Nolan Martin :
Hey everyone! Thanks for joining us on the NEGOTIATEx podcast. We are continuing our conversation with Jeff Weiss. If you haven’t already checked out part A of the show, be sure to do that first. Let’s jump into the conversation with Jeff.
Aram Donigian :
You mentioned the work that we did together in the military and a little over 20 years ago, you became involved in an initiative at West Point to create a negotiations course, which eventually led to work that we did in founding the West Point Negotiation Project.
Can you share how that opportunity to teach at West Point came about. And maybe just share a little bit about some of your fondest memories of the work that you did with the military.
Embracing The Gift Of Privilege To Impact Change & Serve Others [00:36]
Jeff Weiss :
Sure. I’ve had a very privileged life. I’ve had privileged schooling. I’ve had amazing parents. I have an amazing wife who I’ve been with for 43 years. I have amazing kids, pretty amazing grandchildren. I’ve had incredible opportunities. And I learned from my mentor, Roger, that when you have that kind of privilege, you owe something back. Now, that wasn’t hard to know. I learned that from my parents. I learned that from how I grew up and where I grew up.
And I felt like in my career up until about 9/11, there were some really important things we were doing. We were doing important things in companies and actually helping people see, hey, this is actually an interesting, challenging thing to do, not an icky thing to do. I got to go negotiate, but much more significantly, don’t get me wrong.
And I take no heroic element of any of this. I just found some of the organizations to make them work. I had colleagues working literally with Mandela, with on post apartheid constitutional reform when Cyril Ramaphosa was the head of the unions back then. Working in Latin America with warring factions, working, other colleagues working between the Russians and the Georgians years ago, years and years of work, some good work, some other foundational work between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
There was lots of great stuff going on, but I really felt after 9/11, so if I were honest with the audience, because I really wanted to go to West Point, and my parents said no to me once in my life. Maybe they said no to a dessert once in a while, but you’re not going to West Point. You’re not. No. And so what do we do with our parents? We try to teach them a lesson, even if they’re wonderful.
So look, so here’s what happened. So 9/11 occurred. I have an itch of there’s got to be a different way to actually have some impact because I do feel like I’m carrying on this legacy that Roger gave us, and my parents gave us, and I had a wonderful friend, IBM was one of my biggest clients. I learned tons and tons of working with IBM.
I hope I added commensurate value with wonderful teams that I got to consult with, whose name was John Watendorf and John had run the department of behavioral sciences and leadership, and had been a longtime West Point faculty member along with others like Jack Beach, and they had come to IBM in retirement and I worked with John for a number of years.
I just bought the world of John. I still think the world of John talked to him all that often. And I liked how he thought, and I liked how he approached things. I liked how he dealt with other people. And I called John and I said, John, I’d love if there were some way, even a small way to be able to be helpful at the academy, especially in this time of sending, young people in massive harm’s way.
That was not the case when I was in college. My buddies who went to West Point did heroic things, but they weren’t in Afghanistan and Iraq. So John said, absolutely. And we went off and we met with the vice dean and he said, that sounds interesting. And a year later, our collective joint head of Behavioral Science and Leadership.
Tom called it, so I think gave us an incredible gift, called and said, you know what, that’s interesting. Let’s try it out. And so that’s where it began. I had wonderful partners in my consulting firm who let me go spend a lot of time at West Point and then later with the Seals and later with the War College and a variety of other things.
But what I think Tom really gave us, and I am forever grateful to him for this, of course, I’m forever grateful to you, Aram, as partner in this, me being your partner in this, is two things. He took a chance on a course that was not a book academic course. It was not studying negotiations, which is what academic departments, and I’m all for it.
Look, I spent a lot of time in the academy. It was an applied course. It was like, go teach, we’re a leadership department, we’re teaching behavioral sciences and leadership. It’s okay to go teach a course where we build skills and we learn tools and the final exam is getting people in full battle rattle and sending them out on Constitution Island, a little bit outside of West Point and setting up an Iraqi village and having them negotiate five things over the course of three hours and seeing if they actually learn something in the course.
That’s pretty cool. Thank you, Tom. The other thing that I think Tom gave us was freedom, right? So no one said don’t find this negotiation project. No one said don’t put a conference together. I said, go do it. You can figure it out. Go do it. That’s pretty special. That doesn’t happen too many times in life. Then funky things happen. You two can laugh at me when someone came down the hallway and said, Hey, this thing you guys wrote a couple of years ago is now army doctrine.
And I was like, Oh, that’s great. What’s army doctrine? Which obviously many years later, in fact, almost all the books behind me are based on army strategy, military strategy and doctrine. And lo and behold, something that a group of us wrote became how the army started to think about teaching negotiation. How we should negotiate in dangerous situations, how we should get prepared.
And then we started to work with the various schoolhouses in the army. Look, I’m not going to go through the story ad nauseam, but it was pretty special. And I think what really was magical beyond the freedom that Tom gave us and being able to work candidly, I don’t mean to be sappy with people like you and have students like Nolan. Was the time, right? The time was a time of thirst. And the thirst was, I remember a young man who was probably 26. I think he was a captain.
Maybe he wasn’t a captain yet. Came back to a conference we used to have in BSNL. I think it ended like my second or third year. And it’s been a long time since I’ve been at West Point. A senior officer introduced him as the youngest person in Iraq to ever be given a major oil field to reopen without knowing anything about oil refinery.
He figured it out, right? So we have these amazingly smart men and women in harm’s way doing complex things and we were starting to get, and Aram you know this far better, you were one of them, we’re starting to get back officers saying, We need to be better at this. And then young people say, we need to be better at this.
We need to be able to negotiate to do something like that. To be able to work, to do counterinsurgency, insurgency work in a different way, etc. So I think those things all came together. Look, it was the biggest privilege I’ve had in my life so far, maybe short of again, the amazing marriage I have, and the amazing kids and grandkids I have.
What’s my fondest memory? What’s interesting is, the fondest memories keep building. This is a fond memory. I’m sitting looking at, and again, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be sappy. I’m sitting here looking at someone I love, and you. We’ve worked together for a long time, starting at the Tuck School at Dartmouth, going to West Point.
You then went, I guess you blamed me a few times for a few things you ended up doing in the summer in the Army in harm’s way, but we did some pretty cool things together. You were the hero. Hopefully it was just a bit sounding board, et cetera. We want to finish that. And then looking at Nolan’s incredible stuff, both in the Army and beyond.
That’s a new fond memory. I’m not playing games. Fondest memory. It probably was the third or fourth year we ran the West Point conference and looking out. And just saying, Oh my God, this is cool. We’ve got a hundred, 120 folks at the time in the new library in the hate group at West Point with ROTC folks from across the country and folks from Canada and folks from Europe, the various military academies in the U S all together, working on learning a set of skills and tools and concepts with our folks.
Former students coming back and sharing lessons and a couple of flag officer friends coming back and sharing lessons and knowing this, they were interested. They sure as heck, we’re going to have to apply this stuff really soon. And across these various folks who chances are some of them are going to bump into each other again. They had a common language. They had a common vocabulary, just like Nolan talked about. That’s a pretty cool memory. They even have a couple of pictures of that.
AD :
You hit on some highlights for me too. We’re going to do something unique here. I want to go to Nolan because Nolan remembers the final. He experienced that and unlike how I started my military career without these skills, Nolan got to launch a career that led him to special operations work and deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, but he got to start the career with that background.
And so Nolan, I’m just curious with what Jeff just shared with his own experiences and memories, you think back to the final, you think about starting your career with these skills, what’s your reaction?
Harnessing Education & Experience For Effective Leadership [08:09]
NM :
First, thank both of you for putting me in that situation, because when I go to my first KLE, which is a key leader engagement in Afghanistan as a Lieutenant, it looks familiar. Like I’ve been in that situation. I experienced that before I ever got there and throughout all the education at West Point, all the training afterwards, you don’t have those same simulations.
And so thank you both for helping me at least be able to be in those situations and have some sort of idea of going in there with a clear understanding because I did some preparation as to what I’m trying to get at the outcomes. Or else you’ll just be sitting there all day talking about just each other’s families and everything else, which is great.
But eventually we do have to move the needle here. So thank both of you for that is definitely very rewarding. And I will say that the following year, it’s my face on the negotiation book from that experience. So I need a copy of that somewhere. So if you ever find it, do share it with me.
AD :
I might be able to track one of those down for you, Nolan. So
JW :
I’m going to abbreviate the story and I’m certainly not going to embarrass the person who actually is an incredible hero, but let me, remembering now what Nolan did right out of the Academy and some of the other amazing cadets. So we had a cadet. From one of the first years I was teaching, we’ll leave it at that.
Who came back to the negotiation conference some years later. And usually at the negotiation conference, if no one asked, we would ask, what’s the most interesting thing in the last year or so you’ve done? What’s the most interesting you’ve negotiated? We heard some crazy stuff. Like I negotiate over sneakers.
Okay. I’m not sure that was the best investment of time, but okay. If that’s what you did, then maybe we should thank you for being here and you should think a little harder. But there was one cadet who told, and I’ll botch the story a little bit, but I do share this story fairly frequently as a challenge to those of us who lead organizations and maybe actually something we’ll talk about in the last quarter of our podcast here.
So this individual told a story about being out on patrol and he said, I was out on patrol, my mind was elsewhere. I was thinking about, I had a key leader engagement that night. I was going be negotiating with a tribal leader, a community leader. We were about to pull out in a couple of days and we were trying to finish this negotiation over security, we were actually trying to go to school or get the school finished and a couple other things. And I was really thinking hard about that.
We professed that he was thinking through the various tools we taught in the class, et cetera. So when I heard over the radio that my closest friend, And in fact, he had been ambushed and he had been killed and a number of his men had been killed and others seriously injured.
He said it was a horrible day, but the day got worse. He said, I went back to the, I went back to the foreign operating base. I went back to the base and he said, I got pulled aside by one of the intelligence folks who said, you can’t go out tonight to have this negotiation. He said, why? I gotta, I need to get this done.
He said, I can tell you no uncertain terms. The person who ambushed. Our friend, your colleague, your friend, our colleague, is the tribal leader that you are, he called for the ambush, he set the ambush up. By and large, whether he pulled the trigger or not, he killed your friend. And it was stunning, but it got more stunning.
And the stunning part was, the 26 year old said, maybe he was 27, You know what? Boy oh boy, I would love to meet this guy in a dark alley tonight. But that ain’t my job. My job is to go get this thing negotiated, get the school finished, get the security procedures put in place. And he said he pulled security detail.
It’s very careful at night. He said at the time he pulled out, I think Aram, you may remember this, but there’s another tools from class. I literally went through these tools. That doesn’t make much difference. I’ve made a difference to have a new place. Different. It’s nice to hear. And he said, I went out and I negotiated with this guy and with his colleagues and critics, and we got it solved and I got it done.
And then he said, again, I sure hope I’ll meet him in a dark alley someday. Now think about this for a second. Just think about this for a second. How many folks who are three times the age, we’ll put them in their late seventies or we’ll put them in 60, my age, we’ll put them at 40. How many women and men would have the discipline would have the purposefulness, I know my goal, would have the ability to transcend the situation and get the job done when each and every day, and I do it myself, I watch people get reactive. You want a lesson in negotiation, think about that story, whether I told it completely accurately or not, I think it’s pretty accurate.
That’s someone who said, I know my goal, I know what I need to do, I’m going to go, I’m going to transcend the emotional aspect, the relational aspect, even here. I’m going to work. And he said, we worked on interest. We worked on options. We worked on standards, got the problem solved. That’s pretty amazing.
That’s a challenge for all of us.
NM :
Absolutely. And I think it ties well into extreme negotiations, which I know was an article that both of you wrote along with our colleague, John Hughes. And it was an HBR article, it was back in 2010, I believe called extreme negotiations. I know that it illustrated how lessons learned by military officers in Afghanistan can apply to business leaders. Why is stepping back? Getting the big picture, considering your choices, and then negotiating purposefully, so critical in these situations.
Mastering Purposeful Negotiation Through Strategic Focus & Discipline [13:08]
JW :
I think Nolan, those four things go together. To negotiate with purpose, purposely, unless you can take a step back and you can question assumptions, you can see the big picture.
You can be disciplined in how you get prepared, how you conduct, and certainly making choices. And so let me double down on what being purposive means. It’s a Roger term. I’ve talked more about Roger in the last hour than I have in a long time. It’s nice. And it is actually, strangely enough, of all the things I learned from Roger and my other partners and colleagues and other amazing people and clients, it is the thing that I think is the most important lesson.
I try to apply it every day, just as a leader. I’m going into a meeting, what is the purpose? Someone’s going to throw me off track. I’m going to throw myself off track. I do it plenty. But I’ve got to remember the purpose. It’s the story that we just talked about. What do I mean by that? I think one of the most dangerous things, Nolan, to do in negotiations is to get reactive.
Is to react in kind. To forget your purpose. It’s easy to do. We all do it at times. But it causes us to lose sight of our goal. Our purpose for negotiation. Suddenly our measure of success becomes, we got them back. We bested them. We caused them pain. We’re happy for a few minutes. And then we say, Oh my God, we have no budget.
We have no law. We have bad legislation. We have a really bad policy for how we’re going to do fill in the blank. Worse yet, when we react, they react. And then we react, and then they react, and then we get nowhere, and we have, it’s not hard, we don’t have to go farther than picking up a magazine to see negotiations like that, never mind what we see each and every day in day to day life.
Being purposive is doing what that story was all about, right? It’s really knowing, I have a problem to solve, I have a set of objectives that I need to solve, maybe not the way that I originally thought it was best to solve it, maybe not the way they originally thought it was best to solve it. Maybe even better than those two ways, reminds me of the Red Bull story I wrote, but we’ll go back to that tonight.
A student who learned that after you did this, you could actually get a better solution than where you started or they started. And being purposive is knowing that my measure of success is how well I met those interests, how well I can defend my decision, how creative and value creating is the solution itself.
To avoid that, it goes back to the article, right? So exactly what you asked Nolan. It takes a need to step back, right? They did something. They made a threat. Oh my god, I can’t believe they made a threat. We make threats all the time. I jump out of the negotiation. Literally do it. That would be hard. I have back problems.
I’d have even more back problems. You might be able to do it. I, in my head, I jump out. I become a fly on the wall. I look down on the negotiation. I’m down there. The other party’s down there. Whoa, hold on. You can get reactive or you can say, got it. They just made a threat. Great. I could make a counter threat. That’s a choice. I’ll give you four other things I could do. I could say, if you did that, what would it achieve? That’s a pretty purposive move. What am I going to learn when I ask it three times? Not once, but three times. I’m going to run interest. I could say, yeah, you could do that, but we’re here for another 15 minutes or another 15 hours.
Let’s put that up on the wall as a possibility. Let’s come up with six possibilities and see if we can do better than that. That’s a move to what I think of as options. I’m starting to get creative. I could say, you could make that threat. How would you explain it? How would I explain it if you went and did that?
That’s a move to legitimacy, to standards. So I got a lot of moves I can make. I got a lot more I can make just in terms of how I think each of the three of us have some frameworks in our head for making those moves. I’m just illustrating a few. The purpose of negotiator says, step back, come flying the wall, don’t react in kind, understand what they’re doing, look at your choices, make a good choice.
Do it again. Be persistent. Do it again. Be persistent. Do it again. Be persistent. In case I’m not being persistent enough, right? If it doesn’t work, I’ve got a lot of other moves. Someone on this call once multiplied the various seven elements that we talked about by all their permutations and combinations.
You want to talk about who that is? There are so many moves we can make. I think that becomes critical in negotiation. Whether one’s negotiating partnerships, whether one’s negotiating supplier relationships, customer relationships, one’s negotiating the most complex negotiations across an organization.
The article really was an attempt to say, what do we see really good negotiators doing in the military that business leaders could learn from, and quite candidly, vice versa as well. And it starts with the concept we’ve talked a lot about, which is being purposive, being disciplined in terms of making choices and being really able to stop yourself from getting sucked into a vicious cycle of reactiveness.
AD :
So just so everyone knows the number is a little over 725,000. Okay. And I’m not trying to nerd out with anyone, but I did get that math checked by one of my classmates who was teaching in the math department at West Point when we were working together, Jeff. So I feel pretty confident about my number.
Okay. Never questioned your math. I just enjoy the topic so much. And I thank you for that. When I was first learning from you, probably halfway through the first lesson, I’m like, Oh, what he wants me to do is get more skillful in my compromise. And maybe I just need to concede more generously.
That’s my problem. I’ve been coming in too tough. I just need to be a softer negotiator. Obviously through my time with you, I’ve learned that’s not the message here. And you’ve written a lot of different things. And one of my favorite pieces is a piece that you wrote that was called Washington doesn’t need compromise, it needs creativity.
As someone who loves our country and pains me to see decisions that get made, the polarization you were talking about before, social issues that just make us more divisive. How quickly we are to vilify people who think differently. Just for a moment, Jeff, whether it’s to leaders in DC or it’s just to our listeners, what sort of objective nonpartisan advice around negotiation would you offer as we see a new transition occurring in government leadership?
Navigating Complexity With Openness & Creativity In Leadership [18:47]
JW :
To me, Aram and Nolan, it goes back to what we were talking about before, which is the polarization that’s been created. And look, this is not a political statement. In fact, it is apolitical. It has nothing to do with one side or the other side or another side. It has nothing to do with issue A or issue B.
But it has to do with the pain that gets created when nothing happens, or people split the difference. So let’s go to the compromise piece, and then let’s talk about a little bit of advice. As hard as it may be to say it, as hard as it may be to think that it’s actually possible, I don’t know what other choice we have.
And if I were just doing it in net form, before I go to the compromise piece, I’d say we don’t send people to Washington to become gladiators. So we define the role. The role is not to be a gladiator. The absolute role is to represent one’s district and represent views and represent perspectives. But if we learned anything, whether you like LBJ or you don’t like LBJ, whether you like that era, you don’t like that era, people work together.
Part of it was LBJ would lock people in rooms, make them work together, right? People built relationships. They stayed in Washington. And unlike today, where people run back to the district, which I understand, gotta get reelected. They stayed in Washington. They had relationships. I worked for a fellow named Jim Howard years and years ago.
I was privileged when I was in Andover to be a Washington intern and Jim was a congressman from New Jersey, public works and transportation. He was the best friend of the speaker, which was a little bit odd because I could never figure out how they were best friends. They were both Democrats.
But then I watched who they hung out with, like Jack Kemp was across the hall. They were, people talked to one another, they saw problems. All right, so let’s go back to this compromise piece. I think we’re all laughing because Nolan and Aram and I know that I banned the word compromise. The only word I ever oh, the only place I actually have complete freedom to, in terms of teaching, it was at West Point, just for the, this is true.
And one thing I did was ban a word. And I banned the word compromise. Now, I hope no one gets this wrong. If one’s thinking of compromises, be open and listen and get creative. And of course one needs to be open. There’s little more persuasive than negotiation than being open to persuasion, right? I’m talking about satisfaction.
I’m talking about splitting the difference. What do we see each and every day, quadruply so in Washington? We see polarization, we see gladiators, we see people fighting out, we see people arguing, we see people vilifying, and then occasionally we see people making sloppy decisions. So we’ve got to get this done.
So we’re going to add this into the bill, and this into the bill, and that into the bill, and we’re going to do this, and then we look at the whole thing, we’re like, what happened? Now, don’t get me wrong, there are some serious heroes. In Washington, there’s some really amazing people doing amazing things.
But if I look at the overall problem, what I think I wrote about back in 2012 or something, it’s really not any different, right? It’s this, it’s two ways of approaching things. Either we’re fighting it out and fighting to the death and really not listening and saying the other side’s wrong and stupid or irrational or evil or immoral or a lot of the time it’s we got to get this decided so we’ll come up with something in between which actually satisfies no one.
Look, I am not Pollyannish, I’ve been doing this for a long time, I love our country, and I feel privileged to, as I said before, to have what I have and be able to do what I do. I don’t see any other choice than for more of our leaders to step up and say, there are important things to defend, they’re important views to work through, they’re important problems to tackle, but I’ve got to do that with an open mind, I’ve got to do that with create it is really hard for me to believe that there are not ways to solve the problem of people going into schools and shooting students.
There are solutions. I do not believe I think there are solutions that allow people to protect their gun rights, and there are solutions that ensure that note that is just not going to happen in the frequency and depth. But that is one example. I think we could go through myriad examples where a little bit of creativity, a little bit of openness, a little bit of willingness to not pander to constituents so much, represent them, that’s different than pandering to them, would go a long way.
Again, I’m not trying to be Pollyannaish, I don’t see any other choice, we’ve got to break the deadlock of, I’m going to make sure you never can get anything done, I’m going to make sure you never can get anything done.
AD :
Jeff, as you said that, and from Getting to Yes and Roger Fisher’s work. We often say be hard on the problem and soft on the people. That is a place that seemed to have just flipped in spades these days. We’re really hard on people. It’s crappy in terms of how we try to approach the problem. Lack of discipline and lack of focus and lack of intentionality to really dig in. And you’re talking about gun rights and gun control. There’s one of many, as you were saying, we’re not disciplined in how we really discuss the problems.
JW :
Yeah, and you said, earlier on, and I guess I want to just double down on it. There is nothing that I have done over the course of the last four decades around negotiation, work with amazing people, work on real negotiations, coach people, watch people, learn from people, continue to learn from people.
That is about being soft. It is about, it actually is the most disciplined, hard way to negotiate. I don’t mean challenging. Which is to be hard on the problem. I’m not giving up on my interests. That’s different than locking into my positions. I’m not giving up on that. There are creative solutions.
I’m not giving up on good standards. I’m going to push hard, but I actually care about the other party too, because we need a solution. So I care about their interests as well. Being hard on the problem is great advice. That’s not soft on the problem. There’s nothing. I think I wrote another one of these things for the, for us news at the time about the misunderstanding of getting to yes, I’m like, Oh, I’m supposed to give in and I’m supposed to show the soft underbelly and I’m supposed to be reasonable.
There’s nothing in there that says that. We’re watching Roger negotiate. Now we negotiate. Not how I ask for how I work with people to negotiate. It’s not how you want to solve problems, but being respectful of people and wanting to understand and wanting to learn, even if it’s a really different view.
Sometimes handily, and I know this is not the most politically correct thing to say, even if it is distasteful, because what’s distasteful to me may not be distasteful to them. And maybe if I could at least understand it, there’s a way to solve a problem.
NM :
Awesome! Perfect final wrap up here as your clock chimes also tell us that we have reached our time. What final thought would you leave with listeners seeking to elevate their influence through purposeful negotiation?
Enhancing Negotiation Outcomes Through Strategic Process & Preparation [24:46]
JW :
Nolan, Aram, this has been an incredible privilege. Thank you. And thank you to those who are listening. It’s that the process matters, the steps we take, how we get prepared, who we involve, the questions we ask, how we sequence negotiations, it really matters.
Sequenced and structured in the right way. Engaging parties in the right way, being clear about who’s an inputter and who’s a decision maker in effective ways, doing relationship mapping, all of those things make a big difference and they create a very different outcome. I’ll leave with this. The process matters. Your power in negotiation comes, my power in negotiating comes not from making great arguments.
That’s a good thing to do. Not from standing on a chair and saying, I’m right and you’re wrong. It comes from good process, good discipline, good preparation. And really at its core, being able to get underneath the stated demands, the ways most of us negotiate, which is, I want this, I want that, getting an underlying interest, getting creative, sitting side by side, even if it’s not literally side by side, and knowing that my job is to solve a problem, satisfy my interest really well, but create something that is going to be able to be implemented, which requires actually satisfying their interest to and constituent and critics interests.
That’s what really good negotiators do. Focus on the process, be disciplined, be purposive, get well prepared, separate interests from positions.
AD :
Listeners, you’ve gotten the opportunity to hear from someone that I’ve had the blessing to learn from now for over 15 years. I encourage you to go back, relisten to this. I’m just so grateful for the times that I’ve been able to study under Jeff and that still continues. So you’ve had that. And Jeff, I want to say to you, not only thanks for doing this, but I want to tell you a quick story.
So two days ago, I’m teaching at Tuck in the executive education program there and had somebody come up to me, former military member who was exposed to the negotiation concepts from someone that you and I taught. He didn’t know me. He didn’t know you. Okay. But he knew the concepts because we had equipped a student, a former cadet to go out and to do some great things.
And I just think that’s who you are. Bill George talks about leaders who are either clock builders or time tellers. You are a clock builder and thank you for that, for the lives that you’ve impacted and for folks listening to the program, but all the work that you’ve done. Thanks for taking the time to be with us this evening.
JW :
Thank you. All of us are only as good as those we surround ourselves with. Same in Mass General Brigham, same at West Point, same in everything we do. Thank you both.
NM :
That is it for us on today’s podcast. Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe to the NEGOTIATEx podcast if you haven’t already, and we’ll see you in the next episode.
