Most small business owners only think about insurance after something gets wrong.
Don't be that person.
With Next Insurance, you get fast, affordable coverage in minutes.
No calls, no waiting and no nonsense.
Protect your business today at nextinsurance.com.
In this episode, we're doing something a little bit different.
Instead of hosting a guest, I was actually invited to give a guest lecture for my friend Melina Palmer.
She's the host of the Brainy Business podcast and one of the world's leading voices in behavioral economics.
And one of the other things that she does is that she's an instructor at the Applied Behavioral Economics Certificate Program at Texas AM University's Human Behavior Lab.
Melina asked me to come in and give a quick lecture on how to use the Compassionate Curiosity Framework to improve communication, manage emotions during tough conversations and create more productive outcomes in their work.
And, of course, my favorite part is when we open it up for all the students to ask whatever question came to mind.
So this is one of my favorite things to do during the year, and I know you're going to enjoy it.
And what you're about to hear is that live class called, full of questions, stories and the practical strategies that you can start using right away.
Let's jump in.
Hey, everybody.
I'm Kwame.
I'll say some things that don't usually get into the bio.
I'm married to my wife for 15 years, 15 years next month.
And then we have a three-year-old and a nine-year-old who's upstairs.
And so...
Yeah, I think that's the most important part of my life.
And then obviously the negotiation stuff is what people know me for.
And for me, since you already kind of have the rundown of Compassion and Curiosity, I think it would be helpful to understand the background of it too.
Because with the podcast I've had the opportunity to interview some of the brightest minds in psychology, in communication.
Like we've had Melina Palmer on the podcast, which is incredible, right?
Multiple times.
So that's really great folks.
And everybody has a different approach to communication, negotiation, whatever it happens to be.
And I think it can be really overwhelming, because it's unrealistic to assume that people are junkies when it comes to this content.
And they're just going to go through a repository of information in their head all the time and know all of these techniques.
So I wanted to create one technique to... capture them all, essentially.
So when I was doing the podcast, I was always asking myself what is it that everybody's saying, but they're articulating it somewhat differently.
What are the similarities of all the frameworks?
And it took a while to come up with compassionate curiosity, but the design is intentional.
So it's intentionally simple without being simplistic.
So I always quote Da Vinci, and he said, simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
And it took a lot of time to get it this simple.
Because the reality is it's simple in three steps, because I know under duress people won't remember more.
It's unrealistic to assume you're going to remember a 10-part framework when somebody's yelling at you or you didn't anticipate the conversation happening.
And then another quote is Bruce Lee.
He said, I don't fear the man who knows 10,000 kicks.
I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.
And compassionate curiosity is your compassionate, nonviolent kick that you'll use in these conversations.
So it's never a question of whether or not it applies.
It's always a question of how.
So again, that framework is designed for infinite portability.
So you could actually use it whether you're at home or at work.
I love that.
And definitely the good quotes. on there for some sharing on those pieces.
So, as far as you know the folks that are here, I think we can open it up for you to ask your questions.
I pulled them into a document that I have and feel free to not ask the question that you posted as the discussion goes.
But I think, is there someone who's just so excited to be the first to ask Kwame a question?
You know, you want to.
I'm excited for this.
The harder the question, the better.
I like it when it's like, oh, this came up and it's really hard.
How do we handle this?
Or if there's some stuff you disagree with, just you can call me out.
Those are fun conversations, too.
So, yeah, anything.
Nothing's off topic.
All right, Jade.
I think you had three questions on the document.
So you definitely I was going to call on you if you didn't go first.
Thank you.
Hi, Kwame.
Thank you so much for being with us.
I work in the Asia Pacific region and I'm just curious often the people I'm working with, customers in a business sense.
Emotion is very much protected.
And I'm just wondering if you had experience with that in terms of the compassionate curiosity framework and how you know are people actually open to talking about you know, if you call out that emotion, if that kind of puts their guards up, or if you've been able to have success with it.
I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.
Great question.
And I think this question on culture, I think closely aligns with other things.
We can talk about it through the lens of personality.
We can talk about it through the lens of neurodiversity and recognize that different people under different circumstances and different situations for different reasons will often either struggle or not be comfortable with wrestling with the emotionality of the conversation.
And what you do is Well.
What you don't do is you don't force them and say you need to acknowledge your emotions.
I know what's in there.
That's not not great.
They don't like that.
And so instead, what you can do is you can just acknowledge their their beliefs.
You can acknowledge their perspectives and it will check an adjacent box, because we have to understand the psychology behind this.
It's not so much about even labeling the emotion correctly.
If you incorrectly label the emotion, it still has the same effect, because with affect labeling, which is the psychological term, it activates a part in the frontal lobe which will then quiet the amygdala.
So that's the goal in general.
And so if there's somebody who culturally, if they don't feel comfortable doing it, if it's a neurodiversity they don't feel they're not able to do in the same way, it's okay.
I can say, well, it sounds like from your perspective, this is what's happening.
Or it seems like this is the impact it's having on you.
And as a result, maybe other people are feeling this.
Not you, of course.
You don't have emotions.
But other people might feel this.
Or even if people don't want to wrestle with deep emotions, they can acknowledge or at least subscribe to frustration.
Because frustration, yes, is an emotion.
But at the same time you can just say yes, there might the the sensation that occurs when i have a goal and i have yet to meet the goal is frustration, so it can be tied to productivity in a way that other emotions can't.
So i would still give that acknowledgement because at the end of the day, we want them to feel seen and validated and we don't need to really harp on the emotionality of it if we recognize it's not.
It's not working.
I've always liked with that kwame, and i know we've talked a little bit about um, you know the term of someone saying, you know frustrated, I think being one of the key words that you've used of saying like you seem frustrated, or am I picking up on that correctly?
And I always remember one of the times we shared and someone's like no, I'm not frustrated, I'm angry.
And it's like okay synonyms, you know, but essentially.
But sometimes someone may it can help them to say they're angry, where if you would have said like you seem angry, they'd say I'm not angry.
Right.
But they can then name and like frustrated was a good word that you've used before.
Do you still use that as kind of a go-to, or have you picked up on some other words that are particularly useful or ones that are triggering and can kind of go the other way and that are not good to use?
Great question.
Yeah.
So frustrated, is still my go-to, because that one stands out because it's never happened before and hasn't happened since, because I I think that's one of the fears that people have.
What if I label the person and I'm wrong?
Doesn't that make them more upset?
Yes, it does.
And then they'll correct you, which means that they label their own emotion.
And then, yeah, they'll be a spike in emotionality because nobody likes being mislabeled.
But then you apologize, use the correct label, and then they eventually calm down. right?
So it still serves the same purpose.
And even with the word frustrating, again, you could describe a situation as frustrating.
So sometimes I don't even need to say you are frustrated.
I could say this situation is frustrating, or I can say this situation is difficult.
And sometimes if you just assign a label to the circumstances as a whole, it makes it much easier for the person to move forward.
And then also when some people might explicitly say uh hey listen, I don't want to talk about emotions.
I don't want to get into that.
That's not something that's truly happened to me, but I've heard other people say that that has happened to them.
Then I acknowledge their desire.
I say okay.
So it sounds like you would rather just stick straight to business and focus on the more core, tangible elements of this.
Is that a fair understanding?
Yeah, got it.
I can respect that.
And what I'm doing is I'm acknowledging, I'm still doing the exact same thing.
And what I've found is that the people who Typically maybe I'm just speaking from my own journey of self-discovery here, but a lot of times the people who insist upon the fact that they are not mad are the people who are the most upset, you know.
But I will then acknowledge the fact that they don't want to talk about it.
Which which still checks the same box.
All roads lead to the same outcome.
Stan, yeah, I see your hands raised.
Go ahead.
I noticed when you were using this example, you said this is is frustrating.
What about softer words like seems or appears?
Yes, I agree.
First of all, kudos, beard of the day.
And yeah, I think you're absolutely right.
And it depends also on the relationship that you have, you know, because if you, if you know the person well, or you have a pretty good vibe on them, or they're more of a straight shooter then, and especially if they that Like, they've communicated that frustration to you.
You could say it with a little bit more certainty.
But especially if you are new to the situation or the person, I would suggest using something a little bit more, a little bit softer.
So it sounds like.
It seems like, and if it's a really tough situation, I love the humble disclaimer.
Hey, I might be off on this, but it seems as though blank, right?
And so there are different ways that we can soften it.
But again we're all getting straight to the focus of some kind of label, some kind of acknowledgement.
And then it will trigger a little bit more sharing.
And then we validate that.
And I think when I say validate, we're not saying that the person's right.
We're not endorsing.
We're not agreeing.
Validation.
I think about validation the same way a grade school math teacher thinks about grading, right?
I'm going to find partial credit for you.
You know, you might not be completely correct.
I might disagree with you, but I can see where you're coming from.
I do not agree with the conclusion, but I can demonstrate that I understand and respect your personal process.
And it's really important that we understand when the person is very, very triggered at this point.
Now is not the time to talk about where you disagree.
You'll have your time.
You'll have your time.
But right now we're wrestling with the emotions exclusively to the point where if somebody says something, and they say it as a statement of fact, but they say it with emotionality, then I'm going to address the emotion and address the fact at a separate time.
Right.
Because, again, think about times where we've had conversations.
We've all said things that we regret from time to time.
And sometimes you might say that thing and then you say I wish this person would forget that I said this thing.
Right.
But if I then wrestle with that in their position of emotionality now, it creates psychological entrenchment where they feel obligated to stay on this, on this position, because now they don't know how to retreat from it without losing face, without escaping, without their their dignity and self-respect intact.
And so I'll give them a pass usually when they're in this state.
And then, when I see them start to calm down, that's when I'll transition into the second step of compassionate curiosity getting curious with compassion and then moving on to joint problem solving when I have enough information.
But again, I'm not trying to turn this into an argument or a debate, because that's what would happen if I address it at that point, at that stage, because then you just have the dueling amygdalae in a conversation and it's just doomed for failure if we attack it at that point.
Awesome.
I think we have to at least acknowledge.
You mentioned Stan's beard and I think Stan, you can share your fun fact about yourself.
I feel like Kwame should know.
I'll just say, I knew it.
I knew it.
I was, as soon as I got on the Zoom, I started to feel like joyous and cheerful.
Right.
Yeah.
Official member of Santa's communities.
And I don't have the right framing for it or the naming.
International Brotherhood of Real Bearded Santas.
Wow.
Right?
Wow.
That's amazing.
That's so cool.
Right.
I mean, now you have a real bearded Santa here on the call.
Wow.
So I have another question.
Yeah, go ahead.
How do you negotiate with someone whose negotiating philosophy is not to negotiate?
And I'm thinking specifically about perhaps, someone who's got a little bit orange complexion that we all are familiar with.
So I was wondering what brand of not wanting to negotiate are we talking about?
Because some people are just, they don't want to have the conversation.
There are ways we can get people to feel more comfortable having the conversation.
But when you, so this is the video for the people who are listening audio.
I dramatically dropped a link to my breakdown of Trump's negotiation style.
And I don't think there's been one done like this that's completely politically agnostic.
And it is fascinating.
So I call his negotiation style dominate and distance.
So think about win-win, where we try to create mutual value.
We both win.
That's better.
And then win-lose, where it's usually I win at your expense.
And then we have Trump's strategy, which is very different, where it's dominate and distance, where he will accumulate as much power and leverage as possible to dominate you.
And so he is okay with taking a massive loss as long as your loss is bigger.
So the value that we think about, where we say, all right, I'm thinking about value, holistically money, I'm thinking about reputation, I'm thinking about flexibility, long-term security, whatever those things are.
The main value for him is with all of his relationships is to subordinate you in that amount.
So let's say, if there's a hypothetical pie where we could potentially get 100, we could divide it 50-50 60-40, 70-30.
He would rather destroy value and make it 25 to 1, just to make sure there's a bigger gap between you and him.
And the reason why is because it creates efficiency of relationships.
So think about us.
Our reputation matters.
We have to have good relationships, trusting relationships in order to continue to have more value.
And so if we have a bad reputation, then that makes it more difficult for us to do deals and do business in other situations.
But for him, it's domination at scale.
So if I beat you into the ground so badly that you don't even want to go to war with me ever again, that's easy.
You'll become predictable.
And one of the things I said in the video is that every accusation is an admission.
And so he's always saying, people are ripping us off.
They're taking advantage of us.
He says that because that's what he does to other people, and so he cannot create a dynamic where it's a win-win, because he knows that if he's negotiating against himself, he'd use that value to then take advantage of the other person.
So he wants to make sure that everybody is subordinated to him.
So the unfortunate reality of how to negotiate with a bully is that you simply don't you.
You don't Like.
There is no reasoning.
Like you, cannot negotiate the depth of your demise, because that's essentially what all you have at your disposal at that point.
And so when you see somebody like that, you have to circumvent them in some way.
It's purely power-based.
Because here's the question.
Everybody just put your answers in the chat.
You have a choice.
You can have either A, all of the negotiation skills in the world, Perfect negotiator.
Perfect.
Or B, you can have all of the power and leverage in the world.
As a lawyer, this is something I saw in my clients all the time.
You know what it is that most small businesses don't plan for?
It's when something goes wrong.
You lose a client, a shipment disappears, a tool breaks, someone gets hurt and money flies out the door and most folks only realize that they needed insurance, and after it's too late.
And that's why I like Next Insurance.
They make business insurance as simple as ordering lunch online.
All you need to do is answer a few quick questions and then Next figures out the right coverage and you're covered in minutes.
No phone calls, no waiting, no nonsense.
Fast, affordable protection that's built for small business owners contractors consultants, retail restaurants, even if it's just you and your laptop at home.
Do you need proof of insurance for a job?
You get an instant certificate of insurance, so you don't have to wait to start the job or close the deal.
And when things do go sideways, claims are resolved fast, on average in about 15 days, with some paid in just 24 hours, so you can get back to work.
End the year with peace of mind and head into 2026 protected.
Policies start at $29 a month.
Get covered in minutes at nextinsurance.com.
That's N-E-X-T insurance dot com.
You have to choose one or the other.
And if you take all the power, you have no skills.
If you take the skills, you have no power.
What do you want?
Melina, what do you think?
I mean, I hate it, right?
But I feel like you got to go with power in that situation.
What do you say, Kwame?
I'm curious.
As the person with all the negotiating skills.
It's power, and I hate that.
It is in my best interest to let people know, yes, it's the skills.
No, it's not.
Think about a toddler.
Imagine you give a toddler all of the power and leverage and authority in the world.
What are you going to say to that toddler?
The reason why toddlers do what we want is because we're three times bigger than them and we are their source of life.
And if they don't need us, what is the toddlers going to eat?
Candy, poop everywhere, do whatever it wants.
Right.
And so when you are, when you have the privilege of being born with a hammer in your hand, then all you need to do is learn how to swing the hammer.
And that's it.
And so, for the first time ever, now Trump is up against an adversary that has more options and has power.
That's comparable.
And even though America has a much stronger military and America is protected by oceans, which is an infinite defense glitch.
We have a peaceful neighbor to the north, we have a peaceful neighbor to the south, and then we have infinite oceans.
So any attack that comes, we can see it coming for a very long period of time.
But the thing is...
China has the ability to use coalition building.
So if you do find yourself on the other side of a bully, what you have to do is use coalition building where you recognize hey, right now I do not, by myself, have enough power and leverage to deal with this person.
It is not even in their best interest to care, right?
Like, why would they care?
That hurts them.
That hurts their goals.
So they truly don't care.
So it's like, why won't he see reason?
Why would he?
He doesn't want to.
Right.
So if you find yourself up against a bully, you have to get friends.
So you don't negotiate with the bully.
You negotiate with as many friends and colleagues and collaborators as possible.
And now you have collective power.
A great example of that is just the simple labor union.
One employee has no power at a megacorporation.
But if we all together bring our power together now we have enough leverage to compel the bigger company to do something for us.
Right.
So it is a it is a tough situation.
Yeah.
And Hillary, I'm with you.
When you think about power, it's for a lot of people, their number one goal is to get power.
And then once they have power, their number one goal is to retain it.
That's it.
Yeah, I think with the point of the question you asked there to Kwame is like if there's any version of still having some power with the negotiation skills and I don't have to give up all the power to someone with infinite power, then i want negotiation skills all day long.
Right that there's any power that exists right um, but when it's an all or nothing like you, gotta kind of go with the power to do exactly, and so that's the thing, because most of the time we're not going up against somebody who's infinitely powerful.
So essentially, power and leverage, they act the same way.
They're just tools of influence.
You can lean on your power.
You can lean on your leverage to get somebody to do something without needing to compromise in a commensurate type of way.
So if I have power and leverage and you need something, I can just keep saying no until the deal gets good enough for me.
But here's the distinction that's important.
So power is something that's a little bit more concrete, a little bit more crystallized.
We can see it clearer.
So authority can give you power.
Money can give you power.
So if you're negotiating against Walmart, they're big, they're powerful, they have money.
It's very obvious where their power comes from.
If you're in a company, you have a direct report, you have a manager, the manager outranks them.
They have power from the source of authority.
Now, leverage, on the other hand, leverage is strategic advantage.
I don't need to have power in order to have leverage.
So you might be negotiating with Walmart, but if you're a critical supplier and they need you and nobody else produces the thing that they need to keep their business running, then you have leverage, even though they have power, which gives you more power, more ability at the negotiation table.
If you're an employee and you're negotiating with your boss, you might have the boots on the ground knowledge that is necessary for your role that they don't have.
So that is your source of leverage, even though they outrank you.
And so understanding the distinction between power and leverage is really important, because a lot of times, what ends up happening is we recognize that we don't have the power, but we don't realize that we have leverage.
If you don't understand the distinction, number one.
And number two, when we think about power, it's registered through our brain like a threat, and threats give us tunnel vision, and appropriately so.
That's an evolutionary thing.
So that's why, with sketch artists, if somebody has a gun to your face, what ends up happening is you can describe the gun really well, but you can't describe the face of the perpetrator, because you're focusing on the threat.
Their face can't hurt you, depending on how ugly they are, perhaps.
But the gun certainly is the major threat.
And so what ends up happening is it gives you the tunnel vision.
So you see, you're going up against somebody who's more powerful and you only focus on the power, discrepancy and your disadvantage.
So it's important to understand that distinction so you can create some strategies away from the negotiation table to build up your leverage before you come to the negotiation table, so you don't get steamrolled.
Interesting.
So in that way you know, preparing for the power that they have, that could be a distraction in advance.
So you can be thoughtful to not let it steamroll you in that way.
Exactly.
Yep.
Right.
In the way of there's another use the big enemies.
Their size becomes a weakness sort of a deal, right.
You find the way that you can, I don't have the right quote, but you know what I mean.
Hi.
Well, just to give you some context, we've been working with agents from collections.
So we have made some improvements on the way how they interact with the person on the other side of the line.
But At this point we know that there is this segment of people who are particularly difficult to negotiate with.
So we don't know if there is any other approach that can be effective, because we have called them so many times that at this point they don't even care.
So I don't know if there's any way to fresh start with them or something that you will recommend for this specific situation.
Oh, that's good.
And so can you give me a little bit more context on the types of collections you're doing?
It's for a bank.
So we have agents calling for, like they are not paying their credit card or their mortgage or something like that.
Gotcha.
OK.
So in that situation, let's break down the psychology of that too, because if you're working for a bank, lots of power.
And in that situation, lots of power and lots of leverage.
And so in their mind, they're going up against a large organization that wants to crush them.
Right.
And so we have fight, flight or freeze. as the core, there are more of them.
So there, but as it relates to this, let's focus on those three fear responses.
So they're not fighting.
They're not responding anymore there.
It's between like flight and freeze, but the distinction is irrelevant, honestly, because we're not getting the response that we need.
So they're most likely kind of boasting out of fear.
And so what we need is a kind of re-engagement strategy and making re-engagement very easy.
I don't know what your policies are about texting, uh, Is that on the table?
It is?
Well, there are different stages.
In the beginning, we start with the messages.
But if that doesn't work, we start calling them.
Gotcha.
Okay.
And what types of messages are you sending?
Just, like, informative.
Like, your date is, like, late.
Your date paying is just, like, to give them some information.
Nothing else.
Gotcha.
Okay.
Good.
Good, good, good, good.
Okay.
So here's what I'm thinking.
We need to make it easy for them to re-engage.
And one of the easiest ways to make it easier is by lowering the standard for what qualifies as engagement.
So picking up a call is heavy.
It feels heavy.
It feels emotionally heavy.
It's time consuming.
And especially if they're younger.
I know younger people have significant credit problems, but also they have significant social challenges as well.
It's very hard for them to engage on the telephone.
Like there's something called telephobia, where actual companies are doing trainings on how to pick up the phone and call people, and not even heavy circumstances.
They're talking about how do you call and schedule an appointment?
Yeah, so that's where we are right now, Gloria.
So we have to recognize what we're dealing with.
So now they're trying to fight for their life and their credit.
It's just unrealistic to expect that they'll meaningfully engage.
And so I would say a couple of things.
We need to kind of reframe the way that we're approaching the collections process if we want to get re-engagement and also make it easy for them to respond.
So I would do something like this.
I would send a message in a way that makes it clear that it's not spam, but also saying hey, we want to try to work with you to figure out a payment plan that would help.
And I would, even as I'm saying that, we'll need to workshop the semantics of this.
I would say, find not even a payment plan seems ominous too.
I want to work with you to see if I want to have a conversation with you, to see if we could work something out to help you in this situation.
Using some more collaborative language, but making it easy for them to say yay or nay.
And I would usually.
We always talk about in negotiation and difficult conversations the necessity of open-ended questions, but we often forget there's a lot of value in using strategic closed-ended questions from time to time.
And so this is a bit of the foot in the door technique.
It could just end up with something like this.
Is that something you'd be interested in?
And then I would also add at the end, if not, let me know, right?
Because that last part is important, because I think it will make it more likely for them to engage, because you're giving them an option not to engage.
Otherwise it sounds like a mandate or a directive, and they're more likely to see that as more threatening and ominous, and so they back out.
So giving people permission to say no is a secret kind of hack to get them more likely to say yes.
And then also again.
This is an example of why it takes a bit of time to workshop this from time to time.
I think a good no-oriented question might work here too.
So it's often much easier for people to say no.
I can't think of what that would be like in this situation.
Some some negotiators use an approach kind of like.
Would it be a bad idea for us to explore some options?
No, I don't think it'll be a bad idea versus saying, would you like to explore some options?
I don't know about that.
Right.
So exploring different ways of framing the question.
So I would like a quick reengagement text message, I think, is a good way to go.
Framing it collaboratively, not even mentioning the word payment.
But say we want to help you.
We want to work with you.
That type of wording, trying a closed ended question.
Are you interested?
Which could get yes or no.
But saying if it's if it's doesn't work for you, that's fine.
Just let us know.
We're not pushing you into anything.
Then I would also do the one where we're having no no oriented question.
Then I'd send it out to a bunch of people, beta tested, see what gets the most response rates and then start refining that message with more iterations.
All right.
So my question is kind of focused on like a family situation, but interested to hear, if it's related to business, that you could provide others some advice.
But how do you handle whenever you're in a level one of communication and the other person is highly emotional and defensive?
And let's say that kind of play the victim.
So you've attempted to use framing and you're asking questions out of curiosity, but they're just naturally very charged.
Right.
And they're kind of like blaming you.
How do you go about setting boundaries?
Like, do you just say, OK, we're not having this conversation right now or ever?
Yeah.
OK, so I always see how long I can go without saying it depends.
But it's very lawyer of me to say it.
But it does depend.
Right.
So it depends if if this is the person's MO, that's a different story.
If this is what they always do, that's a different thing.
If it's a situation where yeah, they are emotionally charged right now, then people, sometimes we overlook the simplicity of sleep.
Right, with sleep, with the REM process, it's like a therapy session overnight.
You can go to bed pretty upset, but you typically don't wake up with that exact same energy.
You cool down overnight.
In every culture there's a saying for sleep on it, every single culture, every language, which is fascinating.
So sometimes now is not the right time, and so for people out there, this is not endorsing avoidant behavior, but it's just recognizing that sometimes, that today it's not the right day, Just get as much information as you can.
So if we're going through compassionate curiosity, again three steps acknowledge and validate emotions, get curious with compassion and joint problem solving.
Today, I might see after about 10 minutes, I realize they're not cooling down.
Even though I'm staying in step one the whole time, then what I'll do is I'll wrap things up and say hey, you've given me a lot of information.
And I appreciate the fact that you've given me so much information.
I like that little point of positive reinforcement to make it more likely for them to continue to share.
Would you mind if I just take some time to think about this?
I'm not going to put it on them and say you know what Hillary, it seems like you can't handle yourself today.
No, I'm not going to say that.
I'm going to say, hey, listen, I just need some time to process this.
Again, it makes it easier for them to accept the end of the conversation without it feeling like it's failing because of their perceived fragility.
Right, we don't want it to come off that way now.
If it's the person's mo, now this is a different thing, because now we get to a point where it's emotions, kind of as a tactic, and so what you have to do is you have to stay focused on the goal, and so, instead of we need to have a good transitional phrase here, because there's a lot of butting that will want to come in.
I understand your feelings, but and then people are like doesn't seem like you understand my feelings.
It's you know that it doesn't come off the right way.
And so what I would say is this as I'm acknowledging and validating, I'll say hey listen, I understand that you're feeling this way and the way it makes sense that you feel this way because of this and this and this.
And I appreciate you explaining that.
So we have the acknowledgement and we have the validation, right?
And then we say the problem is, even though you're experiencing this, we still have XYZ tangible problem.
So essentially, now this is not what we say to them.
This is me commentating again.
Like what we're saying is, hey, listen, I know you have feelings.
I have feelings, too.
I also have problems and your feelings aren't helping me solve my problems.
And in fact, right now, frankly, it is part of my problems.
So we need to advance this conversation and get to problem solving.
Right.
And so the way that we're framing this is we.
I am giving you an opportunity with me to be a collaborator in the solution of this problem.
But one thing that is non-negotiable is the solution of this problem.
So whether or not you're involved in the solution, I will find the solution.
I prefer it for you to be involved.
Of course, we don't say it like that.
That's a little bit too gangster.
That's just for family.
That's the way we talk here, right?
But that's the message that we want to convey in a compassionate type of way.
So we'll still acknowledge and validate, but we'll have that transition phrase to push towards step two of getting curious with compassion.
That's the emotional boundary.
And so we say, hey, listen, let's say it's frustrated or upset, whatever it happens to be.
Hey, I
I can understand why this is so frustrating and upsetting for you because, based on what you told me, this happened and this happened and this happened and it had this impact on you and it made you feel in this way.
And I can completely understand where you're coming from.
And now the problem is that this issue still remains and we haven't been able to make any progress on addressing that issue.
And so our time is limited and I want to make sure that we can start to make some progress.
And I want you to be involved in this process too, considering that, What are the biggest challenges that you're having when it comes to addressing this?
So you see how it forms a really nice, compassionate sounding bridge from step one to step two.
So, even though they might not be particularly ready for step two or they might not have calmed down completely, we still have work to do.
And so we can still gather that information in that situation.
And what I do is oftentimes if somebody is very emotional, they kind of get stuck.
And I'll use a tool called the empathy loop.
So listen. summarize and then correct and then confirm your understanding.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
It sounds like you're saying this.
Am I close on that?
Is that a fair synopsis?
If I see them starting to circle back.
What I'll do is I'll prove that I've listened and say so.
You say this and this and this and this and this.
And actually, those are things that you've mentioned before.
For the sake of time.
What I want to do is make sure that we can address some new things as we continue through this process.
So now you don't get stuck in that rut of essentially co-rumination with a person who's in brooding in front of you.
Um, so again, what you do is you stay, keep your eyes on the prize, stay focused on what the goal is, not make it about.
Hey, you are bad.
It's like, no, this problem is bad.
And we're.
We're working together to address this problem and not saying Hey, I'm sick of listening to you complain.
Um, I would, Hey, if I if I had my way, I'd just sit here and listen to you complain all day.
Unfortunately, I have this much time.
And, for the sake of time, I want to be respectful of you because you have this problem and we can work together to figure this out.
Right.
So that's the way I would do it.
It's not comfortable.
It's not easy.
And if it doesn't feel comfortable or easy in the process, that's probably a sign you're on the right track.
Honestly,
But it's a tough situation because sometimes people, whether intentionally or unintentionally, weaponize their emotions and they are stuck and they keep other people stuck.
And it turns into essentially an emotional hostage situation where you can't advance because somebody can't overcome those emotional challenges.
I love that.
Kwame, I was looking up, as you said, the piece about the like the you're.
It's not that you're bad, but like the problem is bad.
It made me think about and I believe Therese.
Houston or Teresa?
Yeah, Teresa.
Houston, you, I think, recommended her to me where she ended up being a guest on the podcast.
It might have been the other way around.
But she talked about when I interviewed her.
I know she was talking about the idea of So often, when you have conflict with employees and it can feel like so, there's you, there's the person, and then there's the problem.
And that often a boss or whomever is having this, they side with the problem against the person that has made this action or done the thing.
And it's like hey, like me and the problem are over here and you need to like fight us.
Where, when you can shift the idea and the language to say hey, this is like you and me against the problem, and like I'm here with you and let's work toward like battling this shared foe or enemy that we have.
Like that repositioning that comes in some of the language and the way that you think about it can really help someone to feel supported and be ready.
They feel like you're there to go to battle with them and it's not fully present when it comes in some negotiating.
But I think in a lot of cases that shift, you know, it just triggered that for me.
Yeah, that's great.
Yeah, that framing is very important, because the unfortunate thing about human psychology is that we need enemies.
There's always something we're working against.
So cool.
I think a lot of advice is well-meaning, but the advice is, well, you know what?
You're a human.
Try not being that.
Well, that's not how brains work.
So let's just acknowledge that and just say hey, I'm going to be intentional and recognize that in somebody's mind there's going to be an evil entity, an other, something working against them.
I need to make sure it's not me, right?
And I don't want to put it on some other human.
That would be unethical unless it's correct.
But I just say, hey, this is the issue.
We both are struggling with this issue.
You've said, and we show that we listen, it's hurting you in this type of way. great.
And it's hurting me in this type of way.
So let's work together to address this thing.
So you have to be really explicit when it comes to the storyline and framing of the conversation, because we should assume that other people will have a storyline that places you as the victim.
So we have to be explicit about making sure they don't think that.
Yeah.
So I got two kind of questions.
One being, is there any specific either topics you stay away from?
Like, you know, people say you don't talk about politics.
So is there certain topics that you try to steer clear from or even applications, right?
So a lot of companies are remote with remote employees.
So do you do like?
Don't do any of this, you know framework through email because it could be read the wrong way.
Like how do you navigate those kinds of circumstances?
Yeah.
And for clarity, are you asking about the application of my frameworks to these topics or situations?
Yeah.
So it will work.
It will work.
It will just be more difficult for different reasons.
So let's break down the politics and religion.
I think it's important to talk about those two topics because they are essentially coded in the same part of the brain.
That's why everybody says, well, I don't talk about politics and religion.
And there's really nothing else that comes to that level.
Right.
Nobody's like politics, religion and sports.
No, it's not that.
Well, as I was going to say like I could talk about, I could say go blue and see how you feel if it comes up.
But to be fair. for some sports and sports, some sports teams are like a religion.
It is a religion.
Oh, it's not.
Think about it.
We, we come together on Saturday.
We wear the same stuff.
We say the same chance and we villainize the other side.
How's it like?
That's a religion, right?
That's, that's, that's how it is.
It's same with politics.
So you are correct.
It is coded the same way.
Now we have to recognize that the reason why these things are so, so touchy and so emotional is because of two things.
It's identity and morality.
That's it.
Identity is who am I?
What does it mean to be me?
And what do people like me do or say or think or feel in these types of circumstances?
When it comes to morality, it means what what does it mean to be a good or bad person?
Right.
And so, because of those two reasons, the conversation will be explosively emotional compared to another dissimilar situation.
So we just need to recognize that the same principles apply.
It will just be more difficult.
So we don't need to try something new.
I think that's one thing that people struggle with a lot of times, especially in these heavy conversations.
When it's tough conversations, they say, you know what?
The fundamentals don't work.
I need something special.
I need something unsubstantiated and untested.
That's not what happens.
That's why people choke.
Think about in sports.
Sports is a great example.
Right.
So people, they work on their form and everything all the time.
And then when it's two minutes left, they're like, I'm going to try something new.
Don't do that.
Right.
So just trust the process.
My last book was how to have difficult conversations about race.
So I went in there talking about it, not from the perspective of teaching people how to think about race, but teaching them how to talk about it.
And so, yes, the framework still apply.
Now, when it comes to the, the let's call it asynchronous communication via like email text, Slack.
Whatever the messaging app we might use is this
People can, we are suffering from a lack of context.
And as a result, your biases will color the storyline for whatever it is that we see.
And you can read any email with angry eyes if you have the right energy.
So it's important to recognize this.
So this is my simple rule that I follow.
The more emotional or complicated the communication is, the more personal the mode of communication right.
So if the situation is really confusing, I can tell that we are not on the same page.
Like we're seeing this completely differently.
Or, more importantly, if there is some hint, any hint, of emotionality, we have to up the level of personalization.
So I'll use text and email only to set up a call in that situation.
So we got text, email, Slack, whatever it is.
And then we can have a voice call or a huddle if you're on Slack or something where it's just voice.
And then if it's still more emotional and still very complicated, then we go up to video chat.
If you have the privilege to be able to be in person, then we'll meet in person.
Because I want more context.
Even in the video chat, you can only see the upper half of my torso and everything.
There's not as much context.
So body language reading is more difficult.
So I would say that I would use those methods of communication as a tool of transition to a deeper conversation that is in real time.
So the person can hear my tone and I can address their concerns in real time.
My company is at least not specifically remote, but my team, I have a remote team member.
So I'm just trying to think of how that might play out.
That's good.
And I would also think about it through the lens of inclusion and respect too.
Because it's easy for them, if they're one of the few remote people, to feel excluded.
I mean, they're physically, truly excluded.
So it'll take some intentional work to make them feel included.
And there's always, just think about, again, the storylines.
Everybody has these stories.
And if we, when I had a guest on the podcast yesterday, she gave the stats.
Melina, you probably know it.
We have, we think, like 6,200 thoughts a day. um about uh like 60 of them are negative something absurd it's disappointing but it's also not that surprising you know that it's it's ridiculous and so if we have if we have a being and if you are a human being this is how your brain will most likely work right their thoughts are going to tip negative we should always assume that in the absence of information they will assume the worst So I want to think about the things that they might be missing, the context they might be missing, assume that they're assuming negative things, and then directly address those.
It's kind of like a preemptive strike on the assumption that might be festering too.
So inclusion and respect would be a big challenge in that situation.
Jade, did you want to ask your question that you had started?
I'll try and make it quick.
So I'm thinking of the compassionate curiosity framework in the context of like objection handling in a sales conversation and thinking that we often might have just small allotments of times with that customer that we're trying to have that negotiation with like 15 minutes, maybe an hour.
When you talked about like the sunk cost fallacy and making some progress and then maybe pausing and waiting for another time.
I'm just curious to hear your thoughts on that balance and, while I'm with the customer right now, can I resolve this?
Can I get them to a positive space that we can be productive again?
Or do i use the rest of my 15 minutes to do something else, recognizing?
I'm not going to get there today and do this later um, because i guess it's probably some concept either.
I'm just curious to hear from you.
Yeah, oh man, you're going to make me say it depends again, twice in one hour.
This is bad.
Okay, so it depends.
And i would say this because we have yes, we recognize, we can trigger sunk cost fallacy by saying hey we've, We've made a lot of progress.
We were here at the beginning of the conversation.
Now we're at this point.
Let's take a pause.
Let's come back.
But then the other side too.
In sales, we know that time kills deals, and we want to hit them while they're hot.
In these situations,
And if we wait too long, then we might lose it just because of the lack of urgency.
One thing that's important to recognize is that there are always going to be some objections.
There's always going to be some kind of question and we don't need to overcome every single objection in order to still get the sale.
So we need to recognize just how significant is this because it might be a material objection.
I will not purchase this product or make this decision unless this thing is addressed.
It might just be kind of like a flare.
You know so it's.
They're going through the process and then they're saying to themselves you know what I feel too good about this and I'm uncomfortable with how good I'm feeling.
So I probably should come up with some kind of objection.
That's what reasonable people would do.
Right.
So I would use the the objection as an opportunity to dig deeper and understand.
What kind of objection is this?
Right.
So a lot of times we turn these games into a game of conversational ping pong.
Right.
So they have an objection.
We have an immediate response.
But instead.
I'm going to use the objection as an opportunity to build rapport, build connection and also gather information so I can respond with a more precise response, right?
So again, compassionate curiosity.
I'll just say, hey, so it sounds like there's a concern about this issue.
Am I getting that right?
Okay, yeah, that makes sense.
Can you tell me more about that?
Because they're probably not going to be very emotional.
You don't need to spend that much time in step one.
So it's a brief acknowledgement, and then I'll transition to step two.
And so tell me more about that, okay?
Great.
And I'm going to listen and summarize.
So hypothetically, what happens if this issue isn't addressed?
How does that affect your decision?
Right.
I'll just gather that information and figure out where it is that they're coming from.
So I think it's important to understand the distinction between egocentric persuasion and empathetic persuasion.
Egocentric persuasion is based on ourselves.
So I think about the things that would be persuasive to me under the circumstances.
And that's what I say to you, assuming that you are like me.
Empathetic persuasion, on the other hand, is taking the time to empathize with the other side, and just empathy from a skills-based perspective.
We don't need to feel empathetic in order to use the skill of empathy.
So in that situation, it'll just be understanding how they see, think, and feel about the situation.
What's their perspective?
What are the emotions around it?
What are their thoughts?
How does it affect their outcome?
Those type of things.
I want to be able to understand that with precision.
So then, when I get to step three, which is utilizing joint problem solving, all I'm going to do is that's when I'm going to say my persuasive messages, and say it with a little bit more precision.
And so that's one thing.
And then also when it comes to sales, we have to recognize that it's an emotional thing.
So we don't want to just nullify those emotions.
We can still use it empathetically and ethically as well.
And so sometimes it's helping them to recognize that the fear that they have is valid, but we should also consider the fear of not making the right decision as well.
We often say, if I make this commitment, what are the possible scary things that occur?
But then we have to ask questions that help them to recognize hey, what happens if you don't make this decision?
The outcome of apathy or indecision is those are far worse than if this is a bad decision in this moment right.
So I think it's.
Sometimes it's about not eliminating the fear, but directing the fear in the right direction too.
Thank you, Kwame.
I, of course, thank you for your guest lecture for us and for for joining us slash, letting us join you in this kind of cross pollinated world here that we have.
I really loved that last piece where you're saying you don't have to feel the emotion of empathy.
You don't have to feel empathy to use the skill of empathy like.
Love that.
Very important thing to be able to note and be able to kind of meet someone where they are, without like fully feeling that which sometimes we don't.
Yes.
Listen, this is one of the things I realized too.
I did StrengthsFinder, the StrengthsFinder test.
They got the full report, one through 34.
And for me, the very last thing, the last skill for me was empathy.
It was number 34.
And I showed it to my friends and they were like, how is that possible?
That's wrong.
That's absolutely wrong.
I said, I'm not naturally empathetic, but I learned the skill of empathy.
The things that were top were strategic, competitive, those type of things.
But I know that the best strategy in order to win is utilizing empathy.
So for people who say, hey, I'm not a naturally empathetic person.
I'm just like, hey, I don't care because...
Because if you're not, how do you expect to do well at something you've never practiced?
I'm not good at archery.
I've also never done it.
So you're not revealing anything that is particularly nuanced there.
So just once you recognize that it's a skill, and you can really improve that skill.
Now it's really empowering.
And a lot of times when people say I'm not, I'm not naturally empathetic or that's not the way that I like to operate.
It's usually just a cop-out.
We don't want to do the work.
Empathy is hard, but we should do it anyway.
That was my session with my friend Melina Palmer and her incredible students at the Applied Behavioral Economics Certificate Program at Texas AM Universities.
Human Behavior Lab.
I absolutely loved this conversation because it showed how powerful negotiation becomes when we start to understand the human mind and when we lead with curiosity instead of control.
If you want to explore more of Melina's work, check out the Brainy Business Podcast and her books on behavioral science.
They are fantastic tools for anyone who wants to understand why people say yes.
And if this episode gave you new ideas or insights, please take a moment to leave a five-star review.
It helps more people to find the show and join this community.
Thank you so much for listening and keep on practicing compassionate curiosity.
