Derek Gaunt
Our podcast is hosted on Anchor
But you can listen in most places such as: Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Radio Republic.
Derek Gaunt is a lecturer, author of Ego Authority Failure and a trainer with twenty nine years of law enforcement experience. When Derek left law enforcement, he was the commander of the hostage negotiations team. Derek is a hostage negotiation and incident command subject matter expert as a member of the Black Swan Group. Derek is a negotiation and personal coach.
I met Derek at a live training session and I also trained with him and a small group of people for 11 weeks. I can say that in the last three years of my life, Derek has had a huge influence on how I speak, listen and engage with people. He's also made me a better human being.
In this episode, Derek and I talk about leadership and negotiation. It always amazes me that so many people are still frozen in time when it comes to leadership and what they think a good leader is. A good leader, much like a good negotiator, in their minds is somebody who's assertive, physically strong, domineering personality. No matter what you do, they're just going to bully their way and fight their way and get what they want.
I want you to listen closely to how Derek describes what a good leader is and how the Black Swan Group's negotiation method flows from this perspective. This episode lays the groundwork for our live Q&A session in October, where Derek will be answering questions about how to better negotiate with doctors, caretakers and others when you have a disability. You will learn how to have difficult conversation when the other side perceives you as being weaker or more vulnerable.
If you subscribe to our newsletter, we'll be emailing you the link to the event very soon.
Gustavo Serafini
Machine Transcription provided by Happyscribe
S01E23 Derek Gaunt.mp3 - powered by Happy Scribe
Welcome to the Enabled Disabled Podcast. I'm your host, Gustavo Serafini. I was born with a rare physical disability called Pfft. My journey has been about selfacceptance persistence and adaptation. On the show, we'll explore how people experience disability, how the stories we tell ourselves can both enable and disable, how vulnerability is a foundation for strength and why people with disabilities can contribute more than we imagine. I hope that leaders, companies, clinicians, families and friends will better understand our capacity to contribute to the world and help enable us to improve it.
Derek on is a lecturer, author of Ego Authority Failure and a trainer with 29 years of law enforcement experience. When Derek left law enforcement, he was the commander of the Hostage Negotiations Team. Derek is a hostage negotiation and incident command subject matter expert. As a member of the Black Swan Group, Derek is a negotiation and personal coach. I met Derek at a live training session and I also trained with him in a small group of people for eleven weeks. I can say that in the last three years of my life, Derek has had a huge influence on how I speak, listen and engage with people.
He's also made me a better human being. In this episode, Derek and I talk about leadership and negotiation. It always amazes me that so many people are still frozen in time when it comes to leadership and what they think a good leader is a good leader, much like a good negotiator in their minds is somebody who's assertive physically strong, domineering personality. No matter what you do, they're just going to bully their way and fight their way and get what they want. I want you to listen closely to how Derek describes what a good leader is and how the Black Swan Group negotiation method flows.
From this perspective, this episode lays the groundwork for our live Q Amp a session in October where Derek will be answering questions about how to better negotiate with doctors, caretakers and others. When you have a disability, you will learn how to have a difficult conversation when the other side perceive you as being weaker or more vulnerable. If you subscribe to our newsletter, we'll be emailing you the link to the event very soon. If you aren't subscribed yet, please go to www. Enable Disable.
Com to sign up for our newsletter and get the early sign up on this class.
Alright Derek, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for being here.
Thank you for the invite. I appreciate it. Good to see you again. You and I go back a little way, so it's good to finally have some face to face with you. Absolutely, virtually, virtually.
Yes. You're a phenomenal teacher. I'm so happy that I took the classes with you and Chris and Brandon, but it's just I'm really excited about this. So why don't we get started with your book Ego Authority Failure really focused in on leadership and negotiation tactics. And I really love the book.
I.
Feel like so many people have. There's so much written about leadership, and there's so many misconceptions about what a good leader is. Can you tell us what's the mistake that most people make regarding leadership?
The mistake that most people make is they're focused on their own agenda. Leaders are in a very difficult position within their organizations because they're essentially blade running. They're running on a blade. And if they slip and default to their direct reports are going to get cut. And if they flip in full Clint and focus entirely on the mission of the organization, they're going to get cut. And so they're in the unenviable position of having to balance the needs of the organization with the needs of the people who make the organization go.
And many times, leaders lose track of the fact they focus solely on the mission of the organization and not what the impact that the directives or the execution of a certain strategic plan is going to have on the people who actually go out and do the work. And so part of the impetus for ego authority failure was to change that mindset. You know, I've said it a thousand times. It's not about you. It's about the person with whom you're interacting. Yes, you're going to have to state your goal and objective.
Yes, you're going to have to give them directions in order for them to execute would take a minute to understand what the impact is going to be. You see, anytime that you ask anyone to do anything, it's usually not something they're anticipating, which means they're usually going to, on some level, have a negative response to it. Now that negative response can be larger, small, but it is nonetheless there. And until you address what the world looks like from the perspective of the person you're interacting with, you're not going to move the needle, you're not going to create influence.
You're not going to demonstrate an inclusion, you're not going to demonstrate transparency. And then you've got a team of people working for you, and they're doing things because you told them to, not because they want to. So we're trying to shift that. I want a group of people who are going to do what I asked him to do, not because I told them, but because they know I have their best interest at heart, and as a result, it's unquestioned. They just go out and execute. And those are the Tron type of leaders that ego authority and with failure is trying to equip trying to make better.
This fees a lot into the stereotype of the leader as the a strong type a personality. I tell you what to do and you do it because my personality is so strong or because I have so much power that you have no choice, right?
That's typically how good leadership it seem or because they're so insecure. That's where a lot of this toxic leadership comes from an insecurity on the part of the leader. They're so concerned with maintaining their reputation, with maintaining their position within the hierarchy of the organization that every move that they make is tied, or at least they think is tied to their professional survival. And this is especially problematic with people who rise through the ranks rather quickly. They know that the people around them are viewing them with through a prism that they have less institutional knowledge and what they should for the rank that they currently hold.
And those guys and women tend to overcompensate their leaders in their leadership role. By, I mean, the most prevalent manifestation is micro management. The second most prevalent manifestation is doing things that they used to do at the previous level, when they've clearly been promoted out of that role, and they're so uncomfortable in the new role, they look for a sense of comfort, and that usually leads them to reaching back and doing things not with their subordinates before their supports. Those are the two biggest manifestations of that type of leadership.
If we kind of shift a little bit I'm interested in. So who in your opinion, was the best leader that you worked with that really change your mindset on this and showed you a better way. And could you give us some examples of what they did that had an impact with you?
Probably the best I refer to her in the book is Amy, that obviously is not her real name. Hands down the most inclusive and nurturing and empowering leader that I ever worked for. And she and I had an interesting, dynamic and interesting dynamics during our time together because she came on the police Department a year before I did, and throughout our time together we would both we would work together, then one would get promoted, and now I'm working for her, and then I would get promoted, get promoted again.
And now she's working for me. And so we continued that relationship throughout the entire time, and I sat back and I watched marveled if you will, it the way that everybody to a man or a woman unequivocally would follow her lead. They would run themselves through a brick wall simply because she asked him to because she had demonstrated time and again when she didn't need anything done that she cared about what was going on with with the people beneath her. And I always said if I could be half of the leader that she was, I'll be in a good spot, even if I'm just a half as good as what she was, the way she took care of her people during illnesses, the way she took care of her people when they did a good job, the way she took care of under resourced people within the community.
It was just you sit back and Marvel at the time and attention that you put in. And this is time and attention that didn't just involve the hours that she worked at the agency. This is after our stuff that she's not even getting paid for. That she's doing. And so when you look at somebody like that, it's easy to say I follow her from the gates of health, and it's just she's a wonderful person, a marble to it. And that doesn't mean that she didn't crack the whip when a whip needed to be cracked.
The difference between her and other leaders is the leaders, especially the toxic ones, think a whip needs to be cracked daily, and nothing could be further from the truth. We always there's a time and there's a place for being more stern and your communication with your direct reports. The good leader knows that it's got to be situationally appropriate. The bad leaders think I'm the boss. When I say it, you need to get it done. No questions asked. There are times when you need to take that approach, but it's not every single time you open your mouth.
And that's what happens with toxic leaders.
When you say that it's not about good leadership, it's not about you. It's about it's about your team. It's about understanding where the other person is coming from. Where does the I guess the real trick is that never stops, right. It's always about the other person. It's never about you. Like your nourishment comes from understanding the other person and taking joy from that and getting better results because of it.
Yeah. And to provide some clarity on it's, not about you. That is a mindset that you need to go into when you're going to be asking something of someone else. It's not that you'll never talk about you. It's not that you'll never state what your goal and objective is. But with the Black Swan group and the Black Swan method, we are big on sequencing the conversation. And when I talk about sequencing the conversation, it's all about tactical empathy. Tactical empathy is about them. So it's tactical empathy first.
Your goal and objective comes last. Tactical empathy should always be your precursor to whatever your ultimate goal or ask is going to be. Many leaders get those backwards. They want to gather the team together and they say they want to jump right into it and say, all right, here's the direction we're taking is what we're going to do next. I need you, you and you to do X, Y, and Z, you, you and you. I want you to do A, B and C. Everybody got it.
Any questions? Alright, let's go do it. And putting your goal and objective first means that you haven't even bothered to demonstrate for the other side that you get how this is going to impact them. And the reason that we put tactical empathy first is probably one of the biggest reasons is it encourages reciprocity. I want them to give to me the same level of difference that I'm giving to them. And the fastest way to get that done is to give it to them first. Now you've engaged that rule of reciprocity internally.
They are now obligated to listen to you, and they're more obligated to because you first extended that olive branch to give it back to you by way of agreeing with Iraq Acquiescing or going out and executing whatever it is that you're going to ask them to do. I.
I guess it depends on the organization, but I can see, for example, meeting with the team and saying, look, we have these set goals for the next quarter. Let's say we want to grow our sales by, and we're seeing some blips in the radar here. Rather than saying this is what we need to do to get it done, you would present that to your team. Say, look, we have this goal and you say, how could we work better at or what can we do to get there?
In your opinion, would that be a better, better framing?
Yeah, that's the better framing. But the other thing that most humans, leader or not fail to realize is that when you're going to make an ask of someone, as I mentioned earlier, you're going to generate some level of negative dynamic or motion on their part. And, you know, from going through the training, one of the first things that you need to do is to mitigate those negative dynamics and emotions. And that starts with the accusations. In the scenario, you just throw out the you're going to tell the team that we're going to try to increase sales in the next couple of cycles and there's flips on the radar, which means you're going to have to do one, two and three, X, Y, and Z before you even do that.
You're going to set that up with what we call the accusations audits, which are just pre emptive or Proactive labels where you label things that the other side may be thinking that they haven't necessarily send yet. So when you start that meeting with you guys are probably going to think that as management, we don't know what we're doing. You're probably going to think this is another half brained scheme in order to get us to perform better without us understanding exactly what's going on in the trenches.
You're probably wondering why we can't seem to make up our mind. And you're going to question the value of this meeting before we get to the end, throw those things out there first, because I guarantee you there's at least one, if not two people in the crowd that are thinking just that. And so when you are unafraid to do that, it resonates with the other side, because now they're thinking to themselves. How does he know? I'm thinking that there is no clearer way to demonstrate that you are tracking with what the other side is thinking and going through that you understand what the lay of the land looks like from their perspective.
Then when you lay it out before they even say it. And so going back to your scenario, after you throw out those accusations audits, you remain silent, let them sit. And soak in. And then my first question to them is going to be in the form of a label. It seems like you've got a vision for how we can improve sales over the next couple of cycles. They may or may not. They may or may not have been thinking about it. But what are you doing by asking them their vision?
You you telling them I want your opinion. I want your opinion, even if they have none. You've made the overture that you're more concerned about what their opinion is and what yours is. Now, as they lay out what their vision is on how they can accomplish what you're talking about, you're going to be listening to see, where does this line up with, where I ultimately want to go, where does it diverge? And where am I going to have to concentrate on during this conversation? So it always starts with a vision.
Some kind of vision label. Sounds like you got a vision on how you think we should manage this label, mirror paraphrase the response that you get and then go into your vision. You see the sequencing there. I'm always deferring, always deferring to the other side, giving them an opportunity, letting them feel like they are actually a part of the conversation they being talked with and not too. That's the most important thing.
One thing that comes to mind is it's a virtuous circle. The better of a leader you are, the better your accusation audits are going to be. And the more impact it's going to have on your people.
That's right. And that impact carries forever, because now they're seeing a leader who's a little bit different. Now they're seeing somebody who doesn't appear to be cut throat, who's not going to step on people as they try to make their attention within the organization. And so now they've got a a good role model, somebody to emulate going forward. You know, a lot of the systemic toxicity within any organization is because there's nobody separating themselves. There's nobody like Amy. There's nobody who's conducting themselves different than everybody else.
And so the younger generation sees that, you know, Gus is heavy handed. He steps on people. I mean, he's good, he gets the job done. But he leaves body's in his wake all the time. That must be the way to be viewed as successful within this organization. I'm going to be like us. And so now you got people emulating your toxic behavior because they think it equates with success. And pretty soon, systemically, you've got it to the bottom. In ten years down the road, you're trying to figure out why your ability to retain people is in the toilet.
And that's because you fail to address the toxicity when it first reared its ugly head. So it's important for leaders to understand that you have a responsibility of creating a model that people want to follow, that people want to be like, do.
You think something similar dynamically happens in organizations who don't show diversity? Don't show inclusion, don't show art, promoting women to the same position. Do you think that basically is a corollary there, or do you think that that's more systemic to this is how things have been done, and this is how things are going to keep going.
I think it's a combination of both. I think it's a combination of both. This is how things have always been done. This thing, how things are always going to be done. That is a cop out for. It's an excuse. It's a hack for making yourself feel better about the way that you conduct yourself. But regardless of what space you're in, you're in the people business and you're in the trust business, how do you create a team of people that trust you? Why is trust so important? Because anybody anywhere on the planet would do anything for you if it was within their ability.
If they trusted you, whenever you get aberrant behavior, whenever you get pushed back, whenever you get objections, it's because on some level, the person with whom you're interacting does not trust you. And so instead of flexing your muscles and saying, do it because I said so when you start to get that hesitation, when you start to get that push back, when you start to sense a reluctance on the part of the person that you're dealing with, don't get wrapped around the axle because you're getting that push back or you're getting that hesitancy or you're seeing that reluctance.
Your question should always be why where is that coming from? Because I'm here to tell you your listeners anytime that somebody tells you no, in whatever iteration that is and reluctance and hesitancy or prime example of somebody telling you no, it's for a reason. They either don't think that you understand the pressure that they're under. They're trying to tell you something else that you're missing completely. And the last category of people smaller category of people they're trying to manipulate you. You need as a leader to figure out which one of those it is and go after.
That not the statement. I don't want to do this, boss. Where is it coming from? What level of fear are you dealing with? And where is that fear you're stemming from? And a lot of the times, I would say of the time, fear is the ultimate outcome of someone being uncertain. And as a leader, if you can explain forecast, you diagnose and forecast here's where we are now. Here's what it's going to look like in the future. What have you done for your team? You've taken uncertainty out of the equation.
And even if it's something that they don't like, they're no longer, quote, afraid of it because you've laid it out. There's no more uncertain if I were to tell you. You know, after 08:00 at night in my neighborhood, you may not want to walk around because there's a pack of Coyotes out here. And if you have a habit of walking a smaller dog, you're exposing yourself. Well, shoot. If you happen to get caught outside after 08:00 at night in my neighborhood, you're going to be like this.
Danger could come from anywhere. But if I were to tell you that 500 yards into the Bush, there's a pack of Coyotes directly across the street from my house. Now you're less afraid because you know exactly where the Coyotes are, right? Because I removed that uncertainty from it. So you now know that alright, if I get caught out after 08:00 at night, as long as I'm not in front of Derek's house at less risk. And so taking away the uncertainty as much as possible from the people that you're dealing with will increase your chances of generating that trust that I was talking about.
How do you men trust Derek? So one thing that comes to mind is a lot of people and organizations deal with mistakes very differently. As a former hostage negotiator, when there was a mistake made on the field, I mean, that's the highest possible. You're paying the highest possible price. Potentially, how did you and your team work with or work past mistakes?
Well, the first is you start your work on getting past mistakes prior to getting involved in the incident. And so that just comes with training beforehand where I tell my people, listen, you're a human, which means you're going to make mistakes. The stakes are high and the job that we do. So we have to minimize those mistakes as best as possible. So I'm not asking you to be mistake free. I want you to be old mistake free. In other words, the mistake that you make today better not be the mistake that you make tomorrow.
So when you make a mistake tomorrow, it better be a brand new one in the middle of an incident when it looks like we're about to make a mistake, they are encouraged. This goes back to the inclusion. They are encouraged. Give me your opinion. I don't need to know that you thought it was screwed up, what we were contemplating after the fact that does mean no good. It does mean some good, but doesn't do me any good in the moment. If there's something that is bothering you, something that doesn't sit right with you, I need to know it in the moment so that we can correct it because the consequences in that line of work could be disastrous.
And so it's about training. And then it's about giving them the latitude and the empowerment to speak up regardless of rank. At the time I left my team, I was the commanding officer for that team. Which meant that when it came to hostage barricade management, the only person who had more authority than me was the incident commander, usually at the rank of captain and the chief of police himself. And so it was important for them to feel like they could approach me and tell me anything.
And that's the kind of atmosphere I tried to create. And that's the kind of atmosphere that gave rise to people who felt empowered, who felt like they had a voice who felt like they were being listened to. I didn't always follow their advice. I have ultimate veto power over everything. And so there were things that they brought up that I said, I appreciate the contribution. It's going to sound harsh, but I think we're going to do this instead of that. But they had a chance to speak.
And that's what's more important to them than anything else, because at the end of the day, I don't care who you are, what you're doing, we want somebody else to understand what we're going through, what our opinion is, what our circumstances are, what our view is people get a hit of dopamine and oxytocin, which are chemicals in the brain that make them feel good when somebody is actually listening to what they have to say. So.
When you take that right, let's talk a little bit about I want to kind of shift the conversation a little bit into, like, our dynamics when you think about a negotiation as a hostage negotiator. Part of why the Black Swan group method is so effective is because there's an apparent huge disparity in power dynamics in that situation. Right. So if we were talking, for example, about someone with a disability who is negotiating with a caregiver who's giving them issues, or a doctor who is trying to leave them somewhere that they don't need to go, can we start?
Can we explore how the Black Swan group method is so effective at dealing with those situations?
It's effective because we understand the importance of subordinating ourselves to the other side and deferring to the other side, understanding what makes them tick. So from the power dynamic perspective, what does the world look like to that doctor who is trying to walk you down a path that you don't think is necessary, what's going on in his life or her life that is motivating him to push in that direction. And the Black Swan method is almost entirely. It almost entirely revolves around motivations of the other side, what they say and what they're after, or often two different things?
And so it's a matter of like I said, I don't care what space you're in. That includes doctors. They want someone else to understand what they're going through. And so instead of worrying about why, instead of worrying about the fact that he said he wants you to do this treatment instead of that treatment, ask yourself, where is that coming from? What would prompt him to do that same thing with with caregivers. It's about deferring and subordinating yourself to the caregiver. Why are they refusing to do this as opposed to just caught up getting caught up with them telling you no.
Why are they telling you? No. In Austin, negotiation, power dynamic initially is inverted in that the bad guys, at least on the surface, has all of the power and they'll tell you that I'm in control here. You know how many times I've heard that on the phone? I'm in control here. You're going to do exactly what I say. And if you don't, they're going to be consequences and repercussions that you're not going to be able to deal with. So what do we do? We let them.
We give them the illusion of control while we maintain the upper hand. And so instead of, you know, back off, don't come in here or people are going to get hurt. What will cost him to say that? What would cause him to say that is that he's afraid. Why do most people threaten you? They're afraid of something. So now I'm going to start. First of all, I'm going to reassure him that I'm not going to do anything that's going to calls him to act rash. And then I'm going to circle back to Church, try to figure out what is it that has gotten you to the state.
And the sooner you do that, the sooner you allow them to express themselves, the negative emotions come down, the rational thinking goes up, and now you can start to direct their decision making. And now the power dynamic has been writed. And now they're more I don't want to say susceptible, but they're more accommodating towards me. And they're more willing to listen. And the more they're willing to listen, the more that I can begin to direct their decision making. And so it's all about understanding where the other side is coming from.
And it's all about understanding the motivation behind whatever they're asking you to do or whatever they're refusing to do.
How do you deal with the people who? Let's say, for example, let's take a caregiver as an example. I'm not trying to generalize, but I'm taking a specific example that I think is I would have more issues with right? What if that person likes to say no because they have the ability to because they want to be in control, they want to have they want to be the ultimate decision maker. I don't want to do this because I don't want to do this because I can say no.
Alright, so go back to what we talked about, you know, 1015 minutes ago. No is an objection. An objection is camouflage is camouflage for fear and mistrust. If they say yes to you, what does that do for them? Internally? It reduces their relative power within the dynamics of the relationship. Who wants to lose that power? That's a part of their identity. Anybody who says no because they can are telling you that I'm kind of insecure in where I am in my station, in life. There are a lot of things going on with me that I have no control over.
And as a result, I feel minimized as a human being. So when the opportunity presents itself for me doing third control, I'm going to do so at the expense of another person just to make myself feel better, so that if you are the person dealing with this caregiver, that's the angle. That's the approach that you should take something as simple as a label. It sounds like you're under tremendous pressure not to do this because of the time and the expense, time and expense may or may not be the issue, but you throw that label out there, you're either going to hit it right on the head, which is going to open them up to start to share more with you, or they're going to tell you it has nothing to do with that.
And you're going to get the information as to what the real cost is because one of the laws of negotiation gravity is the desire to correct is irresistible. People can't wait to tell you how dumb you are, how you don't get it, and it feels good. They get a hit of dopamine, because now they're back in the position of superiority over you, and they're going to educate you. And if they're educating you, they're putting themselves in the position of superiority over you, and they feel better about it.
And you're likely to get more information by mislabeling something than you are with a regular label. And for your listeners, when I talk about labels, that's one of the that's probably the foundational tool for the Black Swan method, where you simply are recognizing the perspective of another person and you're articulating that recognition by way of saying it looks like it seems like it sounds like. And so once you start to throw labels out like that, whether they are regular labels or mislabels, you're making the attempt to understand their perspective.
And that attempt that attempt one alone is enough. You don't have to get it right. You just have to make the attempt to show them that you're trying to get it right. That's enough for most people and the majority of the population out there doesn't conduct themselves that way. So when your caregiver is faced with someone who is conducting themselves that way, they're not going to really know what's going on, but they're going to know that this kind of feels good. It kind of feels good.
And here's the other thing I wanted to mention, there's no knockout punch with the Black Swan group. You're not going to throw out a bunch of labels, and your third one, boom, the tree comes down. This is incremental application of tactical empathy. How many swings of an axe does it take to bring a tree down. I don't know. It depends, but we're just going to keep swinging an axe until it does come down. Big strong guy can probably bring a tree down, you know, within 30 minutes.
Guy like me probably take 2 hours. But you're still going to make the attempt over and over again to demonstrate to the caregiver I get what you're going through, my friend. And so even with them, you start to bring the emotion level down with them. And what happens? Rational thinking starts to go up because you extended that olive branch to them first, they're more likely to listen to you and understand where your not is coming from. And that goes back to what we talked about earlier sequencing the conversation.
But it starts with the demonstration of tactical empathy and your caregivers. Your doctors within the medical system. They're human beings, so they're just as susceptible to this as anybody else. All of our stuff is based on the human nature response. Human danger response dictates that negative emotions and dynamics drive decision making and drive behavior. If that is indeed, the case is encumbered upon you to stop thinking about where you want to end up and start dealing with those negative emotions and dynamics. Show them that you see what they're going through so that you can clear their eyes and that they now can see what you're going through.
It makes a lot of sense, especially especially with the the whole method. I'm still I've applied more and more of it every day, but I'm nowhere near, you know, your level, obviously, but it's what I have found really effective is getting out of my own head and really trying to understand how the other person is seeing it, what they're going through, what the road blocks are. And then I can start and then I can show them that understanding. And then, like you said, either I get the answer or they give me the answer.
But it's letting go of the fear of losing control, right, of not being the first person to speak of not being the first person to make the offer of not being the first person who is directing the conversation. Once you let go of that fear and you understand the method, then it starts to become a lot easier.
Yeah. Interestingly enough, what you said there was spot on that's fear impeding your ability to perform. You've been taking Hospice by the situation because you've been conditioned. You got to control the conversation, you've been conditioned, you got to speak first, you you've been conditioned. Don't let that silence sit too long because you lose your opportunity to speak. And because we have this incessant fear of losing control, if we lose control, they're going to take advantage of us. They take advantage of us. We're going to come out worse than we went in with.
And so as a result, I'm just going to try to dominate the conversation. I'm going to try to explain what's at stake infuse logic into the situation. Here's why you should make this decision to make sense, poke holes in their argument. And when all else fails. And this happens all the time, in the corporate world, we call each other names. In the corporate world, I'm blown away, baby. How argumentative and insulting two parties can be to one another, up to an, including downright name calling.
We.
Never called names. In the world of hostage negotiation, we never met aggression with verbal aggression. Obviously, if violence starts to occur with inside the crisis site, then we're in a whole different ballpark. But it's all about sitting back and taking in what the other side is saying and not worrying about the control that we may or may not lose. Sit back. The beautiful stuff. The beautiful part about this stuff is you never really have to think of what to say because the other side is going to tell you what skill you should use next, what you should focus on what you should say next.
It's tantamount to American baseball. Except you're at the place all of the time. You're always on offense. You never have to play the field. So what do you do? You sit at the plate and you wait for the picture to throw the ball, you pick the pitch you want, then you swing at it. That's what we're doing with the Black Swan. People ask all the time. Well, I didn't know. They say all the time. I didn't know what to say next. Well, were you listening because they told you what they wanted to say next.
So if you just sit back, get rid of that fear of losing control of the conversation and just let them give you the data and information that you're going to need to influence them. They will tell you if you're willing to listen.
How do you know when a person is it worth having that negotiations for Black Swan group is different than negotiations for what you normally learn for. I'm remembering my training correctly, which I think I am. Negotiations is about having any serious conversation with another person, right? It's not haggling. It's not bartering. It's a much wider view of just interacting with people.
Yeah.
How do you know? How do you find out? Generally speaking, when the other person is just and a manipulative asshole or this person is just. I can never trust this person. They're not worth my time. Like, what are the the signs that you look for when you know I need to step away from this?
Well, obviously, anytime you detect deception is the red flag. The first time that you detect deception in the conversation, you need to challenge it. If it is something that's repeated throughout the course of the interaction. If you get beyond detecting deception for third time in the conversation, now you got to ask yourself, especially, especially if this is a new conversation or a new relationship or a discussion about the potential of having long term relationship. You're picking up deception. You're on a challenge that each time somebody throws out a and that hominem attack, somebody tells you that we were hesitant about working with you because we know for a fact that you ripped off people in the past.
You know, that not to be true, but he's throwing it out like it's fact. You need to challenge it something as simple as sounds like you have a reason for saying that. Let's find out where it's coming from. Is he working off a bad information that he got from somebody else that doesn't like you? Or is he making stuff up out of whole cloth? You need to figure that out now. I mentioned if it happens multiple times, you got to ask yourself a question. Is this the conversation worth continually if he is being deceptive with me to this degree and we haven't even established a formal relationship, how much pain am I setting myself up for?
If I engage this person, and then you got to ask yourself, do you want to expose yourself to that pain? There are clients that I've had that said, yeah, the pain was worth it because the contract was so lucrative. Okay, that's fine. But you better mentally prepare yourself for him to pay fast and loose with the facts for the remainder of the time that you're together. Me personally, I got to cut the guy looks, and when you cut the guy loose, it doesn't have to be something adversarial.
It's something to the effect of, you know, I'm sorry that just doesn't work for us. It's a shame because I was looking forward to the potential of this partnership. I like what you guys do if the planets line up and the opportunity presents itself again in the future. I hope that we can do business with each other at some point, and it's over. And what you did there is you left him with a lasting impression. The last impression is the lasting impression. The last thing that he heard out of your mouth was we didn't agree today, but I'd love to try it again some other time because you want him to pick up the phone the next time you call, you want him to return an email, you want him to refer you Gus.
And I didn't see eye to eye, but he was a straight up guy. He was a straight shooter, and he told me exactly where they stood, and he respected me. And I respect that. That's what you want coming out of that guy's mouth not to discuss was an a hole the entire time that I was dealing with. And so the last impression is the last thing is the lasting impression. And so if they're showing you that they're not trustworthy, and if they're showing you that they're manipulating you, that's tanned amount to being non trustworthy.
So the same holds true for manipulation. Nobody says that because we talk about tactical empathy because we talk about the other side and deferring and subordinating ourselves. That's not the same as saying, I expect you to be victimized at the table. That's not what this is about. So if they're trying to manipulate now, the first inkling of manipulation may not be for the manipulation sake. They may not know any better. Manipulation has borne the fruit in the past. And so they're going to try here because they don't know any other skills.
These are your tacular leave its these are your guys. I need this by Friday or the deal is off. You got to cut your rates or we're going to a competitor. Anytime you get a threat or demand like that, they're trying to manipulate you because that's what's born them fruit in the past. And so take it with a grain of salt. You'll know, intuitively whether manipulation is a tool that they're using because they don't know anything else, or if it's a part of their make up based on the totality of the circumstances or the younger the person is that you are engaged with, the more likely that that manipulation is a learned habit that they've seen other people do.
And so I'm not going to fault them for that. I'm not going to penalize them for that. I'm just going to uncover that and expose that for them and and let them know that your drive to manipulate me is born out of your not trusting me. So I'm going to focus on providing that value, providing that trust. And after I've done so if I continue to get manipulative behavior now, I'm dealing with the a bird of a different feather and I'm going to change my tactics up.
But at the end of the day.
A.
No deal is always preferable to a bad deal. No agreement is always preferable two of the ad agreement. But people have a hard time getting their head around that because they fear losing out fear that if I do draw my line in the sand, I'm going to send this business running from the table and they're going to go to our competition. And fear of loss is another one of those negotiation. Gravity loss. If you lost single biggest driver of human decision making, it big, and it works both ways.
Fear of loss impacts us that way. It impacts them the same way.
I think the other really interesting lesson that I took away from the training is that idea that when you're negotiating with somebody, that the best negotiators, the one who you can get the most concessions. You can push or throw their weight around enough because they have a leverage where they're just they're just going to beat the other side up as much as possible in order to quote unquote win. Whereas for Black Swan Group and for me personally, it's always been about the long term relationship. I want the people that I'm doing business with to be happy with me long term and feel like they got the best deal out of it.
And I need to feel the same way. And once that happens, then we have a good synergy and we have something that can really bear fruit over a long period of time.
And the former that you mentioned that's maybe a great strategy in the short term, you may be able to take advantage of people, get exactly what you want, beat them about the head and shoulders and clean their clock, so to speak. And that's good for the short term. You're going to be able to get over on people in the short term, but it doesn't really matter what it is that you do in your professional life. All of us are in a relatively small community, and if you conduct yourself self like that and you don't think your reputation is going to proceed, you your mistake.
And so you can go in and you can beat the other side up and you can let them know that I'm the man. Next time you sit down at the negotiation table with me, you better bring bandaids and you better bring your lunch. But it's going to be a bloody day, and it's going to be a long one.
We.
Hear talk about that all the time. People want to come to our seminars and they want to tell us how badly they beat the other side on their last negotiation. But the problem with that is and I mentioned it when we were together. US I don't know if you remember not. The problem with that is if you know how badly you beat the other side, the other side knows how badly they got beaten and revenge is a powerful motivator. And given the opportunity to make you experience the same pain that they felt in that moment, they're going to do it, even if it means doing nothing.
There's a black Swan adage that we are beholding to, and that is don't be mean to somebody who can hurt you by doing absolutely nothing. And so the short side negotiator who puffs his or her chest out about how bad they beat the other side, they're damaging their own credibility and their own ability to influence going forward. Because the person that you beat up is never going to sit back down. Why would they do that? Why would they sit at the table again with you and subject themselves to that?
And on top of that, they're going to spread the word. And all of a sudden, nobody wants to sit down at the table with you and you're scratching your head trying to figure out why, because your reputation is gotten ahead because you fail to focus on the long term ramifications of treating somebody with deference and respect during the conversation.
Is that what you think most people miss with negotiations? Derek or is there something else that, you know, the big mistake that most people make?
The big mistake is not sequencing the conversation, right. Another big mistake is driving for yes. People are seduced by the word yes. We love to hear it, and because we love to hear it, there's a tendency to push for that. That is a huge mistake in navigating these negotiations or difficult conversations when you're driving for yes. There's a lot of nonsense out there about yes, momentum, Ethal, propositions, Mir agreement. And basically, the thought process is you get people to say yes at various times during the course of the conversation before you make your big ass, the more yes is you get to the small things, the more likely you are to get a yes to your big ask.
And driving for a yes doesn't necessarily have to be related to what your actual ask is going to be. For example, I can ask you, do you like clean drinking water?
Yes.
Do you think that people who abuse animals should be held to higher account within the criminal justice system?
Maybe.
So it sounds like you like people who fight dogs? No. Okay. Do you think there should be equity and corporate structure of all companies in the US are owned by by black owners? Do you think that should change? Yes.
I think it should be more.
Okay. So even though, do you see how you contemplated each yes before you gave it to me? Because you were trying to figure out, where is he going? You felt me driving you somewhere, and you, on some level, internally resented it because you were like, Where is this going? I feel like I'm being tracked. That feeling starts to spark defensiveness on your part. It fires up your amygdala. When your amygdala is activated, it blocks what's supposed to be going on the prefrontal cortex. And now you're on defensive, and you're waiting for you're, waiting for the Tiger to jump out of the bushes and attack you.
You feel it. I'm taking away your autonomy. You feel me marching you down the road. And the yes able proposition or the yes momentum suggests that the more times I get you to say yes when I ultimately ask you at the end. Hey, Gus, would you buy my book? Now you're automatically going to say yes because of all the yeses that you gave me, yes is obligation. Yes. Commitment. No one likes to be obligated or committed to something they haven't volunteered for. And so that's one of the biggest problems in negotiation is driving for yes.
Which is why we never drive for yes. People ask ask Chris a question. A reporter asks a question one time, and the question was, how did you ever get hostage takers to say yes? Answer is we never did. We never got them to say yes. We got them to say no. That was equivalent to a yes. And so no oriented questions are something that we incorporate very heavily into our negotiation training because it keeps people from encroaching upon the autonomy of the other person. And our autonomy is something that will fight to the death for.
And so we remove ourselves as a threat and we remove ourselves as a threat. That's when the amygdala starts to quiet down. Win is a prefrontal cortex, and we start to get more productive conversation.
Beautiful. I know the easiest or the simplest question that I've changed is when you pick up the phone and you're calling somebody and you say it's now a good time to talk. I have found this to be true over the last year and a half. I ask, Is this a bad time to talk? People say, if it is, they're going to say yes, it is. But if it's not or they're undecided, it's way easier for them to say no, I have. I have five minutes. Go ahead.
Yes, I have no, I have ten minutes. Let's talk.
And if you were to line that up, do a non scientific study and just on the next ten calls, ask a yes oriented question. Is now a good time to talk and keep record of your responses. Then you make the next five calls and you turn it into a no oriented question. Is now a bad time to talk. Where you're trying to generate a no. Watch how more successful you are with those two. In fact, we had a guy who was dialing for dollars as a fundraiser during a presidential election, not this past one, but a couple back, and he was cold calling at night.
He had three yes oriented questions lined up, and after he sat with us for a little bit, he took those yes oriented questions. He turned them into no oriented question. And he ran both scripts side by side and on the script where he used the no oriented question. He saw the increase in conversion rate. I don't care what business you're in. Imagine what a increase in conversion would do for your business. It shows how powerful those no oriented questions are. I.
Know we talked about. We went into labeling a little bit, Derek, we went into the acquisitions audit. If there's one takeaway for the audience today based on practical empathy, we just scratched the surface. What do you think that should be? One take away something that they should go research, something that they should think about or go study or contact you guys. For what's?
The one takeaway a deep dive on the accusations audit. I am beholding to it. I've seen it. Success. The power of it is undeniable. There are three places in any conversation where you want to throw an accusations. Audit. The next stations audit is simply you laying out negative opinions, assumptions or impressions that the other side has about you, who you represent, the circumstance, et cetera. We lay it out at the beginning and we lay it out any time we're going to make an ask or anytime that we're going to share bad news with the other side.
It's set up with an accusation audit, a preemptive label. You're labeling something you're making a situationally insightful, intelligent guess as to what they're thinking about. And so we talked about how to do it at the beginning of the conversation right before you ask anything. I don't care how big the ask is. If I'm going to ask you for a ride home tonight, that's a relatively modest request, but it's not something that you anticipated. And if I were to ask you for ride home, I'm going to set that up with an accusation.
This is probably the last thing that you're going to want to do. I'm about to rock your day. Now go. When you hear that, what happens to you immediately, you're thinking to yourself, what's the next thing that this idiot is about to say? How is my day going to change based on what comes out of his mouth next? What is he going to ask me for a raise? Is he going to ask me for a loan? Is he going to ask if I'll adopt his dog?
What does he go? I mean, you're thinking about all of these things and you go to the far end of the Pier spectrum, so that when I ultimately make my ass, it's such a relief that's all it was. You can't wait to honor whatever the request is. And then there's bad news. Anytime you're going to share bad news with a person, set it up with one or two accusations audit, you're going to tell the caregiver that you need them there at 07:00 a.m.. In order to get your day started, you should automatically assume they're not going to want to hear that.
So you set up with accusations audit. What I'm about to say is going to feel like a punch in the gut. I have anybody listen to that start their bad news with that accusations audit. This is going to feel like a punch in the gut. When I'm done speaking with you, you're going to want to reach through the phone and stab me in the eye with a pen. And now the person who has received that message is like, wow, what is he going to say next and then no oriented question.
Are you against changing the schedule so that you arrive at 07:00 a.m.. How bad of a position would I put you in if I ask you to show up at 07:00 a.m.. And again, they're so relieved that that's all it was. They're more likely to aqueous.
Have you found that that's something those no oriented questions, especially before you're about to break bad news, like if somebody's known you for five years, that they're already used to that, and they're anticipating it. And so that fear factor isn't as effective.
That's a good question. And the more familiar they are with you, especially if they've been exposed to it before. It's it's not as effective as the first time they heard it, but it still resonates with them because they know if they've been with you that long that you're not using it to take advantage of them. They know that because of your relationship with them, you have constantly deferred to them. So that person may tell you. Yeah, I get it. What do you want? They may rush you into it, which is fine because it's their decision to push you to make your ask.
And it's not yours. And so you're still on solid ground because you didn't just throw it out. You basically got permission from the other side, and that's what most of us don't do. We don't get permission.
It's a good answer. That makes sense. Is there anything, Derek, you feel like we missed in this conversation that's important to talk about?
No. I think that if the folks that hear this listen to this recording, there are a couple of Nuggets in there that will dramatically if they were to adopt, would dramatically change the way they interact with people and change their ultimate outcome and and results. We've only scratched the surface here. There's plenty of a Black Swan Ltd. Com there are plenty of free resources that we provide that will provide you with more exposure. But at the end of the day and you know this from experience, getting together with a group of like minded people and speaking with an instructor brings the material to life a lot better than just reading it.
So I think we scratched the surface enough to wet the appetite. And once you go out and you start to experiment with this stuff, you'll see the unicorn and you'll want to see that unicorn again, and they'll keep feeding on itself. And once the appetizer has been wetted, there's a certain level of hunger that comes along with that. And we have enough of free and paid material to make you the best that you can be in navigating difficult conversations.
Thank you so much. How can people how can people get in touch with you? Register for a course and reach out? What's the easiest way to do that?
To reach out to me? You can go through info at Black Swan Ltd. Com. I'm also on LinkedIn. You can reach out. And if you're not trying to sell me anything, I will honor your connection request. But it seems like the more times I honor connection requests in recent times, somebody trying to sell me something. So if you're not trying to sell me something, I'll respond, and I'm at Derek, I'm gaunt on. Ig beautiful.
Thank you so much for taking the time, Derek. It's always a pleasure. I always learned something. And I really appreciate you being here.
Yeah, man. Thanks for the invite. Hopefully we can do it again soon. Absolutely.