Hey, I'm Kwame Christian, and you are about to step into the world of Negotiate Anything, the number one negotiation podcast in the world where we teach you how to make difficult conversations easier while getting more of what you want in the process.
Each episode is packed with practical tips and strategies from the experts.
We delve into negotiation, conflict resolution, and leadership skills that are crucial in both business and in life.
Whether you're closing a deal, managing a team, or navigating personal relationships, Negotiate Anything provides you with the tools you need to succeed.
Our conversations are real, relatable, and most importantly, rooted in practicality.
So if you're ready to transform your conversations and elevate your negotiation skills, join me on Negotiate Anything.
Subscribe and listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you love to listen.
Let's make every conversation a winning negotiation.
Jordi, thanks for joining us today.
Thanks, Kwame. I'm excited to be here.
Yeah, man, we're excited to have you.
So how would you get started by telling us a little bit about yourself and what you do?
So I'm a Business School Professor at Esterre Business School in Barcelona, but as you can tell from my accent, I'm not Spanish.
I'm actually Belgian.
So that's a French accent you're hearing.
And I've been teaching negotiation for over a decade, and I have been doing research on negotiation emotion happiness.
And right now, I'm really excited about sort of using hard data to investigate some of the claims and practitioner wisdom about negotiation and using large language models to actually look at transcript of conversation, thousands of conversation, and unpack the tactics that we can use to be better negotiators.
Oh my gosh, Jardie, you see this smile?
This is a nerdy smile.
I'm excited to get into this data and the research. This is fascinating.
I think we should just start off and just marvel at the technological advances that have gotten us to a point where you could even do something like this.
So I think it'll be cool to just start off by talking about what research in negotiation looked like in the past compared to what you can do now with artificial intelligence and large language models.
So a lot of the negotiation research was done in, you know, with students asking them to engage in different kind of role plays and maybe manipulating one variable.
So, you know, you think you have a background in psychology.
You know, that psychologist would like to experiment.
So we would give secret instruction to half the negotiators, act tough or ask more questions or these sort of things and observe results in scoreable negotiations, negotiations on which you can quantify how well a person is doing or not.
But it's always been sort of at the negotiation level, right?
So we give instructions about certain behavior and then we observe if on average people are getting more or less, you know, points or value out of the deal.
What the new technology sort of unlocked is now the ability maybe to record very easily negotiation conversations and start looking not at the broad behavior level but like at the word level.
What are the key predictors of success?
You know, what are the words that influence the other person?
What are the killer questions?
what are the things that we should not say?
And not only the verbal behavior, but also the non -verbal behavior.
We can analyze the tone, we can analyze the pauses that people make, and so forth.
Oh my gosh. All right, well, let's get into it, Jordy.
So when you look at the research, what were some of the most surprising findings?
Well, we've done a lot of research. One thing that I'd like to do is to start from the claims that, you know, every single business school professor makes in their class and no one really asked himself if they were true or not.
So one of the claims that you might have heard in a negotiation class is that we negotiate every day for example or that you know we should ask more questions and then you know because we've collected hundreds of negotiation conversations, you know thousands and thousands of hours we can actually look at whether this is true and when it is and when it is not.
I'll give you an example.
In a recent project, we looked at the claim that negotiators don't ask enough questions and that they should and we actually quantify it.
We have, I think, 600 negotiations.
We're talking thousands of hours.
We look at each speech turn and use AI to first spot, is there a question or not because humanly it would not be possible for us to listen to all these conversations and code them manually, but with AI you can do it very easily.
And so and then if so, what kind of question do people ask and how does the counterpart respond?
And so for example I ask you, Kwame, what is the percentage of speech turns do you think that contain an open -ended question?
for good negotiators.
Well on average for an average...
Oh on average I would say if we're saying on average I would probably say 25 % Okay so it's much lower, it's 8%.
Oh dear lord. Over 90 % of what negotiators say in a negotiation is a statement or sometimes also 80 % a close -ended question but very few open -ended questions.
Interestingly, when we ask negotiators after negotiation to estimate how many questions they asked, they estimate that they've been asking, you know, somewhere around like 30 to 33 % of questions that their speech turns, you know, a third of their speech turns, including open ended questions.
This is mind blowing.
This is really fascinating.
For a couple of reasons, because first of all, we recognize that curiosity is the foundation of effective negotiation, and it's a little bit disheartening to see that the percentage is so low.
And then also we see the self -serving bias in our own interpretation of our own performances.
So we assume that we're asking more questions than we actually are, and it makes me wonder, too, Jordy, if it comes down to not just the questions that we ask, but other elements of negotiation that we know that we should be sprinkling in, are we always overestimating the amount of negotiation skills we're utilizing with intentionality versus how many times we are just reacting without much intentional thought behind the strategic approach?
That's interesting, I think for many things there is a self -serving bias, right, so we like to imagine ourselves as better versions of ourselves than we read are but when it comes to negotiation also think about some of the the work and I cannot name the author right now but I remember reading some articles showing that people also overestimate how aggressive they've been so it's not always on the positive side like people say I've been maybe too pushy too demanding and things like that but their counterpart actually feel that they were just perfectly normal so I think the misperceptions can go
in many directions but they can lead us astray of course.
That's fascinating so we're not even consistent in our misunderstanding of ourselves.
Exactly but you're putting the finger on something important is that not only of course on average people don't ask that many questions and negotiation but if If you look at the correlation between the number of questions that the negotiator asks and their performance, really measured objectively by the terms of the deal, we observe a very strong correlation between the two.
The more open -ended questions you ask, the better you do.
It doesn't seem, in the data at least that we have, that there's an upper limit.
It's really the more the better.
Interesting. There's no point of diminishing returns.
It doesn't seem like it maybe because of our sample, you know, these are executives and and business business folks and business students.
We don't have anyone who's asking like 70 80 percent of questions, right?
So the highest sort of the most the most inquisitive negotiators in our samples ask roughly, you know, what one fourth of their speech turn.
Oh, that's very interesting.
Okay, so what's really fun about this and just validating is that we've known this in negotiation, but now we know this with specificity.
It's really cool when we can utilize new levels of technology and advancement to validate the work that's been done in the past, but also bring another level of precision as well and self -awareness.
because now for me when I'm going through these conversations I'm gonna say okay great well Kwame now you can be even more confident in your strategies which is great I don't need to try to do something completely different now I just have more faith in the the fundamentals and I think that's one of the things that separates novice negotiators from expert negotiators the expert negotiators know the fundamentals and they stick to it until it works the novice negotiators know the fundamentals they try it and then they feel some resistance, and then they give up.
So this is really cool from that perspective.
And so now we know we should ask more questions.
What are some of the things that you found that we should not be doing in our negotiations?
Okay, so still on the question and then I'll give you other other example, but still in the question, for example, we found that there are instances where asking open ended questions actually hurts the negotiator.
Well, I'll let you Yes, what would you say?
Do not ask a question.
Hello, my friends. Before we get back to today's episode, I want to ask you a question.
Have you ever wondered how to elevate your team's negotiation game and how you can help the folks on your team have better, difficult conversations?
At the American Negotiation Institute, we offer transformative keynotes and workshops tailored to empower professionals with top -tier negotiation and conflict -resolution skills.
Whether it's a keynote for your next event, or hands -on training for your team, we've got you covered.
Don't just negotiate, master the art with the American Negotiation Institute.
Click the link in the description to find out more.
Elevate, negotiate, and succeed.
Hey you, I'm Andrew Semen.
Do you want a new job, or do you want to move forward in your career?
Well, you should listen to my weekly show called Get Hired with Andrew Seaman.
We talk about it all, and it's waiting for you, yes you, wherever you get your podcasts.
With LinkedIn ads, you can target the right people by industry, job title, and more.
We'll even give you a $100 credit on your next campaign.
Get started today at LinkedIn .com slash marketer.
Terms and conditions apply.
We found that there are instances where asking open -ended questions actually hurts the negotiator.
Well, I'll let you guess.
What would you say?
Not ask a question.
I would say, oh, this is a tough one.
When when you're asking a question that could inadvertently get the person more anchored in their position.
So you're asking something that is phrase in a way that gets somebody to commit to something that's not in your favor and when somebody commits to something, it makes it more difficult for them to adjust down the road.
That's a super interesting research idea.
There you go. One thing that we look though is that when you're making an offer, you should not ask a question so we can look at the transcript and we can look at all the offers that are being made and a big chunk of these offers come with what do you say, what do you think, how does it sound, these sort of questions and actually what we observe is that if people ask questions when they're making an offer, they tend to get a worse deal And that is a statistically significant result.
And we can even sort of back it up causally by doing experiments where we add a question to an offer or not, and we can see that the counter is tougher if there's a question.
It just opens more room for a negotiation, I guess.
This is so cool. Okay, can you give us an example of where somebody might do this and it hurts them in a negotiation?
Sure. So if I'm selling my service or if I'm selling my phone, I just said, look, the price is $450 an hour, period.
Don't say, what do you think?
That will lead the counterpart to negotiate a lot more.
So that's one instance, for example, that sort of contour intuitively we found that questions were not helping.
Another cool thing we found on questions were that not all the questions were created equal.
So one thing you can do when you have so much data is to start looking at different types of question, for example using why versus what versus how.
And then we can see if someone asks a why question what does the answer of the counterpart look like and does it look different than when someone ask you a what question or how question for example and what we found there is that you know there's typically two motives in negotiation you want to build reports but you also want to get information strategic information why will get you more information so when you ask what why question you know why do you think so people give you longer answers in as a response but the sentiment, the word that they use tend to be more negative, and we can quantify
that. If you ask a how question, answers are shorter, but the sentiment is a lot more positive, and what falls somewhat in between.
So I think one of the insight is that, you know, we want to maybe balance the way we phrase questions in a way that sort of also balance information gathering and report building.
This is, this is one of those times where I want this interview to never end.
Jordy, because I have so many questions because what's coming to mind for me when I'm thinking about the utilization of these questions strategically is that for example, if my goal is to get somebody to sour on something, an idea or a position, maybe at that time I ask them to describe their position using a why question.
And then maybe if I just want pure information but I want it to be more positive, I would ask a how question because it would give me the quality of information, but it would not have the risk of tipping negative.
Is that an example of how we could kind of use these questions strategically?
Absolutely. How question will give you on average a little bit less information but people will feel better.
And so, you know, I would just try to strategically, maybe sample different kinds of questions.
Not always why, why, why, why, why.
And not always what, what, what.
What falls in between.
So like, probably the safest option is to say, you know, what do you think?
Then why do you think so?
Oh, that's great. That is great.
And when you're doing this investigation, I know we're thus far, we've talked about questions that are formulated in the traditional sense that have a question mark at the end what about these more I call them open -ended statements where it's meant to gather information but not formulated at a question did we do any research on that it's it's ongoing so I don't have any like exciting findings to share but it's that's where we're going right now so we're looking at things Like, Hey, tell me about this and this and this, uh, or just simply, uh, you know, saying like, it sounds like you have something
on your mind, you know, these sort of non -question sort of inquiry as that's what we call them.
But, uh, yeah. Uh. So these are some of the things we look at.
We've also been looking at, um, pronoun use.
Um, and it's kind of, um, it's kind of interesting.
So, I mean, and in a way maybe a little bit obvious, but the more people use I, the less they tend to gain in negotiation.
You, the use of you tends to be a winner there.
The use of, we, as well.
But I probably not.
Interesting. Oh, okay.
So, this is interesting because I think now we have to consider the timing of these words too, because for sure, I think it's just eye speech all the time.
It can feel very selfish and self -centered, that type of stuff.
Very off -putting. We, using collaborative speech, it's really cool to see that validated because that's been the trend more in negotiation with collaborative negotiation.
Now when it comes to you, and tell me if I'm off on this too because there are some times where in a heated negotiation, if the person's more emotional, you can sound accusatory.
So how do we balance that?
Yeah, that's right.
So we're observing really big trends on average, across all kinds of negotiation interactions.
And then it looks like being centered on the other side is probably better than being centered on ourselves.
That's, I think, the idea.
But for example, in conflict, you're right.
Then if I want to express my emotions, I'm much better off saying, I feel frustrated right now and saying, like, this is frustrating, or you're frustrating.
So absolutely, right?
So take it with a grain of salt.
These are big trends.
And the way interpret them is like, we should be focusing on the other person.
So these are some of the findings.
Talking speed is something we looked at.
So we find that people that speak with maybe a little bit faster than average And with more energy tend also to win more in our, you know, samples of negotiation.
That was quite interesting and there was one behavior that let you guess which one.
So we look at two kinds of outcome in your negotiation.
We look at what we call objective outcomes.
That is the number of points that you get in these scoreable negotiation or it's the terms of the deal, you know, the price you get.
And so of course and we also look at relational outcome that is we surveyed the counterpart afterwards and we say like how much you want to negotiate with that person again right how do you feel about that person so there's one factor in the many many dimensions of communication that we analyzed that the biggest killer of willingness to negotiate with a person again.
The conversation behavior Interrupting.
Absolutely. That is, the only negative predictor of liking is the number of times you're being interrupted.
And again, it's practitioner's wisdom, but it's kind of cool to see it, you know, with big data.
Because sometimes some of the the wisdom doesn't fully replicate, so.
Yeah. And I think for me, Jordi, what's fascinating about this is the fact that we are dealing with sample sizes that we've never been able to work with in the past. And this is an assumption I need you to clarify, too.
I'm assuming that we're dealing we're analyzing conversations that are like cross cultural.
So we're not just talking about folks in one country, are are we or do we sprinkle in some other diversity into the data set?
The sample is extremely diverse.
I think there's over 40 different nationalities from all the continents, but it's in English.
I'm saying that because it could very well be that negotiation in French, in Italian, and in Japanese, are different determinants or are there different key behaviors and key words and key questions in different languages.
So, this is diverse sample, but English language.
Yeah. No, that's helpful.
That's helpful. Because what's really fascinating, too, is we can see that even within the English language, there's a lot of diversity, right?
We have North America, Canada, Africa, Australia, all of these different cultures speaking the same language.
So there's still a lot of diversity.
And this is something I've mentioned to you before, And I'll tell you I need to cite my source.
This is a Jack Schafer, the former FBI agent who wrote the like switch, great guy.
He was on the podcast yesterday.
The way he described it is he said, the psychology is like the cake that you bake.
Everybody has the same cake, but then the icing is the cultural nuance.
So everybody has the same psychological foundation.
So what's really cool about this is that as we go deeper into the research, we'll be able to see what elements of persuasion are just purely psychological from a human perspective versus what elements are more cultural, so we can see what can cut through all of these types of cultural nuances and just stay as the foundational fundamental principles of negotiation and then where we might need to flex. It's a tangential point but I remember reading a study to find fascinating.
I think some managers were surveyed, but like, what's a good meeting for you?
And, you know, the Americans would say the number one answer for the Americans would be, well, a decision was made, the number one answer for the Chinese managers were like what would put an official stamp on a decision that was already made before the meeting.
And the French, which is the culture I identified more with, said like, oh yeah, there was a heated discussion, some conflict, you know, and we throw some stuff at each other.
It was a good debate.
So yeah. That's really interesting because that shows the different, like, cultural values too, right.
Not in a like, an ethical or moral sense, but just the things that we drive toward. Absolutely.
Absolutely. And actually, we should talk about this, too, because at the end of a lot of these negotiations, the goal is some kind of decision.
And I know that your research has a lot to do with some of the research that you've done talks about emotions as it relates to their impact on decision -making.
So when you did this research with the LLMs, what did you find about emotions in negotiations?
so that not that much and that was kind of a surprise for us so, okay, so what we did is that we looked at a non -verbal display of emotion which might not be exactly the emotion that you feel right, but we're looking at like when people frown when they smile and things like that, and one of the few and one of the only thing that we found sort of predicted success in negotiation was adaptability.
So if your counterparts smile, and you smiled back, that seems to be adaptive.
But if you're the one smiling first and consistently smiling too much, that is actually detrimental, right?
So there's probably no like, nice guy, discount in negotiation.
But being nice back is OK.
That is one of the things that that we find.
Now in other lines of research one thing that I find sort of consistently is that experiencing – allowing yourself to experience a broader range of emotion is adaptive for well -being.
It's adaptive for decision -making.
We call it emo diversity.
It's like biodiversity for emotions and what we observe and these again are like tens of thousands of people, is that people have experienced a broader range of emotion on, you know, let's say, a weekly basis or yearly basis, they tend to be healthier, physically and mentally, they tend to be wiser in interpersonal conflict and discussion, and they tend to make better decision.
And in particular, we just ran a study that I think it was kind of cool where we instructed people to to think about emotions that they were feeling while making a decision.
So we asked them, you know, think about a decision you need to make in the next few few days or the next few weeks.
What is it about? Tell us about that decision.
And then we said to half of our participants, OK, what is the main emotion, you're feeling when you're contemplating that decision, they wrote about it.
And then the other half, we said, please write down at least three emotions that you're feeling and they need to be different when you're considering that decision.
And then we let them be for a few weeks and we checked in a few weeks later and say, hey what did you decide and how satisfied are you with your decision and people considered three emotions were statistically more satisfied, more satisfied than the people who considered one and we have many many studies like that, that seems to suggest that if we pause and we ask ourselves, okay, what else am I feeling right now?
This is actually a powerful way to make better decisions.
That's brilliant, and I think that speaks to the power of internal negotiations for decision -making too, because a lot of times we make the same mistake that we make negotiating with other people, which is we don't ask enough questions, we just stop at the shallow answer.
What am I feeling? I'm feeling this.
And then we move on.
Usually it's an emotional cocktail that includes more things.
And the deeper we can understand ourselves, the more we can recognize there are other elements than maybe the thing that is most glaring at the surface that we need to consider.
So I think that is brilliant, and it's so simple.
What's fascinating to me too, is that there's value in stoicism being able to stay even and focused and manage your emotions in a way where it might not be perceptible to the other side.
but when it comes to our own understanding of ourselves, it seems like it's incredibly important for us to give ourselves license to feel.
Absolutely, and I think you put it beautifully and you tied it to negotiation.
Yes, and emotions are messengers, right?
And so the more messengers I listen to, the better informed my decision, really.
Yeah, okay, okay. How about this?
Now, with the research, did you find that there were any kind of magic words that seemed to consistently have a positive or negative impact in negotiation?
The questions were the biggest determinant, so if I had to give one advice to ask more questions.
Talking speed was one, not interrupting was one.
Um, magic words not so much, but we're only scratching the surface.
Like there's so many things that we can look at with this dataset that, you know, if you every back on the show in a year, I'll have a lot more insights to.
Yes, absolutely. Seriously, man.
I'm, I'm this is fascinating to me because like he's like you said, you know, my backgrounds in psychology.
I love this stuff. And there were times where I would, I loved I respected research, but I personally didn't and want to do it, but I've got tons of questions that I want to be explored.
So listen, if there's anything we can do to help, I mean, we have what, thousands of episodes, you know?
So I, because I think this helps us to move forward. That's the beautiful thing about this.
And it validates what we've known, but now we know with more specificity, and more, it gives us an opportunity to go so much deeper, but then the more we can explore this, and the more we can understand how humans respond in these really tough conversations, the better the world will be.
Because there are going to be some patterns that are just imperceptible, but once you give an LLM enough data, it can find things that we can't find.
And that's just so exciting.
Absolutely, and I think, it makes the world better.
It makes us also happier.
That's another research finding I wanted to tell you about, So recently, we tracked hundreds of people with an app that pinged them many times a day and asked them, how do you currently feel?
Are you currently in a conversation with whom and what is this conversation about?
One thing that we found was that when people were negotiating, reporting a conversation that some negotiation flavor, maybe they were bargaining over something, trying to convince in someone trying to find a joint solution, different kind of negotiation, people were feeling actually less happy than if they were not in a negotiation.
However, what was interesting is that if you don't look at the moment, but now you look at the entire set of moments for the person, the frequency at which a person negotiates.
If you say, hey, 30 % of my conversations are negotiation, or 40 % of my conversation entail negotiation.
well that directly predicted their happiness level overall.
So people who negotiate more are happier people.
Wow! This is, it's such a fascinating finding and it's almost like a, just like a human principle.
Sometimes doing what is required feels bad but the outcome feels good.
It's about prioritizing the long -term benefit over the short -term discomfort that we can feel.
Absolutely and again right that if you ask any negotiator they will tell you you have to go over your fear of negotiating and things like that, but I've been really cool that we're able to take hundreds of people and show it's and show statistically that really if you start negotiating more in your everyday life you'll probably, you know sure you'll have a better job and things, but they'll also be happier.
By the way do you know the percentage of conversation that entails some form of negotiation?
I need to get better on my percentages, guess, Jordi.
I'm going to nail this one.
The percentage that has some element of negotiation, how are we defining negotiation?
So you probably heard the phrase, we negotiate every day.
Heard you say something.
It's true, but I wanted to know, like, OK, every day but how much every day?
Uh, so, you know, trying to find a conversation where people have sort of differing views, differing interests, that they need to reconcile or or, or even, even more broadly, any conversation where he needs something from the other side.
Oh yeah. So we're at about 80 % for that.
So at least in our sample there was a bit lower.
That was 25 % 25. But that means like, one out of four conversation is a negotiation.
That was still a pretty.
I stole a lot of still, Jordy.
That might just be a me thing.
That is might be me.
You're a no -plier. You like regular everyday, everyday people.
And by the way that's interesting because we looked at things like gender and age and we don't find much differences.
Again, this goes against some of the stereotypes that, You know we may have and some of the things that might have been true like 20 years ago But at least in our data, we find very very little tender differences whoo.
That is a fascinating one That's a really and man now this you know you every once in a while You have these moments and by every once in a while I mean frequently every day you have the his moments where you're like, oh, wow time is moving past because I was thinking about women don't ask by Linda Babcock and Sara Lashover and remember they were really the trailblazers in the gender dynamics in negotiation and that was one of their big findings but you're right that is about 20 years ago and they and a lot of other people have done a really great job of championing just encouraging women to negotiate
more and it is really fascinating to see that in the data it seems like it's worked.
It seems like it worked, yeah and I think the most recent piece of research I read was actually showing a slight opposite trend, was women negotiating even more.
Again, it depends on, you know, it depends on the SES, it depends on the kind of job, and most of the research is done on, you know, MBAs and executive MBAs and things like that.
So you might not be representative of the entire population.
But, but clearly it seems like the trend is, is is reversing and some of these.
That's why it's so important to check you know, with data everyone's in a world that some of the wisdom that we have is still true.
Incredible. And Jordan, I want to revisit something you mentioned, that talking speed is positively correlated.
I thought I thought that was really interesting.
I honestly they thought it was going to be the opposite.
Do you have any hypotheses or ideas for why that could be?
So, you know, my scientist had, there could be first a compound and you know, talking speak might be associated with being more fluent in English or native and because this is a very international and diverse sample.
It could just be that it's a byproduct of culture and things like that.
It could be that. Another possibility, and I think it's in line with some of the things we observed, is that just being sort of dynamic in the way you talk and are going is positive associate with outcome.
And so that could be a signal that we're picking up.
Right? I don't want to recommend to people to start being like radio host or you know, sports commentator.
But clearly, you want to be engaged and engaging, I think, the way you talk.
That's the data. Man.
Okay, this is really interesting, because now I want to bring this back to authenticity as well.
because we want people to be themselves.
We also want them to utilize really consistent, grounded, foundational negotiation strategies that we know would work, but I think that still gives you a wide berth in a lot of latitude when it comes to sprinkling your own personality into that process.
And so for somebody who's listening to this and they're saying, okay, cool, I need to fundamentally change who I am.
What advice do you have for that person?
Well, I think I'll follow your great, you know, I remember last year, a couple of years ago, going through your online LinkedIn course on personality types, you know.
I was trained as a personality psychologist originally.
I was like, oh, these are some really neat ideas.
And I started digging into the literature.
And you're right. I think, well, there's room to express, you know, authentically your personality, but Also, we should consider the personality of the person on the other side.
And if they're neurotic, highlighting a risk will probably make them act more than highlighting the benefit.
If they're open to new experiences, is a very creative type of personality.
Telling them that 95 % of the customers go with the package B, is a bad idea, right?
I mean, they want to be special.
So I think your personality can shine, but also like consider the personality of the other side and the type of arguments they'll be sensitive to.
Amazing. Okay. See, I need to land this plane because I was about to go onto like a whole laundry list of questions.
We'll just have to have you back, Jordy.
This is great. But I want to, before we go, I want to make sure you get an opportunity to talk about the app that will be coming out too.
Absolutely. So that research that I mentioned is based on, you know, hundreds of negotiations, thousands of negotiation.
And we wanted to give the opportunity for people to check how many questions they asked, the kind of questions they asked, how many times they interrupt, how fast they talk and all these things that we talked about.
And so we've built an app that analyses conversation.
Basically, if people want to try, it's free, the only thing is that we might use your data for some scientific publications, but the idea is that with a friend you can download a roleplay case that we have on the app.
Then we'll ask you to negotiate on Zoom to upload the recording of your negotiation, we don't keep the audio, we just, you know, crunch the numbers and we generate a 10 page report with all the nonverbal behaviors and some, you know, sort of customize advice for people based on what they say and how they say it.
So this is a win -win science wins and as negotiators, we also win by having this really unique way to look at our own nonverbal behavior and you know, words that we use.
This is incredible.
And I'll be I teach in the spring at at the law school.
So I'm going to make sure that my students do this.
That's good. Man, I appreciate it.
Listeners, we will have links to the app in the description of the episode.
And Jordy, before you go, I want to give you an opportunity to remind the listeners, again, about who you are, what you do, and how they can learn more about what it is that you're doing and as it relates to research and negotiation.
All right. So my name is Jordy Kwebak, I'm a negotiation professor at the Sada Business School Barcelona, originally Belgian.
I'm a psychologist and I like to use big data to sort of look at the behaviors that can give us a head in negotiation.
So if people want to learn more, they can check out my website.
My last name is complicated, it's called quadback .org and check out my research paper and if they want to contribute to some of the research we're doing, we're always looking for volunteers.
Congratulations! You've just joined an Elite Club.
By listening to a full episode you're now officially on the Negotiate Anything team.
So welcome aboard! What most team members do is they subscribe to the podcast because that allows them to automatically get the latest episodes of the show.
The best things in life lie on the other side of difficult conversations.
Keep learning, keep practicing and keep getting better.
Your relationships will improve, your career will soar and you will have the confidence you need to get the most out of these crucial conversations.
Again, thank you for joining the team, we're excited to have you, and I will see you in the next episode.
I'll catch you later.
