, it's equally important to figure out those two things for yourself. It really helps you get clear on what you're willing to accept as a settlement, as an agreement, as a part of the negotiation. Knowing what that is for your opponent also gives you a lot of clarity because it gives you a little bit more leverage. You can tailor your approach a little bit better if you know what their best alternative is and then what their worst alternative is, because it gives you pain points that you can push on.

Speaker 2: 38:42

Really, yeah, I think questioning really is the key, one of the things that caught me with this and in your right there's always redundancy, it's almost like they're getting paid by the word. But the one thing that, in this one in particular, it talks about asking relevant questions and seeking clarification when needed helps ensure mutual understanding. That's really one of the tenets of the Uncommon Communicator is to work all conversations to a mutual understanding. That word caught me. I'm like all right, I think the robots are listening, they're giving me what I want to hear. But the idea of questioning and clarification, just so we can both know exactly that we're talking about the same thing. So I really love that portion of it. But there's a little redundancy, empathy and understanding.

Speaker 1: 39:24

I do want to go back for one second because I want to add one more thing to follow up on what you just said which is as attorneys, one of the number one things that we're concerned about, not just in negotiating but in everything related to what we do, is making sure that we're all using the common definitions of what like. We have a common definition right, because there's nothing worse than having a complete miscommunication, where you're talking past each other because you have not taken the time to make sure that you share a common definition of a word. That's even more amplified in the context of negotiating Because if you are talking about one thing and using a word to describe it and the other side hears that word and has a completely different meaning that they associate with that word, you could be shooting yourself in the foot, getting to a place where you're at no or stopping the negotiation, and there's no reason for that. I think a great example of this. I took a 40-hour mediator training at Northwestern that used getting to yes as the textbook. One of the lessons that we did in that course was a mock negotiation. It was so powerful because, of course, in mock negotiations, the way those are set up is like I've got my packet of confidential information. The person I'm negotiating against has their packet of confidential information. Of course, I don't know what they know and they don't know what I know, to set it up, to make it as real as possible.

Speaker 1: 40:48

There was a key in there to get to a mutually satisfactory settlement and agreement. The idea behind it was I needed the orange peels for something, it doesn't matter what it was, but I needed orange peels. My opponent needed orange seeds, but we didn't know that tiny distinction. We were fighting over who gets the oranges.

Speaker 1: 41:13

Of course, the key was communicating enough and defining the terms enough to realize, by asking clarifying questions, to your point, james, and to Chad GPT's point of getting to the point of negotiating and communicating well enough, where I say, where I finally asked a question that leads you to say I need the orange seeds and I say, well, I only need the peels, so why don't we just split it? That way I'll give you all the seeds, you give me all the peels, and we're both happy. I think that really struck a chord with me when I experienced it in that lesson. I happened to, just by happenstance, happened to be one of the pairings of groups that actually was able to figure that out, and so we found the solution, but most people didn't, and I think that that goes to show the power of questions and the importance of reminding people about the power of questions.

Speaker 2: 42:04

That's a great story. I actually use the story of the orange when I talk about conflict management, conflict resolution, which are two different things. I've used that story of the orange and I'll bring in the audience. I'll say, hey, john, you're over there, we're both fighting over this orange and it's like no, I can't split. They'll say, split in half and I can't do that.

Speaker 2: 42:24

I take that whole scenario just a story that I tell where you go into this, just go into this. Somebody else takes it in one-on-one, brings them in, asks them some questions and they come out and they do just that. In the case of the story that I use, somebody needed the pulp because I make up some story about they need the vitamin C because they're going to get scurvy, which probably half the audience doesn't even know what scurvy is. Then the other person needs the orange peel because they're making this orange cupcakes or something like that. All they needed was the peel. I didn't realize that this was a story that went deeper. But I've had people go wow, like I hadn't thought about the concept of we can both win because we haven't talked about what we need. That's pretty neat that I don't know where I still debt program. It wasn't chat GPT, but the internet definitely gave that one to me. That's pretty neat. Questioning clarification, any other comments or rebuttals before we move on.

Speaker 1: 43:21

No, I think I'm ready for empathy and something else. It was paired with something.

Speaker 2: 43:24

Yeah, empathy and understanding.

Speaker 1: 43:27

Okay, yeah, definitely. Understanding I agree with, but I think that's still as a little bit redundant with clarity, I would couple it back to the importance of defining our terms. I would define understanding as understanding their motives, which would go into the clarity bucket for me. That's why I would parse out understanding from empathy. I personally don't agree that you have to be empathetic to be able to be successful at negotiating. In fact, as an attorney, I think it can actually hurt you. The reason why I say that is because negotiations in the legal context can be and a lot of other contexts too particularly like an employer employee situation. It's brought with emotion. That's, honestly, probably the biggest value that an attorney actually brings. It's not our training in negotiating, it's our ability to not be affected by the emotionality of the conflict and the situation.

Speaker 1: 44:28

I think in situations and I've had mediations like this and I think the mediators are probably just new or inexperienced or untrained, but I've had mediators put my clients in the situation where they had tried to get them to empathize with the other side and it backfires. 100 percent of the time they're not in an emotional state to be able to say I can see where the other side is coming from, because if they could, we wouldn't have gotten this far in the conflict in the first place. We would have already been able to find a resolution and settle it. I don't agree that empathy is required at all. I would probably argue that empathy could could, in some negotiation settings and contexts, do more harm than good. I've had clients walk out of a mediation entirely because a mediator has tried to get them to empathize with the other side who they felt very wronged by. I would throw empathy out entirely personally.

Speaker 2: 45:27

An empathy, sympathy, those are. I mean, that's a slippery slope, I think. I think it is hard to understand, especially, you know, I come from a point where I'm just now finding that I have some inkling of vulnerability in there. I mean, it's just things that I'm learning, I'm growing from Finally learning about that. Prior to that, you know, I just didn't have response, I didn't have emotion. You know, all these things that I'm developing right, I'm starting to live life.

Speaker 2: 45:51

But the idea of empathy from my perspective, though, is really understanding the situation from the other person's shoes. It's not necessarily filled with emotion, but it's understanding it from their position so you can understand. So when I understand how they're coming from and a lot of that doesn't get there I don't think unless you can ask questions to see it from their perspective, necessarily, but I can completely see where it can muddy things up when you see it from an epithetic standpoint, and I would agree with you on the understanding and you nailed it. They said understanding their motives and constraints allows you to tailor your communication approach and proposals accordingly. So understanding is important in there, and empathy is interesting how it can muddy up the waters. Would that be a fair statement?

Speaker 1: 46:38

Yeah, I think so. And again, I mean I think it's contextual. I definitely think it's contextual. If it's a pure business dispute and emotions are not really involved, then it might not be bad. But I also think there's less of an opportunity to be empathetic in a true, pure business dispute because it's just about numbers. Right At that point it's a business decision.

Speaker 2: 47:01

Completely, and that's, I think, one of the hardest things to navigate through in any negotiation is the emotions, and I'm always looking at the detachment perspective.

Speaker 2: 47:12

How can you detach yourself from this to really understand all of the facts that are in there? Because emotion, that emotion, is going to drive you in a way that isn't going to resolve to the best resolution as well, as if you're working with somebody who is filled with emotion, you know at that point you either need to figure out a way to get the emotion out of it or step away and come back, because really negotiating in an emotionally tense situation, in my opinion, does not get to the resolution that you're going to get to as long as there's emotions in there. But understanding why there are emotions coming in there might help you know, understand that, or might help that individual yourself realize, holy cow, I'm getting a little fired up here. You know, maybe I need to detach my emotions from it a little bit better to look at the facts. So that is a tough, that's a tough challenge, I think, and you, as being a lawyer bit.

Speaker 1: 48:10

Oh sorry, james, I think we froze there a little bit.

Speaker 2: 48:14

We did. I saw that. I hope I don't have that. I don't edit, by the way, so everybody's going to hear all that, but I would assume that you work in and around emotions quite a bit being in the lawyering field. Is that right?

Speaker 1: 48:24

Absolutely, and you know I think I alluded to it a second ago when we were talking about this a little bit.

Speaker 1: 48:30

But I do think that that truly can be one of the most powerful things that an attorney can bring to a negotiation on behalf of a client is both our ability to not be attached to the emotion of the situation, but also we are most of the time, if you're doing it right, in a trusting relationship with your own client, and so you can sort of you can have those hard conversations confidentially with your client in a loving is not the right word, obviously to describe the relationship between an attorney and a client but in a more positive way, where you can sort of make honestly sometimes the same arguments that the other side is making.

Speaker 1: 49:09

But you can do it in a way that, in the context of that trusting relationship between attorney and client, you can present it in a way that gets them to sort of look at it from a little bit of a different perspective and let the emotional sort of shield down a little bit so that they can see it maybe a little bit more clearly, see it through the lens of the attorney, and take a step back from that emotionality and really look at it as a business decision in terms of, yes, maybe you were completely wronged here, like you might be morally 100% right, but how much do you want to spend to prove that you are morally 100% right?

Speaker 1: 49:49

How much emotional taxing do you want to put yourself through to continue on through this dispute, as opposed to cauterizing the wound and stopping the bleeding now? Because I think not to derail this too much off of the idea of negotiations, but I think oftentimes a lot of clients underestimate the emotional toll that being involved in litigation will take. It is long, it is taxing, it is draining and I think clients don't fully appreciate what that is going to be like until they are in it and sometimes they want to take an early off ramp because they can't handle it, and sometimes they stay in it too long that now there is no off ramp and now they are stuck. So it is kind of the role of the attorney to negotiate with their own clients sometimes to get them to sort of look at that and see and properly value the different pieces of that equation.

Speaker 2: 50:48

That is something that I talk about in my conflict and resolution and management. Also is the idea of trying to draw out that emotion. First because people get it pent up inside and I have personally resolved conflict on a job site by just letting somebody talk and then because they had something against me. I am like, all right, joe, what is going on here? He is like I am having a hard time with this and this, and then it is like I am having a problem at home and he is like it is not you, but it was me. Up until he was able to admit that, and I think that is part of you know kind of that is a negotiation part as well, too is letting people feel those emotions. But I see your point, though, like to let people know ahead of time how emotionally taxing it is going to be. You have to be built for it or you have to be able to come to a point where you can separate it. If you don't, it is just going to grind you up and spit you out.

Speaker 1: 51:47

So that is interesting and you know everybody has heard attorney-at-law, not as many people have heard counselor-at-law. But it is a dual role and we actually talk about it in law school. They have a whole portion. It is not its own class but there is a whole portion of a class where they talk about the duties and responsibilities of being a counselor-at-law, which is that sort of emotional side of managing your own clients and the relationship and the burden. It really can be a burden on the attorney because there is a shift right. The clients will rely on us in a way that puts a lot on us. Less so in the business world if your clients are businesses, but certainly if your clients are individuals in individual disputes there can be a lot of burden shift that goes from client to attorney just by virtue of the relationship. And so being a counselor-at-law has its own whole set of considerations and preparations and negotiations and communications that go along with that with your own client certainly.

Speaker 2: 52:48

I have never heard that. So I have heard the term counselor. You know, I just watch a lot of TV report shows and I never tied it to actually be a counselor-at-law, because that is what you are you become counsel. That is another word for it as well too. I love that tie verbally to what that is. That is interesting. So the last one we already kind of talked about negotiation, language and tactics. We talked about how it is important to have the right wording and I think you agree on that one there. Yeah, I think we will say that chat-GPT gets like a C minus. Maybe is that what we are giving it.

Speaker 1: 53:28

Yeah, I think. Before I grade chat-GPT, I want to correct one thing, because I told you I didn't remember all five in a row. I actually think I would put number five as number one, and here is why I think having your tactics and your strategy ahead of time is absolutely key. If I don't have a plan for my negotiation before I walk in the door a week before the mediation, having already sat down with my client and gone over it, then I am already starting from behind. So I would actually put strategy as number one. So I want to clarify that, and then I would grade chat-GPT. I would probably give chat-GPT. I will give them a C plus.

Speaker 2: 54:10

Okay, we will give them a C plus on this one. The information was there, just needed some correcting in its order. And then also, I am a big simplistic guy. I do find it a lot. I am like third point is the same. As I said, are you just filling points in here? So there is a lot of redundancy. But sometimes communication needs some redundancy so people have an opportunity to hear what you are saying. So, megan, this has been absolutely a lot of fun. I wanted to end with a quote here and we can talk about that and then we can go in some other specifics. But this is a quote from Marcus Aurelius. He says the problem creates the solution. What stands in the way becomes the way, and with that the idea is, you know, oftentimes fronted with I think I froze there for a minute huh, a lot of times. Did you catch that quote?

Speaker 1: 55:08

I heard the quote.

Speaker 2: 55:10

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

Speaker 1: 55:31

Yeah, I do. I think I don't think that's necessarily always the best outcome, and this probably brings it full circle back to no. I disagree that no is the starting of the start of communication or of a negotiation. I do think that there are some things that should not be negotiated through and the right course for everybody is to walk away, but I think that that's probably the exception that proves the rules. So certainly I would agree that most of the time I would agree with Marcus Aurelius.

Speaker 2: 56:01

Yeah, Most of the time.

Speaker 1: 56:04

Again, true lawyer response, right I got to tell you this.

Speaker 2: 56:08

This is what I've most enjoyed about this conversation. I work with a lot of people who are, you know, you got to only ask open-ended questions. They're fixed on that. In fact, there's this thing that we do where we go through a practice and an observer is watching the other person who's the coach, and if the coach, you know, doesn't ask only open-ended questions, they get kind of a violation. But there I've asked purposely yes and no questions from you and you've always filled in the blanks. And I mean because it's just to prove a point that you can. It's okay to ask yes or no questions and get more information, but that's just made this completely pleasurable for me. Appreciate it. I always end Tell me I was the subject of an experiment, james.

Speaker 2: 56:48

I didn't know until it's halfway through when I caught myself. I'm like I keep asking these yes questions and Megan just fills them in with such great information. So I was being myself and I'm like, wait a minute, this is working. So I had no idea. So this one's for Adam Hoots. I'm going to share that with him. That yes question and no question does work. But I always sum up all of our podcasts with the UC moments, the uncommon communicator moment that we know. We sum it up. We've been talking for an hour. Like what can people who have listened to this walk away with in say a one or two sentence statement?

Speaker 1: 57:24

About negotiations specifically, I assume, yes, yes.

Speaker 1: 57:28

Yeah, I would say number one take the time to identify your own negotiation style. If you do nothing else, if you take away nothing else from this podcast or from my series or from the books, identify your own negotiation style, absolutely. If you need help, I will link my quiz. When James publishes this podcast, I'll link my quiz in the comments. I think you'll probably publish it to LinkedIn, james, so I'll link my quiz. But whether you do it that way or not, take your time to identify your own negotiation style. It will be invaluable to you in terms of getting to know yourself better. It goes beyond just negotiation. It helps you identify your own communication style, really, and it will help you in every conversation that you have, not just, again, in conflict-based negotiations. It'll help you in conversations with your partner. It'll help you in conversations with your kids, your parents. It's valuable information to have about your own personality. So that would be my number one takeaway.

Speaker 2: 58:25

I love that, and so how can people and yes, we will post it on LinkedIn, we're also on YouTube. Those are the places that we will be sharing this podcast, as well as all the podcast directories as well, too without video? We will be posting video, but how can folks get ahold of you? And what other things are you working on?

Speaker 1: 58:44

So I am working on the online course that we talked about at the beginning. It is set for a release on April 1st. I'm happy to offer a special discount code to your listeners if they want to enroll on the wait list, so I can drop that link as well in the comments. I'll provide your listeners with a discount code to join the wait list early. It'll be released on April 1st. I have two live streams a month that I do. My next one is going to be Tuesday. I don't know if this is going to publish before then, but it's going to be Tuesday. March 12th is not going to publish, but if you catch the replay it's on YouTube. That one's called the Neighborhood Coffee Shop with Josh Lupker and John Goose Dunham. I also have my podcast Risk to Revenue the streaming sessions. The next episode of that will be April 1st with Megan Spivey. We'll be talking all about construction contracts.

Speaker 1: 59:34

I am organizing an in-person gathering for anybody who wants to come. I did get a DM asking if somebody said I'm not technically in the construction industry but I still want to come, is that okay? Absolutely Everybody can come. So we're going to be meeting up in person in Savannah, georgia the last weekend in September. I post about it every Saturday on LinkedIn Hashtag Savannah Saturdays. The other hashtag is hashtag Savannah in September. If you want to follow that, I also have an email list for that specifically so that you don't miss out on any of the details and information, if you want to join On that.

Speaker 1: 1:00:11

Note where you can find me. I am on LinkedIn at construction risk strategist. Megan Shapiro at construction risk strategist. I'm on Instagram as at construction risk strategist. Facebook at construction risk strategist. You can find me on my website. It's very simple it's Megan Shapirocom. My email address is equally simple. It's Megan at Megan Shapirocom. Megan is MEGAN. I know it's on the screen, but for the listeners of the audio only podcast Megan is MEGAN S-H-A-P-I-R-O. So I've actually pretty easy to find and that's what I've got going on. It's all exciting stuff. How?

Speaker 2: 1:00:51

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